Like I said, you can't beat retards
thedarkman
Poker Stars and doing okay. After the hour break this guy raises, and
by mistake I re-raise thinking everyone else has folded, and I can
pick up the blind. I have A9 suited. The raiser calls and the flop
comes AQ something. I bet, he calls. I bet the turn, he calls. A 9
comes on the river, I think, well, if he has AQ that's too bad. I bet
my two pair. He raises. I call. He has a straight. The retard raised
with J-10, and called wildly against pot odds all the way down. I'm
over 85% on the turn, and now I'm out. Earlier on Crypto-Logic I raise
in late position with A9 to pick up the blinds. The big blind who has
over 10k chips calls with 7-2 suited, then makes a flush on me when I
bet the flop. How can you beat retards? I feel sick to the pit of my
stomach, especially about the pot limit which I envisioned at least
making the final table. Again, how can a retard who calls a raise with
72 suited and then bets the flush draw accumulate 10k chips in the
first place?
FaceDownAcesUp
> A couple of days ago I'm playing a pot limit hold 'em tournament on
> Poker Stars and doing okay. After the hour break this guy raises, and
> by mistake I re-raise thinking everyone else has folded, and I can
> pick up the blind. I have A9 suited. The raiser calls and the flop
> comes AQ something. I bet, he calls. I bet the turn, he calls. A 9
> comes on the river, I think, well, if he has AQ that's too bad. I bet
> my two pair. He raises. I call. He has a straight. The retard raised
> with J-10, and called wildly against pot odds all the way down. I'm
> over 85% on the turn, and now I'm out.
Maybe he figured he had the odds to chase cause he knew you would pay
him off on the river? Sounds like you got outplayed.
meltedtime
methinks you should try a different game. Pick-up-sticks or checkers may be
more up your alley.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
TheFleece
On Aug 15 2007 1:44 PM, FaceDownAcesUp wrote:
I agree, owned by a superior player.
If you're going to raise from the typical stealing positions then you have to
expect people will occasionaly stick around till the end with any crap, he
probably counted a 10 or J as possible outs as well.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
XaQ Morphy
Easy.
Step 1. Raise with JT, call a re-raise, then call down and hit a straight.
Step 2. Call a raise with 72 suited and let some moron with A9 give you
all his chips.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Super Steamer
If you can't beat retards, then you can't be much of a player.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Irish Mike
guilty for beating a superior player and they return your money.
Irish Mike
"Super Steamer" <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1187238300$103...@recpoker.com...
pete z
Evidently, you can.
thedarkman
Razz, but it was hard work.
On 16 Aug, 15:44, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> The best way to beat "retards" is to whine a lot. This makes them feel
> guilty for beating a superior player and they return your money.
>
> Irish Mike
>
> "Super Steamer" <43071...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1187238300$103...@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > If you can't beat retards, then you can't be much of a player.
>
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ted Williams
play how you expect?
One thing to keep in mind is that not everyone plays for the same reasons. Some
people are just playing for fun, and don't really care whether they win or lose.
Someone who seems like a huge donk could be a player who normally even plays
higher, and is just messing around.
He raised, but from what position? How much? How much did you bet? It's really
hard to evaluate hands without specifics.
If you are an 85% favorite, that still means you will lose the hand 15% of the
time, on average. That's a great edge, but not a lock. And in the short term,
you could lose much more often (or much less).
If you get your money in with the best hand and he hits, then all you can do it
move on to the next hand. If you're feeling sick to your stomach about losing a
hand, you need to take a step back. You may also be playing too high, if losing
hurts that much.
Ted
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
thedarkman
> So you make a mistake and reraise with A9, but he's a retard because he doesn't
> play how you expect?
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that not everyone plays for the same reasons. Some
> people are just playing for fun, and don't really care whether they win or lose.
> Someone who seems like a huge donk could be a player who normally even plays
> higher, and is just messing around.
>
> He raised, but from what position? How much? How much did you bet? It's really
> hard to evaluate hands without specifics.
>
> If you are an 85% favorite, that still means you will lose the hand 15% of the
> time, on average. That's a great edge, but not a lock. And in the short term,
> you could lose much more often (or much less).
