Welcome Guest
You last visited December 4, 2016, 1:02 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Do some number combinations have better odds?

Topic closed. 5280 replies. Last post 4 years ago by rdgrnr.

 Page 271 of 353

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 7:31 pm - IP Logged

"If you're actually serious about pursuing research into how to narrow down the Powerball or Mega Millions matrix into a pool of 28 numbers that have a decent chance of containing the 5 winning numbers, why don't you break off and start your own thread rather than continuing to associate yourself with this mess?"

If I did that, I would be just expanding on Ronnie's idea and some of the ideas RJ and others have posted. It's easier for me to add my ideas to theirs. I've been around gambling, sports, and other things long enough to understand there is going to be bragging and never let that bother me. Most of the time it's better to congratulate them or say nothing and move on.

Stack47,

Something you could do to advance toward knowing how to select a subset of 38 that contains the winning 5, would be to first calculate how many C(56.38) there are.  Then, calculate how many of THESE are the ones you are looking for.  You could then calculate the equivalent of the 3/5 probability in the (5,2) lotto game, do the math, and announce your results.

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 8:06 pm - IP Logged

"Roulette pays \$35 to \$1 so the house edge on any winning 35 to 1 bet is 5.26% and the house should win 5.26% of all bets. If player bets and loses \$100, the house doesn't charge then an extra \$5.26 so the edge is only applied when paying off winning bets. If a roulette table has a volume of \$1 million, the house should keep \$52,600 and the winners should collect \$947,400."

Your logic holds for roulette, but not many of the other casino games.  The house edge is applied to all bets placed, not just winning ones.

"If there is an advantage, it's thoroughly understand how to play the game. I won't stay very long at a Blackjack table if the other players are not using basic hitting strategies unless I'm benefiting from their poor play. You might think it's a better game until you see many other players effecting your outcomes."

In Blackjack, the other players decisions do not affect you.  There play is just as likely to hurt or help you, and will even out.  Mathemetically, it doesn't matter to you whether they play basic strategy or not.  If you can't enjoy the game with people playing badly, that's one thing, but know that the math doesn't change.

"Today poker is all about no limit tourneys and the best players in the world can't overcome a run of bad cards. Even the cash games are no limit. How can you grind it out when the other players constantly take you all in?"

It's actually pretty simple.  Don't put down your whole bankroll, just a piece of it.  Use proper bankroll management, and play strong poker against weaker players.  That's how you grind out any advantage, in most games you place bets using the Kelly Criterion (theoretically you could with poker, but you can't actually quantify what you need to know) and in Poker you generally just play with X buy ins, depending on how much risk you are willing to take on.

"You can get the advantage more often playing poker if your good enough, but you still won't win every time. Gambling is about timing and looking for an advantage is the idea of this topic. You can calculate the odds of pocket aces winning hands, but knowing you had the best odds means nothing when the other guy is raking in the pot."

It absolutely means something.  If I got in all in with Aces preflop, I'm over an 80% favorite to win the pot.  That's a great bet!  And to say that it means nothing that you were able to do that if the other player wins is very short sighted.  In Poker, you're going to have bad beats.  If you can list 100 bad beats and not so many times when other players outplayed you then you're in good shape.  The more often you get your money in good, the more often you are likely to win.

Not to mention that there's a million other things that can happen.  In most cases, people don't go all in pre flop and you have a couple more rounds of betting.  A lot of information can be extracted during the flop and turn, which could lead you to fold what WAS the best hand preflop, and has become the 2nd best hand.  You can save A LOT of money by making information bets and making disciplined folds.  And in Poker, each dollar you saved is basically the same as a dollar won.

Think about it, if I was dealt AA and you were dealt KK, and I got you all in, that's good for me.  If the situation's reversed, and I'm able to get away from KK and fold it, then whose that good for?  Obviously you won a small pot, but I was able to get away from a situtation where I'm about 80% to lose my stack.  I'd say that folding KK to AA is a good play for KK.  (Obviously only if he folds it to a really obvious tell, though.  Otherwise he's throwing away KK to any of the premiuum hands, and that's not profitable.)  This situation happened to me ONCE and it's the only time I've ever folded KK preflop.  The other player threw up AA, and everyone else at the table was amazed that I folded.

