harvey

All results in game theory analysis of poker show that there is a certain range of your worst hands that you should consider betting with and a certain range of your best hands that you should bet with to achieve an optimal strategy. Finding the what these ranges are is the hard part. But what isn't hard is seeing that betting with marginal hands is not optimal.Chris Ferguson plays poker from a game theory perspective (and has contributed to the solving of poker problems using game theory), and this is one of the results that always reoccurs in poker analysis.But optimal doesn't always transla

DN is out (cardplayer.com), I hope Barry and Daniel decide to have a match!edit: yay! (just read travis's update)

Sklansky's Fundemental Theorem of Poker implys that whenever your opponents draw while its a mistake to draw, you win, and when they fold you lose. This is why many people feel that in these small stakes games having poor draws against you is a blessing. But, if you read that section of Theory of Poker closely, you will catch a brief sentence where he says something like "Oh yeah, ....um not so much for multiway situations."Morton's Theorem expands upon this concept. Morton's theorem explains that while individually you have an edge against a weak draw that will earn you money if they stay in

Most people I know use the distinction between the two terms.The absolute value of the hands are the same, but a set is more powerful due to the hidden nature of the holding and the fact that you don't have to worry about kickers. Thats why the two terms have developed a distinction.It only bothers me when I'm trying to learn how someone played a hand and they describe it without the distinction. Some authors, like Dan Harrington, even use the ugly phrase "a set of trips."

holy sh*t, that last hand was unreal

Not to be picky, but the real answer is 1 in 1326, or 1325:1 The cards have no memory, so the chance of you getting pocket queens coming "again" after you already received them however many times is always the same. As has been calculated to be 1325:1.but to say that the odds of this hand coming twice in a row or even 100 times in a row is not correct.The odds of getting a pocket pair twice in a row is (1/221)^2. Three times in a row (1/221)^3. The exact suit is different as show above.Are you saying that you have a 1325:1 chance of getting the same pocket aces 100 times in a row??

Thanks, very helpful.

For those who use PokerTracker, what are the stats and features that you use the most, or that you wish it had? I've used the program but once or twice, and I'm not as familiar with it as most of you probably are.I know that these stats are useful:Voluntary put in potwin ratestandard deviationmoney lost/won with particular handpreflop raise %check raises %realtime updates of statsThats all I know.---For those who don't use PokerTracker:I am thinking about whipping up a PokerTrackerish type program in Perl this weekend, since PokerTracker doesn't support or run on Linux. I was wondering if anyo

what?but, you were right the twos should have been a ones. Doh! (4:00 am here)

This would be the odds of getting a single two card hand out of 52 cards. The odds of getting the exact pocket queens twice is:pocket queens once: 52*51/2 ways to get two cards, 6 ways to get pocket queens for 6/1326 or 1/221chance for pocket queenssame pocket queens: two ways to get the same pocket queens 2/1326, for a grand total of1/221*1/663 = 1/146523also known as very rarely.

What does this even mean? Of course everyone here would care about Ivey and Daniel playing heads up. Its not just the money that makes it interesting. And why would someone who doesn't care go out of his way to play 9 games of something he didn't care about?

Because once you go to a third world country, your money becomes SUPER MONEY. You view of money will never be the same once you've had the taste of SUPER MONEY and the godlike powers, and loyal minions it can bring

Sweet f ucking christ... you can't be serious? lol, I sure hope the statute of limitations is up on that..IP addresses, web logs, ISP forced disclosure, etc.....By the way OP was hilarious... :-)

could this be the mystery "allen" who placed the 15000 bet against daniel to win 3/5 challenges?

I thought it was pretty funny.. although i've read freakonomics...can't believe people couldn't sense that he was at least trying to be funny...especially after he basically outright said it was a joke, lol

Daniel probably used the name Ahmed because two of the suspected hijackers were named Ahmed. His joke was about the hijackers, so it would make sense to use that name.Also, while it is true that US is focusing on middle eastern terrorists at the present time, that in no way means that most of the terrorism in the world comes from arabs. The definition of terrorist, no matter how you look at, is not: person who wants to hurt the US.

There are some people in America that believe in freedom. This freedom shouldn't be impeded because a minority of the population cannot behave properly. The government shouldn't create laws that inhibit the freedoms of a citizen based on the actions of another citizen. Every time you voluntarily give away a freedom to the control of the government, you do yourself a grave injustice. America stands for the concept that, if you aren't doing harm to anyone you should be left alone. Is the government going to ban the use of automobiles because a large number of people drink and drive turning their

Barry Greenstein has a nice step-by-step version of the "long way"--using chooses and such. It can be found here: http://barrygreenstein.com/Calculating the odds.docIt should be noted that doing things this way is not very useful for making decisions on-the-spot at the table, there are shortcuts for that.

I would think that if the big blind was going to play JJ or 99 in this situation, he would put in a nice raise before the flop--enough to get the button out of the hand. Not doing this would be a pretty big error for someone in a big tourney. Therefore, I would tend to assign these hands lower probabilities. Calling with AJ, or low-medium suited connectors would be a more reasonable play. Just calling with AA or KK would not be entirely out of the question.The check raise on the flop would allow me to assign a very high probability to AJ with the heart or low suited connectors, with AA KK JJ 9

there is a legend in the spreadsheet version. In one of the tabs.

I posted that spreadsheet, its the preflop strategy taken directly from small stakes holdem. So smash could comment on how close his strategy is to that book. He has said in the past it is very close I believe.There are some errors in that spreadsheet though. This pdf shows the same material, with a few trivial corrections, and smash might have a .pdf program. http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/c/jccuneo/preflop.pdfhope that helps

One thing I find useful for short handed games is the EV charts at pokerroom.comhttp://www.pokerroom.com/games/evstats/pos....php?players=10if you modify the number 10 in that URL to the number of players in your game, you can see how the EV of certain hands change. You can use that information to adjust your strategy.--Also, I forgot there are some minor errors in that version of the spreadsheet I posted. Here is a .pdf with the changes, I just manually corrected the spreadsheet with these changes, but you may like the .pdf better since it has a better odds chart....http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/

I believe he corrects most of these type of mistakes in the second edition... if you like that book you might wanna look at that. Although, Small Stakes holdem is much better as pointed out. In fact, here is a really nice spreadsheet of the starting hand material from SSHM. Take note of the two tabs for both loose and tight tables :-)http://www.jade-dragon.net/poker/preflop.xls (this was posted on twoplustwo for those concerned about copyright).you can compare that to your lee jones suggestions, and decide what you like better.

Hello, I've been following this site for awhile, this is my first post. I am a computer engineer, and have logged many hours at several different sites. It is absurd to say that the concern over random number generation is invalid. I don't know if this article has been posted here before, but for those who don't understand some of the technical details of computer shuffling its a good read and may clear some things up (or confuse you much more):http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/ar.../11070_616221_1It tells how one site (planetpoker) was made completely vulnerable due to a series of progr