gambling 101 for dreamclown and co.

[TheIronChef 0]

hey this is my first post although i have been reading for a while.the one thing i think that everyone is missing is the factor of the "drive to win". in many games i have played i will always let the guy with nothing throw it in for a flip. even though he has nothing much more for me to gain i still want to "bust him". the full win. (any of you people remember playing marbles, and the joy of geesin' someone) and, if i have been dominating, throwing it in the air is fine with me 'cause either i bust him now or very soon. good enough. plus you gain respect from your opponent, and you can win money off him at a later date. better than him avoiding you.

[bigcoled 1]

What if you dont play basketball?

[ilovejulie 0]

This thread is asinine. I cant fathom how a group of high-rollers and their groupies can not get something so simple.1) It's not a coin-flip vs a 5 BB stack. Even if the cheap streets are capped, there's still a decision on the turn at the very least. Calling down on every street costs you either 3 or 3.5 BB. You cant even be forced to cover his 5 BB on any give hand to show down. It's not even a coin flip taken as a single event.2) If it were a coin flip for 5k (which it's not), it would be one coin flip for the last 5k, not a series of coin flips for doucheclown's 95k stack. This is limit right? Doesn't anyone see the difference limit makes?3) There is no comparison between this and DN's "tourist" game in his training day blog. The tourist game was NL. DN as the HUGE stack could make it a series of coin flips for as long as he held the big stack. If he's willing to do that blind every hand (which is close to what he was doing), it gives a huge advantage to the shortstack. In the Doucheclown example, DN cant force even a single coin flip. To accept DC's explanation would be equivalent to thinking that in a limit freezeout, as the chip-leader's lead widens, his chances of winning actually decreases. This is utterly assinine.Maybe people are being intentionally thick to stir the pot a bit...I dont know. I certainly hope so.

EXACTLY!!! and yes, that was yelling...

[IndyJoe 0]

Daniel, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you might understand.

Translation: "Come enter the mind of a donkey"

Lets say that you sit down with $500k, and Bill Gates sits with you and he puts up $1.5 million. He says that he's going to play some of these hands blind. First hand, you get dealt AK, and he pushes his $1.5 mill. What do you do? What are your odds? Next hand you get QQ, and he pushes in again. What do you do? What are your odds? The fact is, you don't know. Why is it that everyone always thinks the "maniac" has 10-3 or 7-2? That's a ridiculous, and possibly very costly assumption. What if he DID have 7-2 against your AK? Would you do it? Would you risk your $500 thousand on 60% odds? What about 70%? Seriously?

60% , 70% - I think the answer is a resounding yes, every fn time

The point is Daniel is that you have forced the opponent to GAMBLE.

The point is Joe, you can't understand the most simple of mathematics involved in poker so why not let it go before you embarass yourself a little more

You've taken all the SKILL out of the game. Do you get this at all? Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.

Ahhh... the single biggest thing that a SKILLFUL player does is get his money in as a favourite. What don't you get about that you muppet. Seriously, how can you be that daft and still operate a keyboard?

Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.

I'm pretty sure he does understand it and has tried to explain the BIGGER PICTURE so that even people on the short bus with you can see it. If DreamClown does have an edge, the EV of the situation extends beyond the point of DN having a shortstack - but I'm using too many syllables here.

Man, why to I bother replying......

Lets make it less painful for all of us because this is really embarassing for you.Don't bother replying

I want to apologize to this forum. I don't post here often, and when I do I completely forget the fact that the majority of the regulars here play micro-limits and play money games. I hope you can accept my apology. When you play higher limit poker you are really trying to maximize your advantage. You're trying to isolate the weaker player(s), and take pots down without going to a showdown. In NL especially, one thing that you try to avoid is being forced to put your money in with no indication of your opponents hand. Regardless of what you're holding. When this happens, you take the gamble and hope for the best. But you're certainly not thrilled about it. Even if you're the slight favorite. Now, when you play micro-limits, and play money games it's often advantageous to push your entire stack with JJ, QQ, AK, etc. You'll often get called with worse hands, and heck even if they do show AA and you get beat, you didn't really have much to lose to begin with. There's really no reason to develop post flop skill play, and advanced strategy goes out the window. You look to get a mini-edge, and 60/40 is pure domination! I can see now how it's always correct to risk your entire stack, something you've possibly been amassing for hours, on an implied 60% edge. Then rebuy, and do it again. I hope this sheds some light on my earlier posts. I should've realized who my audience was, and explained accordingly. I just have to say again.... I'm sorry. :oops:

[SplashMaster 0]

Daniel, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you might understand.

