the poker hierarchy and the doom switch, or the iceman farteth
William Coleman
"Iceman" <oneo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156879533.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
:> : This is as close to the truth as you can get.
: >
: > Please Russ, don't show your ignorance by jumping into a discussion
about
: > which you know nothing.
:
: Russ has never done THAT before.
:
: > You may be the master of poker strategy,
:
: If the survey group consisted of Susan "Fluffer" Johnson and Paul
: "Brownshirt" G.
You know, I thought you were smart, up until that remark. You have never
posted anything to my knowledge which shows even rudimentary understanding
of correct poker strategy. Russ is without question a real authority on
poker strategy for virtually every form of poker. Yet you, in your total
ignorance, think you can dismiss Russ's clearly superior knowledge of poker
strategy with a smartass remark. Now I understand that everything Paul
Popinjay has said about you is exactly correct.
: > but you have repeatedly made posts showing your complete ignorance of
the
: > mathematics of poker.
:
: Just the mathematics?
Yes, just the mathematics, numbnuts. When it comes to actual strategy and
how to beat big money poker games, Russ is clearly my superior. Again, with
the one exception of limit holdem. In that area, I am quite confident I am
the teacher and Russ is the student.
: > Your nonsense about losing bots is just that, nonsense.
:
: Give the man a break. He needs some ridiculous excuse to justify why
: he loses.
You are a pathetic joke. You have no knowledge of Russ's poker results.
Therefore, why do you think your ignorant smartass remarks have any
credibility at all???
: > In another analysis, you tried to show that low limit holdem games on
the
: > internet could not be beaten. You then proceeded to analyze $2/$4
holdem
: > assuming a $3 rake per hand.
:
: That shows how familiar he is with online poker.
Yes, I specifically criticized Russ for claiming he was an expert on online
poker, then proceeding to claim $2/$4 holdem online is unbeatable because
every pot is raked $3.
: > Get a clue, Russ. Thousands of people, including me, beat $2/$4 holdem
on
: > Poker Stars and Party Poker for two or more big bets per hundred hands.
: > Play four simultaneous games, and you are making more per hour than the
: > world's best $20/$40 player in a B&M casino.
:
: Make 1 BB/hr in .50/1, and you are making more per hour from poker than
: Russ Georgiev.
Oh please. You have already convinced everyone that you are a complete
idiot. No further proof is necessary. Numerous big money players have
testified that Russ was a very successful and very feared big money player
for years. You really think your ignorant, uninformed comments do anything
but further show what an idiot you are?
Seriously, man, if Russ's hourly rate is $1/hour, please explain how Russ
managed to back a bunch of people, many of them total strangers, for a total
of about $50,000 in the 2005 WSOP. Please do not claim this never happened,
because he backed me personally for $2500. He backed Razzo for one event.
He backed Carson for several events. He backed people he did not know at
all, just because he liked the humble, respectful way in which they asked
for backing. He did not ask anyone, as far as I know, to send him
tournament receipts or other proof that they actually entered the
tournament. He got exactly zero return on his $50,000 investment.
Do you understand that the only possible explanation for Russ's behavior is
that $50,000 is pocket change for him??? Let me give you another example of
Russ's generosity. He called me one time for some computer help over the
phone. Specifically, he wanted to set up www.pokermafia.com with a
webhosting service. He had the domain name registered, but he didn't have a
clue how to set up an account with a webhosting service, then point the
registrar's database to the DNS servers of the webhosting service. If you
know how to do this, it is trivial. If you are a computer illiterate, as
Russ still is, then this is a great mystery. I actually did all this for
him, right up to paying the webhosting service. I told him --
Here is your username and password. Just log onto the webhosting service
and pay for a year in advance, and you are done.
Russ insisted that he send me something for my time. I told him that
wouldn't be necessary, that I was glad to help him as a friend. Then, about
two weeks later, Russ calls me and says that he always pays people who
provide him with a valuable service, and that he wanted to compensate me for
the hour I spent helping him. I told him that it really wasn't necessary,
but that if he felt compelled to send me money, I would not object too
strenuously. I told him to send me what he thought an hour of my time was
worth. A few days later, an envelope arrived from Russ. Inside were two
crisp, new $100 bills.
All you idiots who think Russ is a busted out losing poker player need to
get a clue. Russ makes more in a month playing poker than most of you will
ever win in a lifetime, and more than the annual salary of most of you
working stiffs.
Russ has always been extremely generous with me. I have no doubt that if I
ever needed money, WHICH I MOST EMPHATICALLY DO NOT, I could call Russ and
say --
Hey Russ, I am a little short. Could you send me ten grand, and I promise
to pay it back within six months? I am also quite confident that Russ would
say --
Of course, Bill. I will send you ten grand right away. But don't worry
about paying it back. If you pay me back, that's cool. If things don't
work out and you can't pay me, don't worry about it.
I know for a fact that Russ is, in fact, this generous, because, even though
I have never asked Russ for money, he occasionally gets concerned that I am
flat busted and have no money to play. He thinks this because I
deliberately poor mouth my financial condition so my enemies, like Treeboy,
will not report me to the IRS for tax evasion.
