Action Flops GCA
Newgca
Hundreds of thousands of people play online poker today and all you hear about
is the bad beats. That miracle last card save for the fish and the rest of the
rhetoric. All things end and if the United States government has it's way, so
will online gambling.
Here is the theory about "action flops." Remember I am not stating you can't
beat online poker, for last week I proved you can. Online poker is very
beatable, but it isn't the real thing. People can say whatever they want, but
there is nothing like a B&M. But like it or not, online sites are here. I like
it.
The theory behind these flops is most players are not professionals.
Professionals will always choose a B&M and move close to where the action is.
The truth is online poker has an incredible group of very bad and new players,
trying out their skills from behind a computer since many haven't access to a
close B&M. Most online players are also recreational players and if you look at
this in the right perspective, these players should be very easy prey for these
professionals. They are easy, but not easy enough. WHY?
First I am not going to discuss a random shuffle, for I wouldn't know what it
was. But I can tell you this, the cards online don't come out the same way they
do in the casinos. I have spent an incredible amount of time playing online on
most sites. Some weeks I spend as much as 70 hours or more, playing multiple
games on multiple computers. Am I cheating now? The answer is NO. Have I
cheated online, YES. That I will leave for another post.
The Action Flop theory is a reality, though I can't prove it. But they can't
prove it isn't either. Yes, you get the right amount of AA for the hands you
play, you get the rest of this package also. But the reality is you can't track
what you get, when you get it, against whom you get it. Big hands hurt good
players. Big hands help weak players.
The reason behind this is a simple one. All good players are very aggressive,
value bet and bluff a lot. The good players have played in casinos as this is
where the real money is. Please don't tell me about these online tournaments,
these are a different case scenario.
Good players know how to bet, steal and extract the most out of the hands they
play. Bad players are basically calling stations and have little knowledge of
proper betting techniques. In B&M's, flopping set over set happens VERY RARELY
as opposed to online. The nut hands are not always out there and small hands
win. Playing online, you see more big hands than you would ever see in a B&M.
Now back to the real world and the action flop theory. Bad players are easily
destroyed by superior players faster than many could imagine. New players have
read all these books out on poker, but most of these books don't provide
anything that will make these players winners. At most, most just offer
beginning or basic strategy. These books tell you how much value these small
pairs have and much of the basic rhetoric that will only hurt your game once
you reach anything close to a level where you can make any kind of money.
So here we are with the ACTION FLOPS, those flops that bring all the action and
irritate many with the two outers. If you owned an online casino you would
realize that 5% or so of the players would totally annihilate the rest of the
players in quite a short period of time. Many players could average more than
the drop in a game in reality. Is this good for the online casino? Do you think
any casino likes to see anyone win, other than for publicity's sake?
Action Flops accomplish the following. They let the winning players win far
less than they would normally do if the flops came as they do in casinos. They
let bad players play longer, putting out big hands that even the novice
players can extract the maximum from. This isn't done by good playing, but
rather from the misinterpretation of the quality and value of the hand and
having the good players bet the hand for them. Good players are used to betting
their own hands and getting value for them through proper betting. Bad players
haven't accomplished this. With action flops, the good players bet the hands
for the bad players to ensure them of decent value. Bad players always assume
the best hand is always out there, while good players play pair poker and
value. End result is the following.
The good players win less than they should. The bad players play much longer
than they would, enticing them to play even more than if they were just
slaughtered as they would in the B&M's. The house gets a much larger rake for
it's end.
Is a winning player smart enough to argue he isn't winning enough? Most
wouldn't know how. They are winning, so they really can't complain, or can
they? The bad players who normally wouldn't stand a chance, get to play longer
for their dollar. The online sites rake in far more money. Would this be
considered a good business practice? Obviously very few winners would complain,
since they are winning. The losers are playing longer and occasionally hit a
tourney and make a score, securing another fix like the spiked cigarettes put
out by the tobacco industry for years.
Small players talk about making $100 a week or so, ensuring publicity for these
sites. Losers don't bother talking as they would rather not tell. This is the
theory in a nutshell. Good players make less, bad players last longer and the
house makes far more in rake. If you had an online casino, what would you do to
maximize your profit? Perhaps you think these are benevolent institutions?
Russ Georgiev www.pokermafia.com Oct 2003
Vince lepore
> Action Flops
> First I am not going to discuss a random shuffle, for I wouldn't know what it
> was. But I can tell you this, the cards online don't come out the same way > they do in the casinos.
What way do they come out? The same way your theories come out,
through the butt?
> The Action Flop theory is a reality, though I can't prove it.
Now why doesn't that surprise me? Is there any accusation that you
make that you can prove? Are you familiar with paranoia? Do you not
know that the primary reason people lose at poker is because they were
cheated? Ask all the losers they'll tell you. "I was cheated! I'm
too good to lose to those bums!"
> But they can't prove it isn't either.
Yes they can! Do you really believe that it is easy to design "action
flops" and make them appear somewhat random. You are a pathetic fool!