>
> If you get your money in with the best hand and he hits, then all you can do it
> move on to the next hand. If you're feeling sick to your stomach about losing a
> hand, you need to take a step back. You may also be playing too high, if losing
> hurts that much.
>
> Ted
Believe me the last thing that hurts is losing money; since I learned
properly how to play I've done okay; I've made a profit every year
since 2004. It's just that these retards really put me on tilt. I was
playing an Omaha hi lo tonight, and the retard who busted me out
called a pre-flop raise, an all-in raise and two more all-ins with
10-7-4-3 can you believe?
If I were so stupid as to call with that I'd get a 3 picture flop, but
this moron scoops. Unreal.
Irish Mike
No bucko, your lack of discipline and self-control put you on tilt.
Irish Mike
"thedarkman" <A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:1187315092.9...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Old Wolf
> If I were so stupid as to call with that I'd get a 3 picture flop, but
> this moron scoops. Unreal.
Yeah. Take this hand that happened just now for example.
The guy TOTALLY overplays his AK SOOOOOOOTED,
he must be a long term loser. I'm not upset, I know I will
beat this guy in the long run.
First hand of the tourney too!
PokerStars Game #11529853969: Tournament #58500137, $3.00+$0.40
Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2007/08/17 - 00:15:10 (ET)
Table '58500137 1' 10-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: Azarddoze (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: Foogaz (1500 in chips)
Seat 3: BAB_Vadin (1500 in chips)
Seat 4: BoneyAA (1500 in chips)
Seat 5: elkjensen (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: Wraph (1500 in chips)
Seat 7: danman185 (1500 in chips)
Seat 8: mr_tickles8 (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: Old Wolf NZ (1500 in chips)
Seat 10: Finallee (1500 in chips)
Foogaz: posts small blind 10
BAB_Vadin: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Old Wolf NZ [2d 5h]
BoneyAA: calls 20
elkjensen: folds
Wraph: folds
danman185: folds
mr_tickles8 has timed out
mr_tickles8: folds
mr_tickles8 is sitting out
Old Wolf NZ: raises 60 to 80
Finallee: calls 80
Azarddoze: folds
Foogaz: calls 70
BAB_Vadin: calls 60
BoneyAA: calls 60
*** FLOP *** [3h 7c Th]
Foogaz: bets 160
BAB_Vadin: folds
BoneyAA: folds
Old Wolf NZ: calls 160
Finallee: calls 160
*** TURN *** [3h 7c Th] [Ad]
Foogaz: bets 220
Old Wolf NZ: calls 220
Finallee: calls 220
*** RIVER *** [3h 7c Th Ad] [As]
Foogaz: bets 340
Old Wolf NZ: raises 700 to 1040 and is all-in
Finallee: folds
Foogaz: calls 700 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Old Wolf NZ: shows [2d 5h] (a pair of Aces)
Foogaz: shows [Kh Ah] (three of a kind, Aces)
Foogaz collected 3620 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3620 | Rake 0
Board [3h 7c Th Ad As]
Seat 1: Azarddoze (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: Foogaz (small blind) showed [Kh Ah] and won (3620) with three
of a kind, Aces
Seat 3: BAB_Vadin (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: BoneyAA folded on the Flop
Seat 5: elkjensen folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Wraph folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: danman185 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: mr_tickles8 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Old Wolf NZ showed [2d 5h] and lost with a pair of Aces
Seat 10: Finallee folded on the River
Bronzedodger
> On Aug 17, 1:44 pm, thedarkman <A_Ba...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote:
> > If I were so stupid as to call with that I'd get a 3 picture flop, but
> > this moron scoops. Unreal.
>
> Yeah. Take this hand that happened just now for example.
> The guy TOTALLY overplays his AK SOOOOOOOTED,
> he must be a long term loser. I'm not upset, I know I will
> beat this guy in the long run.
>
> First hand of the tourney too!