Of course, all this poor mouthing makes Russ concerned for my financial
condition, so he calls me or emails me and offers to send me a few thousand
so I can step up from $2/$4 to $10/$20. His terms are always the same --
If I win and want to send him a share of my winnings, that is cool. If I
lose it all, I shouldn't worry about repaying him. Do you understand that
Russ knows quite well that I could just pocket what he sent me, then tell
him I lost it all? Once Russ decides he can trust you, he trusts you
completely.
You fucking working stiffs who are such poor players that you have to work
to get money to play poker need to get a clue. First of all, you need to
understand that there is a vast difference between people like yourselves,
who have to work to get money to play poker, on the one hand, and people
like Russ and me who win enough money playing poker that we don't have to
work, on the other hand. As Russ told Eric "Treeboy" LIEbeler --
You are a lawyer who plays poker. I am a professional high-stakes poker
player.
You moronic anonymous trolls who post nonsense about Russ being a busted out
losing poker player who sleeps in his car also need to get a clue.
Newsflash!!! Russ walks around with more money in his pocket than your
annual salary. If you were ever stupid enough to sit down in a poker game
with Russ, he would quickly win all your money, even if he were playing
completely honestly.
You need to learn your place in the poker hierarchy. Russ is at or close to
the top in terms of ability to play and win money in tough, big money games.
I am way below Russ in the hierarchy, but 98% of you are not qualified to
sit at the same table with me.
Of course, I would never ask Russ for money, even if I were broke. I do not
ask people for money, except an occasional short term loan if I can't
conveniently get my hands on cash for which I have an immediate need, such
as buying cannabis. I always pay such loans back promptly. The only
occasion that I have ever asked anyone to back me in a tournament was when I
jokingly asked Eric "Treeboy" LIEbeler to back me in last year's WSOP. I
have to tell you that I was completely flabbergasted that Treeboy was
immediately quite interested, and wound up backing me in the $3000 limit
holdem tournament in 2005.
People like Greg Raymer, who is a wealthy attorney, yet begged and begged on
both RGP and 2+2 for people to back him in the WSOP, are beneath contempt.
If you are broke, for God's sake get a job. Don't be a busted out railbird
like Raymer or T.J. "loan me $200 so I can get into action" Cloutier and beg
people to put you into action.
: > I laughed my ass off when you proclaimed, after playing internet poker
for a
: > few weeks, that you were now the world's leading expert on internet
poker.
: > LMFAO!!! The only thing you know about internet poker is how to cheat
it.
:
: Which he doesn't even seem to know. Losing bots?
His analysis of losing bots is completely erroneous, as I have explained to
him more than once, both on RGP and privately. This is one of Russ's
weaknesses. He thinks he knows more about every aspect of poker than anyone
else. He most certainly does not. He just dismisses me as a know nothing
because I am a low limit player. I can be a low limit player and still be
an expert on the mathematics of poker, which is exactly what I am.
: Action flops?
I don't know about that, but it does make economic sense from the point of
view of the cardroom. What makes perfect sense, and what is an indisputable
reality, regardless of what those of you in the peanut gallery think, is
that at least some online poker rooms, and most certainly Poker Stars, have
a doom switch, which they turn on to keep extremely tough players from
draining too much money from the fish. Poker Stars does not want tough
players like Russ and Ramashiva looting large sums of money from the fish,
who include probably at least 90% of those of you reading this right now.
So they handicap the strong players. In some cases, this is just a
regulator, like people making more draws against you than expected, or your
draws don't come in with the frequency expected. They still let you make a
profit, just way below your EV. The more extreme example of the doom switch
is when you just run into a total brick wall, and a specific player beats
you every hand, no matter what. I and many others have experienced exactly
this type of scenario --
You raise the pot with AA. Your nemesis behind you reraises, so you cap,
assuming 3 raises max. The flop comes AK2. Again, the action is capped
headsup. The turn is a 5 and the action is capped one more time. Now you
are a little bit worried, because you don't have the nuts. Surely he
wouldn't have capped every round with 34??? The river card is a 3, so now
you definitely slow down. You check and call. The lunatic shows you J4
offsuit. I am not bullshitting. I have seen this scenario repeatedly.
Once the extreme doom switch is thrown, the same player shows up in everyone
of your games, and he lays beat after beat on you of this type, capping the
action on every round. Please do not give me some patronizing bullshit
about how I am just trying to explain away the fact that I am a losing
player. I am a very strong winning player, even when the mild doom switch
is thrown. I have the Poker Tracker databases to prove it.
Russ and his cheating pack have had similar experiences. Invariably, when
they open a new account with a new ID, the new ID wins heavily for a while.
Then, suddenly, the new ID cannot win a single hand, no matter what. The
extreme doom switch has been thrown. They have exerienced this over and
over, at several online poker rooms. But Russ and his cheating pack are not
dumb. As soon as it becomes obvious the extreme doom switch has been
thrown, they just lock up 80% of the net win, cash out, and abandon the
account.
Of course this post will be greeted by hoots and hollers of scorn, as is
every post which suggests that any internet poker room has a random number
generator which is less than perfect. According to the wisdom of the shills
and sycophants of internet poker, the internet poker rooms have no
motivation or reason to handicap tough players, or to try to prevent the
draining of large sums of money from the suckers (which would be 90% of you
who think you know how to play). What the internet poker rooms want as an
ideal is for the pool of money represented by the deposits of its customers
to swirl around like water draining from a bathtub, with the house slowly
draining off all money through the rake.