"The house edge is applied to all bets placed, not just winning ones."

The edge is based on probability and in Roulette it's any number should win once in every 38 outcomes. They keep 5.26% of the payoffs and after millions of outcomes, there profit should be at least 5.26%.  If there is an effect on the losing bets it's because part of those bets contributes to the payoffs, but from the players point of view, there is no effect on losing bets unless a player wins a bet.

"In Blackjack, the other players decisions do not affect you."

You'll change your mind when you play casino blackjack. The dealer shows a 4, you have 10 are going to double down, and the player to your right has 13. That player hits, gets an Ace, and then takes another hit and busts with a face card. Basic strategy says he should have stood on 13 but they hit twice and took two cards that would made you hand difficult to lose. When the dealer turns up 14, that second hit should be the dealers bust card. You can still win hands like that, but losing of few them effects the overall difference between winning or losing.

"Mathemetically, it doesn't matter to you whether they play basic strategy or not."

How can calculate the math if they have no strategy?

"It's actually pretty simple.  Don't put down your whole bankroll, just a piece of it."

In tournament poker, your whole bankroll is in front of you and everybody on the table wants a piece of it. Download the software from one of the free poker sites. The play isn't that much difference from what you'll see in real money games.

"The more often you get your money in good, the more often you are likely to win."

You're talking about one hand and the only one hand you can win a tourney with is the last hand.

"A lot of information can be extracted during the flop and turn, which could lead you to fold what WAS the best hand preflop, and has become the 2nd best hand."

There is a thing called bluffing and a tight player's nightmare.

"If the situation's reversed, and I'm able to get away from KK and fold it, then whose that good for?"

Not if you act first and decided to go all-in. It's all about positioning and timing. You probably will win 80% of the races with pocket Aces, but what is the percentage hands you'll get pocket Aces?

"The other player threw up AA, and everyone else at the table was amazed that I folded."

Last year in the WSOP a player mucked quads when the other player raised him all-in.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 8:28 pm - IP Logged

We've already discussed the title of this thread is some what deceptive

Excellent observation Stack,

but it is only deceptive in the sense that different people interpret the question in different ways.

The Three Stooges are obsessing over "Which number combinations have better odds"?

While the rest of us discuss "Who or what produces number combinations that outperform the odds"?

Last Saturday you played a conditional wheel and the conditions were if you matched five of the numbers, you would have one two number match. Well you didn't match five numbers so end of discussion, but I guess it was more important to the pessimist to point out the end results. The thing is, I noticed without matching five numbers you still had 3 two number matches.

You played a wheel and didn't meet the conditions but still out preformed the wheel guarantee. It looked to me you were trying to get a two number match, got three two number matches, but the pessimist is calling it a failure.

Am I missing something?

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 8:43 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

Something you could do to advance toward knowing how to select a subset of 38 that contains the winning 5, would be to first calculate how many C(56.38) there are.  Then, calculate how many of THESE are the ones you are looking for.  You could then calculate the equivalent of the 3/5 probability in the (5,2) lotto game, do the math, and announce your results.

--Jimmy4164

"Something you could do to advance toward knowing how to select a subset of 38 that contains the winning 5"

Even though you quoted me, you missed where I said  "It's easier for me to add my ideas to theirs." So if you have any ideas on selecting a subset of 38, post it and if I have any ideas, I'll add them to yours.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 9:08 pm - IP Logged

"You'll change your mind when you play casino blackjack. The dealer shows a 4, you have 10 are going to double down, and the player to your right has 13. That player hits, gets an Ace, and then takes another hit and busts with a face card. Basic strategy says he should have stood on 13 but they hit twice and took two cards that would made you hand difficult to lose. When the dealer turns up 14, that second hit should be the dealers bust card. You can still win hands like that, but losing of few them effects the overall difference between winning or losing."

