Warning " Poker Content"

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Implied odds! Let's clear up a myth real quick.

Implied odds involve one thing : what you reasonably estimate you can win on
future streets if you make your hand.

This means that your opponent doesn't need to have (insert poker author of
choices guidelines here) times the bet in his stack for some given play. You
need to have evidence he will pay off if you hit, and pay off enough to show
a profit.

If he has 35 times the bet in his stack, but has never paid off when a flush
draw came in, since he first held a deck in his hand, you do NOT have the
implied odds to call to hit a flush, no matter what anyone's guidelines tell
you/

If he has 3x the bet still in his stack and he never lets anyone bluff him,
ever, call away

Implied odds are about KNOWING YOUR OPPONENT, not about someone at 2+2's
recommended stack size
If you never pay attention in tournaments, by all means use guidelines. But
you'd be MUCH better off if you paid attention

[Dutch]

I don't see many of the same players that often but I use Tournament
Shark to evaluate my opponents strengths and tendencies when deciding
whether or not its worth it to speculate in a hand. Losing players who
tend to go out early are more worth me risking chips hoping to hit.
That's pretty basic to me so I imagine its really basic to most of the
guys here. What was your point? I forgot, that you can explain
something without going off like a stupid fish? I figured it was possible.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Dutch wrote:
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> Implied odds! Let's clear up a myth real quick.
>>
>> Implied odds involve one thing : what you reasonably estimate you
>> can win on future streets if you make your hand.
>>
>> This means that your opponent doesn't need to have (insert poker
>> author of choices guidelines here) times the bet in his stack for
>> some given play. You need to have evidence he will pay off if you
>> hit, and pay off enough to show a profit.
>>
>> If he has 35 times the bet in his stack, but has never paid off when
>> a flush draw came in, since he first held a deck in his hand, you do
>> NOT have the implied odds to call to hit a flush, no matter what
>> anyone's guidelines tell you/
>>
>> If he has 3x the bet still in his stack and he never lets anyone
>> bluff him, ever, call away
>>
>> Implied odds are about KNOWING YOUR OPPONENT, not about someone at
>> 2+2's recommended stack size
>> If you never pay attention in tournaments, by all means use
>> guidelines. But you'd be MUCH better off if you paid attention
>
> I don't see many of the same players that often but I use Tournament
> Shark to evaluate my opponents strengths and tendencies when deciding
> whether or not its worth it to speculate in a hand.

That's a generality, not a specific, and it's REALLY doubtful it tells you
if they pay off when probable draws hit

Losing players who
> tend to go out early are more worth me risking chips hoping to hit.

Lots of losing players who go out early are raising with draws.

> That's pretty basic to me so I imagine its really basic to most of the
> guys here. What was your point? I forgot, that you can explain
> something without going off like a stupid fish? I figured it was
> possible.

The fish here is you.... the guy that shoves INTO an "obvious flush draw"

The point is NOT to marry the guidelines in some book, but rather to
understand the way implied odds actually work

[Dutch]

You have a better suggestion? I play Turbo S&Gs, I don't have a ton of
time to see all my opponents react to various scenarios. Guessing their
tendencies is the closest thing I have found.

>
> Losing players who
>> tend to go out early are more worth me risking chips hoping to hit.
>
> Lots of losing players who go out early are raising with draws.

They also don't like to fold losing hands.

>
>> That's pretty basic to me so I imagine its really basic to most of the
>> guys here. What was your point? I forgot, that you can explain
>> something without going off like a stupid fish? I figured it was
>> possible.
> The fish here is you.... the guy that shoves INTO an "obvious flush draw"

One mistake doesn't define any player. And I didn't call you a fish, I
specifically said in this thread that I thought you were a competent
player. I said your tantrums *sound like* the rants of a losing fish.

>
> The point is NOT to marry the guidelines in some book, but rather to

> understand the way implied odds actually work.

Are you saying that poker books don't explain it as well as you just did?

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

First suggestion : don't play turbos

Second, play LOTS of tournaments at the same time every day

>
>>
>> Losing players who
>>> tend to go out early are more worth me risking chips hoping to hit.
>>
>> Lots of losing players who go out early are raising with draws.
>
> They also don't like to fold losing hands.

Or winning ones.