Translation: "Come enter the mind of a donkey"

Lets say that you sit down with $500k, and Bill Gates sits with you and he puts up $1.5 million. He says that he's going to play some of these hands blind. First hand, you get dealt AK, and he pushes his $1.5 mill. What do you do? What are your odds? Next hand you get QQ, and he pushes in again. What do you do? What are your odds? The fact is, you don't know. Why is it that everyone always thinks the "maniac" has 10-3 or 7-2? That's a ridiculous, and possibly very costly assumption. What if he DID have 7-2 against your AK? Would you do it? Would you risk your $500 thousand on 60% odds? What about 70%? Seriously?

60% , 70% - I think the answer is a resounding yes, every fn time

The point is Daniel is that you have forced the opponent to GAMBLE.

The point is Joe, you can't understand the most simple of mathematics involved in poker so why not let it go before you embarass yourself a little more

You've taken all the SKILL out of the game. Do you get this at all? Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.

Ahhh... the single biggest thing that a SKILLFUL player does is get his money in as a favourite. What don't you get about that you muppet. Seriously, how can you be that daft and still operate a keyboard?

Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.

I'm pretty sure he does understand it and has tried to explain the BIGGER PICTURE so that even people on the short bus with you can see it. If DreamClown does have an edge, the EV of the situation extends beyond the point of DN having a shortstack - but I'm using too many syllables here.

Man, why to I bother replying......

Lets make it less painful for all of us because this is really embarassing for you.Don't bother replying

I want to apologize to this forum. I don't post here often, and when I do I completely forget the fact that the majority of the regulars here play micro-limits and play money games. I hope you can accept my apology. When you play higher limit poker you are really trying to maximize your advantage. You're trying to isolate the weaker player(s), and take pots down without going to a showdown. In NL especially, one thing that you try to avoid is being forced to put your money in with no indication of your opponents hand. Regardless of what you're holding. When this happens, you take the gamble and hope for the best. But you're certainly not thrilled about it. Even if you're the slight favorite. Now, when you play micro-limits, and play money games it's often advantageous to push your entire stack with JJ, QQ, AK, etc. You'll often get called with worse hands, and heck even if they do show AA and you get beat, you didn't really have much to lose to begin with. There's really no reason to develop post flop skill play, and advanced strategy goes out the window. You look to get a mini-edge, and 60/40 is pure domination! I can see now how it's always correct to risk your entire stack, something you've possibly been amassing for hours, on an implied 60% edge. Then rebuy, and do it again. I hope this sheds some light on my earlier posts. I should've realized who my audience was, and explained accordingly. I just have to say again.... I'm sorry. :oops:

your "audience" seems to understand the simple point of trying to win 150k for 5k vs a random hand is worth the risk EVERY SINGLE TIME.go preach to another audience

[Fooditty 0]

Daniel, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you might understand.

Translation: "Come enter the mind of a donkey"

Lets say that you sit down with $500k, and Bill Gates sits with you and he puts up $1.5 million. He says that he's going to play some of these hands blind. First hand, you get dealt AK, and he pushes his $1.5 mill. What do you do? What are your odds? Next hand you get QQ, and he pushes in again. What do you do? What are your odds? The fact is, you don't know. Why is it that everyone always thinks the "maniac" has 10-3 or 7-2? That's a ridiculous, and possibly very costly assumption. What if he DID have 7-2 against your AK? Would you do it? Would you risk your $500 thousand on 60% odds? What about 70%? Seriously?

60% , 70% - I think the answer is a resounding yes, every fn time

The point is Daniel is that you have forced the opponent to GAMBLE.

The point is Joe, you can't understand the most simple of mathematics involved in poker so why not let it go before you embarass yourself a little more

You've taken all the SKILL out of the game. Do you get this at all? Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.

Ahhh... the single biggest thing that a SKILLFUL player does is get his money in as a favourite. What don't you get about that you muppet. Seriously, how can you be that daft and still operate a keyboard?

Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.

I'm pretty sure he does understand it and has tried to explain the BIGGER PICTURE so that even people on the short bus with you can see it. If DreamClown does have an edge, the EV of the situation extends beyond the point of DN having a shortstack - but I'm using too many syllables here.

Man, why to I bother replying......

