Matt Over Aces
-
Content Count
68 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Matt Over Aces
-
-
I was angrily yelling this at my TV as this episode airs.Then the A flopped and I thought, there it is:Blind F-ing luckA7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!how did this women survive 4 days????????????? -
There should be more fun posts like this.Sadly, I voted for DN hoping it wasn't true, but he's still in the running. Let's see what happens.
-
***** Hand History for Game 2942043226 *****$2000 NL Texas Hold'em - Friday, October 28, 00:04:07 EDT 2005Table Table 68514 (No DP) (Real Money)Seat 4 is the buttonTotal number of players : 10 Seat 1: Tommyfingers ( $2388.75 )Seat 2: caspis ( $2160.50 )Seat 3: beerboy9292 ( $1970 )Seat 5: DrakeTheDogg ( $1980 )Seat 6: xLIMBAUGHx ( $1154 )Seat 7: byepoo ( $1038 )Seat 8: FlyingSuns04 ( $3564 )Seat 9: JediTrick ( $2994 )Seat 10: mendontcry ( $2005 )Seat 4: Acid_Knight ( $2037 )DrakeTheDogg posts small blind [$10].xLIMBAUGHx posts big blind [$20].** Dealing down cards **Dealt to Acid_Knight [ Kd Kh ]byepoo: canadabyepoo folds.FlyingSuns04 folds.JediTrick raises [$75].mendontcry folds.Tommyfingers folds.Tommyfingers: I know but where in Kleinburg?caspis calls [$75].beerboy9292 folds.byepoo: r u right around the cornerAcid_Knight raises [$300].DrakeTheDogg folds.Tommyfingers: yes>You have options at Table 69129 (No DP) Table!.xLIMBAUGHx folds.JediTrick calls [$225].byepoo: near coppercreekcaspis calls [$225].** Dealing Flop ** [ 8d, 2h, 9s ]JediTrick bets [$900].Tommyfingers: r u in a Greenpark home?caspis raises [$1800].Acid_Knight is all-In [$1737]JediTrick is all-In [$1794]caspis is all-In [$60.50]** Dealing Turn ** [ 7h ]** Dealing River ** [ 6c ]caspis shows [ Qd, Qs ] a pair of queens.Acid_Knight shows [ Kd, Kh ] a pair of kings.JediTrick shows [ Jc, Jh ] a pair of jacks.JediTrick wins $833.50 from side pot #2 with a pair of jacks.caspis wins $247 from side pot #1 with a pair of queens.Acid_Knight wins $6138 from the main pot with a pair of kings.mendontcry has left the table.That just evened me out for a few horrible things that happened earlier in the session.Also, let's comment on the overcall of 2 all ins (including the preflop reraiser = me) with JJ. What the hell could he be beating?
-
This is a retarded post.If you're willing to cheat becuase you're "ok" with it at some level, then say so.Luck is an inherent part of the game and the people took your money fairly (even though it may have been only through their own stupidity and good luck). Saying that you want to cheat to steal their money is as wrong for you as it would be for Daniel Negreanu to do it.I feel that the animals who have taken thousands off of me calling all-ins with gutshots or other garbage draws, are owed a few beatings. I wouldn't mind using it to get back to even online. -
I said I wouldn't do it.Just becuase you're beating the game fairly, doesn't mean that you can't be SLAUGHTERING IT (at a higher level) for 100 times that amount by cheating.Most of the people who said "yes" said it was more because they probably couldn't say no to the opportunity. Your last line is really unnecessary and really dumb.Nice and simple.Why cheat if you can beat the game?Half of you saying that you would cheat say you can beat this game.You can throw the whole fend for family excuse out the window because youre already making money beating the game fair right?So lets be honest with ourselves. You cheaters out there.....youre doing it because your greedy, slefish, money hungry assholes right? -
God, that would make for some interesting poker, wouldn't it?Good point about people's inability to actualize the FTOP without seeing the hole cards.Knowing your opponent's holecards means you can play perfect poker (as stated in the FTOP (Sklansky)). The best player in the world can't play perfect poker.Using this hypothetical program to see hole cards is blatant cheating. Just as much as if you walked over to your opponent in a live game during a hand and forced him to turn over his cards at gun point. -
I think that you have to ask the question with the lottery...WHO IS BEING HURT?I think that is one of people's biggest objections to cheating or stealing anything, is how it unfairly and negatively impacts another individual or individuals.If I knew the numbers to the lottery, YES I would play them. Why? I guess the main thing is that people who play the lottery plunk down 1 or 5 or 10 dollars and are hoping against hope (and overwhelming odds) to get lucky and strike it rich. If they don't win, then they have the expected result and they move on with their lives, and play again next week. Also, just becuase you know the numbers to the lottery, doesn't mean that nobody else can win too. So, you are really not hurting anyone here and that's the reason that I would be ok with this.I wouldnt cheat others out of money, but like myself and Cane strongly believe, If by chance you know the numbers to a lottery, accidental, or even forcefully whispered in your ear by a employee you would still not go out and buy the ticket?This is like getting good cards all day. If you hit 17 boats out of 20 hands, do you start to laythem down ? no of course not, you are getting lucky.You didnt ask for the boats, but they are hitting, and you didnt ask for the lotto numbers, but you were told them.do you see -