>
>>
>>> That's pretty basic to me so I imagine its really basic to most of
>>> the guys here. What was your point? I forgot, that you can explain
>>> something without going off like a stupid fish? I figured it was
>>> possible.
>> The fish here is you.... the guy that shoves INTO an "obvious flush
>> draw"
>
> One mistake doesn't define any player. And I didn't call you a fish, I
> specifically said in this thread that I thought you were a competent
> player. I said your tantrums *sound like* the rants of a losing fish.
>

Only if you don't listen

>>
>> The point is NOT to marry the guidelines in some book, but rather to
>> understand the way implied odds actually work.
>
> Are you saying that poker books don't explain it as well as you just
> did?

No, I'm saying books try and dumb down the stuff, or assume your opponents
are all experts (Harrington is very guilty of the latter)
If you're not all that good, or they are very good, you won't see patterns
easily in your opponents and you'll have no choice but to guess based on
some rule of thumb

[mo_ntresor]

you can't reasonably predict opponent behavior with anything close to the
accuracy you pretend. you're also suggesting implied odds don't exist
against new opponents -- also, clearly wrong.

mo_ntresor

[Will in New Haven]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:48:56 AM UTC-4, Beldin The Sorcerer wrote:
> Implied odds! Let's clear up a myth real quick. Implied odds involve one thing : what you reasonably estimate you can win on future streets if you make your hand. This means that your opponent doesn't need to have (insert poker author of choices guidelines here) times the bet in his stack for some given play. You need to have evidence he will pay off if you hit, and pay off enough to show a profit. If he has 35 times the bet in his stack, but has never paid off when a flush draw came in, since he first held a deck in his hand, you do NOT have the implied odds to call to hit a flush, no matter what anyone's guidelines tell you/ If he has 3x the bet still in his stack and he never lets anyone bluff him, ever, call away Implied odds are about KNOWING YOUR OPPONENT, not about someone at 2+2's recommended stack size If you never pay attention in tournaments, by all means use guidelines. But you'd be MUCH better off if you paid attention

The first point is reasonable, although you can float with no flush draw against that opponent and take the pot if the draw hits. This is especially useful if you have a hand that might develop into a winner anyway or might already be ahead.

If he has 3X the bet left and the bet is half the pot, your implied odds plus pot odds for the next card are six to one which is surely adequate. If he's betting the whole pot it is still reasonable. However, it doesn't have as much to do with the nature of the player as you think. If it is a fairly normal-size pot, he's going to have no stack left to speak of if he loses the hand, even if he doesn't pay you off.

First post from the new Google Groups and I can't fuking stand it. I will either be on Eternal September or gone soon.

--
Will in New Haven

[da pickle]

Please, do not go.

[mo_ntresor]

On Jun 18 2013 7:38 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> First post from the new Google Groups and I can't fuking stand it. I will
either be on Eternal
> September or gone soon.

recgroups.com works great for me and others.

mo_ntresor

[Dutch]

Non-turbos are too slow. 5 minutes is a reasonable blind interval for
me. I can usually only spare an hour or so at a time.

> Second, play LOTS of tournaments at the same time every day

I play when I can. There are more important things in life than poker.

>>> Losing players who
>>>> tend to go out early are more worth me risking chips hoping to hit.
>>>
>>> Lots of losing players who go out early are raising with draws.
>>
>> They also don't like to fold losing hands.
> Or winning ones.

That's why I also avoid bluffing those players. They don't have the
sense to give up a hand.

>>>> That's pretty basic to me so I imagine its really basic to most of
>>>> the guys here. What was your point? I forgot, that you can explain
>>>> something without going off like a stupid fish? I figured it was
>>>> possible.
>>> The fish here is you.... the guy that shoves INTO an "obvious flush
>>> draw"
>>
>> One mistake doesn't define any player. And I didn't call you a fish, I
>> specifically said in this thread that I thought you were a competent
>> player. I said your tantrums *sound like* the rants of a losing fish.
>>
> Only if you don't listen

What's to hear? "fucked in the ass" is supposed to teach me something?
It only makes me want to punch you in the face, which I assume must be
the intent. To that narrow extent I suppose it is a successful strategy.