Lets make it less painful for all of us because this is really embarassing for you.Don't bother replying

I want to apologize to this forum. I don't post here often, and when I do I completely forget the fact that the majority of the regulars here play micro-limits and play money games. I hope you can accept my apology. When you play higher limit poker you are really trying to maximize your advantage. You're trying to isolate the weaker player(s), and take pots down without going to a showdown. In NL especially, one thing that you try to avoid is being forced to put your money in with no indication of your opponents hand. Regardless of what you're holding. When this happens, you take the gamble and hope for the best. But you're certainly not thrilled about it. Even if you're the slight favorite. Now, when you play micro-limits, and play money games it's often advantageous to push your entire stack with JJ, QQ, AK, etc. You'll often get called with worse hands, and heck even if they do show AA and you get beat, you didn't really have much to lose to begin with. There's really no reason to develop post flop skill play, and advanced strategy goes out the window. You look to get a mini-edge, and 60/40 is pure domination! I can see now how it's always correct to risk your entire stack, something you've possibly been amassing for hours, on an implied 60% edge. Then rebuy, and do it again. I hope this sheds some light on my earlier posts. I should've realized who my audience was, and explained accordingly. I just have to say again.... I'm sorry. :oops:

I don't play "micro" limits and I certainly don't think you can be so dumb. Maybe you have your entire roll on the table at anytime, but when I play I have backup money and take my edge and push it. I'm not scared of only being 70% like some retard that comes onto this site just to bash someone much better then him.Also good job being horribly wrong and moronic, then trying to some how give us a backhanded insult about not playing high limits like you. If you do play them, I guess your the fish.

[Spademan 94]

I want to apologize to this forum. I don't post here often, and when I do I completely forget the fact that the majority of the regulars here play micro-limits and play money games. I hope you can accept my apology. When you play higher limit poker you are really trying to maximize your advantage. You're trying to isolate the weaker player(s), and take pots down without going to a showdown. In NL especially, one thing that you try to avoid is being forced to put your money in with no indication of your opponents hand. Regardless of what you're holding. When this happens, you take the gamble and hope for the best. But you're certainly not thrilled about it. Even if you're the slight favorite. Now, when you play micro-limits, and play money games it's often advantageous to push your entire stack with JJ, QQ, AK, etc. You'll often get called with worse hands, and heck even if they do show AA and you get beat, you didn't really have much to lose to begin with. There's really no reason to develop post flop skill play, and advanced strategy goes out the window. You look to get a mini-edge, and 60/40 is pure domination! I can see now how it's always correct to risk your entire stack, something you've possibly been amassing for hours, on an implied 60% edge. Then rebuy, and do it again. I hope this sheds some light on my earlier posts. I should've realized who my audience was, and explained accordingly. I just have to say again.... I'm sorry. :oops:

Hey toolshed, your posts are growing increasingly more irrelevant.Even if your fallacy were more on point, it would still be stupid, and that's sad.So, the higher the limits you play, the more weight you have on the argument?Guess what, DN plays higher limits than you ever will, you drooling monkey, so you defeat yourself with your own argument.That's cute.

[deviper 0]

Daniel, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you might understand.

Translation: "Come enter the mind of a donkey"

Lets say that you sit down with $500k, and Bill Gates sits with you and he puts up $1.5 million. He says that he's going to play some of these hands blind. First hand, you get dealt AK, and he pushes his $1.5 mill. What do you do? What are your odds? Next hand you get QQ, and he pushes in again. What do you do? What are your odds? The fact is, you don't know. Why is it that everyone always thinks the "maniac" has 10-3 or 7-2? That's a ridiculous, and possibly very costly assumption. What if he DID have 7-2 against your AK? Would you do it? Would you risk your $500 thousand on 60% odds? What about 70%? Seriously?

60% , 70% - I think the answer is a resounding yes, every fn time

The point is Daniel is that you have forced the opponent to GAMBLE.

The point is Joe, you can't understand the most simple of mathematics involved in poker so why not let it go before you embarass yourself a little more

You've taken all the SKILL out of the game. Do you get this at all? Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.

Ahhh... the single biggest thing that a SKILLFUL player does is get his money in as a favourite. What don't you get about that you muppet. Seriously, how can you be that daft and still operate a keyboard?

Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.

I'm pretty sure he does understand it and has tried to explain the BIGGER PICTURE so that even people on the short bus with you can see it. If DreamClown does have an edge, the EV of the situation extends beyond the point of DN having a shortstack - but I'm using too many syllables here.

Man, why to I bother replying......