The idea that the cards shouldn't matter is conceptually correct. But, the fact is that everytime someone raises with garbage, you KNOW they're holding garbage and can act accordingly. You KNOW when the unsuspecting off suit 6 on the turn filled their gutshot draw and you're now drawing dead with your overpair. As good a poker player as anyone is, they are still going to make mistakes, LOTS of mistakes over the course of a week, a month, a year. By knowing your opponent's exact hole cards, you won't have to worry about making mistakes anymore. You will be unbluffable. You will never have to truly make a "big laydown" that may not be correct, because you'll know exactly where you stand when you make it. If you have any poker knowledge then you would be essentially unbeatable, even against the players in the "Big Game." Their best poker faces and strong acting jobs couldn't save them from the fact that you could see right through the back of their cards.
yeah Agsa, I agree with Royal here. Sure, your play style should stay similar. But if you make a pot sized bet on the turn and the guy calls and hits his miracle card on the river you will know to lay it down.your post was complete nonsense. basically you are saying it is not an advantage to be able to see everyone else's hole cards. which is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.
I have to dissagree with post these posts.Mathematics and text book play becomes obscolete when you can see opponents cards.You wil not win everyhand, but you will fold pocket kings, to aces.Or your middle set to his top set.I'm sorry but like card counting in black jack, these are mathematical systems set up to give and edge. If you knew the dealer had 18 and you had 14, well you need to hit.u might bust, but you know you are already beat, even if you counted the cards and have figured out there is +3 more high cards in the remaining deck.
I was waiting for someone to bring this up. Very good post. .Again, I'm am elated at the way people offer up such insight into their character and their true level of understanding the game.Why is it that so many people in this community are so quick to point out how little the cards matter, how you have to play the man, not the cards, etc. would also be the first to jump on the chance to have the opportunity to see your opponents cards as the game developed.Have nono of you actually read any of the books that you so lovingly quote? Do you NOT understand all of the advanced math that is so easy to quote from a computer program? The level of knowledge about poker theory and concepts here is huge, but like so many children, its no more than a pattern of memorized Cliff Notes. And we wonder why this nations slides further into the abyss. Look at our future.If you really believe the poker analogies and theories you spew out so vehemntly, understand that your game play shouldn't really change, even if you could see your opponents cards, nor will the outcome. There will still be one outers that catch, and you will lose coinflips, regardless the fact that you can see cards. The only thing it will do for you "poker afficianados" is make you more upset when you lose, and make your game play that much weaker.Cheating is stealing. If you were victim to this scheme, your tune would change. Attitudes tlike the majority displayed here are disappointing, to say the least. At a time when poker can be brought to the forefront of legitimacy, it is sad that the reputation that tarnished the game is so alive and well among today's youth.DN: I liked your blog and the subsequent ripping of the WSOP for vanquishing so many games. Hold 'em is my least favorite form of poker (but my highest yeild ROI!!). I have been longing for a low limit mixed game OL since I started playing. -
I really don't think he was crying for show or to be Matusow.That really didn't look like an act. The second the cards were turned over, he just dropped.The guy with the feet was just there to be on TV. This guy was there to win. I would be really surprised if after taking that beat he thought "ya know, if I act really sad and start to cry, I might get on TV."