>>>
>>> The point is NOT to marry the guidelines in some book, but rather to
>>> understand the way implied odds actually work.
>>
>> Are you saying that poker books don't explain it as well as you just
>> did?
> No, I'm saying books try and dumb down the stuff, or assume your opponents
> are all experts (Harrington is very guilty of the latter)
> If you're not all that good, or they are very good, you won't see patterns
> easily in your opponents and you'll have no choice but to guess based on
> some rule of thumb

Using an opponent's tendencies obtained through hand history analysis
software is using the same principle as using directly observed
tendencies, although perhaps less accurate. It's not a rule of thumb, it
is opponent-specific.

In summation fwiw I agree with what you posted here. You know your poker
theory, I have no doubt of that. I will only say that if you always
maintained this level of common decency in your posts you and everyone
else here would be a lot better off.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

So quit poker.
Turbos have very little skill factor.
Find a hand and go. It comes down to cards, most of the time

>
>> Second, play LOTS of tournaments at the same time every day
>
> I play when I can. There are more important things in life than poker.

See previous statement
Skillful poker is not fun, and likely isn't a hobby

I stopped playing chess when I realized I needed to either devote a lot of
time to it or accept I'm going to lose a lot. I hate losing

>
>
>>>> Losing players who
>>>>> tend to go out early are more worth me risking chips hoping to
>>>>> hit.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of losing players who go out early are raising with draws.
>>>
>>> They also don't like to fold losing hands.
>> Or winning ones.
>
> That's why I also avoid bluffing those players. They don't have the
> sense to give up a hand.
>
>>>>> That's pretty basic to me so I imagine its really basic to most of
>>>>> the guys here. What was your point? I forgot, that you can
>>>>> explain something without going off like a stupid fish? I figured
>>>>> it was possible.
>>>> The fish here is you.... the guy that shoves INTO an "obvious flush
>>>> draw"
>>>
>>> One mistake doesn't define any player. And I didn't call you a
>>> fish, I specifically said in this thread that I thought you were a
>>> competent player. I said your tantrums *sound like* the rants of a
>>> losing fish.
>> Only if you don't listen
>
> What's to hear? "fucked in the ass" is supposed to teach me something?

Moron is supposed to teach you something
Fucked in the ass is just to get your attention

You seriously think your play of that hand is good?
What did you POSSIBLY put me on that justified you pushing the river there,
just as a for instance

> It only makes me want to punch you in the face, which I assume must be
> the intent.

You assume it because you're stupid

You claiming you have no emotional control, Dutch?

Is this the game for you, then?

To that narrow extent I suppose it is a successful
> strategy.

You seem to make the worst possible reads at everything.
Why do you play poker?

>
>>>>
>>>> The point is NOT to marry the guidelines in some book, but rather
>>>> to understand the way implied odds actually work.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that poker books don't explain it as well as you just
>>> did?
>> No, I'm saying books try and dumb down the stuff, or assume your
>> opponents are all experts (Harrington is very guilty of the latter)
>> If you're not all that good, or they are very good, you won't see
>> patterns easily in your opponents and you'll have no choice but to
>> guess based on some rule of thumb
>
> Using an opponent's tendencies obtained through hand history analysis
> software is using the same principle as using directly observed
> tendencies, although perhaps less accurate. It's not a rule of thumb,
> it is opponent-specific.

No, because the software doesn't keep track of "folded when a flush draw
hit", it keeps track of "folded on the turn", for instance
And are you too lazy to pay attention and think?
One more reason to quit the game

>
> In summation fwiw I agree with what you posted here. You know your
> poker theory, I have no doubt of that. I will only say that if you
> always maintained this level of common decency in your posts you and
> everyone else here would be a lot better off.

Why?
People who get mad at anything posted here lack emotional control
They tend to be poor players because of that

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Will in New Haven wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:48:56 AM UTC-4, Beldin The Sorcerer
> wrote:
>> Implied odds! Let's clear up a myth real quick. Implied odds involve
>> one thing : what you reasonably estimate you can win on future
>> streets if you make your hand. This means that your opponent doesn't
>> need to have (insert poker author of choices guidelines here) times
>> the bet in his stack for some given play. You need to have evidence
>> he will pay off if you hit, and pay off enough to show a profit. If
>> he has 35 times the bet in his stack, but has never paid off when a
>> flush draw came in, since he first held a deck in his hand, you do
>> NOT have the implied odds to call to hit a flush, no matter what
>> anyone's guidelines tell you/ If he has 3x the bet still in his
>> stack and he never lets anyone bluff him, ever, call away Implied
>> odds are about KNOWING YOUR OPPONENT, not about someone at 2+2's
>> recommended stack size If you never pay attention in tournaments, by
>> all means use guidelines. But you'd be MUCH better off if you paid
>> attention
>
> The first point is reasonable, although you can float with no flush
> draw against that opponent and take the pot if the draw hits. This is
> especially useful if you have a hand that might develop into a winner
> anyway or might already be ahead.