Lets make it less painful for all of us because this is really embarassing for you.Don't bother replying

I want to apologize to this forum. I don't post here often, and when I do I completely forget the fact that the majority of the regulars here play micro-limits and play money games. I hope you can accept my apology. When you play higher limit poker you are really trying to maximize your advantage. You're trying to isolate the weaker player(s), and take pots down without going to a showdown. In NL especially, one thing that you try to avoid is being forced to put your money in with no indication of your opponents hand. Regardless of what you're holding. When this happens, you take the gamble and hope for the best. But you're certainly not thrilled about it. Even if you're the slight favorite. Now, when you play micro-limits, and play money games it's often advantageous to push your entire stack with JJ, QQ, AK, etc. You'll often get called with worse hands, and heck even if they do show AA and you get beat, you didn't really have much to lose to begin with. There's really no reason to develop post flop skill play, and advanced strategy goes out the window. You look to get a mini-edge, and 60/40 is pure domination! I can see now how it's always correct to risk your entire stack, something you've possibly been amassing for hours, on an implied 60% edge. Then rebuy, and do it again. I hope this sheds some light on my earlier posts. I should've realized who my audience was, and explained accordingly. I just have to say again.... I'm sorry. :oops:

Your apologizeing for the wrong thing. Apologize for being wrong b/c thats what you are.

[teacher12 0]

Here is the kicker, if you DON'T flip the coin with the 67% shooter you have NO CHANCE to get the $5000. That would be lowering your expectatiion to... 0! By accepting the 50-50 bet, you will give youself an opportunity to make an additional bet where you are a favorite.youa re missing ht epoint daniel his ability to bluff is his strength by you playing with a short stack it takes away his strength. he is completely right you were going to go all in no matter what. you were going ot call anything. i agree with dreamclown

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Funny you say this Daniel, but as I pointed out on NWP, you made the complete opposite argument when you were on the OTHER end of the "stack" in your lame "tourist" post. The one where you so proudly claimed how great a guy you were by giving all the tourist at a 5/10 game a chance to flip their entire stack (trip money/mortgage money, etc) for a chance at your 150k stack. Funny, but back then you seemed to think that the short stacks were the one with the "big" advantage! Seems a bit hypocritical to me.So, what again were you trying to teach?

I'm really not sure why I'm responding to this, but it has me laughing pretty hard so I'll give it a try: Dude, you are comparing apples to Norweigan Frankfurters! When I played at the win I was going all in BLIND. BLIND!!! You call that flipping coins in a 50-50 situation? I'm all in with a random hand in a 10 handed game, and others can wait for a hand like QQ. They get QQ, I get 10-3 off suit. That's a coinflip to you? Man, on second though, why did I even bother replying to this post. It's not that funny at all...

Daniel, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you might understand. Lets say that you sit down with $500k, and Bill Gates sits with you and he puts up $1.5 million. He says that he's going to play some of these hands blind. First hand, you get dealt AK, and he pushes his $1.5 mill. What do you do? What are your odds? Next hand you get QQ, and he pushes in again. What do you do? What are your odds? The fact is, you don't know. Why is it that everyone always thinks the "maniac" has 10-3 or 7-2? That's a ridiculous, and possibly very costly assumption. What if he DID have 7-2 against your AK? Would you do it? Would you risk your $500 thousand on 60% odds? What about 70%? Seriously?The point is Daniel is that you have forced the opponent to GAMBLE. You've taken all the SKILL out of the game. Do you get this at all? Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.Man, why to I bother replying......

IndyJoe, the only conclusion I can come to based on your posts in this thread is that you really don't understand gambling. If Bill Gates sat down and wanted to go all in every hand it is very easy to figure out the "odds." If that is in fact what he is doing, I could call his bet with ANY hand that is a 55% favorite against a random hand. In the long run, I'd bust him like that. The other thing you clearly are missing out on, is that I wouldn't risk $500k in ANY game unless I could afford to lose it. If I happen to call him with A-Q, and he happens to have 99 and wins, then I'd rebuy for $500 more and do it again, and again if necessary. Indy, you are just way out there and need to listen to all of the posters that understand this better than you do. The best way to learn is to listen, especially to those that are more informed than you.

[BC4Jesus 0]

Funny you say this Daniel, but as I pointed out on NWP, you made the complete opposite argument when you were on the OTHER end of the "stack" in your lame "tourist" post. The one where you so proudly claimed how great a guy you were by giving all the tourist at a 5/10 game a chance to flip their entire stack (trip money/mortgage money, etc) for a chance at your 150k stack. Funny, but back then you seemed to think that the short stacks were the one with the "big" advantage! Seems a bit hypocritical to me.So, what again were you trying to teach?

