chantro

I was speaking to an idiot today who challenged me to a game of Blackjack where I am the dealer. Here are the stipulations that I have set:1. We will play at least 800 hands of blackjack, or until he/I loses $10002. He cannot bet more than $10 per hand3. We are playing with no insurance4. We are playing with 5 decksAm I missing something or am I nearly guaranteed a +EV? Can he really be this stupid?Thanks

shutup

Thanks guys. Yeah I really thought I was the best player at the final table, but deadmoney trapped me on my last hand. Whatever though, I'm happy with the cash I won. Thanks again for the congratulations.

...in the PartyPoker $350,000 guaranteed. I came in 3rd place, and I feel great about it. I wanted to share my win with all the FCPers.Shaunt.

Amen

Are you mad because someone beat you with a much better hand, and had you dominated on the flop? I'm not sure I understand why anything is eating ass.

That happened over a month ago. Since then, negotiations over who will get the rights to the footage of the headsup matches has been made an issue, and created a stalemate. I hope it does happen, it would make for good television.

I'm surprised that no one so far seems to recognize the importance of position when considering how much to raise. Raising should be stronger from first position, to eliminate weak callers, and moderate from late position with anyone yet to call the blind. Additionally, the raise depends on the number of people in the pot in front of you. Limping with or calling in a multiway pot with anything less than jacks makes sense; otherwise, you want to raise substantially once again in order to eliminate the weaker hands that may draw out on you. Finally, don't limp with strong hands at such low limit

Correct. Wurd up.

Great post

Next time you should ook down at your 55 before the flop. Playing blind usually isn't recommended.

True. Too bad Greenstein doesn't necessarily play mathematical tournament poker.

All he has to do is tell the dealer he will not accept bad beats.That's true. They're usually quite accomodating.

Point well made. I think you should email Mike Sexton and let him know. The hat idea is much better. They could use Amir Vahedi's hat. He has a big head.

when did this happen? wonder who he played against.He comments on the players in the game at the end of his journal entry.

Because 99% of people don't play the game perfectly and thus far make up for the 1% who do play perfectly.So what difference does it make? Why even take the risk? Since when did casinos take up a policy of rewarding players that can play well enough to beat the games where they hold an edge? It makes absolutely no sense, and I find it hard to believe. I'm not sure that Smash would pull a statistic like that out of his ass though, so I'd like to see him reply.

Why would the casino install a machine that could get beat when they don't have to?

or raise.or callOr just check it.

Because the Asians are good enough to get to the final table you ****ing idiot.

Look past the "you are a moron" posts. There are good posts that explain why some of us disagree with you. Everyone is offended by different things, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and you are pushing the limit of how to define racism in my opinion.Yeah, but don't look completely past them. You should realize why you're a moron. The end of denial is the first step on the way to recovery.

I try not to criticize too much, but this is one of the stupidest things that I've ever read in my life. Please either be joking, or 13 years old.

No.Quite obviously. They and a select few get very lucky on more than one occasion during a successful tournament. Then that luck, coupled with thier skills as professionals, makes them top tournament players. They get lucky just as much as anyone else, because luck is not discriminative. It's just that when they get lucky, they're able to use it to win. Whereas no amount of luck can get some idiots to win.

Actually, exactly half are below a median. Next.

Two cents