Who are these experts at poker that have this great knowledge of what
constitutes action in a poker game and have the ability to program it
to appear random?
> Yes, you get the right amount of AA for the hands you
> play, you get the rest of this package also.
"The rest of this package also" What in the hell does that mean? The
sad thing is that there are fruit cakes out here that believe you!
>But the reality is you can't track
> what you get, when you get it,
What! Dodododododo!
> So here we are with the ACTION FLOPS, those flops that bring all the action > and irritate many with the two outers.
You really are a dope! You have obviously never played in a mid limit
full ring game in a B&M casino. Play some at the Bellagio 15-30 and
perhaps your misguided opinion will be changed.
> If you owned an online casino you would
> realize that 5% or so of the players would totally annihilate the rest of the
> players in quite a short period of time.
This would only be true in your beloved NL games. Limit poker is
designed to let the bad player play longer and it does just that. Why
don't you wake up. You KNOW nothing of what you claim.
> Action Flops accomplish the following. They let the winning players win far
> less than they would normally do if the flops came as they do in casinos. They
> let bad players play longer, putting out big hands that even the novice
> players can extract the maximum from.
Tell us all dodo, how do the "Action flops" know the good players from
the bad and who has what? Go to bed and sleep on this. You may find
out your head is up your ass.
What a joke. Thanks for the laughs, Russ,
Vince
O-PGManager
tore it apart. I don't feel like devoting the time to doing it again.
Russ writes quite a few good posts (and many ludicrous ones), but this is
one of his saddest.
O-PG
------------------------------------------
http://www.online-pokerguide.com
Home of the 900% Bonus and Power Holdem+
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
spoody
I have a theory that I cant prove, but Im sure its true: You have lined
your apartment walls with tinfoil and you make sure you keep the TV off
to keep out the "mind control" waves that are sent out by the shadow
government.
btw - stick to NLHE advice, some of it is actually usefull. But anyone
who has played any low or mid LIMIT holdem has felt the effects of
schooling in a no foldem game. I am sure there is a direct correlation
between the number of people who see the flop vs the type of hand that
wins....any chance more people see the flop online? instead of flop
manipulation?
Watch out, I think you have an opening in your foil shield, maybe you
should try to make a suit out of it...Reynolds Heavy Duty works really
well.
spoody
** Anonymous RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
** $100 Deposit Bonus at http://www.FabulousPoker.com
Lee Munzer
"O-PGManager" ...
> People should look up this post in the google archives where responders
I'm not sure if I'd agree with the characterization "tore it apart", but I
do recall there was some discussion about provability where Russ struggled
with sampling size validity. As an aside, an ex-boss who took graduate stat
courses at Columbia once told me that people would be surprised at how small
a sampling can be, in general, and still be valid.
Okay, on to Google for dissenting opinions.
Lee
Excerpts from:
T. Pascal:
You have proven and stated you have no theoretical understanding or
basis for making any of your statements. Yet you claim to be the best
and most knowledgeable of poker "theory". You have no theories, only
applied tactics. You are like a carpenter who pretends to understand
the nature of calculus and physics. In reality, you are someone who
measures and saws. A carpenter doesn't understand why a house doesn't
fall down, he just puts the nails in.
Hint: In limit holdem and even more so in Omaha, the starting hands
are not very far apart in pot equity. Your claim that the fish would
get wiped out by excellent players does not pay attention to the fact
that a tenacious player can overcome skillful play simply by not
folding. A bluff cannot win if the opponent will not fold. A bad
player overvalues draws, but a good player may overvalue made hands,
too. You allude to this, but then blame it on action flops. Given
any two random hole cards in holdem, what do you estimate the average
difference in pot equity is? You hold poker "skill" in too high
esteem.
You state that 5% (or so) of the "good" players would wipe out all the
fish. In limit, this is not possible. Look it up. Poker skill only
allows a very small edge to those who practise it. If you were a
thinker as you pretend to be, you might grasp this fact.
Tom K:
"just who the hell are you Russ? you write like your an expert, but i
have some ?'s for you
1. Name me a big tournament where you placed in the top ten?
2. How come you are never mentioned by any of the poker greats??
3. Are you going by some sort of alias on here??if so then what you
hiding.
In conclusion i think you are an old lonely man, who has nothing better
to do then post what you think is strategy, when in fact it is all
hogwash. I think you think you are a much better player than you really
are, when you win you think you are an expert, when you lose you think
that the table or casino you were in are all a bunch of cheats."
Str8jacket
"(snip speculation covered many times)"
"Nobody could play enough hands to have a feel for this one way or another.
Personal experience can be, and usually is very misleading."
Russ, I'm surprised. This has been covered ad nauseum. True or not, it's
old news."
"You're in over your head here and have nothing new to add."
Dave:
"Amen brother,I couldn't have said it better myself"
"He really is a sorry excuse for a human being and but he's good for a few
laughs."
NoSpam:
"I laid 100:1 odd that Russ couldn't give a definition of standard
deviation,
even after he looked it up. He can only "feel" the problem but doesn't have
academic knowledge to "prove" anything.
asking him to do statistical analysis is harder than asking monkey to do
calculus."
