thebottomline
-
Content Count
619 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by thebottomline
-
-
Fair enough, it's a name I've definitely seen about somewhere, had no idea where though.I don't believe he is. -
Am I right in thinking SCTrojans is an FCPer to? Currently sitting in 10th.pmjackson still in mill too -
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 facing one bet, but is that because this is pot limit at such a highly raked level?Thanks.i don't know how these games play but i usually 3 bet preflop.as played not closing the action i fold the flop.since you got there i blast the turn. the pots big enough where he should just about never fold, so get him to make a bad fold. -
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.lol! Yes it took a while for me to get a thread that stuck. When was it on before? I didn't know I had missed any of the late nite poker shows. hmmm. -
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 Spindler just smiled a kind of "thats damn unlucky" smile and laughed a little bit, took it really well.
-
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.lol @ your voices have been heard...do you try to come off like a douchebag in every post? -
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.YepSharing bankrolls is teh souprr ghey. -
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 POY winner John Phan a major scare as he put together an impressive title defense. The Dragon accumulated more than 6,000 points for the second year in a row, finishing with 6,022. Pham came within 682 points of becoming the first back-to-back champion in history. He now has $8,056,332 in career tournament winnings. Card Player caught up with Pham at Bellagio and he talked about the final stages of yet another successfual year.Ryan Lucchesi: When you get late in a POY race and you go deep into a tournament how much does this weigh on your tournament decisions? This is familiar territory for you, so what do you do if you’re dealt a drawing hand that might pay off large for you and help you make a final table this late in the year? Do you play it conservatively or really try to accumulate a lot of chips in that spot due to the extra value hanging over everything?David “The Dragon” Pham: Sometimes you gamble, but when you get close to the end of a tournament you have to make good decisions. That’s very important to determine if you will make the final table. Three-four tables left in the tournament I’m really focused in every tournament I play, even $2,000-$3,000 tournaments, and especially $10,000 events. When you come close that’s the main thing, usually when I make decisions to make a call I never let myself go broke, unless I have the nuts. It’s all survival games if you have a chance.RL: How important is the POY award to building a player’s legacy. What will your two titles mean to you 10 years from now?DP: Wow, that’s awesome because no one can ever take that away from you. I’m so blessed. I think I’m doing very well in my life. When I do win I deduct a percent to give to charity in Vietnam. I do this with my partner David Tran, and we take the money and give it to sick people and poor people. We gave money to people with heart problems for an operation. I’m very blessed.RL: Last year at this time it was you that everyone was trying to chase down for the POY title, and now you’ve become one of the hunters. What are the differences in your state of mind in 2007 and 2008?DP: I look at the internet and there are only a few people that can catch John [Phan], but it’s really, really hard, because this is a tough field for the last event. If I get down to four days left in the tournament I have a good chance to get there, because I play really well during the closing of a tournament.RL: How much does your experience in multiple POY races assist you now?DP: I believe my experience with playing so many tournaments in my life helps me here. If my mindset is good then I always do the right thing in tournaments. If the finances are OK, if the family is OK, then I can just focus and play the game well. from Cardplayer.com
-
Surely you can appreciate why you could predict an aggressive player to come 4th or 1st?He is your 2nd pick to win, but you rank him 4th?
Go Hoyt! All in every hand for the title! -
This.He's severely deluded.I clicked on this today being 5 pages thinking there was going to be some good news about Loosh making FT or something. But unfortunately it was 3 pages of RT being a douche bag.sigh -
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.I don't think this makes sense. Why should being forced to stop an activity make it -EV? -
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'm utterly shocked that so many people are saying he owes. It says that in this case, the two are friendly, but it really shouldn't matter. What if the amount set by B was far too high for A to pay? In no way would he agree. This situation leads to confusion. Both parties should have to make a concrete agreement and both should acknowledge the booking of a bet. This is pretty clear cut and it's a bit scary that this many people don't see it that way. -
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.The scam is that once you take the bet, you're committed to doing all million flips before you can stop (unless you go broke first). So you are *really* betting on the probability that a sequence of random flips will never cross the -$1,000 line over the course of one million flips. The probability of this happening is miniscule. -
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."You have $1,000. A friend says that he will pay you twice your bet amount, every time you flip heads. So, you bet $1, it comes up tails, you lose $1. You bet $1, it comes up heads, you get $2 from him (but lose your original $1). (EDIT: i.e. It's a 2 for 1 payout when you win)."Read this carefully. Think about it.You are getting scammed. And he is not your friend. -
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 wouldn't be a 1:1 proposition.Basically it doesn't work in poker because it's never an exactly 1:1 proposition unless its a winner take all HU sng with no rake, no variance and exactly a 1:1 chance based on skill level. If it were, then this coin flipping trick would apply. Also if he used less/more of his roll then it would have to still be a 1:1 chance all things considered for this to be true.So let give two exp.Your Bankroll and always bet the same % of the roll. Bankroll($50,000) and play 1%($500). You move down in limit when you hit a downswing and up in limit when you hit a rush. So the theory here say buy doing this you gauranteed to go broke.andThe theory here say you break even if you stick to the same buyin (limits), never moveing up or down. -
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.This is interesting. Can This be put into bankroll management?Take a break even player ( a player that has ~EV) and tell that player to play 1% of his bankrow. So break even player are gauranteed to go broke. -
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.Except that you get 2:1 when you win, so if you win 1st you have $1020 and if you lose 2nd, you have $1009.80 -
...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 $ of course. But other than that I see it as a break even proposition until you factor in the 1% rule.$br = 1000;$max = 0;for ($i = 0; $i < 1000000 && $br > 1; $i++){ $wager = $br * 0.01; if (rand (0,1)) { $br = $br + $wager; } else { $br = $br - $wager; } if ($br > $max) $max = $br;}if ($br < 1) { echo 'you lose after '.$i." flips. Your max was $max\n";} else { echo "remaining br = ".$br." with bonus = " .$br*1.05."\n";} -
Can I ask how you're running these mathematical simulations? Same goes to the other guy. Just out of interest.Under those terms sure. But look at the wording of the original. You get twice your wager but you lose your wager. So you're getting paid 1:1 if you win and not 2:1.Still even without that you'd think that getting 1:1 on a 1:1 proposition should be breakeven and you'd make money from the bonus. But I think the effect is basically like the reverse of compound interest. You wager %1 or $10 and lose. No biggie. Next hand you wager $9.9 and win. But your total is now 999.99 and not 1000. Even though you won 1 and lost 1 your still losing. I did a simulation and you actually lose surprisingly quickly. Usually in around 150K flips. Even though at times you can go on a huge rush and get up over 6K.Edit: under the 2:1 payout it would be a HUGE money maker. I actually couldn't even run it in my sim because the br got too big to calculate. Even you get 1.1 : 1 you'd make billions. At 1.01 : 1 you still win more often than you lose and win by quite a bit when you do win. -
I haven't played on Stars in ages, but thought chat was disabled when a player was all in? Or is that just Tourneys?ya I agree somewhat, the funny thing is, about 5-10 mins later on another table, we get all in and i'm pat, player drawing says, "is a 10 good " an obsever, a regular at 2-7 says "no" wtf??? its getting we have to play 1 hand against 2 players?these 'regs" should know better and need to get their chat revoked at the least. -
Thanks, but is there one where you can calculate one hand against a potential range of an opponent?
Tournament Strategy Resources And Guides
in Tournament Play
Posted
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