>
<snip>
> *** RIVER *** [3h 7c Th Ad] [As]
> Foogaz: bets 340
> Old Wolf NZ: raises 700 to 1040 and is all-in
> Finallee: folds
> Foogaz: calls 700 and is all-in
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> Old Wolf NZ: shows [2d 5h] (a pair of Aces)
> Foogaz: shows [Kh Ah] (three of a kind, Aces)
> Foogaz collected 3620 from pot
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total pot 3620 | Rake 0
> Board [3h 7c Th Ad As]
> Seat 1: Azarddoze (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> Seat 2: Foogaz (small blind) showed [Kh Ah] and won (3620) with three
> of a kind, Aces
> Seat 3: BAB_Vadin (big blind) folded on the Flop
> Seat 4: BoneyAA folded on the Flop
> Seat 5: elkjensen folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> Seat 6: Wraph folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> Seat 7: danman185 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> Seat 8: mr_tickles8 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> Seat 9: Old Wolf NZ showed [2d 5h] and lost with a pair of Aces
> Seat 10: Finallee folded on the River
nh sir - I got the 2-5o three or four times tonight but just couldn't get
anyone to bite. :)
thedarkman
XaQ Morphy
>
> Easy.
>
> Step 1. Raise with JT, call a re-raise, then call down and hit a straight.
>
> Step 2. Call a raise with 72 suited and let some moron with A9 give you
> all his chips.
I just wanted to share with my RGP friends the email that was sent to me
in reply to this message. It seems that "nick werle" replied to me with
this message. He quoted the entire thing, didn't leave any sort of reply,
but he did change the subject line to read, and I quote:
Subject: you are frigging idiot
No nick werle, nwe...@gmail.com, I think we found our idiot.
-------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
![Mark B [Diputsur]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjW1ukZesLHTvLryryGaLhoUTsW-4I5_N8bKNVoFKGU5T0OxggP6=s40-c)
Mark B [Diputsur]
but you made a HUGE mistake in this hand!!!
"Old Wolf" <old...@inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1187324589....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Good raise.
> Finallee: calls 80
> Azarddoze: folds
> Foogaz: calls 70
> BAB_Vadin: calls 60
> BoneyAA: calls 60
> *** FLOP *** [3h 7c Th]
> Foogaz: bets 160
> BAB_Vadin: folds
> BoneyAA: folds
> Old Wolf NZ: calls 160
NOOOOOOO!!!
Reraise to 500 here and now and you rake this pot.
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
>One thing to keep in mind is that not everyone plays for the same reasons. Some
>people are just playing for fun, and don't really care whether they win or lose.
>Someone who seems like a huge donk could be a player who normally even plays
>higher, and is just messing around.
>
I always love this concept... "...a player who normally even plays
higher and is just messing around."
You know, I don't even want to try to understand the level of
psychosis one would have to experience to think such an activity is
fun.
>If you are an 85% favorite, that still means you will lose the hand 15% of the
>time, on average. That's a great edge, but not a lock. And in the short term,
>you could lose much more often (or much less).
>
And my favorite RGP numbers mistake: Believing that probability means
statistical reality. It doesn't. In fact, if an 85% favorite did
lose 15% of the time against any one hand, all in, we'd have a huge
statistical annomoly.
Foxtrot
If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron
If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace.
Ted Williams
> I always love this concept... "...a player who normally even plays
> higher and is just messing around."
>
> You know, I don't even want to try to understand the level of
> psychosis one would have to experience to think such an activity is
> fun.
Ever read Daniel Negreanu's posts about playing micro limit with his friends?
very funny stuff, I think it was in his blog a few years back.
I've done this on occasion myself. Sometimes it's when I feel like playing a
bit, but am to tired/sick/etc. to want to play at the normal levels.
It's entertainment. Do you not find poker fun? If you don't, and you still play,
then maybe you are the one with the psychosis?
> >If you are an 85% favorite, that still means you will lose the hand 15% of
> >the
> >time, on average. That's a great edge, but not a lock. And in the short term,
> >you could lose much more often (or much less).
> >
> And my favorite RGP numbers mistake: Believing that probability means
> statistical reality. It doesn't. In fact, if an 85% favorite did
> lose 15% of the time against any one hand, all in, we'd have a huge
> statistical annomoly.
