revolutionary idea

[JaysonWeber 0]

I think everyone is pretty much on the same side with this one... lol.

[KDawgCometh 2]

Comic Book guy says....worst idea ever

[JFarrell20 1]

1) If a guy with AK pre-flop is dumb enough to let me draw so cheaply that I make QQQxx .

...which is why I said it would help primarily in a limit game. NL isn't all we play here, buddy. This will come up much less often in no limit as you have the ability to jam the pot more with two high pairs.

[JFarrell20 1]

If you don't get the fish calling you down as a 20% underdog, you will make less profit in the long term. If your rule was instituted, then the fish would fold their hand knowing they can not win, since they can't hit their miracle cards for a set.

Thanks for a civil point Jay. The only reason a fish would fold 9 2 when the board reads Q A 9 9 _ is if he 'put' you on AQ pre-flop. Remember, only two overpairs can beat trips, and only if two of the 3-of-a-kind are on the community. He or she (the fish) will still play trips this way. A good player has a slightly better ability to put somone on a pre-flop hand, and therefore, would be less likely to play trip 9's on this board...Advantage: Players with better reading skillsDisadvantage: Fish (still)

[JFarrell20 1]

What about three pair? That would be a much better rule. You would have had aces over kings over dueces. A hell of a hand indeed.

That is related to this idea, but not where I got it from.When you hold AK and flop comes A K 4 4 8, the 4's are worthless to you. However, they help a guy with 2 4. I just don't see how this protects the better hand? I'm not saying to call this "three pairs". I still want to use only 5 cards, but I want to protect the stronger (in this case) pre-flop hand.EDIT: Maybe I haven't proven yet how this will help the better players (us forum members, hopefully), but you guys have not proven how it will hurt good players. The only pure argument here would be that you guys don't want to "change the game", which I totally understand. I consider myself a purist and I'm not out to "change the game", but I also consider myself a good player, and this is a money game...therefore, if I can devise a way to protect the better players against fish, then why not? What's the problem?? If you guys are truly good this will help you.

[rusmac31 0]

Just by proposing this silly, silly idea...you've probably lost any and all credibility in this forum as any kind of skilled poker player.Quit trying to make a name for yourself...I believe it's called "Smash envy"Aarrgghh...and I've wasted precious moments of my life reading this ridiculous post...BABY ARM AND NO FUNERAL

[dms26 3]

I think you should head to Vegas during the WSOP and explain your ideas, it's sure to be in the 2006 rotation. Probably right after the $5000 NL Old Maid Championship

[JFarrell20 1]

Just by proposing this silly, silly idea...you've probably lost any and all credibility in this forum as any kind of skilled poker player.Quit trying to make a name for yourself...I believe it's called "Smash envy"Aarrgghh...and I've wasted precious moments of my life reading this ridiculous post...BABY ARM AND NO FUNERAL

WTF?! This is the second time you've berated me in here rusmac. First for my NL skills (or lack thereof in your eyes), and now for this?! Smash Envy!? WTF?So now if somone posts any kind of idea on here, it's dubbed "smash envy"? You are a jacka$$.BABY ARM AND NO FUNERAL!? WTF.BTW, I haven't seen you on party poker rusmac, but when I do, we will play eachother. You are on my buddy list, I just don't know why you're scared to go there now. It's not like it's 3pm at the playground. btw, how does posting an idea mean I'm not a skilled player?When your mom gave you the idea of wearing your underwear on the inside of your pants, that didn't make her a bad mom.

[jayistheman 0]

i hit agree just cuz it was so one-sided

[JFarrell20 1]

i hit agree just cuz it was so one-sided

Damn, I thought someone was finally catching on.. you guys will come around after a few more days. Don't be mad just because I came up with the idea before you guys. It's called "JFarrell20 envy", you'll get used to it.

[DeadMoney6545 0]

Damn, I thought someone was finally catching on.. you guys will come around after a few more days. Don't be mad just because I came up with the idea before you guys. It's called "JFarrell20 envy", you'll get used to it.