Augie C.:
"Russ, are you really as stupid as you try to sound? Clue, you don't need
the software to evaluate the results. You can use a significant number of
hand histories to either prove or disprove the action flop conspiracy theory
you seem to have bought. Just compare the observed to the expected, and
determine if there's a statistically significant difference. Then again,
you could just talk out your poopchute, which seems to impress the rubes."
Wizeguy33:
"This man is so brilliant, he can only reason with himself. Your
argument is that you cannot prove your theory beyond a reasonable
doubt because the number of hands is never enough. Basically what
you're saying is that no one could ever reasonably verify that a coin
is equally weighted 1:1 because you could never flip the coin enough
times. This is complete crap."
Steve McCroskey
I don't usually make it a policy to respond to harebrained posts
like this, but I'm afraid I can't restrain myself from doing so
here...
> Hundreds of thousands of people play online poker today and all you hear about
> is the bad beats. That miracle last card save for the fish and the rest of the
> rhetoric.
Of COURSE you do! Think about it... When you get your ass handed to
you by a miracle river, what the first thing you do? Leave the table
in disgust (or tilt... I love tilters!) What do about half of those
people do immediately after? VENT! This is where a bunch of people
come to vent, so there ya go. Obviously, if you were just SAVED by
the miracle river card, you're still playing and don't have the time
or interest in gloating to RGP.
> All things end and if the United States government has it's way, so
> will online gambling.
The US Government has no jurisdiction over foreign companies. The US
Government wants to do alot of things that, thankfully, our
forefathers foresaw and prevented through the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights. This is what seperates us from China. If you don't
like what your government is doing, be an American and lobby against
it.
>
> Here is the theory about "action flops." Remember I am not stating you can't
> beat online poker, for last week I proved you can. Online poker is very
> beatable, but it isn't the real thing. People can say whatever they want, but
> there is nothing like a B&M. But like it or not, online sites are here. I like
> it.
I'm glad you like it, though with how vhemient you are about Online
Poker being rigged, I'm astonished you still support it. Who are you
crapping?
>
> The theory behind these flops is most players are not professionals.
> Professionals will always choose a B&M and move close to where the action is.
> The truth is online poker has an incredible group of very bad and new players,
> trying out their skills from behind a computer since many haven't access to a
> close B&M. Most online players are also recreational players and if you look at
> this in the right perspective, these players should be very easy prey for these
> professionals. They are easy, but not easy enough. WHY?
Well, considering that about 1% of the poker playing demographic
consider themselves "professional poker players", in that their
primary source of income derives from poker winnings, it stands to
reason that almost ALL poker players in ANY venue are recreational
players. But to the real point, you're missing one very obvious
point. Most players who know about hand values and odds wouldn't be
chasing prayers to the river anyway, thus, by proxy, theres a
statiscally lower chance of the remaining players catching a miracle.
Like all poker situations, the winners will adjust to this situation.
If you can't/won't adjust, you end up here bitching about how online
poker is rigged and sucks your left nut. So, to put it in a nutshell,
why are they not easy enough prey? Statistics!
>
> First I am not going to discuss a random shuffle, for I wouldn't know what it
> was. But I can tell you this, the cards online don't come out the same way they
> do in the casinos. I have spent an incredible amount of time playing online on
> most sites. Some weeks I spend as much as 70 hours or more, playing multiple
> games on multiple computers. Am I cheating now? The answer is NO. Have I
> cheated online, YES. That I will leave for another post.
I don't get it... You say you don't know what "random" is, yet you go
on to argue that the shuffle isn't random? Having played 70 hours a
week on online poker, you of all people should be able to pick up on
why your formula doesn't work online vs. B&M. You can't compare the
two and expect the same results, conspiracy theories not withstanding.
With respect to your admission of cheating online, I have to wonder
why you'd admit this and go on to be an authority on "equality and
fairness" in online gaming. You admit to be the problem and the
solution all in one? WTF, over?
>
> The Action Flop theory is a reality, though I can't prove it. But they can't
> prove it isn't either. Yes, you get the right amount of AA for the hands you
> play, you get the rest of this package also. But the reality is you can't track
> what you get, when you get it, against whom you get it. Big hands hurt good
> players. Big hands help weak players.
How much did you drink before you posted here? Of COURSE you can't
prove it, that's what makes it a THEORY! Once a theory is proven or
disproven, it ceases to BE a theory! You should have stopped right
there... If you have a theory, the onus is on you to prove or disprove
it with fact and evidence. Barring that, which by your own admission
you can't do, you might as well bring the Roswell incident in here for
all the sense it makes! To make your case even worse, you then go on
to say that you get the right amount of AA hands, which indicates an
admission of sufficient randomness!
Anyway, with online poker, you have an incredible ability to track, in
detail, what hands you get and what flops are presented. You do not
have access to such information at B&M unless you write it down as it
happens.