-
that should have said "the A
You are not right. There were 3 hearts and 2 diamonds on the board.I know that has to be tough and we didn't see any of the hand played out and whether he might have known he was in a lot of trouble there or not.But really, you called holding 2 hearts and the 2nd nuts. The guy needs one card (A
) any other card to beat you. Odds are he won't have it most of the time.Don't cry, just be a man, take your chips and rebuild. It's not the end of the world.
and any other HEARTI'll edit it
-
Just read the entire thread start to finish.I voted maybe.I really don't think that I could/would do it, but I also know that it is a very very tempting proposition that would be hard to say no to. I am not rich, but I am also not strapped for cash. I really believe that only in some dire situation (loan shark coming after my knees and such) would I cheat to make money that I couldn't get over time anyway.As for the other posts comparing finding money on the ground and drunks in the game, those are TOTALLY different.If I find money on the ground, I keep it. It doesn't belong to anyone anymore since it has no ID on it (credit cards and wallets are TOTALLY different, as I have found wallets and returned them to people). You have not stolen anything, you have found lost property.Drunks in the game donating their chips are doing so of their own free will. Just because they are not smart enough to protect their money, doesn't mean it's stealing when you take it off their hands.Cheating is stealing. It is NOT AN EDGE (for whoever said that), it is just wrong.
-
yeah, I just checked that.43rd place$235,390
-
I know that has to be tough and we didn't see any of the hand played out and whether he might have known he was in a lot of trouble there or not.But really, you called holding 2 hearts and the 2nd nuts. The guy needs one card (A
) any other heart to beat you. Odds are he won't have it most of the time.Don't cry, just be a man, take your chips and rebuild. It's not the end of the world. -
If the prize pools are made up totally of sponsorship money, I think it would be very difficult do decide who qualifies (and how) for what tournmanets? Would certain players have exemptions to tournies like Tiger Woods does in golf?I think that if sponsorship adds to the prizepool (which I think it should), then it should only enhance the size of the prize pool. The players should still buy in direct for 10k or win a satellite, but instead of 100 players going for a pool of 1 million, sponsorships might make it 1.5 million or more. It would create a nice overlay for all parties involved.
that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the game though...Poker won't be credible while the prize pools from tournaments are still made up of player buy-ins. Only when the money is provided from sponsorships and TV deals, so that pros don't have to risk there own money, will poker ever reach the respectibility of tennis or golf. The PPT is definitely a step in the right direction, if it ever gets a TV deal. -
The title of the OP's post sounds like he is a pedophile and Layne is a little boy.Maybe the OP is a Catholic Priest.
-
Cold-decked is when your awesome hand loses to a slightly more awesome hand (a boat losing to quads for example).It's hard to complain about a hand where you never had the best hand, make the second nuts on the river, and lose to the nuts. Yes, it sucks, but it's pretty obvious that you're losing to the As.It would be a bad beat if you had flopped a nut flush, someone flopped a lower flush, and they runner runnered the straight flush.So, I will say that, YES, it is a rule that you must be winning the hand by a large margin at some point for it to qualify as a bad beat, otherwise, you just lost with a good hand.
Its a bad beat in the sense that a hand that will win 99% of the time lost the 1%. Obviously when I had the straight flush to K after the turn the guy had the straight flush to the A. The point is the straight flush is suppose to be an unbeatable hand (only beatable by higher straight flush). I thought a bad beat could also refer to hand where one would normally win but the other has better cards (Full house going against a 4 of a kind). Or is that a rule that you must be winning then lose?I would like to know what your other card is, and what his other card was.It seems to me that there's a very real chance that you were NEVER EVER AHEAD in the hand.How could it be a bad beat when you were never winning?Just a thought. -
Best way to deal with tilt is to drop to 1/10th of the level you're playing at, and do whatever the hell you feel like doing, since the money shouldn't hurt when you finally lose it.Drop down to 25 max NL and after you runner runner enough people, you'll feel as though you just infected them with your tilt.
-
How do you really lose in this situation?You never go all in preflop. You never go all in if your opponent has a big draw that he might go all in with. You always know if people are bluffing, and how strong they are. Your steals always work becuase you're raising people with 24o.There's always a chance that you could get freakishly unlucky, but his odds have to be better than 50/50 (assuming a deep starting stack) against 6000 people.I can't believe I posted a response. My job sucks.