U are dillusional. Whats the line from Billy Madison? Found it.....Mr. JFarrell, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[The Ace of Jades 0]

I'm glad I called that guy.

[AKQJs_2o 0]

What about three pair? That would be a much better rule. You would have had aces over kings over dueces. A hell of a hand indeed.

:bubblelol::dance:

...therefore, if I can devise a way to protect the better players against fish, then why not? What's the problem?? If you guys are truly good this will help you.

:bubblearg::wall: 1) Good players don't need to be protected from the fish, if anything the fish could use a little protection from the good players.2) In one of your posts above you said your rules would apply to Limit HE, not NLHE. WTF do we need different sets of rules for the same card game? What about Pot Limit, what kind of rules do you propose for PLHE?3) The hand rankings are based upon sound logical math/odds. The rest of the world isn't going to change because somebody got lucky and beat you when you had :heartsa: :clubsk: in the hole. Luck is an inherent part of poker, it's one of the things that makes the game interesting and fun. If you took all of the luck out of poker it would just be an exercise in arithmetic and that wouldn't be very much fun, would it?

[JFarrell20 1]

What about three pair? That would be a much better rule. You would have had aces over kings over dueces. A hell of a hand indeed.

:bubblelol::dance:

...therefore, if I can devise a way to protect the better players against fish, then why not? What's the problem?? If you guys are truly good this will help you.

:bubblearg::wall: 1) Good players don't need to be protected from the fish, if anything the fish could use a little protection from the good players.2) In one of your posts above you said your rules would apply to Limit HE, not NLHE. WTF do we need different sets of rules for the same card game? What about Pot Limit, what kind of rules do you propose for PLHE?3) The hand rankings are based upon sound logical math/odds. The rest of the world isn't going to change because somebody got lucky and beat you when you had :heartsa: :clubsk: in the hole. Luck is an inherent part of poker, it's one of the things that makes the game interesting and fun. If you took all of the luck out of poker it would just be an exercise in arithmetic and that wouldn't be very much fun, would it?

1) why would you want to protect the fish instead of the good players? Poker is 98% luck, I'm trying to make it 97.8% luck.2)I never said it would not apply to NLHE. Go back and read. I said it would become more beneficial in limit as you cannot buy the pot with two pair as well as you can in NL.3)Yes, winning money is always fun. The combination of bad luck + good luck is not fun, due to the fact that it evens out to nothing over time. If I want to get lucky I'll go down to the Asian "massage" parlor and throw down a C-note. I'm not interested in luck, I'm interested in money.

[Wilderness 0]

Poker is 98% luck, I'm trying to make it 97.8% luck.

:shock:Wow.

[KDawgCometh 2]

What's even dumber than this idea is the fact that even under overwhelming opposition and a lopsided poll you still believe your right. Ineed to give you some inside information, now get ready ths ones a shocker, Man has reached the moon. I know crazy isn't it, I mena , like WOW. since you don't like listening to massive amounts of opposing info I thoought I'd get you updated on life and such

[dominiksdad 0]

how does posting an idea mean I'm not a skilled player?

Poker is 98% luck, I'm trying to make it 97.8% luck.

According to you there are no skilled players - poker is all about luck. Damn - I wish I was as "lucky" as Daniel

[Guest]

ok let's say we implemented this rule changethe next thing you'll be complaining about is your AJ getting beat by KQ on a board of JJQ3Kor how about your AT getting beat by QJ on a board of TT9QJ.... and the list goes on....it doesnt matter how u change the rules.. as long as there is some element of randomness and luck.. there's gonna be suckouts (and people who whine about them)

[Chiggleslap 0]

I got sucked into reading this post because it was titled "Revolutionary Idea." ...