My point isn't that it will be exactly 85%. I know about the law of large
numbers. What I'm saying is that you could lose as a 95% favorite several times
in a row. The results in the short term can vary wildly.
Ted
Ted Williams
> Believe me the last thing that hurts is losing money; since I learned
> properly how to play I've done okay; I've made a profit every year
> since 2004. It's just that these retards really put me on tilt. I was
> playing an Omaha hi lo tonight, and the retard who busted me out
> called a pre-flop raise, an all-in raise and two more all-ins with
> 10-7-4-3 can you believe?
You might think about why it puts you on tilt. So someone played bad and got
lucky and hit their card. Why should that bother you, especially if you're a
winning player and the money is not a concern?
It might be useful for you to pinpoint what that is triggering in you to make
you go on tilt.
Ted
p.s. Keep in mind that I'm not saying I never get pissed at a bad beat.
mkfr...@gmail.com
> And my favorite RGP numbers mistake: Believing that probability means
> statistical reality. It doesn't. In fact, if an 85% favorite did
> lose 15% of the time against any one hand, all in, we'd have a huge
> statistical annomoly.
>
> Foxtrot
What do you think it means to be an 85% favorite? How often should an
85% favorite lose?
Mike
Ted Williams
> Yeah. Take this hand that happened just now for example.
> The guy TOTALLY overplays his AK SOOOOOOOTED,
Ok, on the off chance you are not being sarcastic, I say: Really?
> Dealt to Old Wolf NZ [2d 5h]
> BoneyAA: calls 20
> elkjensen: folds
> Wraph: folds
> danman185: folds
> mr_tickles8 has timed out
> mr_tickles8: folds
> mr_tickles8 is sitting out
> Old Wolf NZ: raises 60 to 80
> Finallee: calls 80
> Azarddoze: folds
> Foogaz: calls 70
> BAB_Vadin: calls 60
> BoneyAA: calls 60
He calls a raise pf, sounds ok to me. You raised with 52o.
> *** FLOP *** [3h 7c Th]
> Foogaz: bets 160
> BAB_Vadin: folds
> BoneyAA: folds
> Old Wolf NZ: calls 160
> Finallee: calls 160
There's about 400 in the pot and he bets 160 with two overs. He's not likely to
take the pot down there, with that many players behind him, but there are a lot
of hands that could have raised or called a raise pf and missed this flop
entirely. It's not a lot to invest to find out.
As someone else pointed out, no one raises.
> *** TURN *** [3h 7c Th] [Ad]
> Foogaz: bets 220
> Old Wolf NZ: calls 220
> Finallee: calls 220
He bets his TPTK and you call with a gutshot.
> *** RIVER *** [3h 7c Th Ad] [As]
> Foogaz: bets 340
> Old Wolf NZ: raises 700 to 1040 and is all-in
> Finallee: folds
> Foogaz: calls 700 and is all-in
He improves to trips and now you decide to raise and try to steal the pot.
WTF?
Ted
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Ted Williams
> On Aug 17, 1:50 pm, Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
>
> > And my favorite RGP numbers mistake: Believing that probability means
> > statistical reality. It doesn't. In fact, if an 85% favorite did
> > lose 15% of the time against any one hand, all in, we'd have a huge
> > statistical annomoly.
> >
> > Foxtrot
>
> What do you think it means to be an 85% favorite? How often should an
> 85% favorite lose?
Mike,
I think he's talking about the law of large numbers, which says that the real
results will come closer to what probability tells us as the sample size gets
bigger. I think
what he's saying is that the results are still not going to be exactly 85%.
I may be misunderstanding.
Ted
mkfr...@gmail.com
> Mike,
>
> I think he's talking about the law of large numbers, which says that the real
> results will come closer to what probability tells us as the sample size gets
> bigger. I think
> what he's saying is that the results are still not going to be exactly 85%.
But why would he bother to say this? Does he think that we all
believe out of 100 trials, an 85% favorite will win exactly 85 times,
every time? And if it did win exactly 85 times, why would that be a
"huge statistical annomoly" ?
> I may be misunderstanding.
I guess we'll see if he ever bothers to respond.