Wow.  I'm not going to get into this with you.  Rest assured that in the long run other players have absolutely no affect on your odds of winning.  It's the same thing as saying that the fact that the casino burns a card first will affect you.  Well, sure, it will change the outcome, but not the probability of any given outcome.  If you don't understand what I'm saying, I suggest taking a course in gambler's fallacy, because that paragraph stinks of it.  You simply play basic strategy, and that's the best you can do without advanced strategies such as card counting.  The other players at the table will hurt or help you just as often as the odds dictate.

"How can calculate the math if they have no strategy?"

Because their play is irrelevant to the mathemetics involved in how you should play.  You're worried about playing your hand according to the right strategy, anything any other player does after you doens't matter in the long run.  Of cousre most people can't help but notice the times that a player playing bad strategy "takes the dealer's bust card" but I assure you if you recorded every time a player broke strategy against the dealers result you would find 0 correlation between other player's hands and yours.

"In tournament poker, your whole bankroll is in front of you and everybody on the table wants a piece of it. Download the software from one of the free poker sites. The play isn't that much difference from what you'll see in real money games."

My whole bankroll is never in front of me all at once.  Say I hypothetically had a 10,000 dollar gambling bankroll (I don't, but that's not the point.)  I would only buy into a tournament with 1 percent of that, or 100 dollars, and for cash games I could probably go up to 5% if I thought it was a good game because the variance is much lower.  That's what you do in order to ride out variance.  And the play on free poker sites is vastly different than cash games.  And tournament strategy is also vastly different than cash game strategy.  I don't know what you're trying to prove.  Obviously all my tournment chips are in front of me at once, but that isn't my bankroll.  Hell tournament chips aren't even money, their more like ammunition you use in the fight to place in a tournament, in order to get money.

Poker is a game of skill, pure and simple.  If you can't admit that, you are wrong.  There may be luck (variance) involved, but a huge part of the skill in poker is managing the risks you take.  You should NEVER have your whole bankroll on the table at once.  You shoudn't take bets that are too risky, your goal should be relatively steady growth.

As for your argument that if I was first to act I would have gone all in, that's absolutely not true.  I know that becaue I was first to act (before the player who had AA.)  I put in a small raise, she re-raised, I picked up a tell that she was really strong, and having a hand history on her I was almost certain she had a large pair or a big ace.  I decided to call and see a flop rather than push all in, becaues any Ace on the flop or aggression on her part after the flop would tell me that I was beat for sure.  Basically, having the skill at reading your opponents tendencies, and playing based off those tendencies is a MAJOR skill at the poker table, and I was able to completely outplay my opponent in that hand.  I've seen her lay down big pairs when an ace hit the flop (which it did,) so I put out a little tester bet.  If  she didn't have the ace, I knew I was getting called by 10/10, JJ QQ, folding all other hands and getting raised by any hand with an AJ, AQ, AQ or AA.

Against a better player, I probably would have gotten it all in.  That proves my point though, I good player can take advantage of weaker players and avoid getting his money in bad.

My read was spot on, but it takes a while to explain poker scenarios and the logic behind them.  Not to mention that too many times in live games your play is based off opponents tendencies.  But if you're trying to argue that the game is all luck, because you can lose a hand after making the right call, you're sadly mistaken.

And BTW, folding his quads in the million dollar buy in was a huge mistake (IMO.)  I've seen the way the board was played out discussed many times, and he was scared of a straight flush, but his opponent also could have had a full house, and I think he made a bad fold.  It was clear by his opponent's maneurisms that he hit a big hand, but analysis of the hand showed that their was more equity  to be gained in the tournament by calling, since his opponent could have had a few hands which were behind, but huge and could only have one hand that was ahead.

It seems like you know SOMETHING about poker, but a lot of you views about proper play is very misguided.  At least, the fact that you seem to be trying to refute the point that good players can and do gain a massive edge over other players by outplaying them.  It doesn't all calm down to timing and luck, it comes down to skill and bankroll management, period.  People who blame luck are often playing under bankrolled and it's really the normal swings of the game causing them to be losers.  Ask people who've been able to consistently grow their bankroll how much luck is in the game.  There answer will invariably be "very litte."

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 9:10 pm - IP Logged

And if I define "got lucky" as "number combinations that have better odds" what then boney? Do you presume to have power to determine how I define words and the way they view things like moe does?