Everytime a tough player like Russ or Ramashiva comes along, the bathtub
springs a leak, and the money gets permanently drained off into the bank
accounts of the tough players. Capitalists maximize profits. Capitalists
operating internet poker rooms maximize profits by preventing tough players
from draining the bathtub.
Please do not show your ignorance by claiming that internet poker rooms have
no economic interest in preventing tough players from draining funds
permanently from the pool of their customer deposits. Of course they do.
Do you know anything at all???
Please do not embarrass yourself by claiming you are a huge winner and have
never experienced the doom switch. There are two possibilities --
Either you are a shill for online poker rooms and are simply lying,
Or you are a losing player who has experienced a hot streak and thinks he is
the second coming of Ted Forrest.
There is no third possibility. You think large internet poker rooms do not
already have sophisticated software which can analyze a player's play to
determine if that player is a tough player and a threat to drain the
bathtub, or whether that player is just another sucker on a hot streak?
Again, if you really are a heavy winner at internet poker and have never
experienced the doom switch, you are simply another clueless sucker on a hot
streak. Remember my recounting of my experience of being barred at 21 at
Caesars Tahoe when I was stuck $700 at the blackjack table?
Why did they bar me? Very simple. An eye in the sky who was also a
proficient card counter was monitoring my play and seeing that I was playing
perfect blackjack according to the count, and could thus easily turn a
winning shift in the 21 pit into a losing shift with great regularity.
Although I represented no serious threat betting three hands, $25/hand, what
would happen if I suddenly "found" some serious money and started playing
three hands, $10,000/hand? If I played 100 rounds of three hands per hour,
which I can easily do since I can play faster than the fastest dealer can
deal, then my total betting volume per hour would be $3 million dollars. If
my total edge flat betting is 1%, which is very conservative with the
favorable rules Caesars Tahoe offered me, then my hourly rate would be
$30,000/hour. You think any casino will book action from a player like me
who will beat them for $30,000/hour???
I don't think so. The casinos are in business to make money, not to let
proficient card counters like me bankrupt them. This is why the casinos
routinely bar expert card counters, or take other countermeasures to prevent
them from doing serious damage.
Go ahead. Book a challenge match between me and all the casinos in Las
Vegas. Give me Caesar's Tahoe rules, including dealing deep into a single
deck. Give me a $100 million starting bankroll. Let me flat bet three
hands $300,000/hand to start. As my bankroll grows, give me the option of
pressing my bets during the shuffle. When my bankroll has grown to $1
billion, I am now playing three hands, $3,000,000 hand. For those of you
who do not understand how I am sizing my bets, I am using the Kelly
Criterion to size my bets proportional to the product of my edge and total
bankroll.
With such a scenario, I will eventually own Las Vegas, lock, stock, and
barrel. This is why the casinos are scared to death of me and players like
me. All proficient card counters collectively represent exactly the same
threat as I would in the above hypothetical scenario.
This makes blackjack a unique game. The world's greatest 21 players lead a
furtive, hounded existence, trying to keep the casinos from figuring out how
well they play blackjack. The casinos have no interest in playing the
world's greatest blackjack players. The casinos are scared to death of the
world's greatest blackjack players.
Just as the casinos can determine whether you are a winning 21 player,
regardless of your short term results, the internet poker rooms can
determine whether you are a strong winning player, regardless of your short
term results. If you really have won a lot of money playing online poker
and have never experienced the doom switch, there is a very simple
explanation --
You are a sucker on a hot streak. You can't play a lick.
: > A man must know his limitations. You obviously do not know yours.
:
: He does, that's why he weasels out of every challenge.
Please tell me how much Chip and Doyle are paying you to post this
nonsense??? Russ has never backed out of any challenge. Take Barry
Greenstein. Barry backed out of the challenge, not Russ. Barry told Russ
he would be at a big tournament, in Australia I believe, and that Barry
would play Russ there. Yeah. Right. Sure. Barry knows perfectly well
that if Russ ever showed up at a big tournament, he would be whacked for
sure. Barry offered to play Russ under conditions he knew Russ would never
accept. That is because Barry knows for sure that Russ would eat him alive
in a headsup match. Barry MIGHT win. In Las Vegas, when the lamb goes to
slaughter, the lamb MIGHT kill the butcher, but the smart money is on the
butcher killing the lamb.
: > With regard to the mathematics of poker, especially the Mathematical
Theory
: > of Optimum Poker Strategy, you would have to spend six years of full
time
: > study earning a bachelor's and master's in mathematics before you would
even
: > be qualified to be my student in these areas.
:
: Carson looks like Einstein compared to Russ.
Again, you must be joking. Carson's ignorance of the mathematics of poker
is very close to total, as I have shown time after time.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery
________________________
Please visit my weblog, Ramashiva Rules --
http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com
Before clicking on the URL, please set your monitor's resolution to 1152x864
or higher and turn off Ad Blocking. Please help me out by clicking on the
affiliate banners at the top of the page, the Amazon book links on the
right, and the Google ads.
Windows Live Messenger -- ramas...@hotmail.com
IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SOTER (corrupted version)
IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOS YIOS SOTERES (true version)
Sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me.