I'm really not sure why I'm responding to this, but it has me laughing pretty hard so I'll give it a try: Dude, you are comparing apples to Norweigan Frankfurters! When I played at the win I was going all in BLIND. BLIND!!! You call that flipping coins in a 50-50 situation? I'm all in with a random hand in a 10 handed game, and others can wait for a hand like QQ. They get QQ, I get 10-3 off suit. That's a coinflip to you? Man, on second though, why did I even bother replying to this post. It's not that funny at all...

Daniel, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you might understand. Lets say that you sit down with $500k, and Bill Gates sits with you and he puts up $1.5 million. He says that he's going to play some of these hands blind. First hand, you get dealt AK, and he pushes his $1.5 mill. What do you do? What are your odds? Next hand you get QQ, and he pushes in again. What do you do? What are your odds? The fact is, you don't know. Why is it that everyone always thinks the "maniac" has 10-3 or 7-2? That's a ridiculous, and possibly very costly assumption. What if he DID have 7-2 against your AK? Would you do it? Would you risk your $500 thousand on 60% odds? What about 70%? Seriously?The point is Daniel is that you have forced the opponent to GAMBLE. You've taken all the SKILL out of the game. Do you get this at all? Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.Man, why to I bother replying......

IndyJoe, the only conclusion I can come to based on your posts in this thread is that you really don't understand gambling. If Bill Gates sat down and wanted to go all in every hand it is very easy to figure out the "odds." If that is in fact what he is doing, I could call his bet with ANY hand that is a 55% favorite against a random hand. In the long run, I'd bust him like that. The other thing you clearly are missing out on, is that I wouldn't risk $500k in ANY game unless I could afford to lose it. If I happen to call him with A-Q, and he happens to have 99 and wins, then I'd rebuy for $500 more and do it again, and again if necessary. Indy, you are just way out there and need to listen to all of the posters that understand this better than you do. The best way to learn is to listen, especially to those that are more informed than you.

Man, this is awesome! I'm learning a ton from this thread. Daniel, have you ever thought about making a Daniel's School Of Poker area in the forum where you consistently discuss this type of stuff. My wheels haven't turned this much since Algebra (hehe), and I absolutely love it!

[Emptyeye 0]

Here is the kicker, if you DON'T flip the coin with the 67% shooter you have NO CHANCE to get the $5000. That would be lowering your expectatiion to... 0! By accepting the 50-50 bet, you will give youself an opportunity to make an additional bet where you are a favorite.

Just to further play Devil's Advocate:Doesn't your EV only go to 0 on that last 5K If And Only If you refuse the coinflip stipulation AND the two of you agree never to engage in the free throw shooting competition again? To take this and apply it to your poker match, poker is a long-term game yadda yadda yadda, and if we look at it as One Long Session (Since all indications seemed to point toward a future matchup even prior to this controversy), he would indeed be giving up an advantage and (long-term) EV to play you for the last 5K. Yeah, he could take the "coinflip" and eventually get it anyway...but he could get that same 5K more efficiently in another situation, IE another duel when you have a deeper stack.(I'm ignoring the questions of whether such a stance is ethical, whether or not either DN or DC are ACTUALLY more skilled than the other, etc)

[AlexR 0]

How about we all just agree that everybody is wrong and we are all stupid?

[jay1085 0]

Your apologizeing for the rong thing. Apologize for being rong b/c thats what you are.Did you really just spell "wrong'" that way twice?

[picassorooster 0]

Hello all, I’m new to the forum but have been reading for a while. I’ve picked up some good insights on a range of things from many of you. You’ll eventually have to put up with me in all of the subforums, but for now - ya, I’m going to make my first post on a highly divisive and even kind of tired topic.I don’t have a problem with what DC did.I read DN’s blog post about ‘Nits’ a long time ago. That, as well as some other advice he’s given about comporting oneself in and around the game, have stuck with me. I just think that this situation is different and the criticism isn’t really warranted. There is simply not enough $ in play to make it worthwhile. DN had acknowledged that DC had an edge. Part of that edge is his ability to put DN to tough decisions. That edge deteriorates when DN does not have to make critical decisions on each and every street. So, I don’t blame him one bit for not letting DN – still a dangerous player in any game - back into the game in a situation where he’s winner and stood to gain only a fractional bit more. There just isn’t enough value in it, besides acting the good guy/ friendly gambler. But that is designed to keep the action around. Not necessary, since DN will surely give him action anyways. Is he going to duck the guy every time he sees him sitting in his own room? Free-throw analogy: the guy down to his last $ says Okay, here’s what we’ll do. I’ll put up my last cash, but instead of shooting, we’ll kick it. Whoever hits the rim first by kicking, wins. The superior shooter’s edge is gone. So, why should he do it? He shouldn’t. Unless he wants to act friendly enough to make the guy his “mark” and ensure that he’ll keep coming back everyday. But, no way if he’s sure the guy will be back tomorrow with more cash anyways (like if it's the stuck guy's own court). Now if the guy offered that if he just gets to do the “free-kick,” he’ll keep shooting and write a check for every time he loses, that’s a different story. Why? Because then there’s more $ in play again, and it makes the whole thing worthwhile. That doesn't make anybody sleazy or anything. Smart gamblers want an edge. Period. If they have to give up a little bit of the edge to get action, they'll do it. When they don't have to, they won't.