You can define anything as anything, but everyone else in the real world uses a completely different definition, and that's what makes your definition wrong.

I don't presume to have power over anything.  The fact that you want to speak a different English than everyone else seems to be a you problem, though.

Whiskey Island
United States
Member #90216
April 24, 2010
12729 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 10:08 pm - IP Logged

Ok , Jimmy !!!! Some number combinations do have better odds its just a matter of the right system and method picking and filtering down the lines .The CA Fantasy 5 game is a RNG .

More Proof below :

Next 6 Draws :  01/30/13   thru    02/04/13

1 - 15 - 20 - 30 - 35

1 - 15 - 20 - 31 - 35

1 - 15 - 30 - 31 - 35

1 - 20 - 30 - 31 - 35

Bonus Sets :

1 - 5 - 20 - 26 - 31       2 out 5

1 - 10 - 20 - 30 - 31     2 out 5

5 - 10 - 11 - 26 - 31     4 out 5

5 - 10 - 15 - 20 - 30     2 out 5

5 - 10 - 15 - 20 - 35     2 out 5

5 - 10 - 15 - 26 - 30     2 out 5

5 - 10 - 15 - 30 - 31     3 out 5

5 - 10 - 15 - 30 - 34     2 out 5

5 - 10 - 15 - 30 - 35     2 out 5

5 - 10 - 15 - 30 - 39     2 out 5

5 - 10 - 20 - 30 - 35     2 out 5

 Wednesday, January 30, 2013            5-10-11-24-31

Posted Predictions :   01/30/13  Wed.     -    CA - Fantasy 5

 CajunWin4 California Fantasy 5 4 of 5 05-10-11-26-31 05-10-11-24-31 \$150 CajunWin4 California Fantasy 5 3 of 5 05-10-15-30-31 05-10-11-24-31 \$10

Park City, UT
United States
Member #69864
January 18, 2009
993 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 10:54 pm - IP Logged

A smaller powerball set for tonight's draw:

07-10-21-24-32-43-55-59

Jimmy

Toronto
Member #138397
January 26, 2013
179 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 11:07 pm - IP Logged

Cajunwin, if I win the powerball jackpot with a quickpick, does that mean quickpick is the "best" strategy?

Whiskey Island
United States
Member #90216
April 24, 2010
12729 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 11:27 pm - IP Logged

Cajunwin, if I win the powerball jackpot with a quickpick, does that mean quickpick is the "best" strategy?

The first thing you must do is Win Fantasy 5 / Easy 5 and Cash 5 type game to ever Win a Powerball with a System or Method with this then you can Win Powerball . All it means if you Win by a QP in Powerball that your numbers matched the numbers drawn just luck of the drawn no system or method involved .

Toronto
Member #138397
January 26, 2013
179 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 30, 2013, 11:33 pm - IP Logged

The first thing you must do is Win Fantasy 5 / Easy 5 and Cash 5 type game to ever Win a Powerball with a System or Method with this then you can Win Powerball . All it means if you Win by a QP in Powerball that your numbers matched the numbers drawn just luck of the drawn no system or method involved .

Why do I have to win fantasy 5 or whatever other games you mentioned first? Are you saying that people who live in states without these game will never

be able to win the powerball?

The method is QuickPick. If you say quickpick isn't a method or system, I can easily say that whatever your system is isn't a system or method either. Even

if you win, that's just by luck.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 31, 2013, 12:27 am - IP Logged

"Something you could do to advance toward knowing how to select a subset of 38 that contains the winning 5"

Even though you quoted me, you missed where I said  "It's easier for me to add my ideas to theirs." So if you have any ideas on selecting a subset of 38, post it and if I have any ideas, I'll add them to yours.

Stack47,

This doesn't sound like the response of a person who is seriousely in search of a method.  Are you reluctant to calculate how many of your subsets of 38 contain the winners because you don't know how, or is it because you know the result, and to publish it here would be embarrassing for you?