-- Jesus Christ
God told me to smite Al Qaeda, so I smote them. Then God told me to smite
Saddam, so I smote him also.
-- George W. Bush, Liberator of Afghanistan and Iraq
Edward
William Coleman wrote:
> Russ is my hero
>From the tone of you recent posts about Russ, I would suspect that he
is supporting you. I just hope that he isn't requiring you to suck him
off as well.
John A. Fish
> assuming 3 raises max. The flop comes AK2. Again, the action is capped
> headsup. The turn is a 5 and the action is capped one more time. Now you
> are a little bit worried, because you don't have the nuts. Surely he
> wouldn't have capped every round with 34??? The river card is a 3, so now
> you definitely slow down. You check and call. The lunatic shows you J4
> offsuit. I am not bullshitting. I have seen this scenario repeatedly.
It wasn't me William, I promise. I have never played limits higher than
1/2 online. Some time ago I decided to adopt J4o as the "John Fish
signature hand" and play it like the nuts every time for advertising
value. (I would have preferred J5 but that was already taken for half
the suits.) Surprisingly, J4 does seem to pay off for me more times
than not. I don't think I have cracked aces with it yet though.
- John Fish
AtticusCole
On Sep 2 2006 4:08 PM, William Coleman wrote:
> "Iceman" wrote in message
> phone. Specifically, he wanted to set up http://www.pokermafia.com/ with a
> http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com/
>
> Before clicking on the URL, please set your monitor's resolution to 1152x864
> or higher and turn off Ad Blocking. Please help me out by clicking on the
> affiliate banners at the top of the page, the Amazon book links on the
> right, and the Google ads.
>
> Windows Live Messenger -- ramas...@hotmail.com
>
> IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SOTER (corrupted version)
> IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOS YIOS SOTERES (true version)
>
> Sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me.
>
> -- Jesus Christ
>
> God told me to smite Al Qaeda, so I smote them. Then God told me to smite
> Saddam, so I smote him also.
>
> -- George W. Bush, Liberator of Afghanistan and Iraq
You'd be the first 2/4 limit hold em' "specialist" to break Vegas.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
William Coleman
"Edward" <edward...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157214783....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
: Willy, you could hve said all of this in 4 words.
:
:
: William Coleman wrote:
: > Russ is my hero
Very true.
: >From the tone of you recent posts about Russ, I would suspect that he
: is supporting you.
You would be wrong. I have never received any financial assistance from
Russ whatsoever. The only money Russ has ever sent me is the $2500 when he
backed me in the 2005 WSOP, and when he sent me $200 for some technical help
I gave him.
: I just hope that he isn't requiring you to suck him off as well.
Listen, asshole, both Russ and I are pure heterosexuals who have each fucked
thousands of women more beautiful than any woman who ever gave you the time
of day.
Your suggestion that Russ and I are homosexual lovers suggests to me that
you are an assfucking, cocksucking, limp-wristed, HIV-infected faggot
yourself.
William Coleman
"AtticusCole" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1157260018$863...@recpoker.com...
:
: You'd be the first 2/4 limit hold em' "specialist" to break Vegas.
First of all, asshole, I am not a $2/$4 specialist. I am a limit holdem
specialist. I can destroy any limit game up to $20/$40. My internet game
of choice is $2/$4 because the effective rake is lower than $3/$6, because I
can make all the money I need playing multiple simultaneous games of $2/$4,
and because the online $2/$4 players are so clueless I can put my play on
autopilot and multitask other activities.
In the real world, I play $4/$8 up to $10/$20. I don't play $20/$40 or
higher, because, as everyone who knows anything about Las Vegas knows, all
games $20/$40 and higher are infested with collusion teams.
You are confusing my $2/$4 online holdem play with a hypothetical example I
gave to show that expert card counters are a serious threat to the Las Vegas
Casino industry. If card counters were allowed to play Blackjack
unmolested, all the casinos would be bankrupted. This is a simple
mathematical fact.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery
________________________
Please visit my weblog, Ramashiva Rules --
http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com
Before clicking on the URL, please set your monitor's resolution to 1152x864
William Coleman
"John A. Fish" <j...@horsecreek.homeip.net> wrote in message
news:44F9BEBB...@horsecreek.homeip.net...
:> You raise the pot with AA. Your nemesis behind you reraises, so you cap,
: > assuming 3 raises max. The flop comes AK2. Again, the action is capped
: > headsup. The turn is a 5 and the action is capped one more time. Now
you
: > are a little bit worried, because you don't have the nuts. Surely he
: > wouldn't have capped every round with 34??? The river card is a 3, so
now
: > you definitely slow down. You check and call. The lunatic shows you J4
: > offsuit. I am not bullshitting. I have seen this scenario repeatedly.
:
: It wasn't me William, I promise. I have never played limits higher than
: 1/2 online. Some time ago I decided to adopt J4o as the "John Fish
: signature hand" and play it like the nuts every time for advertising
: value.
There is no such thing as advertising in poker. That is a novice concept.
You mix up your play according to game theory criteria, and your opponents
will sometimes be very surprised when you show your cards.
You are also being very foolish to use just one hand to mix up your play.