This is a key point, and worthy of discussion
Drawing to two pair is normally a losing proposition. Drawing to, say, 4
outs, with 12 "phantom outs", with implied odds on making two pair and fold
equity the rest of the time makes for a complicated, but more often
justifiable call

>
> If he has 3X the bet left and the bet is half the pot, your implied
> odds plus pot odds for the next card are six to one which is surely
> adequate. If he's betting the whole pot it is still reasonable.
> However, it doesn't have as much to do with the nature of the player
> as you think. If it is a fairly normal-size pot, he's going to have
> no stack left to speak of if he loses the hand, even if he doesn't
> pay you off.

Cash games too. I used tournaments later because so many people want a bot
strategy for tourneys

>
> First post from the new Google Groups and I can't fuking stand it. I
> will either be on Eternal September or gone soon.

ES is acceptable. I still use it with Outlook, which I can still use till my
old machine dies

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Yes you can.

loads of people play very predictably

you're also suggesting implied odds don't
> exist against new opponents -- also, clearly wrong.

No, I'm stating accurate estimates of them are impossible against new
opponents.
Then you're forced to fall back on guidelines, but those guidelines are not
the implied odds, they are rules of thumb for when you do not know what your
actual implied odds are'

[Dutch]

Tens of thousands of people play turbos and make money.

> Turbos have very little skill factor.
> Find a hand and go. It comes down to cards, most of the time

Its the same game, you just can't be as patient.

>
>>
>>> Second, play LOTS of tournaments at the same time every day
>>
>> I play when I can. There are more important things in life than poker.
> See previous statement
> Skillful poker is not fun, and likely isn't a hobby

It's fun if you take the right attitude.

> I stopped playing chess when I realized I needed to either devote a lot of
> time to it or accept I'm going to lose a lot. I hate losing

Who doesn't?

>>>>> Losing players who
>>>>>> tend to go out early are more worth me risking chips hoping to
>>>>>> hit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of losing players who go out early are raising with draws.
>>>>
>>>> They also don't like to fold losing hands.
>>> Or winning ones.
>>
>> That's why I also avoid bluffing those players. They don't have the
>> sense to give up a hand.
>>
>>>>>> That's pretty basic to me so I imagine its really basic to most of
>>>>>> the guys here. What was your point? I forgot, that you can
>>>>>> explain something without going off like a stupid fish? I figured
>>>>>> it was possible.
>>>>> The fish here is you.... the guy that shoves INTO an "obvious flush
>>>>> draw"
>>>>
>>>> One mistake doesn't define any player. And I didn't call you a
>>>> fish, I specifically said in this thread that I thought you were a
>>>> competent player. I said your tantrums *sound like* the rants of a
>>>> losing fish.
>>> Only if you don't listen
>>
>> What's to hear? "fucked in the ass" is supposed to teach me something?
>
> Moron is supposed to teach you something
> Fucked in the ass is just to get your attention

Bullshit, it's just a lack of self control and a lack of self
confidence. You are trying to improve your chances of "winning" the
argument by making it as unpleasant as possible for your opponent to
respond.

Analogy: If we were playing poker you would be making annoying noises
with your mouth and you'd smell really bad.

>
> You seriously think your play of that hand is good?
> What did you POSSIBLY put me on that justified you pushing the river there,
> just as a for instance

What are you talking about? What hand did I claim I played well?

>> It only makes me want to punch you in the face, which I assume must be
>> the intent.
>
> You assume it because you're stupid

No, I assume it because it's most likely. You are trolling.

>
> You claiming you have no emotional control, Dutch?

I'm claiming to want to punch assholes in the face.

> Is this the game for you, then?

What game is that?

>
> To that narrow extent I suppose it is a successful
>> strategy.
>
> You seem to make the worst possible reads at everything.

The read is dead on.