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 31, 2013, 2:48 am - IP Logged

"You'll change your mind when you play casino blackjack. The dealer shows a 4, you have 10 are going to double down, and the player to your right has 13. That player hits, gets an Ace, and then takes another hit and busts with a face card. Basic strategy says he should have stood on 13 but they hit twice and took two cards that would made you hand difficult to lose. When the dealer turns up 14, that second hit should be the dealers bust card. You can still win hands like that, but losing of few them effects the overall difference between winning or losing."

Wow.  I'm not going to get into this with you.  Rest assured that in the long run other players have absolutely no affect on your odds of winning.  It's the same thing as saying that the fact that the casino burns a card first will affect you.  Well, sure, it will change the outcome, but not the probability of any given outcome.  If you don't understand what I'm saying, I suggest taking a course in gambler's fallacy, because that paragraph stinks of it.  You simply play basic strategy, and that's the best you can do without advanced strategies such as card counting.  The other players at the table will hurt or help you just as often as the odds dictate.

"How can calculate the math if they have no strategy?"

Because their play is irrelevant to the mathemetics involved in how you should play.  You're worried about playing your hand according to the right strategy, anything any other player does after you doens't matter in the long run.  Of cousre most people can't help but notice the times that a player playing bad strategy "takes the dealer's bust card" but I assure you if you recorded every time a player broke strategy against the dealers result you would find 0 correlation between other player's hands and yours.

"In tournament poker, your whole bankroll is in front of you and everybody on the table wants a piece of it. Download the software from one of the free poker sites. The play isn't that much difference from what you'll see in real money games."

My whole bankroll is never in front of me all at once.  Say I hypothetically had a 10,000 dollar gambling bankroll (I don't, but that's not the point.)  I would only buy into a tournament with 1 percent of that, or 100 dollars, and for cash games I could probably go up to 5% if I thought it was a good game because the variance is much lower.  That's what you do in order to ride out variance.  And the play on free poker sites is vastly different than cash games.  And tournament strategy is also vastly different than cash game strategy.  I don't know what you're trying to prove.  Obviously all my tournment chips are in front of me at once, but that isn't my bankroll.  Hell tournament chips aren't even money, their more like ammunition you use in the fight to place in a tournament, in order to get money.

Poker is a game of skill, pure and simple.  If you can't admit that, you are wrong.  There may be luck (variance) involved, but a huge part of the skill in poker is managing the risks you take.  You should NEVER have your whole bankroll on the table at once.  You shoudn't take bets that are too risky, your goal should be relatively steady growth.

As for your argument that if I was first to act I would have gone all in, that's absolutely not true.  I know that becaue I was first to act (before the player who had AA.)  I put in a small raise, she re-raised, I picked up a tell that she was really strong, and having a hand history on her I was almost certain she had a large pair or a big ace.  I decided to call and see a flop rather than push all in, becaues any Ace on the flop or aggression on her part after the flop would tell me that I was beat for sure.  Basically, having the skill at reading your opponents tendencies, and playing based off those tendencies is a MAJOR skill at the poker table, and I was able to completely outplay my opponent in that hand.  I've seen her lay down big pairs when an ace hit the flop (which it did,) so I put out a little tester bet.  If  she didn't have the ace, I knew I was getting called by 10/10, JJ QQ, folding all other hands and getting raised by any hand with an AJ, AQ, AQ or AA.

Against a better player, I probably would have gotten it all in.  That proves my point though, I good player can take advantage of weaker players and avoid getting his money in bad.

My read was spot on, but it takes a while to explain poker scenarios and the logic behind them.  Not to mention that too many times in live games your play is based off opponents tendencies.  But if you're trying to argue that the game is all luck, because you can lose a hand after making the right call, you're sadly mistaken.

And BTW, folding his quads in the million dollar buy in was a huge mistake (IMO.)  I've seen the way the board was played out discussed many times, and he was scared of a straight flush, but his opponent also could have had a full house, and I think he made a bad fold.  It was clear by his opponent's maneurisms that he hit a big hand, but analysis of the hand showed that their was more equity  to be gained in the tournament by calling, since his opponent could have had a few hands which were behind, but huge and could only have one hand that was ahead.