Don't you think expert players will soon pick up on the fact that J4 is your
"favorite" hand, and will factor that into their probability calculations
based on your possible range of hands?
: (I would have preferred J5 but that was already taken for half the suits.)
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. But I can tell you
this. If you want to sometimes play weak hands strongly, you are much
better off raising preflop with hands like 54 and 65 suited. These hands
have great potential to make monster hands which will get paid off, because
no one will put you on small suited connectors when you raise preflop.
Plus, you introduce more confusion about what you have when you raise.
This type of strategy is pure game theory.
: Surprisingly, J4 does seem to pay off for me more times
: than not.
You win with J4 more than half the time??? Either your sample size is very
small, or you need a refresher course in integer arithmetic.
With regard to the extreme doom switch, Russ's collusion team, Ramashiva,
and at least one 2+2 poster have seen this.
You know the guys in the Poker Stars control room are laughing their asses
off --
There you go, Mr. World's Greatest Holdem Player. Let's see you beat an
opponent who knows all five board cards before the cards are dealt.
There is no doubt Poker Stars did this at one time. Many people have seen
it. With their huge customer base, they probably realize they don't need
such drastic measures to keep expert poker players from draining the
bathtub. Yes, the expert players still drain the bathtub, but the endless
supply of new fish pour new funds into the bathtub faster than the experts
can drain it.
I think Poker Stars has also abandoned the weak doom switch, because my
results have been matching my EV for quite some time.
By the way, I am only making these allegations about Poker Stars, because I
have not seen the doom switch in action at other online poker rooms.
Nevertheless, ALL internet poker rooms have a stong incentive to handicap
the expert players to keep them from draining the bathtub too fast. If the
fish all rapidly go broke and need to redeposit, the fish will go to a
cardroom which is more fish friendly.
By the way, B&M poker rooms have exactly the same financial incentives to
throttle expert players. Expert poker players are tolerated in cardrooms
because they function as unpaid prop players for starting new games. I am
quite sure one of several reasons Doug Dalton barred me from the Mirage is
because he got tired of seeing me make $100+ almost every day playing $3/$6
holdem.
When I was calling around trying to find a lawyer to sue Doug and the
Mirage, I finally called a Reno law firm, since no Las Vegas law firm would
touch it. I talked to a lawyer there who told me that the Reno cardrooms
definitely banned poker players who ran over the games too much.
Such expert play makes poker a less pleasant experience for the tourists.
Fuck the tourists. When they sit down in a $10/$20 game in Las Vegas in the
middle of the week, who do they think they are playing with??? The three
stooges and the seven dwarves?
Edward
William Coleman wrote:
> Listen, asshole, both Russ and I are pure heterosexuals who have each fucked
> thousands of women more beautiful than any woman who ever gave you the time
> of day.
Lets make a bet.
And shortchanging little girls when you work the counter at 7Eleven
doesn't count as fucking woman.
Edward
You need more attention here at RGP William.
I know what you can do to get some attention. Challenge Greenstein to
play heads up.
Say, a million dollars a card, horse tourny,and you pick the location.
When he agrees, just tell him you want to play on the 64th floor on the
World Trade Center. When he tells you that the World Trade Ceter no
longer exists, you can say he backed out.
John A. Fish
> : signature hand" and play it like the nuts every time for advertising
> : value.
>
> There is no such thing as advertising in poker. That is a novice concept.
> You mix up your play according to game theory criteria, and your opponents
> will sometimes be very surprised when you show your cards.
>
> You are also being very foolish to use just one hand to mix up your play.
> Don't you think expert players will soon pick up on the fact that J4 is your
> "favorite" hand, and will factor that into their probability calculations
> based on your possible range of hands?
Points taken.
> : (I would have preferred J5 but that was already taken for half the suits.)
>
> I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
The significance of J4 and J5 is that, when spelled out, their first
letters and word lengths are the same as John Fish. Also Jack is
sometimes used as a nickname for John. I decided against J5 because it
is occasionally described as the Jackson 5 hand in clubs and spades.
Why that is, I don't know.
> : Surprisingly, J4 does seem to pay off for me more times
> : than not.
>
> You win with J4 more than half the time??? Either your sample size is very
> small, or you need a refresher course in integer arithmetic.
Yes the sample size is very small and probably subject to my selective
memory. And I probably don't play it like the nuts every time as I said
earlier (I lied). I do look for reasons to play it though if the
opportunity presents itself, just for fun, if the stakes are not too
high. I am not saying it is a good idea to play J4 generally. Few
hands are less playable.
> I think Poker Stars has also abandoned the weak doom switch, because my
> results have been matching my EV for quite some time.
>
> By the way, I am only making these allegations about Poker Stars, because I
> have not seen the doom switch in action at other online poker rooms.
> Nevertheless, ALL internet poker rooms have a stong incentive to handicap
> the expert players to keep them from draining the bathtub too fast. If the
> fish all rapidly go broke and need to redeposit, the fish will go to a
> cardroom which is more fish friendly.
Interesting. I play at most of the major sites and find that Stars is
the only one that I cannot seem to win at. I had always attributed this
to my sense that the players are generally better at Stars for a given
limit. I had never considered the possibility of a weak doom switch.
Hmmm... could it be?
Cheers,
John Fish
William Coleman
:
Thanks for showing you are a juvenile idiot who thinks such infantile
remarks constitute effective argumentation.