> Why do you play poker?

Its relaxing, challenging, and I make a few bucks.

>>>>> The point is NOT to marry the guidelines in some book, but rather
>>>>> to understand the way implied odds actually work.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that poker books don't explain it as well as you just
>>>> did?
>>> No, I'm saying books try and dumb down the stuff, or assume your
>>> opponents are all experts (Harrington is very guilty of the latter)
>>> If you're not all that good, or they are very good, you won't see
>>> patterns easily in your opponents and you'll have no choice but to
>>> guess based on some rule of thumb
>>
>> Using an opponent's tendencies obtained through hand history analysis
>> software is using the same principle as using directly observed
>> tendencies, although perhaps less accurate. It's not a rule of thumb,
>> it is opponent-specific.
>
> No, because the software doesn't keep track of "folded when a flush draw
> hit", it keeps track of "folded on the turn", for instance
> And are you too lazy to pay attention and think?

Those things don't happen often enough to create a reliable sample with
every player I encounter, not by a mile.

> One more reason to quit the game

Because I don't attempt to use information that isn't available to me?
If I played the same people all the time I might be able to get a read
like that. There are tens of thousands of players on Pokerstars,

>
>>
>> In summation fwiw I agree with what you posted here. You know your
>> poker theory, I have no doubt of that. I will only say that if you
>> always maintained this level of common decency in your posts you and
>> everyone else here would be a lot better off.
> Why?
> People who get mad at anything posted here lack emotional control
> They tend to be poor players because of that

Nah, I have good control at the poker table, I just find you very
disappointing and it pisses me off because I think you have the brains
to be something more interesting than a boring, despicable little troll,
and you are a cancer on this newsgroup, and I like the group.

And I think I'll cap this thread now. Thanks for the opportunity to
allow you to make a fool of yourself again.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

How the fuck would you know?

>
>> Turbos have very little skill factor.
>> Find a hand and go. It comes down to cards, most of the time
>
> Its the same game, you just can't be as patient.
>

No, it is not the same game

Given the speed, you have much less opportunities to use your skills

>>
>>>
>>>> Second, play LOTS of tournaments at the same time every day
>>>
>>> I play when I can. There are more important things in life than
>>> poker.
>> See previous statement
>> Skillful poker is not fun, and likely isn't a hobby
>
> It's fun if you take the right attitude.

No, it isn't.
It's work

>
>> I stopped playing chess when I realized I needed to either devote a
>> lot of time to it or accept I'm going to lose a lot. I hate losing
>
> Who doesn't?

People who play turbos

That you have

It has nothing to do with mine

You are trying to improve your chances of "winning" the
> argument by making it as unpleasant as possible for your opponent to
> respond.

No, I am proving you don't have what it takes to play the gaqme

>
> Analogy: If we were playing poker you would be making annoying noises
> with your mouth and you'd smell really bad.

No, you would be on tilt the whole game

>
>>
>> You seriously think your play of that hand is good?
>> What did you POSSIBLY put me on that justified you pushing the river
>> there, just as a for instance
>
> What are you talking about? What hand did I claim I played well?

You know what hand that is in reference to

>
>>> It only makes me want to punch you in the face, which I assume must
>>> be the intent.
>>
>> You assume it because you're stupid
>
> No, I assume it because it's most likely. You are trolling.

No, it is not likely at all
And is not true

>
>>
>> You claiming you have no emotional control, Dutch?
>
> I'm claiming to want to punch assholes in the face.

So no emotional control. Quit poker

>
>> Is this the game for you, then?
>
> What game is that?

Duuuuuh

>
>>
>> To that narrow extent I suppose it is a successful
>>> strategy.
>>
>> You seem to make the worst possible reads at everything.
>
> The read is dead on.

Only if you're a drunken idiot

>
>> Why do you play poker?
>
> Its relaxing, challenging, and I make a few bucks.

