thebottomline

Don't know if anyone else thinks this is interesting or useful, but I'd like to come back to it so thought I'd put it in here, the analysis of the SnG grind level by level by rdtedm and an addition by whatarunaa:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=105586

Fair enough, it's a name I've definitely seen about somewhere, had no idea where though.

Am I right in thinking SCTrojans is an FCPer to? Currently sitting in 10th.

Ok thanks for that, makes sense now. I've still got a lot to learn, I've just bought Hwangs book and am about to read the LO8 chapter, then the PLO8 one.

Without meaning to drag up an old post I'd like to ask about this one, as I'm relatively new to O8, but have been having quite a bit of success in it recently. I've only been playing LO8 though, so my thinking may be way off and n00b.Questions I have: He didn't really get there on the turn, so I don't understand blasting it, I wouldn't consider it getting there anyway, bottom 2 and a draw to the low. Why do you advocate blasting it? The main question I have is why fold the flop? Assuming you mean to the original pot bet, I don't regularly fold the nut low draw in a multiway pot on the button f

Depends where you are. If you're in the states, then it would have been on NBC in late-mid '08. If you're from the UK like me, it was probably the first showing.

Anyone see the screw up with the hole card cameras? Can't find it on CardPlayer but there was quite a big hand, Spindler raised button, Gregg reraised from sb, called. Gregg bets 48Q flop, called, K turn. Gregg checks, Spindler bets and Gregg tanks and folds, with Spindler taking down a large pot. Both players mucked their cards but Greggs cards hadn't been caught by the camera, so they threw him his hand back and he looked at it and showed the camera, but they had thrown him Spindlers hand, and Gregg got all the information he wanted, that Spindler had turned two pair. Have no idea how, but S

To be honest, it doesn't bother me a bit. They're only working to stop bots, and **** the bot makers, how can they bitch about it? They're acting like they're NOT the criminals..Pokerstars aren't looking for anything other than bots, so it's no bother to me. It gives me a lot of confidence that they've been in touch with him though, shows they scan the net and are proactive against the bots.Good for Pokerstars.

I don't think that post was particularly 'douchebaggy', it may be that your animosity towards steve is now affecting your perception of his recent comments.

Oh, they just have a split bankroll? Never heard of that.Didn't mean to sound dickheadish or have any negative connotation's or anything, it wouldn't make a difference either way I was just curious.

Q & A with him on cardplayer, not sure if this was just a miscommunication or mistranslation on his part or whatever, because I couldn't think of any other way he could mean this. It's probably normal and the fact that I'm under the influence is making it seem wierd.. Here's the whole Q & A, bold is what I'm on about. :The Dragon Talks about Defending his 2007 POY TitleDavid PhamDavid "The Dragon" Pham has won the Card Player Player of the Year title twice. His firsct victory came in 2000, and he followed that up with a POY title in 2007. As the defending champion in 2008, Pham gave PO

Surely you can appreciate why you could predict an aggressive player to come 4th or 1st?

This.He's severely deluded.

Wow, pretty sick draw. Need someone to start a conversation or something though, I doubt Clonie and Howard will jump into conversation.

Because it's a high variance activity, if you're betting a % but being forced to stop at a low limit compared to the number of flips ($1000 - 1m flips), and with the fact that you lose slowly anyway means you'd eventually go broke, but you wouldn't if you weren't forced to stop and could still bet 1% of your small denominations of coins, but you can't.

For me it would be purely dependant on what the bet was on. Having since seen what it was about, I completely agree that no payment was necessary. However, if the bet was on something different, e.g. the two competing off against each other in something, then I think payment would be owed. If someone said to me "I'll play you at table footaball (foosball or whatever you guys call it) and give you 3:1" I said "My 10 to your 30" and we played without him 'agreeing' I'd expect payment as he should have objected before we played.Now we know details about the bet, I agree that it shouldn't be paid.

I did say in my first post that if he meant you would eventually lose as many flips that you had $, but that's not a guarantee of going broke, it could go the other way. He's saying the scam comes from the boldened part of his post, which didn't mention the 1 million flips, just the betting odds.

Wow you're making me feel really dumb, and Maths was one of my best subjects. In the bet, they're saying you bet $1, and lose $1 if it's tails, and get $2 back if it's heads (but lose your original $1, your stake) so if it comes in tails you're -$1, if it's heads you're +$1. Apart from that, I can't see the scam, and it's making me feel dumb as you make it seem really obvious.. I thought the scam came entirely from the addition of the 1% rule.

In theory if it's break even then it's the same as flipping a coin, 1:1, but obviously with poker it's so much more complicated hand on hand etc. If it were a rakeless double or nothing scenario, in theory a break even player would be better to play the same buyin mathematically than to always play the same % of their roll.. I think. However, with a limited roll this would never work for the same reason we actually employ bankroll management, variance, and the fact that playing with a lesser portion of your bankroll (more often than not) will increase the chance you have of making money, so it

People who are break even after rake, and always bet the same %age of their roll, yes. People who are break even after rake etc. and stick to the same buyin however, are break even.

You don't, you get 1/1, even money. If you're posting, you post 1% of roll (=$10), leaving you with $990. When you win, you get $20 and are up to $1010.

...thanks. I meant in which computer or something a long those lines, but that response means I no doubt wouldn't know how to use it anyway.And pontomophobia, unless I simply can't see your point, the boldened part of the post in your quote is no guarantee of anything negative, it has an edge of 0 for both involved. You're being paid 1:1 on a 1:1 proposition, and in the long run it would be completely break even, no?If you read the rest of the post, the actual con comes into play..EDIT: Unless of course you're saying in the long run you'd eventually lose the # of flips in a row that you had $

Can I ask how you're running these mathematical simulations? Same goes to the other guy. Just out of interest.

I haven't played on Stars in ages, but thought chat was disabled when a player was all in? Or is that just Tourneys?

Thanks, but is there one where you can calculate one hand against a potential range of an opponent?