> Ted
Mike
XaQ Morphy
> believe out of 100 trials, an 85% favorite will win exactly 85 times,
> every time? And if it did win exactly 85 times, why would that be a
> "huge statistical annomoly" ?
Google some of his past posts, and you'll understand.
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Ted Williams
> > But why would he bother to say this? Does he think that we all
> > believe out of 100 trials, an 85% favorite will win exactly 85 times,
> > every time? And if it did win exactly 85 times, why would that be a
> > "huge statistical annomoly" ?
>
> Google some of his past posts, and you'll understand.
Not sure I care enough to do that, but this in his sig seems like a good clue:
"If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my
MySpace page..."
Ted Williams
> But why would he bother to say this? Does he think that we all
> believe out of 100 trials, an 85% favorite will win exactly 85 times,
> every time? And if it did win exactly 85 times, why would that be a
> "huge statistical annomoly" ?
Well, I don't think he's talking about 100 trials, the reference was more to all
hands played, more the "long run" people talk about.
You would expect that the real results will get closer to the probability number
as the sample size increases, but it won't be exactly that number. The
probability is theoretical.
Again, I could be misunderstanding him.
Ted
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
trang...@hotmail.com
> On Aug 17 2007 1:50 PM, Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
>
> > I always love this concept... "...a player who normally even plays
> > higher and is just messing around."
>
> > You know, I don't even want to try to understand the level of
> > psychosis one would have to experience to think such an activity is
> > fun.
>
> Ever read Daniel Negreanu's posts about playing micro limit with his friends?
> very funny stuff, I think it was in his blog a few years back.
<snip>
Did you even read Charlie's post? He says he does NOT WANT TO
UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF PSYCHOSIS ONE WOULD HAVE TO EXPERIENCE TO
THINK SUCH AN ACTIVITY IS FUN.
He does not want to understand it. Damn you for trying to explain it
to him! HE DOESNT WANT TO UNDERSTAND!
Ted Williams
> Did you even read Charlie's post? He says he does NOT WANT TO
> UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF PSYCHOSIS ONE WOULD HAVE TO EXPERIENCE TO
> THINK SUCH AN ACTIVITY IS FUN.
>
> He does not want to understand it. Damn you for trying to explain it
> to him! HE DOESNT WANT TO UNDERSTAND!
rofl
Ted
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
>On Aug 17 2007 4:39 PM, mkfr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> But why would he bother to say this? Does he think that we all
>> believe out of 100 trials, an 85% favorite will win exactly 85 times,
>> every time? And if it did win exactly 85 times, why would that be a
>> "huge statistical annomoly" ?
>
>Well, I don't think he's talking about 100 trials, the reference was more to all
>hands played, more the "long run" people talk about.
>
>You would expect that the real results will get closer to the probability number
>as the sample size increases, but it won't be exactly that number. The
>probability is theoretical.
>
>Again, I could be misunderstanding him.
What I was saying is that probability refers to the one hand at stake.
The probability remains the same every hand. An 85% favorite
indicates that that particular hand is 5.66 times more likely to win
than the other hand.
It's putting a percentage number onto a theoretical situation.
Too many people state that an 85% favorite will lose 15% of the time.
No, it will not. Since no one will ever get close enough to playing
the same starting hand close enough to infinity, they should,
definitely, not see that hand lose 15% of the time.
Probability is theory. Statistics are real. Everyone's statstics for
that 85% favorite will be slightly different. Some anomolies will
have it losing all of the time, on one end of the bell curve.
Slightly more will have it win 100% of the time on the other end.
Most should fall in between but the middle point will not be a 15%
loss. It would be less. The probable outcome of something should not
equal statistical reality. If it does, consistantly, for everyone,
there is something wrong.
Now, I'll just kick back and let someone like Morphy - who has shown
no concept of understanding the difference between probability and
statistics - tell you what a donk I am.
As for my sig, which someone mentioned, that's actually aimed at a
subset minority of the posters in the group I frequent the most.
Ted Williams
> Now, I'll just kick back and let someone like Morphy - who has shown
> no concept of understanding the difference between probability and
> statistics - tell you what a donk I am.