Poker is relaxing...... ya, you're clueless

>
>>>>>> The point is NOT to marry the guidelines in some book, but rather
>>>>>> to understand the way implied odds actually work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying that poker books don't explain it as well as you
>>>>> just did?
>>>> No, I'm saying books try and dumb down the stuff, or assume your
>>>> opponents are all experts (Harrington is very guilty of the latter)
>>>> If you're not all that good, or they are very good, you won't see
>>>> patterns easily in your opponents and you'll have no choice but to
>>>> guess based on some rule of thumb
>>>
>>> Using an opponent's tendencies obtained through hand history
>>> analysis software is using the same principle as using directly
>>> observed tendencies, although perhaps less accurate. It's not a
>>> rule of thumb, it is opponent-specific.
>>
>> No, because the software doesn't keep track of "folded when a flush
>> draw hit", it keeps track of "folded on the turn", for instance
>> And are you too lazy to pay attention and think?
>
> Those things don't happen often enough to create a reliable sample
> with every player I encounter, not by a mile.

Dutch, you simply are too lazy to play well
You can observe players. These things DO happen often enough to know where
you are at

>
>> One more reason to quit the game
>
> Because I don't attempt to use information that isn't available to me?

No. because you don't try to use that which IS available to you

> If I played the same people all the time I might be able to get a read
> like that. There are tens of thousands of players on Pokerstars,

So what?

>>
>>>
>>> In summation fwiw I agree with what you posted here. You know your
>>> poker theory, I have no doubt of that. I will only say that if you
>>> always maintained this level of common decency in your posts you and
>>> everyone else here would be a lot better off.
>> Why?
>> People who get mad at anything posted here lack emotional control
>> They tend to be poor players because of that
>
> Nah, I have good control at the poker table, I just find you very
> disappointing and it pisses me off because I think you have the brains
> to be something more interesting than a boring, despicable little
> troll, and you are a cancer on this newsgroup, and I like the group.

You're a fucked in the ass retard.
The group was a cesspool before I got here

>
> And I think I'll cap this thread now. Thanks for the opportunity to
> allow you to make a fool of yourself again.

You, as usual, are the one who looks like a total shit for brains

[mo_ntresor]

On Jun 18 2013 8:49 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> > you can't reasonably predict opponent behavior with anything close to
> > the accuracy you pretend.
>
> Yes you can.
> loads of people play very predictably
>
> > you're also suggesting implied odds don't
> > exist against new opponents -- also, clearly wrong.
>
> No, I'm stating accurate estimates of them are impossible against new
> opponents.
> Then you're forced to fall back on guidelines, but those guidelines are not
> the implied odds, they are rules of thumb for when you do not know what your
> actual implied odds are'

you pretend you can predict human behavior perfectly, reduced a valuable
betting tool to something useless. i'm not up for your endless semantic
horseshit. see if dutch will play.

mo_ntresor

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

mo_ntresor wrote:
> On Jun 18 2013 8:49 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>>> you can't reasonably predict opponent behavior with anything close
>>> to the accuracy you pretend.
>>
>> Yes you can.
>> loads of people play very predictably
>>
>>> you're also suggesting implied odds don't
>>> exist against new opponents -- also, clearly wrong.
>>
>> No, I'm stating accurate estimates of them are impossible against new
>> opponents.
>> Then you're forced to fall back on guidelines, but those guidelines
>> are not the implied odds, they are rules of thumb for when you do
>> not know what your actual implied odds are'
>
> you pretend you can predict human behavior perfectly,

You CAN, given enough information, and a generally weak opponent.

There are LOADS of people who fold when obvious draws hit, and there's a
reasonable bet

reduced a
> valuable betting tool to something useless.

Not in the slightest

I am making sure you are aware what implied odds REALLY are.

The more information you have, the more accurate your estimate will be

[mo_ntresor]

On Jun 20 2013 7:59 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> > you pretend you can predict human behavior perfectly,
>
> You CAN, given enough information, and a generally weak opponent.
>
> There are LOADS of people who fold when obvious draws hit, and there's a
> reasonable bet

what are the odds they mistakenly call while trying to fold? you're full
of shit.

> > reduced a
> > valuable betting tool to something useless.
>
> Not in the slightest
>
> I am making sure you are aware what implied odds REALLY are.
>
> The more information you have, the more accurate your estimate will be

that's not what you said. you said implied odds were the ACTUAL odds
you'd get paid off. most people talk about implied odds as reasonable
estimates. you're playing semantic bullshit as usual.

see ya.

mo_ntresor

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

mo_ntresor wrote:
> On Jun 20 2013 7:59 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>>> you pretend you can predict human behavior perfectly,
>>
>> You CAN, given enough information, and a generally weak opponent.
>>
>> There are LOADS of people who fold when obvious draws hit, and
>> there's a reasonable bet
>
> what are the odds they mistakenly call while trying to fold? you're
> full of shit.