William Coleman
:
: You need more attention here at RGP William.
You are too funny. I get much more attention from RGP than I want or need.
Why do you think my killfile is filled with liars and trolls like you?
: I know what you can do to get some attention. Challenge Greenstein to
: play heads up.
First of all, Barry would kick my ass in any heads up match, including my
speciality, limit holdem. All my research on optimum poker strategy is on
the Nash equilibrium strategy for full ring games. I have no interest in
the optimum strategy for heads up limit holdem. That has precisely two
applications --
Heads up at the final table of a limit tournament. Since deals are almost
always agreed on BEFORE the tournament gets heads up, there is really no
tournament value to knowing the optimum strategy for heads up limit holdem.
Heads up challenge matches. I regard all heads up challenges as juvenile
macho activities. I don't need to prove to anyone how well I play. I know
for a fact that I destroy ring limit holdem games. That is the only optimum
strategy I am interested in.
I have exactly zero experience playing heads up challenge matches. Barry is
obviously an expert in this area. I may be dumb, but I am not stupid. I
concede that Barry would kick my ass in any heads up challenge match, no
matter what the game.
: Say, a million dollars a card, horse tourny,and you pick the location.
Oh, fuck you asshole, you think I can produce a million dollars to gamble
with? The most money I have ever had at one place at one time is about
$30,000. I make no pretensions to being a high roller with big bucks. As
far as a HORSE challenge, I would be clueless, since I know how to play only
two poker games with any skill --
Limit Holdem, in which I consider myself an expert in FULL RING GAMES.
Seven Card Stud, in which I am at most a journeyman, able to beat Stud games
up to $10/$20.
: When he agrees, just tell him you want to play on the 64th floor on the
: World Trade Center. When he tells you that the World Trade Ceter no
: longer exists, you can say he backed out.
You are funny. Barry backed out of the challenge with Russ. Please do not
pretend it was the other way around. Barry knows Russ would never appear at
a major tournament, since he has legitimate reason to fear he would be
whacked. You think his fear is not legitimate??? The Poker Mafia has only
sent two hit men to whack him.
So Barry says he will be at a major tournament in Australia. Russ can come
there and Barry will play him.
LMFAO!!! Barry was completely unwilling to negotiate with Russ to find a
mutually acceptable time and place. He offered only to play Russ in a venue
which he knew for sure Russ would never agree to.
It is crystal clear that Barry backed out of the challenge by only offering
a venue which he knew in advance was unacceptable to Russ.
Anyone who claims Russ backed out of a match with Barry is a liar and a
simpleton.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery
________________________
Please visit my weblog, Ramashiva Rules --
http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com
Before clicking on the URL, please set your monitor's resolution to 1152x864
or higher and turn off Ad Blocking. Please help me out by clicking on the
affiliate banners at the top of the page, the Amazon book links on the
right, and the Google ads.
Windows Live Messenger -- ramas...@hotmail.com
IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SOTER (corrupted version)
IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOS YIOS SOTERES (true version)
Sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me.
-- Jesus Christ
God told me to smite Al Qaeda, so I smote them. Then God told me to smite
Saddam, so I smote him also.
:
William Coleman
:> : Some time ago I decided to adopt J4o as the "John Fish
: > : signature hand" and play it like the nuts every time for advertising
: > : value.
: >
: > There is no such thing as advertising in poker. That is a novice
concept.
: > You mix up your play according to game theory criteria, and your
opponents
: > will sometimes be very surprised when you show your cards.
: >
: > You are also being very foolish to use just one hand to mix up your
play.
: > Don't you think expert players will soon pick up on the fact that J4 is
your
: > "favorite" hand, and will factor that into their probability
calculations
: > based on your possible range of hands?
:
: Points taken.
:
: > : (I would have preferred J5 but that was already taken for half the
suits.)
: >
: > I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
:
: The significance of J4 and J5 is that, when spelled out, their first
: letters and word lengths are the same as John Fish. Also Jack is
: sometimes used as a nickname for John. I decided against J5 because it
: is occasionally described as the Jackson 5 hand in clubs and spades.
: Why that is, I don't know.
I am 62 (actually my birthday is September 9) and I know exactly why J5 in
clubs and spades is called "Jackson 5". You must either lead a very
sheltered life, or be completely oblivious to pop culture. The Jackson Five
was the original musical group fronted by Michael Jackson when he was like
12 or so. The other four members were his four brothers. They are all
black. Do you get it now, or do I need to further explain the obvious to
the obtuse?
: > : Surprisingly, J4 does seem to pay off for me more times than not.
I cannot prove conclusively that there is such a thing as a doom switch,
weak or strong. If Poker Stars did indeed employ a doom switch at one time,
their programmers are obviously smart enough to implement the doom switch in
such a way that no statistical evidence can ever be produced. For example,
they could easily set up the weak doom switch so the percentage of draws
made by both you and your opponents matches the expected percentage. Yet
they could activate the weak doom switch ONLY on big pots, so you would
still be getting fucked, but there would be no statistical evidence of the
weak doom switch fucking you over.
This isn't some weird idea which suddenly occurred to me. I posted about
the doom switch in great detail on 2+2 in 2002, BEFORE I ever posted to RGP.