Big hands hurt those who play them with the assumption that the other
people at the table will recognize and respect that you're giving them
the signal of a good hand. Most online players are too inexperienced
or foolish to know the difference and just blindly call you out, so
the chance of getting burned on the river increases exponentially.
>
> The reason behind this is a simple one. All good players are very aggressive,
> value bet and bluff a lot. The good players have played in casinos as this is
> where the real money is. Please don't tell me about these online tournaments,
> these are a different case scenario.
I don't believe so. Good players are very aggrssive when it pays to
do so, but they also recognize when agressive play might not be the
best option.
>
> Good players know how to bet, steal and extract the most out of the hands they
> play. Bad players are basically calling stations and have little knowledge of
> proper betting techniques. In B&M's, flopping set over set happens VERY RARELY
> as opposed to online. The nut hands are not always out there and small hands
> win. Playing online, you see more big hands than you would ever see in a B&M.
True, but again, if you're up against calling stations, you're not
going to steal anything, you're going to work for it. In B&M's your
average number of players seeing beyond the flop are 3 to 4. Online
it's 6 to 8. Do the math.
>
> Now back to the real world and the action flop theory. Bad players are easily
> destroyed by superior players faster than many could imagine. New players have
> read all these books out on poker, but most of these books don't provide
> anything that will make these players winners. At most, most just offer
> beginning or basic strategy. These books tell you how much value these small
> pairs have and much of the basic rhetoric that will only hurt your game once
> you reach anything close to a level where you can make any kind of money.
Well, sure it will, if you fail to learn anything before getting into
bigger money games. Limit poker is designed to prevent bad players
from getting sunk before getting out of the harbor. If a fish walks
into a NL game and expects to survive long term, he deserves to get
owned repeatedly, and will. Tiger Woods sucked at golf when he first
started, but by the same token, he didn't go to Q school within the
first 3 weeks of his being introduced to the game, either!
>
> So here we are with the ACTION FLOPS, those flops that bring all the action and
> irritate many with the two outers. If you owned an online casino you would
> realize that 5% or so of the players would totally annihilate the rest of the
> players in quite a short period of time. Many players could average more than
> the drop in a game in reality. Is this good for the online casino? Do you think
> any casino likes to see anyone win, other than for publicity's sake?
Huh? I don't think the casino gives a good damn WHO wins or doesn't.
So long as they're playing, the rake is comming in. So, what's good
for the casino is that play continues unabated and at a good clip. To
that end, there is absolutely NO advantage to the casino at all to rig
anything, and the cost to do so just in research, manpower and
programming would be prohibitive in the extreme.
>
> Action Flops accomplish the following. They let the winning players win far
> less than they would normally do if the flops came as they do in casinos. They
> let bad players play longer, putting out big hands that even the novice
> players can extract the maximum from. This isn't done by good playing, but
> rather from the misinterpretation of the quality and value of the hand and
> having the good players bet the hand for them. Good players are used to betting
> their own hands and getting value for them through proper betting. Bad players
> haven't accomplished this. With action flops, the good players bet the hands
> for the bad players to ensure them of decent value. Bad players always assume
> the best hand is always out there, while good players play pair poker and
> value. End result is the following.
Action flops occur because there is more potential for action, what
with more people staying in to see them. Novices extract value from
getting lucky on otherwise bad calls. That's called gambling. It's
stupid gambling, but so are slot machines.
>
> The good players win less than they should. The bad players play much longer
> than they would, enticing them to play even more than if they were just
> slaughtered as they would in the B&M's. The house gets a much larger rake for
> it's end.
And more MONEY for you in the end.. After all, that cash goes
somewhere! Why do you care about the house rake? If the house didn't
exist, there'd be no poker players to beat. I love the idea that fish
and maniacs get paid off every once in a while! Keeps them around so
I can slow drip their cash away from them.
>
> Is a winning player smart enough to argue he isn't winning enough? Most
> wouldn't know how. They are winning, so they really can't complain, or can
> they? The bad players who normally wouldn't stand a chance, get to play longer
> for their dollar. The online sites rake in far more money. Would this be
> considered a good business practice? Obviously very few winners would > complain,
> since they are winning.
No, a winning player is smart enough to know that you can't always
win, no matter how well you play. That's why gambling is called games
of chance.
>The losers are playing longer and occasionally hit a
> tourney and make a score, securing another fix like the spiked cigarettes put
> out by the tobacco industry for years.
Oh, you have GOT to be kidding me. Now I KNOW you're a conspiracy
theorist.
>
> Small players talk about making $100 a week or so, ensuring publicity for these
> sites. Losers don't bother talking as they would rather not tell. This is the
> theory in a nutshell. Good players make less, bad players last longer and the
> house makes far more in rake. If you had an online casino, what would you do to
> maximize your profit? Perhaps you think these are benevolent institutions?
>
> Russ Georgiev www.pokermafia.com Oct 2003
Who assumes any for profit business if benevolent? Who cares? It's
not a crime to turn a profit providing a service for people. How many
people are talking about making $100 a week? Compare that to how many
people are actually playing online? Your theory has many holes in it,
the worse holes being that it has no basis on logic, and you argue
against it yourself in describing the basis for your theory. Sounds
to me like you're having a bad run and you're taking it out on the
house... That's okay.. The house is used to it.