Live? Almost nil

On line? small enough to negate trying

Accidentally FOLD is more likely, of course

>
>>> reduced a
>>> valuable betting tool to something useless.
>>
>> Not in the slightest
>>
>> I am making sure you are aware what implied odds REALLY are.
>>
>> The more information you have, the more accurate your estimate will
>> be
>
> that's not what you said. you said implied odds were the ACTUAL odds
> you'd get paid off. most people talk about implied odds as reasonable
> estimates. you're playing semantic bullshit as usual.

The ACTUAL implied odds ARE the actual odds of you getting paid off.
Most people DON'T talk about a reasonable estimate based on their
observations of their opponent, they talk about some rule of thumb they read
in a book.

That's not semantics at all, it's a major difference

[fffurken1]

On Jun 22 2013 2:56 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> The ACTUAL implied odds ARE the actual odds of you getting paid off.
> Most people DON'T talk about a reasonable estimate based on their
> observations of their opponent, they talk about some rule of thumb they read
> in a book.

Most people don't talk about the "actual" odds at all in poker. It's an
estimate.

You're attempting to rewrite a rule of implied odds with horseshit physic
abilities.

There's a reason you didn't write the chapter on implied odds in
Sklanksy's TOP and there's a reason why no one is particularly interested
in your not "rote" poker ideas - You're a moron.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

fffurken1 wrote:
> On Jun 22 2013 2:56 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> The ACTUAL implied odds ARE the actual odds of you getting paid off.
>> Most people DON'T talk about a reasonable estimate based on their
>> observations of their opponent, they talk about some rule of thumb
>> they read in a book.
>
> Most people don't talk about the "actual" odds at all in poker. It's
> an estimate.

Actually, Sklansky goes on at length about actual odds.

>
> You're attempting to rewrite a rule of implied odds with horseshit
> physic abilities.
>

No, shithead
I am NOT rewriting the rule of implied odds, I am explaining it. It ISN'T
"follow someone's recommended rule of thumb" it's "figure out your opponent"

> There's a reason you didn't write the chapter on implied odds in
> Sklanksy's TOP and there's a reason why no one is particularly
> interested in your not "rote" poker ideas - You're a moron.

Wow!
You didn't apparently READ the desctiption of Implied odds and you failed to
grasp it at all.
You're a drunken idiot

[fffurken1]

On Jun 23 2013 1:23 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> > You're attempting to rewrite a rule of implied odds with horseshit
> > physic abilities.
> >
>
> No, shithead
> I am NOT rewriting the rule of implied odds, I am explaining it. It ISN'T
> "follow someone's recommended rule of thumb" it's "figure out your opponent"

To whom?

You're a fantasist. No one needs implied odds explained to them and
certainly no one needs implied odds explained to them as "figure out your
opponent".

Your desctiption sucks!

If aliens from Mars landed on Earth and after the appropriate niceties we
taught them how to play poker and then one of them asked - "What does
implied odds mean?", the last person they would want to answer is you!
Shithead.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

fffurken1 wrote:
> On Jun 23 2013 1:23 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>>> You're attempting to rewrite a rule of implied odds with horseshit
>>> physic abilities.
>>>
>>
>> No, shithead
>> I am NOT rewriting the rule of implied odds, I am explaining it. It
>> ISN'T "follow someone's recommended rule of thumb" it's "figure out
>> your opponent"
>
> To whom?

Everyone, particularly people who think Harrington's general guidelines are
"The implied odds" numbers

>
> You're a fantasist. No one needs implied odds explained to them and
> certainly no one needs implied odds explained to them as "figure out
> your opponent".

You're a shithead
That's not all that I said

>
> Your desctiption sucks!

Your thinking sucks.
Well, its the booze, granted

>
> If aliens from Mars landed on Earth and after the appropriate
> niceties we taught them how to play poker and then one of them asked
> - "What does implied odds mean?", the last person they would want to
> answer is you! Shithead.

Wow!
You're a fucking moron. I did multiple posts, then summed up one big point
for the pointed headed drunken Irishman, and you're too thick to get the
whole picture

Go fuck your ass with a bar stool