I agree with you. I took Statistics in college, and I understand that
probability is theoretical and is not the same thing as real results.
When I said that someone will lose 15% on average, I didn't mean it would be
exactly 15%. But even though though the results may be differrent than the
probability, I'm not going to ignore the odds. I'm still going to back the hands
that have a better chance to win with more money.
mkfr...@gmail.com
>
> Too many people state that an 85% favorite will lose 15% of the time.
> No, it will not. Since no one will ever get close enough to playing
> the same starting hand close enough to infinity, they should,
> definitely, not see that hand lose 15% of the time.
This is such a ridiculous point to make. If I showed you my results
for 10,000 trials of a hand that is 85% favored to win, and they
showed it losing 14.93257% of the time, what would you do? Say, "See,
I told you it wouldn't lose 15% of the time!"
> Probability is theory. Statistics are real. Everyone's statstics for
> that 85% favorite will be slightly different. Some anomolies will
> have it losing all of the time, on one end of the bell curve.
> Slightly more will have it win 100% of the time on the other end.
> Most should fall in between but the middle point will not be a 15%
> loss. It would be less.
Why less? Are you suggesting that an 85% chance to win doesn't imply
a 15% chance to lose? Assuming no ties, of course.
> The probable outcome of something should not
> equal statistical reality. If it does, consistantly, for everyone,
> there is something wrong.
This is so obvious to everyone that there is no point in stating it.
Do you really think that when someone says "An 85% favorite will lose
15% of the time." he means exactly 15% for everyone everywhere always?
What goes through your mind when you play poker?
"Ok, in this situation I am 85% favored to win. But that's only after
an infinite number of trials. Right now I'm only interested in this
trial. I can't win 85% of one trial. I can only win 100% or 0%. If
only there was some way to predict which one of those two it is likely
to be, and with what probability."
Mike
XaQ Morphy
> no concept of understanding the difference between probability and
> statistics - tell you what a donk I am.
Statistic: 85% of people are morons.
Probability: there's a 100% chance that you're a moron.
Charlie Foxtrot
Do you, truly, not understand that probability is simply putting a
number on an abstract concept? 85% favorite simply means, in all
liklihood will win. Only a slight chance to lose.
We get that number by crunching the numbers of the total
possibilities.
Let's put it this way... A horse that is, consistantly, getting odds
of 50:1 or better that runs 500 races could, very well, NEVER come in
first place. In fact, it's likely that it will never come in first
place.
While in poker, an 85% favorite is just not going to lose all that
often.
Infinite trials has nothing to do with it. In your lifetime the 85%
favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win close to 95% or
better.
Do you truly not understand this? I find it hard to conceptualize
being that obtuse. Probability is theory. Statistics are reality.
The two are not closely related.
Charlie Foxtrot
<a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> Now, I'll just kick back and let someone like Morphy - who has shown
>> no concept of understanding the difference between probability and
>> statistics - tell you what a donk I am.
>
>Statistic: 85% of people are morons.
>
>Probability: there's a 100% chance that you're a moron.
>
Yeah, Morphy, but I get laid. A lot. By hot young women.
Perhaps if you found a nice young man to take care of your desires,
you wouldn't be so crabby.
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
>On Aug 20 2007 6:54 PM, Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> Now, I'll just kick back and let someone like Morphy - who has shown
>> no concept of understanding the difference between probability and
>> statistics - tell you what a donk I am.
>
>I agree with you. I took Statistics in college, and I understand that
>probability is theoretical and is not the same thing as real results.
>
>When I said that someone will lose 15% on average, I didn't mean it would be
>exactly 15%. But even though though the results may be differrent than the
>probability, I'm not going to ignore the odds. I'm still going to back the hands
>that have a better chance to win with more money.
>
Actually, I may have gone off on a tangent if I misinterpretted your
statement. I was going by the thought of "that one particular hand."
Now if you took the various hands that would be an 85% favorite at
various stages of play (IE, in Hold 'em, pre-flop, post flop, turn)
and considered a player's various 85 percenters, then, yes, all of
those various hands together will account for closer to the 15% loss
rate than each individual hand.
mkfr...@gmail.com
> Do you, truly, not understand that probability is simply putting a
> number on an abstract concept?