It seems like you know SOMETHING about poker, but a lot of you views about proper play is very misguided.  At least, the fact that you seem to be trying to refute the point that good players can and do gain a massive edge over other players by outplaying them.  It doesn't all calm down to timing and luck, it comes down to skill and bankroll management, period.  People who blame luck are often playing under bankrolled and it's really the normal swings of the game causing them to be losers.  Ask people who've been able to consistently grow their bankroll how much luck is in the game.  There answer will invariably be "very litte."

"Rest assured that in the long run other players have absolutely no affect on your odds of winning."

You're not even old enough to gambling in a casino yet you're lecturing me on casino play.

You don't have to be a Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of Massachusetts to understand when the player to your right takes a hit on 13 with the dealer showing a 4, get's an Ace and a face and busts when you're doubling down with ten, it does effect your chance of winning that hand. With using the simple basic strategy, the 13 stands, I get the Ace, the dealer gets the face and busts; I win and the player to my right wins too.

You're too hung up on people trying to guess the next random event while the rest of us are discussing actual results. The only thing you're correct on is that I could still win the hand, but I know for a fact I would win that hand if it wasn't for idiotic play by another player. Knowing the odds won't change stupidity and casinos don't allow knowledgeable players to decide who can and can't sit down and play.

I've been on full tables where a player split faces and all the other players got up and left when that hand was over. Most serious players don't want to guess whether or not bad play will effect their chances of winning.

"You're worried about playing your hand according to the right strategy, anything any other player does after you doens't matter in the long run."

The real game isn't the same as simulations and real players on third base will hit at when they shouldn't, take the dealers bust card, the dealer makes 21, and beats everybody on the table. Maybe I'm just paranoid but it does happen and usually when I make a much bigger bet

"And the play on free poker sites is vastly different than cash games."

The ring tables on the poker sites are exactly like the cash games I've played. The play because it's free is very different, but the sit-and-goes and tourney play is very similar to the real money poker sites.

"And tournament strategy is also vastly different than cash game strategy"

With just a \$150 buy-in, you won't last long in a \$5 and \$10 no limit cash game. How exactly is the playing strategy different?

"You shoudn't take bets that are too risky, your goal should be relatively steady growth."

You ought to read Doyle Brunson's Super System.

"At least, the fact that you seem to be trying to refute the point that good players can and do gain a massive edge over other players by outplaying them."

To the contrary, the cream will always rise to the top, but today there are thousands of good players. And everyone will tell you the difference between just cashing and winning millions is because of bad beats and not necessarily by bad players either.

"It doesn't all calm down to timing and luck, it comes down to skill and bankroll management, period."

I never thought luck was much of a factor until I watched Jamie Gold win the main event, but now I'm not sure. The timing of when you get a good hand to play and table position are huge factors. When you're near cashing, you never want to confront a much larger stack of chips on their big blind because there is always a possibility they will take you all-in and you'll risk cashing by calling or waste some of your chips by limping in or raising. The best players in the world get runs of bad cards and they can either sit and watch the blinds and antis eat up their stack or take a chance and hope they get "lucky".

Speaking of bad timing, I once had a player go all-in on me thinking they had the nut flush while I was figuring out a value bet for my straight flush.

"And BTW, folding his quads in the million dollar buy in was a huge mistake (IMO.)"

I thought the guy was playing with scared money or wanted five minutes of fame for folding the quads.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 31, 2013, 3:07 am - IP Logged

"Rest assured that in the long run other players have absolutely no affect on your odds of winning."

You're not even old enough to gambling in a casino yet you're lecturing me on casino play.

You don't have to be a Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of Massachusetts to understand when the player to your right takes a hit on 13 with the dealer showing a 4, get's an Ace and a face and busts when you're doubling down with ten, it does effect your chance of winning that hand. With using the simple basic strategy, the 13 stands, I get the Ace, the dealer gets the face and busts; I win and the player to my right wins too.

You're too hung up on people trying to guess the next random event while the rest of us are discussing actual results. The only thing you're correct on is that I could still win the hand, but I know for a fact I would win that hand if it wasn't for idiotic play by another player. Knowing the odds won't change stupidity and casinos don't allow knowledgeable players to decide who can and can't sit down and play.

I've been on full tables where a player split faces and all the other players got up and left when that hand was over. Most serious players don't want to guess whether or not bad play will effect their chances of winning.