[DaBruins 0]

regarding Indy's post..........of course you can calculate the odds of having the best hands when holding AK or QQ against a blind hand. Smart players don't risk money that would absolutely kill them if they went broke on the table. Thus, not calling with a QQ for example against a blind hand would be the most idiotic thing i've ever heard - you would be an 80% favorite. And with AKs you would be a 2 to 1 favorite.

[jlgosse 0]

I want to be an idiot tonight."you suck at poker" me"no i dont" irishguy"no need to argue, all in with 72, you're a fool" me"no, it was soooooooted" irishguy

[Suited_Up 2]

This thread is just amazing. An instant classic. It'll actually re-air on FCP Classic following the conclusion of the thread.Wow. The funniest part has to be a guy actually talking down to everyone (DN included), yet doesn't understand simple EV concepts. Then tells us to come back and talk to him when we play high limts. It's just awesome.Now to some of the other people who can't grasp the basketball analogy....The idea, is that he has the edge while shooting the baskets.When he gets to a certain point, they flip a coin for the last 5k. If he loses the flip, they're back to shooting.... Now follow me.... Once he loses the flip, and they are shooting again, his initial edge takes back over, and will always end up back down to the last 5k at some point, and at that point, they flip again. Eventually he'll win the flip and get all the money. He can't possibly lose when he's the 80% favorite shooting. It seems like some poeple are missing something.Step 1: Shoot for 5k a basket up until the last 5k of the opponent. (80% edge)Step 2: Flip coin for last 5k.Loss: Shoot for 5k again (out of opponents now 10k) (80% edge again)Win: You win the last 5k and game over.You can't possibly lose if you have the edge in the shooting.Point being, if DreamClown really has the edge... playing for the last 5k doesn't matter. At some point, he will win that last coinflip, and win all the money. Reloading makes no difference.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

Point being, if DreamClown really has the edge... playing for the last 5k doesn't matter.  At some point, he will win that last coinflip, and win all the money.  Reloading makes no difference.

Wait, wait, wait. What're you doing trying to be all, logical and expressing an understanding of +EV concepts..?

[irishguy 14]

I want to be an idiot tonight."you suck at poker" me"no i dont" irishguy"no need to argue, all in with 72, you're a fool" me"no, it was soooooooted" irishguy

Wow! Did I offend you somewhere through out my four previous posts? Do you know? Did I hurt you when you were a child? Is this cus I kicked your mom and raped your dog? I'll assume it was just a random insult it did make me chuckle but lets not pretend you know anything about my poker ability as I don't know anything about your.

[SplashMaster 0]

This thread is just amazing. An instant classic. It'll actually re-air on FCP Classic following the conclusion of the thread.Wow. The funniest part has to be a guy actually talking down to everyone (DN included), yet doesn't understand simple EV concepts. Then tells us to come back and talk to him when we play high limts. It's just awesome.Now to some of the other people who can't grasp the basketball analogy....The idea, is that he has the edge while shooting the baskets.When he gets to a certain point, they flip a coin for the last 5k. If he loses the flip, they're back to shooting.... Now follow me.... Once he loses the flip, and they are shooting again, his initial edge takes back over, and will always end up back down to the last 5k at some point, and at that point, they flip again. Eventually he'll win the flip and get all the money. He can't possibly lose when he's the 80% favorite shooting. It seems like some poeple are missing something.Step 1: Shoot for 5k a basket up until the last 5k of the opponent. (80% edge)Step 2: Flip coin for last 5k.Loss: Shoot for 5k again (out of opponents now 10k) (80% edge again)Win: You win the last 5k and game over.You can't possibly lose if you have the edge in the shooting.Point being, if DreamClown really has the edge... playing for the last 5k doesn't matter. At some point, he will win that last coinflip, and win all the money. Reloading makes no difference.