As for your not getting paid like you think you should, maybe it's
time to head down to Vegas and become a professional! Leave the
online playing to us recreational players who are thrilled to make
some small scratch every once in a while.
P.
salmoneous
>
> I have a theory that I cant prove, but Im sure its true: You have lined
> your apartment walls with tinfoil and you make sure you keep the TV off
> to keep out the "mind control" waves that are sent out by the shadow
> government.
As with most things, Russ is far behind the times on this issue. The
tinfoil in his aparment has been shown to be useless against mind
control. Perhaps he might want to check out:
Scott Lewis
In all reality, why you can't you simply start looking at the
flops statiscally from your own home. Take a simple definition of an
action flop. It doesn't have to catch ALL the "action flops", but as
long as it catches some, the number will be statiscally different from
the expected number of action flops. For instance if for the sake of
argument, let's say an action flop is any 3 face cards, and they can
be all the same (AAA, AKQ, JJT all would count with this def.) Then
take the chance of the action flop which is (20*19*18/(52*51*50)) Then
as you play mark down every action flop you see and every non-action
flop. Find the proportion, compute the standard deviation for your
sample size and you're done (you can find a math formula for stand.
deviation on the internet). If the actual proportion falls outside of
one or even two standard deviations you now have some "REAL" evidence.
This evidence should be easily reproducible by anyone that wants to
take the time to figure it out. College kids across the country are
paid $7 an hour to do just this type of recording for actual research.
Put your time where your mouth is and tell us what you find.
scott
Newgca
>tinfoil in his aparment has been shown to be useless against mind
>control. Perhaps he might want to check out:
Quite a rebuttal. I'm impressed.
Newgca
First of all I am sure I make 20 times as much online playing poker than you
do. I have played professional high stakes poker for close to 40 years. I
should know when something is wrong. Could you provide your credentials and
knowledge of this?
Augie Chiausa
"Newgca" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031021183433...@mb-m02.aol.com...
>
> First of all I am sure I make 20 times as much online playing poker than
you
> do. I have played professional high stakes poker for close to 40 years. I
> should know when something is wrong. Could you provide your credentials
and
> knowledge of this?
How do you know this? You really are a horse's ass.
Craig Franck
> I have played professional high stakes poker for close to 40 years. I
> should know when something is wrong.
I hear this from many people, so a casual dismissal isn't enough.
If it's not true, someone has to explain why it appears that way.
Russ wrote:
"First I am not going to discuss a random shuffle, for I
wouldn't know what it was. But I can tell you this, the
cards online don't come out the same way they do in the
casinos. I have spent an incredible amount of time playing
online on most sites. Some weeks I spend as much as 70
hours or more, playing multiple games on multiple
computers."
Let me ask you this: is the way you play poker online anything
at all like like the decades of B&M play?
Contrast it to this: "I've been a stockbroker for 40 years. I can
tell you for a fact that that day-trading scam a few years back
was fixed."
Sure it looked fixed. But then day trading is nothing like normal
market playing. Every aspect of playing the market is magnified
10 fold.
My theory is playing poker online for many hours with multiple
games magnifies all the normal effects of poker. Set over
set loses do come more frequently, but now you're playing 120
hands an hour, not 30. Your brain has been used to processing
information at real time, but online "real time" is 4X.
For example, everyone has seen a totally screwed up play that,
when you mention it, someone points out some aspect you missed.
You're pissed they called on the flop, but someone points out they
had a straight draw. This effect must get magnified online.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Russ Georgiev
> Russ,
>
> I don't usually make it a policy to respond to harebrained posts
> like this, but I'm afraid I can't restrain myself from doing so
> here...
>
>
> > Hundreds of thousands of people play online poker today and all you hear about
> > is the bad beats. That miracle last card save for the fish and the rest of the
> > rhetoric.
>
> Of COURSE you do! Think about it... When you get your ass handed to
> you by a miracle river, what the first thing you do? Leave the table
> in disgust (or tilt... I love tilters!) What do about half of those
> people do immediately after? VENT! This is where a bunch of people
> come to vent, so there ya go. Obviously, if you were just SAVED by
> the miracle river card, you're still playing and don't have the time
> or interest in gloating to RGP.
You are clueless about poker and online. I bet I make more online than
anyone who posts, yet I still say the shuffle is different and meant
to help weaker players last longer and thus make more rake for the
house.
>
> > All things end and if the United States government has it's way, so
> > will online gambling.
>
> The US Government has no jurisdiction over foreign companies. The US
> Government wants to do alot of things that, thankfully, our
> forefathers foresaw and prevented through the Constitution and the
> Bill of Rights. This is what seperates us from China. If you don't
> like what your government is doing, be an American and lobby against
> it.
>
I really don't care what they do. I am the type who will always find a
way to win.