2-1??? Are you serious??? We're talking about SIX THOUSAND people.There's no way he's still 100-1 in this scenario. A guy like Daniel, I would say is 50-50 in this scenario. Knowing everyone's hole cards is such a significant advantage. There are so many hands you can avoid and hands you can pick up. It would be difficult for him to lose assuming he can stay focused which i don't think would be a problem. -
Playing some 5/5 NL at Turning Stone on Saturday, I won a couple of pots that were in excess of 1000 dollars, and I tipped 10$ on both.One player at the table (who's a big money online guy) told each dealer that if he dealt him a pot over 1000$, he'd tip 75$.He wasn't lying and he did it twice while I was there. That's a bit much if you ask me, but the dealers liked us.On a side note, it was really important that the dealers didn't act any more appreciative of his $75 than they did of a 1$ or 2$ tip. I'm sure on the inside they're jumping up and down, but it was good etiquette to not make other players feel inferior for tipping 1$.
-
Indeed I was forgetting about those people.I guess that 30% are winners and the sites turn 20% into losers.Good point.You are forgetting all the people who win a small amount but are ultimately losers because of the rake, deposit loading fees, etc.In reality, 30% are probably winning players but at half of those dont win enough to cover the rake and other factors. -
I wans't saying that it was totally wrong, since I have no basis other than my own opinion. I personally agree with the poster who said that about 20% would be the maximum who are winners. I know that there are TONS of awful players out there, but that doesn't take away from the fact that someone has to be winning.I really have no basis for anything I'm saying except for what my common sense tells me. If you've read it somewhere, then I guess I'm just really surprised that the percentage is so low.Just glad that I'm in that small percent 8)
-
I'd like to know exactly where that comes from. It seems ridiculous to me that 90% of online players are break even or losing. That means that the few who are winning are winning ALL of the money and I just don't think that's so. Also, how can that really be estimated?In terms of event sizes and buy-ins:The casino should want to have bigger buy-ins with fewer people because that means that they can make the same amount of money with half of the people, but their personnel expenses would also be roughly half since they would emply half as many dealers, half as many floorment, etc.That would also leave more room for cash games.I know that the larger volume of people is good for certain things (booking hotel rooms for example), but it also costly in other places (more security, more poker personnel).In general, I'm sure that casinos would rather have huge fields, but you could still probably raise the buy-ins for some events and not lose that many people.I agree with much of what you say. But not your first line in bold. Estimates from inside the online poker industry are that roughly 7-10% of all online poker players are actually winners. And that includes the ones who are barely beating the break even point.I think the number of 18-22 year olds with 6 figure bankrolls is nowhere near as high as you do. -
That's true, but there are plenty of those as well.I agree, but you need 21 and 22 year old kids running around with huge BR's for the B&M tournies. -
There are thousands of 18 and 19 year old kids running around with 6 figure bankrolls from online poker.With the insane amount of money that is floating around poker these days, isn't it time to change some of the buy-ins (the Main Event for example) at the WSOP?The WPT championship has a 25k buy-in. Since a majority of the WSOP main event entrants win their way in through satellites anyway, it would probably only mean one more round of qualifying.It wouldn't be a 5600 person lottery anymore if the buy-in were upped. The prizepool would probably be bigger since you'd only need 2240 people to have the same pool at 25k each.The end result would be higher quality play since the buy-in would be more significant and there would be fewer players (although still a very high number).I think that with the amount of money in poker today, it's time that the main event change it up a little so that it doesn't wind up being a 2 week long lottery with 8000 people.Discuss/Flame away...
mtt bubble play
in Tournament Play
Posted
I was recently playing in an online multi-table tournament with 750 players as we approached the bubble. My stack at the time was roughly 16,000 chips when the tournament average was 8,500. The blinds were at 300/600 with about 80 players remaining. I feel I had been playing very well and considering the buy-in wasn't too large, I was playing to win since only the money for the top 5 seemed significant to me.I posted the BB and was dealt two red kings. While considering how to play them, MP1 (11,000 chip stack) raised to 1500. Then, the only person at the table who had me covered, reraised all in for 19,000 chips. It came to me and although I knew I was playing very well and was under no pressure from the blinds, I made the call thinking that it was too good a chance to pass up. If I won, I'd have 5% of the total chips in play with 80 left and would be in the drivers seat. As it turns out, the player who pushed all-in had AA and I never drew out. Basically, I was wondering if it could ever be right to fold a hand as strong as KK there, regardless of how well I think I'm controlling the action and how well I'm playing. I figured that there were legitimate hands that he could push that stack in with, and I dominate all but one of them. I'm really not upset with the play, but I wonder if you would ever consider folding there.