My posts created a huge furor on the Internet Gambling Forum.
The usual bullshit of "let's see the hand histories" was thrown in my face.
LMFAO!!! You really think the Poker Stars programmers are so stupid that
hand histories could prove the existence of a weak doom switch???
I based my conclusion that Poker Stars utilized a doom switch on my personal
experience playing at Poker Stars after playing for two years or so in $2/$4
limit holdem on Paradise Poker.
When I first started playing at Poker Stars, I was amazed at how poorly the
$2/$4 players at Poker Stars played. Ask anyone who played $2/$4 limit
holdem at Paradise Poker in the time frame 2000 to 2002. The games were
absolutely brutal, comparable to a typical $10/$20 game either online or
B&M.
By comparison, the $2/$4 players at Poker Stars were clueless fish. When I
first started playing at Poker Stars, I crushed the $2/$4 games. Then I
cashed out most of my winnings. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I
think it was around $700.
At that point, Poker Stars had a large enough statistical sample to know for
sure I would drain about $1000/week from the $2/$4 games if I played four
simultaneous games.
After my cashout, I hit an absolute wall. I have taken graduate courses in
statistics. I know exactly what constitutes a statistically significant
sample. My play during the reign of the doom switch was much larger than
necessary to be statistically significant. Sorry to be so vague, but I made
these 2+2 posts four years ago. 2+2 conveniently deleted all my posts when
I was banned, so the damning evidence against Poker Stars would no longer
exist. I still have these posts on SCSI hard drives which I was using at
the time, but which I no longer use. I could retrieve these posts if I had
sufficient motivation to do so.
The question is, why did 2+2 delete all my posts after they barred me? I
don't believe that is their standard procedure after they ban a player.
Sure looks like a coverup to me.
Anyway, over a period of several weeks, I couldn't win a hand no matter
what. It was beyond ridiculous. There was also a particular player whose
handle escapes me, who would frequently show up in my games and show me the
strong doom switch.
It became obvious to me that Poker Stars did not want my action, so I went
back to Paradise Poker, where I started consistently beating the tough $2/$4
games once more.
When I posted my suspicions about a doom switch at Poker Stars on 2+2, the
shills for the online poker rooms on 2+2 told me I was just another losing
player trying to explain away my losses. To no avail I explained to them
that I was still a big net winner on Poker Stars. I gave up on Poker Stars
when it became obvious there was something very strange going on, since I
almost never made a draw, while my opponents made their draws much more
frequently than expected.
That's all I have is suspicion, with results indicating something fishy
(sorry for the pun) was going on on Poker Stars.
Something else very strange happened while I was completely dominating the
Internet Gambling Forum. At the time of my banning, four of the top ten
threads viewed were either by me or about me. In the midst of the turmoil,
a post was made by "Poker Stars Support", indicating that they had the proof
that I was making my draws as often as expected, and that my opponents were
not getting lucky in their draws.
This was the first post ever by "Poker Stars Support". There is no way of
knowing whether this was really from Poker Stars, or just a troll post. At
the time, no registration was necessary, so anyone could post with any
handle.
My reply to "Poker Stars Support" was to supply me with ALL my hand
histories since I started playing at Poker Stars. I told them I was quite
capable of doing my own statistical analysis of draw percentages pre-cashout
and post-cashout to determine if there was a statistically significant
difference in pre-cashout and post-cashout draw percentages. "Poker Stars
Support" never responded to my challenge.
Unfortunately, I was not using Poker Tracker at the time. I don't recall if
Poker Tracker even existed in 2002. I think it had just come out. As I
recall, it was unwieldly to use. I recall using it at Paradise Poker after
I returned to Paradise Poker. I had to manually request hand histories via
email, convert the email into a text file, then import it into Poker
Tracker. Poker Tracker was supposed to import hand history emails directly
without conversion to a text file, but I could never get this feature to
work.
At the time, I am pretty sure Poker Tracker required this cumbersome
procedure for all poker rooms, not just Paradise Poker. It was only later
that Poker Stars and other poker rooms offered automatic importation of hand
histories stored on your hard drive.
Anyway, for whatever reason, I was not using Poker Tracker on Poker Stars.
If I had been, I could have conclusively shown the existence of a doom
switch. I think the widespread use of Poker Tracker has caused Poker Stars
and possibly other poker rooms to abandon the doom switch. It would be
extremely difficult to cover up the doom switch when many players have Poker
Tracker databases of their entire play at Poker Stars.
I am now pretty sure Poker Stars no longer employs the doom switch. Maybe
they only use the doom switch to get rid of players whom they suspect are
cheating, or who irritate management in some other way.
I am really not concerned about a doom switch at Poker Stars. As I already
said, my Poker Tracker results match closely what I know to be my expected
big bets per hundred hands against the level of competition in the $2/$4
limit holdem games.
As long as that trend continues, I couldn't care less if I am playing
against a weak doom switch. Show me the money. That's all I care about.
Here is a challenge to 2+2 -- You no doubt have my deleted posts stored on
some server. Restore those posts and let's see what I said in 2002.
Here is a challenge to Poker Stars -- Surely you have all the hand
histories for all hands I ever played. Please send me an email containing
all my hand histories from day 1 until the time I posted my doom switch
allegations on 2+2.