I knew you had it in you ,suited, even though you misplayed that J10

[potodds 0]

Quote from Daniel's recent CardPlayer article. Seems apropo......You should — seriously. You would win the pot 60 percent of the time, meaning that six out of 10 times, you’d start the tournament with twice as many chips, while four times, you’d be out early and could enjoy the rest of the afternoon! That is too good an offer to pass up. You could justify folding as a 53 percent or even 55 percent favorite in this situation, but 60 percent is just too much equity for any mortal to give up.Unless you believe yourself to be some kind of a poker god and think you can routinely fold in positive expected value situations because you can “outplay” everybody else without taking any risks, you should be willing to take some risks regardless of the stage of the tournament...

Daniel, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you might understand. Lets say that you sit down with $500k, and Bill Gates sits with you and he puts up $1.5 million. He says that he's going to play some of these hands blind. First hand, you get dealt AK, and he pushes his $1.5 mill. What do you do? What are your odds? Next hand you get QQ, and he pushes in again. What do you do? What are your odds? The fact is, you don't know. Why is it that everyone always thinks the "maniac" has 10-3 or 7-2? That's a ridiculous, and possibly very costly assumption. What if he DID have 7-2 against your AK? Would you do it? Would you risk your $500 thousand on 60% odds? What about 70%? Seriously?The point is Daniel is that you have forced the opponent to GAMBLE. You've taken all the SKILL out of the game. Do you get this at all? Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.Man, why to I bother replying......

[IndyJoe 0]

Funny you say this Daniel, but as I pointed out on NWP, you made the complete opposite argument when you were on the OTHER end of the "stack" in your lame "tourist" post. The one where you so proudly claimed how great a guy you were by giving all the tourist at a 5/10 game a chance to flip their entire stack (trip money/mortgage money, etc) for a chance at your 150k stack. Funny, but back then you seemed to think that the short stacks were the one with the "big" advantage! Seems a bit hypocritical to me.So, what again were you trying to teach?

I'm really not sure why I'm responding to this, but it has me laughing pretty hard so I'll give it a try: Dude, you are comparing apples to Norweigan Frankfurters! When I played at the win I was going all in BLIND. BLIND!!! You call that flipping coins in a 50-50 situation? I'm all in with a random hand in a 10 handed game, and others can wait for a hand like QQ. They get QQ, I get 10-3 off suit. That's a coinflip to you? Man, on second though, why did I even bother replying to this post. It's not that funny at all...

Daniel, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you might understand. Lets say that you sit down with $500k, and Bill Gates sits with you and he puts up $1.5 million. He says that he's going to play some of these hands blind. First hand, you get dealt AK, and he pushes his $1.5 mill. What do you do? What are your odds? Next hand you get QQ, and he pushes in again. What do you do? What are your odds? The fact is, you don't know. Why is it that everyone always thinks the "maniac" has 10-3 or 7-2? That's a ridiculous, and possibly very costly assumption. What if he DID have 7-2 against your AK? Would you do it? Would you risk your $500 thousand on 60% odds? What about 70%? Seriously?The point is Daniel is that you have forced the opponent to GAMBLE. You've taken all the SKILL out of the game. Do you get this at all? Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.Man, why to I bother replying......

IndyJoe, the only conclusion I can come to based on your posts in this thread is that you really don't understand gambling. If Bill Gates sat down and wanted to go all in every hand it is very easy to figure out the "odds." If that is in fact what he is doing, I could call his bet with ANY hand that is a 55% favorite against a random hand. In the long run, I'd bust him like that. The other thing you clearly are missing out on, is that I wouldn't risk $500k in ANY game unless I could afford to lose it. If I happen to call him with A-Q, and he happens to have 99 and wins, then I'd rebuy for $500 more and do it again, and again if necessary. Indy, you are just way out there and need to listen to all of the posters that understand this better than you do. The best way to learn is to listen, especially to those that are more informed than you.

Daniel, I think you're being to see things my way. You're right, I don't understand gambling. In fact, I try to remove gambling out of my poker game as much as possible. I usually try to win with skill. I have to ask you if you would in fact risk $500k with an implied 55-60% advantage? Maybe you would be willing to "gamble" with that percentage of your bankroll and continually rebuy if necessary. I wonder if the "tourist" at that 5/10 table had the resources to "gamble" until the odds eventually came out in their favor. Oh, and I forgot, how did you end up in that game again Daniel? Oh yeah, I remember now, you came out ahead. Crazy that you got so lucky with such a huge disadvantage. In the future, I'll try to listen to all the posters that tell me I'm "rong". :roll:

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

Daniel, I think you're being to see things my way. You're right, I don't understand gambling. In fact, I try to remove gambling out of my poker game as much as possible. I usually try to win with skill. I have to ask you if you would in fact risk $500k with an implied 55-60% advantage? Maybe you would be willing to "gamble" with that percentage of your bankroll and continually rebuy if necessary. I wonder if the "tourist" at that 5/10 table had the resources to "gamble" until the odds eventually came out in their favor. Oh, and I forgot, how did you end up in that game again Daniel? Oh yeah, I remember now, you came out ahead. Crazy that you got so lucky with such a huge disadvantage. In the future, I'll try to listen to all the posters that tell me I'm "rong". :roll:

A lesser man might not have returned to the forum after getting pwned not once, but twice, by the site's owner and operator.That leads me to believe you're not real bright, or a masochist. Either way, you've demonstrated why it is that there are people who can make a living at poker. I wonder what it'd be like to play any type of card game with no real understanding of probability and basic math concepts.Oh well, it's fun to watch you try. Good work.

[Fooditty 0]

Funny you say this Daniel, but as I pointed out on NWP, you made the complete opposite argument when you were on the OTHER end of the "stack" in your lame "tourist" post. The one where you so proudly claimed how great a guy you were by giving all the tourist at a 5/10 game a chance to flip their entire stack (trip money/mortgage money, etc) for a chance at your 150k stack. Funny, but back then you seemed to think that the short stacks were the one with the "big" advantage! Seems a bit hypocritical to me.So, what again were you trying to teach?

I'm really not sure why I'm responding to this, but it has me laughing pretty hard so I'll give it a try: Dude, you are comparing apples to Norweigan Frankfurters! When I played at the win I was going all in BLIND. BLIND!!! You call that flipping coins in a 50-50 situation? I'm all in with a random hand in a 10 handed game, and others can wait for a hand like QQ. They get QQ, I get 10-3 off suit. That's a coinflip to you? Man, on second though, why did I even bother replying to this post. It's not that funny at all...

Daniel, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you might understand. Lets say that you sit down with $500k, and Bill Gates sits with you and he puts up $1.5 million. He says that he's going to play some of these hands blind. First hand, you get dealt AK, and he pushes his $1.5 mill. What do you do? What are your odds? Next hand you get QQ, and he pushes in again. What do you do? What are your odds? The fact is, you don't know. Why is it that everyone always thinks the "maniac" has 10-3 or 7-2? That's a ridiculous, and possibly very costly assumption. What if he DID have 7-2 against your AK? Would you do it? Would you risk your $500 thousand on 60% odds? What about 70%? Seriously?The point is Daniel is that you have forced the opponent to GAMBLE. You've taken all the SKILL out of the game. Do you get this at all? Do you understand Dreamclown's position at all? He wasn't willing to continue playing when he felt his skill advantage had been reduced to a coin flip.Man, why to I bother replying......

IndyJoe, the only conclusion I can come to based on your posts in this thread is that you really don't understand gambling. If Bill Gates sat down and wanted to go all in every hand it is very easy to figure out the "odds." If that is in fact what he is doing, I could call his bet with ANY hand that is a 55% favorite against a random hand. In the long run, I'd bust him like that. The other thing you clearly are missing out on, is that I wouldn't risk $500k in ANY game unless I could afford to lose it. If I happen to call him with A-Q, and he happens to have 99 and wins, then I'd rebuy for $500 more and do it again, and again if necessary. Indy, you are just way out there and need to listen to all of the posters that understand this better than you do. The best way to learn is to listen, especially to those that are more informed than you.

Daniel, I think you're being to see things my way. You're right, I don't understand gambling. In fact, I try to remove gambling out of my poker game as much as possible. I usually try to win with skill. I have to ask you if you would in fact risk $500k with an implied 55-60% advantage? Maybe you would be willing to "gamble" with that percentage of your bankroll and continually rebuy if necessary. I wonder if the "tourist" at that 5/10 table had the resources to "gamble" until the odds eventually came out in their favor. Oh, and I forgot, how did you end up in that game again Daniel? Oh yeah, I remember now, you came out ahead. Crazy that you got so lucky with such a huge disadvantage. In the future, I'll try to listen to all the posters that tell me I'm "rong". :roll:

It isn't someone else job to make sure you are properly bankrolled to take advantage of your edges. I'm sorry but trying to remove all gambling from poker is dumb and you pass up a lot of money. The skill in poker is taking the +EV side of the gamble. I believe it was in SSHE that it was clearly stated that you should play all your positive EV situations in a cash game. You not having enough money to buy back into the game does not mean you dont have an advantage. Please stop posting, you are embarrasing yourself.