What's so abstract about it? A certain number of cards makes you win,
the rest make you lose. Calculating the probability of winning is a
simple procedure.
> 85% favorite simply means, in all
> liklihood will win. Only a slight chance to lose.
OK. 15% can be considered slight.
> We get that number by crunching the numbers of the total
> possibilities.
>
> Let's put it this way... A horse that is, consistantly, getting odds
> of 50:1 or better that runs 500 races could, very well, NEVER come in
> first place. In fact, it's likely that it will never come in first
> place.
The odds in a horse race are not only the probability that it will
win. Other factors, such as the way people are betting, affect those
odds, so it is a really bad example.
> While in poker, an 85% favorite is just not going to lose all that
> often.
OK. 15% can be considered not all that often.
> Infinite trials has nothing to do with it. In your lifetime the 85%
> favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win close to 95% or
> better.
>
> Do you truly not understand this? I find it hard to conceptualize
> being that obtuse. Probability is theory. Statistics are reality.
> The two are not closely related.
One of us is very confused. I'm pretty confident I know which one of
us it is. I'm not certain, however, because you might be trolling.
I'm going to proceed with the assumption that you're serious, and
therefore completely clueless.
There is a reason that math is a useful tool, and that's because it
damn well can be used in the real world.
So, probability and statistics are not closely related? Wanna bet?
On a 6 sided die, the odds of a 6 being rolled are 5 to 1 against, or
about 16.67%. We could play a little game. You put in $5, I put in
$1. If a 6 comes up, I win the pot, else you win it. I think this is
a fair game, but you seem to think that your probabilty of winning,
83.33%, will let you win around 95% of the time, so to be fair, you
have to put in more money. If you put in $9, you will be putting in
90% of the money, but will "most likely win close to 95% or better."
In the long run, you should make a tidy little profit, if, that is,
you're not completely clueless.
Mike
XaQ Morphy
>
> Perhaps if you found a nice young man to take care of your desires,
> you wouldn't be so crabby.
I'm married with kids, sparky. Sorry, not interested.
________________________________________________________________________
Ted Williams
> Infinite trials has nothing to do with it. In your lifetime the 85%
> favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win close to 95% or
> better.
>
> Do you truly not understand this? I find it hard to conceptualize
> being that obtuse. Probability is theory. Statistics are reality.
> The two are not closely related.
I don't think the difference really matters for poker players, on a practical
level. People need a way to judge the strength of their hand. The probability
works fine for that.
If the probability of my hand winning when the river card hits is 15%, I'm not
going to call a bet where the pot is only laying me 2:1. You're not suggesting
that I should because my actual long term result might not be exactly 15%, are
you?
mkfr...@gmail.com
> On Aug 22 2007 2:18 AM, Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
>
> > Infinite trials has nothing to do with it. In your lifetime the 85%
> > favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win close to 95% or
> > better.
>
> > Do you truly not understand this? I find it hard to conceptualize
> > being that obtuse. Probability is theory. Statistics are reality.
> > The two are not closely related.
>
> I don't think the difference really matters for poker players, on a practical
> level. People need a way to judge the strength of their hand. The probability
> works fine for that.
>
> If the probability of my hand winning when the river card hits is 15%, I'm not
> going to call a bet where the pot is only laying me 2:1. You're not suggesting
> that I should because my actual long term result might not be exactly 15%, are
> you?
>
> Ted
What he is saying is that if you have a 15% chance to win, then
someone else has an 85% chance to win. And according to him, "In your
lifetime the 85% favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win
close to 95% or better." Which means you will not win 15% of the time
when you have a 15% chance to win. You will win 5% or less of the
time. The pot odds need to be 3 times greater than what probability
alone would suggest, in this case.
Don't ask me how he can believe this, but it logically follows from
what he wrote.
Mike
Old Wolf
> Infinite trials has nothing to do with it. In your lifetime the 85%
> favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win close to 95% or
> better.
WTF !