"You're worried about playing your hand according to the right strategy, anything any other player does after you doens't matter in the long run."

The real game isn't the same as simulations and real players on third base will hit at when they shouldn't, take the dealers bust card, the dealer makes 21, and beats everybody on the table. Maybe I'm just paranoid but it does happen and usually when I make a much bigger bet

"And the play on free poker sites is vastly different than cash games."

The ring tables on the poker sites are exactly like the cash games I've played. The play because it's free is very different, but the sit-and-goes and tourney play is very similar to the real money poker sites.

"And tournament strategy is also vastly different than cash game strategy"

With just a \$150 buy-in, you won't last long in a \$5 and \$10 no limit cash game. How exactly is the playing strategy different?

"You shoudn't take bets that are too risky, your goal should be relatively steady growth."

You ought to read Doyle Brunson's Super System.

"At least, the fact that you seem to be trying to refute the point that good players can and do gain a massive edge over other players by outplaying them."

To the contrary, the cream will always rise to the top, but today there are thousands of good players. And everyone will tell you the difference between just cashing and winning millions is because of bad beats and not necessarily by bad players either.

"It doesn't all calm down to timing and luck, it comes down to skill and bankroll management, period."

I never thought luck was much of a factor until I watched Jamie Gold win the main event, but now I'm not sure. The timing of when you get a good hand to play and table position are huge factors. When you're near cashing, you never want to confront a much larger stack of chips on their big blind because there is always a possibility they will take you all-in and you'll risk cashing by calling or waste some of your chips by limping in or raising. The best players in the world get runs of bad cards and they can either sit and watch the blinds and antis eat up their stack or take a chance and hope they get "lucky".

Speaking of bad timing, I once had a player go all-in on me thinking they had the nut flush while I was figuring out a value bet for my straight flush.

"And BTW, folding his quads in the million dollar buy in was a huge mistake (IMO.)"

I thought the guy was playing with scared money or wanted five minutes of fame for folding the quads.

You may gamble, but your age has nothing to do with your understanding of the math behind the games (which after all, is all these games are.)  I'm not going to argue with you about blackjack, something I've studied extensively.  If you honestly believe other people's play affect your odds, you are suffering from gamblers' fallacy, pure and simple.  I'll tell you something for a fact.  No profitable blackjack player cares if other players hit their 14 against a 3.  It's a bad move, but it doesn't matter as long as you play your cards right.

If you don't understand that there is a huge difference between poker cash game strategy and tournament strategy (and that tournament strategy is really very different depening largely on the structure of the tournament, your stack size, etc.) then I don't know what to tell you.  I own Super System, but it's really very outdated.  It presents some important concepts, but there has been so much better literature since then.

Sure, if you play purely in tournaments with 1000s of people in the field, you'll need 100s of thousands of game (impossible for live games in a life time) before luck isn't the primary factor.  But I'm not limited to games with fields of 1000s of people, games take place daily with 20-200 players.  I'd only have to play a couple thousand of those for skill to become the primary factor in my results.  And if they legalize online poker in NJ, then there will be games running all the time.  45,90 and 180 man Sit n Go's will pretty much always be available.  Sounds good to me.

I get what you're saying about being near cashing, or "the bubble" but the reality is serious players who aim to make as much cash as possible play aggressively on the bubble except in certain rare circumstances, when you are shortstacked and there are way more shortstacked players, or if you'd have to be playing aggressively into a loose big stack while medium stacked, etc.

The guy who folded quads gave his ratonal for putting the other guy on a straight flush, but I still think it was a bad move.  He also said that he thought he had a big enough edge over the field to give up the hand and find a better spot later.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 31, 2013, 9:57 am - IP Logged

You can define anything as anything, but everyone else in the real world uses a completely different definition, and that's what makes your definition wrong.

I don't presume to have power over anything.  The fact that you want to speak a different English than everyone else seems to be a you problem, though.

You misinterpret about 95% of what I say anyway boney, so what does it matter at this point? You are reminding me more and more of my ex wife boney. Where you born in the June 22, - July 22, time frame?

 Page 271 of 353