> >
> > Here is the theory about "action flops." Remember I am not stating you can't
> > beat online poker, for last week I proved you can. Online poker is very
> > beatable, but it isn't the real thing. People can say whatever they want, but
> > there is nothing like a B&M. But like it or not, online sites are here. I like
> > it.
>
> I'm glad you like it, though with how vhemient you are about Online
> Poker being rigged, I'm astonished you still support it. Who are you
> crapping?
I still support it and it still supports me. I wonder how I make money
these days? I should make far more.
>
> >
> > The theory behind these flops is most players are not professionals.
> > Professionals will always choose a B&M and move close to where the action is.
> > The truth is online poker has an incredible group of very bad and new players,
> > trying out their skills from behind a computer since many haven't access to a
> > close B&M. Most online players are also recreational players and if you look at
> > this in the right perspective, these players should be very easy prey for these
> > professionals. They are easy, but not easy enough. WHY?
>
> Well, considering that about 1% of the poker playing demographic
> consider themselves "professional poker players", in that their
> primary source of income derives from poker winnings, it stands to
> reason that almost ALL poker players in ANY venue are recreational
> players. But to the real point, you're missing one very obvious
> point. Most players who know about hand values and odds wouldn't be
> chasing prayers to the river anyway, thus, by proxy, theres a
> statiscally lower chance of the remaining players catching a miracle.
> Like all poker situations, the winners will adjust to this situation.
> If you can't/won't adjust, you end up here bitching about how online
> poker is rigged and sucks your left nut. So, to put it in a nutshell,
> why are they not easy enough prey? Statistics!
Statistics, why? So others will bring up there own. Enough people know
this is happening.
>
> >
> > First I am not going to discuss a random shuffle, for I wouldn't know what it
> > was. But I can tell you this, the cards online don't come out the same way they
> > do in the casinos. I have spent an incredible amount of time playing online on
> > most sites. Some weeks I spend as much as 70 hours or more, playing multiple
> > games on multiple computers. Am I cheating now? The answer is NO. Have I
> > cheated online, YES. That I will leave for another post.
>
> I don't get it... You say you don't know what "random" is, yet you go
> on to argue that the shuffle isn't random? Having played 70 hours a
> week on online poker, you of all people should be able to pick up on
> why your formula doesn't work online vs. B&M. You can't compare the
> two and expect the same results, conspiracy theories not withstanding.
> With respect to your admission of cheating online, I have to wonder
> why you'd admit this and go on to be an authority on "equality and
> fairness" in online gaming. You admit to be the problem and the
> solution all in one? WTF, over?
First of all, you know as much about poker as I do the stockmarket. My
formula online? If I posted how I did online it would blow many of you
idiots away. Buy the VIDEO TAPE of How THEY CHEAT ONLINE. It might
open your eyes. It will be on SALE shortly. I don't think some people
will like it.
>
>
> >
> > The Action Flop theory is a reality, though I can't prove it. But they can't
> > prove it isn't either. Yes, you get the right amount of AA for the hands you
> > play, you get the rest of this package also. But the reality is you can't track
> > what you get, when you get it, against whom you get it. Big hands hurt good
> > players. Big hands help weak players.
>
> How much did you drink before you posted here? Of COURSE you can't
> prove it, that's what makes it a THEORY! Once a theory is proven or
> disproven, it ceases to BE a theory! You should have stopped right
> there... If you have a theory, the onus is on you to prove or disprove
> it with fact and evidence. Barring that, which by your own admission
> you can't do, you might as well bring the Roswell incident in here for
> all the sense it makes! To make your case even worse, you then go on
> to say that you get the right amount of AA hands, which indicates an
> admission of sufficient randomness!
How much did you drink, answering a high stakes professional poker
player for 40 years, when you aren't even knowledgeable in the field?
>
> Anyway, with online poker, you have an incredible ability to track, in
> detail, what hands you get and what flops are presented. You do not
> have access to such information at B&M unless you write it down as it
> happens.
Flops? Do they flop in STUD games? Besides, I have about 1,000,000
hand histories. They should make good reading down the road.
>
> Big hands hurt those who play them with the assumption that the other
> people at the table will recognize and respect that you're giving them
> the signal of a good hand. Most online players are too inexperienced
> or foolish to know the difference and just blindly call you out, so
> the chance of getting burned on the river increases exponentially.
>
> >
> > The reason behind this is a simple one. All good players are very aggressive,
> > value bet and bluff a lot. The good players have played in casinos as this is
> > where the real money is. Please don't tell me about these online tournaments,
> > these are a different case scenario.
Now you are a professional player? How big a game do you play online?
>
> I don't believe so. Good players are very aggrssive when it pays to
> do so, but they also recognize when agressive play might not be the
> best option.
>
> >
> > Good players know how to bet, steal and extract the most out of the hands they
> > play. Bad players are basically calling stations and have little knowledge of
> > proper betting techniques. In B&M's, flopping set over set happens VERY RARELY
> > as opposed to online. The nut hands are not always out there and small hands
> > win. Playing online, you see more big hands than you would ever see in a B&M.