[The Ace of Jades 0]

Luck isn't that big a part of the game. Definently not as big a part as bluffing.Watch some more TV, its almost starting to sink in.Poker is based on odds, probability, playing the player as much as the cards.If everyone played the same amount of hands and played them all the same way, after a while everyone would come out even again.Luck is just being there when probability swings your way.And if you take the luck out of it, then Hellmuth is gonna start winning again.

[wrto4556 0]

stunning....

[KDawgCometh 2]

stunning....

see what happens when you leave us for a little bit, all of the weirdos come out of the woodwork. I love how JFarrell will not let up in his stance even against the overwhelming amjority saying how dumb this is, he'd probably even disagree if Daniel said this was a dumb idea. Here's a question to you JFarrell, if poker has worked well for over a hundred years then why should we change it because your upset with some bad beat

[PWetz00 0]

I can see where you are coming from, again, but I think it's hard to take you seriously after you said that the Poker Gods would be sending you a check for a ridiculous amount of money. Poker is Poker... and you will not make any money at all if you eliminate all the "bad" players. Who will want to keep donating money to your game if you stay on the best hands... and win with them all the time? The money will run dry, and you will eventually be playing poker against only the best players..... and what good is playing with the 9 best players in the world, if you are the 9th best? No good at all... and you (generally speaking you, meaning anyone) will be the one not winning and leaving broke.This game will never be changed, but your ideas are better suited for the late night crap poker that's more like 99.9% luck instead of the 97.8% you claim you can make it.You know what I mean by "crap" poker..... the "7 stud-mission control-low (whatever suit) in hole wins half pot", " 5 stud-sequence-high spot count wins half".... and so on..... These games have about as much skill as "crap on your neighbor."I understand you want to make a positive change.... but by posting here you have to accept that other people (most people in this case), will not like it. The reason so many people play this game, is because anyone can win. The reason why most people play poker is because of those hands where a small set cracks two pair with A-K...... huge pots are won on those hands. What makes it any different if you are sitting with AA.... and that same board comes out? You would want that person to hit their set..... because it would mean you'd have the Aces full of twos... or threes.. or whatever. You wouldn't win nearly as much there if the other person wasn't allowed to make their set.Again, fair enough that you wish to make an honest attempt at bettering the game.... but I do not think this works in this fashion. I believe that it would eventually run out the fish to the point where nobody is interested in involving themselves with the game anymore....... ..... a la, the National Hockey League. The greed of the people who "know what they are doing, and looking for change" is running the game nose first into the ground.

[JFarrell20 1]

Luck isn't that big a part of the game. Definently not as big a part as bluffing.Watch some more TV, its almost starting to sink in.Poker is based on odds, probability, playing the player as much as the cards.If everyone played the same amount of hands and played them all the same way, after a while everyone would come out even again.Luck is just being there when probability swings your way.And if you take the luck out of it, then Hellmuth is gonna start winning again.

Bluffing is barely a factor in limit. Yes, luck is probably 98% of poker. Watch some more TV!? LOL. "playing the player as much as playing the cards". LOL. This is all news to me.

[JFarrell20 1]

..... and what good is playing with the 9 best players in the world' date=' if you are the 9th best? No good at all... [i']HAHA you are already quoting lines from "Tilt"?! LOL. This is very telling about you.[/i]The reason why most people play poker is because of those hands where a small set cracks two pair with A-K...... huge pots are won on those hands. Are you the club president of the redundancy club?I believe that it would eventually run out the fish to the point where nobody is interested in involving themselves with the game anymore....... Wow, this is going way over-board. You guys are acting like this hand happens 1-in-4. Fish will never run away from this new rule. Fish don't even know what this rule means to them.The greed of the people who "know what they are doing, and looking for change" is running the game nose first into the ground.The game is being run into the ground!? News to me. I appreciate your honest response though. Much better than people saying "JFarrell is such a d0uchebag, man I can't believe he actually has his own philosophy of the game. What a jerk. Lets hang him by his feet in the public square and beat him with sticks, and see if we can't subdue his thoughts."