I will import the emailed hand histories into a new Poker Tracker database.
Then the issue can be settled once and for all.
I am barred at 2+2, so I cannot make the challenge. I have secret
identities at 2+2, but if I make the challenge with one of these identities,
they will obviously know it is me. If anyone is interested, post on 2+2
challenging them to restore my deleted posts.
I obviously have no interest in hassling Poker Stars Support about this. I
have hassled them a lot over the years on a variety of issues. I fear that
if I hassle them on this issue, they will flip the doom switch again.
If someone else wants to challenge Poker Stars to produce my early hand
histories for analysis, go right ahead. I give Poker Stars permission to
make these hand histories public, so the entire RGP community can analyze
these hand histories for the existence of a doom switch.
I would like to see this issue definitively resolved, one way or another. I
have a sneaking suspicion that neither 2+2 nor Poker Stars will be at all
interested in revisiting the issue of ramashiva (my original 2+2 handle, as
well as my handle at Poker Stars and Paradise Poker) versus the doom switch.
Again, I am not going to hassle either 2+2 or Poker Stars about this. My
philosophy is to let sleeping dogs lie. If someone else wants to stir up
some shit about ramashiva and the doom switch, you have my permission to do
so, including making the hand histories in question available for public
analysis on RGP.
Dr Zen
Well, they clearly would, wouldn't they?
Because you are claiming that the stats will prove nothing because you
make your expected number of draws, but only lose the big pots.
So HHs for big pots will prove it nicely.
Provide all the HHs for every pot over 12 bets that you have played a
flush draw in and you can prove it from there. Easy.
>I based my conclusion that Poker Stars utilized a doom switch on my personal
>experience playing at Poker Stars after playing for two years or so in $2/$4
>limit holdem on Paradise Poker.
Occam's Razor says you just aren't as good as you think you are.
>
>When I first started playing at Poker Stars, I was amazed at how poorly the
>$2/$4 players at Poker Stars played. Ask anyone who played $2/$4 limit
>holdem at Paradise Poker in the time frame 2000 to 2002. The games were
>absolutely brutal, comparable to a typical $10/$20 game either online or
>B&M.
>
>By comparison, the $2/$4 players at Poker Stars were clueless fish. When I
>first started playing at Poker Stars, I crushed the $2/$4 games. Then I
>cashed out most of my winnings. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I
>think it was around $700.
That's not much winnings.
>
>At that point, Poker Stars had a large enough statistical sample to know for
>sure I would drain about $1000/week from the $2/$4 games if I played four
>simultaneous games.
But no reason to believe that you would play four games. You had only
at that point won 175BB.
>After my cashout, I hit an absolute wall.
You went cold. You won at first because you ran hot. Then the stats
caught up with you and you returned to your true win rate.
[more ranting from loser snipped]
--
Dr Zen
King of the wild pixels.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
William Coleman
"Dr Zen" <freddy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ps6qf2tukbc6goltp...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 06:19:15 GMT, "William Coleman"
I never said I only lost big pots. You have obvious reading comprehension
problems. Please take a remedial reading course, stat.
: So HHs for big pots will prove it nicely.
:
: Provide all the HHs for every pot over 12 bets that you have played a
: flush draw in and you can prove it from there. Easy.
Yes, yes. Apparently you are not aware I am a master mathematician.
Obviously you are correct. It's just that a simple examination of frequency
of making draws would not reveal anything suspicious.
: >I based my conclusion that Poker Stars utilized a doom switch on my
personal
: >experience playing at Poker Stars after playing for two years or so in
$2/$4
: >limit holdem on Paradise Poker.
:
: Occam's Razor says you just aren't as good as you think you are.
Ramashiva's Razor says that three big bets per hundred hands, while playing
four games simultaneously, is enough to pay the bills.
: >When I first started playing at Poker Stars, I was amazed at how poorly
the
: >$2/$4 players at Poker Stars played. Ask anyone who played $2/$4 limit
: >holdem at Paradise Poker in the time frame 2000 to 2002. The games were
: >absolutely brutal, comparable to a typical $10/$20 game either online or
: >B&M.
: >
: >By comparison, the $2/$4 players at Poker Stars were clueless fish. When
I
: >first started playing at Poker Stars, I crushed the $2/$4 games. Then I
: >cashed out most of my winnings. I don't remember the exact numbers, but
I
: >think it was around $700.
:
: That's not much winnings.
Did I say how many hands I played??? How do you know $700 was not a nice
score, based on the number of hands played?
: >At that point, Poker Stars had a large enough statistical sample to know
for
: >sure I would drain about $1000/week from the $2/$4 games if I played four
: >simultaneous games.
:
: But no reason to believe that you would play four games. You had only
: at that point won 175BB.
O I C. The fact that I only won 175 BB means I wasn't playing four games.
Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
:
: >After my cashout, I hit an absolute wall.
:
: You went cold. You won at first because you ran hot. Then the stats
: caught up with you and you returned to your true win rate.
Too funny. Please explain how you know what transpired four years ago, when
the only information you have is what I have given you.
: [more ranting from loser snipped]
Ahh, the last refuge of the shill for internet poker rooms. Call me a loser
when my Poker Tracker Databases indicate I am a very tough player with a
very high win rate.