>
> True, but again, if you're up against calling stations, you're not
> going to steal anything, you're going to work for it. In B&M's your
> average number of players seeing beyond the flop are 3 to 4. Online
> it's 6 to 8. Do the math.
In the games I play in online, most flops are heads-up, but I don't
play the small limits. If you think big hands are the norm heads-up,
you need a therapist.
No reason at all a casino should do this. How about the people working
there?
I and associates cheated for decades in the biggest card rooms in the
world and yet, we don't know what we are talking about? Or who we
cheated with or against? What a joke!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >
> > Small players talk about making $100 a week or so, ensuring publicity for these
> > sites. Losers don't bother talking as they would rather not tell. This is the
> > theory in a nutshell. Good players make less, bad players last longer and the
> > house makes far more in rake. If you had an online casino, what would you do to
> > maximize your profit? Perhaps you think these are benevolent institutions?
> >
> > Russ Georgiev www.pokermafia.com Oct 2003
>
>
> Who assumes any for profit business if benevolent? Who cares? It's
> not a crime to turn a profit providing a service for people. How many
> people are talking about making $100 a week? Compare that to how many
> people are actually playing online? Your theory has many holes in it,
> the worse holes being that it has no basis on logic, and you argue
> against it yourself in describing the basis for your theory. Sounds
> to me like you're having a bad run and you're taking it out on the
> house... That's okay.. The house is used to it.
>
> As for your not getting paid like you think you should, maybe it's
> time to head down to Vegas and become a professional! Leave the
> online playing to us recreational players who are thrilled to make
> some small scratch every once in a while.
>
> P.
I've played high stakes poker for almost 40 years, yet here lunatics
like you, with no idea at all are giving advice.
Russ Georgiev
www.pokermafia.com SOON
Scott Lewis
> do. I have played professional high stakes poker for close to 40 years. I
> should know when something is wrong. Could you provide your credentials and
> knowledge of this?
russ,
i don't have any credentials as a poker player of the type you're
looking for, nor in my post did I claim too. I do however have much
better credentials than you in the what actually matters regarding
your conspiracy theory. I have course work in statistics,
econometrics, and a lot of other math, that unless you are a closet
math major, you wouldn't be able to understand the symbols used in
easiest problems. Since you're so into your conceptual knowledge of
"the fall of the flop," why not test it, with a somewhat rigorous
examination. The cards on the flop fall in a random, uniformly
distributed manner. You're saying the cards on the flop fall in both a
non-random, and non-uniformly distributed manner. The part about
uniform distribution could be easily checked by some analysis of an
adequate number of hands. If you respond again with babbling about
BB/hr or the fact that you can make a living playing cards, I will
dumb this down for you further.
In the meantime, the "GCA" has made a claim about a conspiracy theory,
that much to its chagrin (if its chagrin wasn't such an ostrich would
realize) can be easily tested with a little work.
Let's go Russ. SCORE ONE FOR MATH!! give your "life knowledge of 3
random cards off the top of the deck" some mathematical bite. It is
possible that you are right.
with the love of a concerned truthseeker for a misguided trend
creator,
scott lewis
note: i am one of the small winners that make $200 or so a week
playing low limits, and its a much better way to make beer money than
flipping burgers or shelving at the library.
Tom D
You wrote:
> My theory is playing poker online for many hours with multiple
> games magnifies all the normal effects of poker. Set over
> set loses do come more frequently, but now you're playing 120
> hands an hour, not 30. Your brain has been used to processing
> information at real time, but online "real time" is 4X.
You're so right! Some years ago, the transit company in my town
changed the bus schedule so that the buses outside my house started
stopping every fifteen minutes instead of every hour, and it really
screwed me up. I was eating lunch at 10 am, dinner at noon, and I
couldn't figure out why I wasn't tired at bedtime and why it was still
light out. It sure was a mystery to me. Thanks for clearing that
up...I feel like a new man!
Perhaps, though, you could give us some medical material to support
your theory why poker players are so prone to suffering from this
strange reality-altering disease that is caused by fast card-dealing,
and why you are so lucky to be immune to it. Is it just that you're
so much smarter than everyone else, or do you hold your nose up real
high so that you breathe a more healthful layer of air than most
everyone else? Perhaps you're real tall, or something. Also, do you
think we are susceptible to this disease in B&M card rooms when fast
dealers take over for slow dealers at the tables? I'd surely like to
know so when I see a particularly competent dealer coming to my table,
I can pick up. Do you think it would be good, for better public
health, to do everything we can to slow dealers down if they start
moving too fast? Do you think never posting blinds or anteing without
being told, or pretending not to know when it's our turn to act, would
be a good way to forestall this debilitating disorder that afflicts so
many people?
Thanks for your help, in advance.
Tom D
Steve McCroskey
I'm sorry, your worshipfulness. I failed to respect your most holy
40 years of experience and recognize that it should easily replace
common sense.
Of course, my biggest mistake was getting reeled into this troll
post to begin with, but what the Hell, I'm bored.
Besides, you don't know WHO the fook I am, so let's not worry about
whether I'm a poker player or the President.