Super Steamer
On Aug 22 2007 3:42 PM, Old Wolf wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:18 pm, Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
> > Infinite trials has nothing to do with it. In your lifetime the 85%
> > favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win close to 95% or
> > better.
>
> WTF !
Better to just killfile him like everyone else has, he is completely off his
nut.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Old Wolf
> On Aug 22 2007 3:42 PM, Old Wolf wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 9:18 pm, Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
> > > Infinite trials has nothing to do with it. In your lifetime the 85%
> > > favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win close to 95% or
> > > better.
>
> > WTF !
>
> Better to just killfile him like everyone else has, he is completely off his
> nut.
Fair enough. Posts starting 'Most people don't understand...'
usually should be read as 'I don't understand...'.
Ted Williams
> What he is saying is that if you have a 15% chance to win, then
> someone else has an 85% chance to win. And according to him, "In your
> lifetime the 85% favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win
> close to 95% or better." Which means you will not win 15% of the time
> when you have a 15% chance to win. You will win 5% or less of the
> time. The pot odds need to be 3 times greater than what probability
> alone would suggest, in this case.
>
> Don't ask me how he can believe this, but it logically follows from
> what he wrote.
Yeah, I understood the gist of what he was saying.
There is some truth to it, in that the results over all of our lifetimes should
fit a bell curve. Your win percentage won't be exactly 85%, and neither will
mine. If we put all of our percentages on a graph, you'd expect it to have that
bell shape. My results might be 67%, and yours might be 92%. Most of the results
are going to be in the fat part of the curve, within one standard deviation of
the mean.
Where he gets the 95% number, I'm not sure.
What I'm asking is whether he's suggesting we'd be better off ignoring the
probability numbers, just because they don't correspond exactly to real life
results. I don't see how that makes sense, either. I won't know what the number
will be at the end of my lifetime, there's no way I can use that as a basis to
judge.
mkfr...@gmail.com
> On Aug 22 2007 1:27 PM, mkfrn...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > What he is saying is that if you have a 15% chance to win, then
> > someone else has an 85% chance to win. And according to him, "In your
> > lifetime the 85% favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win
> > close to 95% or better." Which means you will not win 15% of the time
> > when you have a 15% chance to win. You will win 5% or less of the
> > time. The pot odds need to be 3 times greater than what probability
> > alone would suggest, in this case.
>
> > Don't ask me how he can believe this, but it logically follows from
> > what he wrote.
>
> Yeah, I understood the gist of what he was saying.
>
> There is some truth to it, in that the results over all of our lifetimes should
> fit a bell curve.
The shape of that bell curve changes with the number of trials. Given
enough, the bell curve will have roughly the shape of the Washington
Monument.
> Your win percentage won't be exactly 85%, and neither will
> mine. If we put all of our percentages on a graph, you'd expect it to have that
> bell shape. My results might be 67%, and yours might be 92%. Most of the results
> are going to be in the fat part of the curve, within one standard deviation of
> the mean.
Given enough trials, the standard deviation will be far less than 1%.
> Where he gets the 95% number, I'm not sure.
He pulled it out of his ass.
> What I'm asking is whether he's suggesting we'd be better off ignoring the
> probability numbers, just because they don't correspond exactly to real life
> results.
You're not asking for information, are you? But rather out of some
morbid curiosity?
> I don't see how that makes sense, either. I won't know what the number
> will be at the end of my lifetime, there's no way I can use that as a basis to
> judge.
You can expect the number to BE the number, within some expected
variance. You can even calculate that variance. True, you might be
some horribly aberrant case, and your lifetime results might be 10
sigma from the mean, but that's not the way to bet.
Mike
Ted Williams
> You're not asking for information, are you? But rather out of some
> morbid curiosity?
Not for information. I was interested to hear how he'd suggest we play, if we're
not to base our decisions on probability.
> > I don't see how that makes sense, either. I won't know what the number
> > will be at the end of my lifetime, there's no way I can use that as a basis
> > to
> > judge.
>
> You can expect the number to BE the number, within some expected
> variance. You can even calculate that variance. True, you might be
> some horribly aberrant case, and your lifetime results might be 10
> sigma from the mean, but that's not the way to bet.
Agreed.
Ted
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com