RussGe...@aol.com (Russ Georgiev) wrote in message news:<8cdaff48.03102...@posting.google.com>...
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" <craig....@verizon.net> wrote
> > My theory is playing poker online for many hours with multiple
> > games magnifies all the normal effects of poker. Set over
> > set loses do come more frequently, but now you're playing 120
> > hands an hour, not 30. Your brain has been used to processing
> > information at real time, but online "real time" is 4X.
>
> You're so right! Some years ago, the transit company in my town
> changed the bus schedule
[big snip]
> Thanks for your help, in advance.
You're welcome. My help is to offer that it does not take 281
words to demonstrate you're a sarcastic ass.
Jgm
> Action Flops
Seems you touched a nerve Russ. Certainly a lot of people eager to ridicule
this theory. Nice of them to so quickly defend online sites like that.
Vince lepore
news:<vpjju41...@corp.supernews.com>...
What? Defend online sites. Are you serious? Do you really believe
that there is something to what this nutcake GCA is spreading here?
If so why not please explain your "theory" of these so called action
flops. Russ is a lunatic. He believes that because he can't beat
these games that they must be cheated. And he would have you believe
that the programmers and so called poker experts at these sites are
smart enough to randomly produce something he dubbs as an "action
flop". He also goes on to explain that this is done to aid the poorer
player. Although he never explains how the computer determines who is
the poorer player so that he can help him. Russ's "theory" is bull
dooky. But that's not what I attack. I attack his labeling everyone
and everything a cheat without providing any proof. Of course you may
feel that's o.k. I don't. I believe in fair play.
Vince
Jgm
> What? Defend online sites. Are you serious? Do you really believe
> that there is something to what this nutcake GCA is spreading here?
I have no reason to believe the things he says, disbelieve the things he
says, or to ridicule the things he says.
> If so why not please explain your "theory" of these so called action
> flops.
I don't have one. I don't recall saying I did have one. That nerve of yours
sure is raw.
>Russ is a lunatic. He believes that because he can't beat
> these games that they must be cheated.
If I knew how to collude properly, and was playing 4 accounts at one table.
Yet still couldn't win, I'd think things were fishy also.
>And he would have you believe
> that the programmers and so called poker experts at these sites are
> smart enough to randomly produce something he dubbs as an "action
> flop".
And you would have us believe they are not smart enough. Is it not possible?
You appear covinced it isn't technically possible. Care to explain why?
>He also goes on to explain that this is done to aid the poorer
> player. Although he never explains how the computer determines who is
> the poorer player so that he can help him.
The computer doesn't need to determine the poorer player in order for them
to be helped.
> Russ's "theory" is bull
> dooky.
And how would you know this for a fact? I don't. Neither do you. Yet people
attack as if they do. Why is that?
I have an open mind about it. Why is your's closed to this possibility? If
you know this theory is bull, let's hear the knowledge you base it on.
Vince lepore
Now I get it! You are Russ are you not? If not you should be! You
both think and talk alike. You say x is occurring. When I or someone
else say "prove it", your answer is "you disprove it". You are just
too funny! Sad that you don't see the humor. You might have as good a
time laughing at yourself as I do laughing at you!
Nut case!
Vince
Jgm
> >
>
> Now I get it! You are Russ are you not?
Yes. Yes I am.
>If not you should be! You
> both think and talk alike. You say x is occurring.
I never said anything is occurring, but you knew that. I said I don't know
either way, and have an open mind. You managed to avoid explaining your
reason for having a closed mind to the possibility.
>When I or someone
> else say "prove it", your answer is "you disprove it".
Was that my answer? I asked you to please explain why your mind is closed to
the possibility. What knowledge do you have that makes you automatically
dismiss the idea, or indeed to jump on it and attack it? But, again, you
knew that, and had no answer. Hence the typical bullshit reply. I asked for
no proof either way. Just an explanation for your confidence in it not being
possible.
>You are just
> too funny! Sad that you don't see the humor. You might have as good a
> time laughing at yourself as I do laughing at you!
>
> Nut case!
>
> Vince
No answers then?
Jgm
> >If not you should be! You
> > both think and talk alike. You say x is occurring.
>
>
> I never said anything is occurring, but you knew that. I said I don't know
> either way, and have an open mind. You managed to avoid explaining your
> reason for having a closed mind to the possibility.
>
>
>
> >When I or someone
> > else say "prove it", your answer is "you disprove it".
>
>
> Was that my answer? I asked you to please explain why your mind is closed
to
> the possibility. What knowledge do you have that makes you automatically
> dismiss the idea, or indeed to jump on it and attack it? But, again, you
> knew that, and had no answer. Hence the typical bullshit reply. I asked
for
> no proof either way. Just an explanation for your confidence in it not
being
> possible.
>
>
> >You are just
> > too funny! Sad that you don't see the humor. You might have as good a
> > time laughing at yourself as I do laughing at you!
> >
> > Nut case!
> >
> > Vince
>
>
> No answers then?
>
>
You forget to reply Vince?
No answers?