Jump to content

revolutionary idea



Recommended Posts

your posts would have more credibility if you were a winning player at least at a 2/4 level or something at least. But your a microlimit player coming up with Poker Theories and it appears unsuccessful at that. If you were actually winning, I don't think you'd be complaining about the rules. If we institute your top 2 over pair rule beating undersets, then we might as well rule that flushes using 2 hole cards beat a higher flush using 1 card. straights same thing. You don't realize that getting lucky is what keeps fish playing, if they never got lucky and beat your hands, they'd either stop playing or learn to get better. If they didn't occassionally win, why would they keep playing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't like that, though. I'd much rather make the game more polished. I'm not into "gambling" when I flop Aces and Kings. I would much rather "buy insurance" and ensure that I win the pot.

"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."Sarcasm is lost on the ignorant.If playing the player is news to you, then why didn't you get the **** out when you put him on a set of dueces?Moron.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"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."Sarcasm is lost on the ignorant.If playing the player is news to you, then why didn't you get the censored out when you put him on a set of dueces?Moron.
None of these hands I've posted were personal "bad beats". I don't understand why everyone keeps saying that. They are all theoretical hands. Do you know what that means farmboy?
Link to post
Share on other sites
your posts would have more credibility if you were a winning player at least at a 2/4 level or something at least.  But your a microlimit player coming up with Poker Theories and it appears unsuccessful at that.  If you were actually winning, I don't think you'd be complaining about the rules.  If we institute your top 2 over pair rule beating undersets, then we might as well rule that flushes using 2 hole cards beat a higher flush using 1 card.  straights same thing.  You don't realize that getting lucky is what keeps fish playing, if they never got lucky and beat your hands, they'd either stop playing or learn to get better.  If they didn't occassionally win, why would they keep playing?
Fish will still get lucky against other fish. I'm a winning .5/1 player, but I don't know what that has to do with theory? Philosophies and playing style are not necessarily directly related. I guarantee you there are several pro's out there who haven't given a thought about the game other than what's been presented to them. You think Amir Vahedi thinks any deeper than what's on the table? Maybe, but from what I've seen of him, I doubt it. Guys that yell "Balls, baby. Balls" Then lose about a million chips in 3 hands typically do not philosophize about things other than how cool they look with their cigar or how many diamonds should be on their watch.Just because somebody doesn't have money (or in this sense, a bankroll to play 2/4 yet) does not mean you should discount their ideas.
Link to post
Share on other sites
your posts would have more credibility if you were a winning player at least at a 2/4 level or something at least.  But your a microlimit player coming up with Poker Theories and it appears unsuccessful at that.  If you were actually winning, I don't think you'd be complaining about the rules.  If we institute your top 2 over pair rule beating undersets, then we might as well rule that flushes using 2 hole cards beat a higher flush using 1 card.  straights same thing.  You don't realize that getting lucky is what keeps fish playing, if they never got lucky and beat your hands, they'd either stop playing or learn to get better.  If they didn't occassionally win, why would they keep playing?
Fish will still get lucky against other fish. I'm a winning .5/1 player, but I don't know what that has to do with theory? Philosophies and playing style are not necessarily directly related. I guarantee you there are several pro's out there who haven't given a thought about the game other than what's been presented to them. You think Amir Vahedi thinks any deeper than what's on the table? Maybe, but from what I've seen of him, I doubt it. Guys that yell "Balls, baby. Balls" Then lose about a million chips in 3 hands typically do not philosophize about things other than how cool they look with their cigar or how many diamonds should be on their watch.Just because somebody doesn't have money (or in this sense, a bankroll to play 2/4 yet) does not mean you should discount their ideas.
Again, the fish would improve their play if your rule was implemented. If you can't see that, then you just can't see it and no kind of reasoning would help. If the best hands always won, why would anybody play hands other than the best hands? Also, how about an instance with a fish playing AK? They do get AK on occassion. So if a player has QJ and he hits QQX on the board and the turn and river comes up A and K and the fish calls to the river, he wins the pot? How do you explain the fairness in that? Your thinking is solely based on the best hand pre-flop should win everytime, if that were the case, why not play another game and just draw cards to see who gets the best cards? Perhaps instead of putting your focus towards revolutionary poker ideas, you should put the effort into your poker game and build some kind of a bankroll, unless your satisfied playing .5/1 forever.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"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."Sarcasm is lost on the ignorant.If playing the player is news to you, then why didn't you get the censored out when you put him on a set of dueces?Moron.
None of these hands I've posted were personal "bad beats". I don't understand why everyone keeps saying that. They are all theoretical hands. Do you know what that means farmboy?
Naw, I ain't never heard no fancy city talk like that here in Illynoise. I be simple farm folk.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, the fish would improve their play if your rule was implemented. Also, how about an instance with a fish playing AK? They do get AK on occassion. So if a player has QJ and he hits QQX on the board and the turn and river comes up A and K and the fish calls to the river, he wins the pot? Your thinking is solely based on the best hand pre-flop should win everytime, if that were the case, why not play another game and just draw cards to see who gets the best cards?
Fish would improve their play if the rule was implemented? How so?What kind of queen hand would you be playing here? QJ? You play QJ often? You should be playing QQ, QK, or QA a hell of a lot more than QJ or worse. QK or QA makes a boat on this hand and you win. QJ and Q10 are really the only other playable Queen hands here, and thats only if you are in the SB or BB already. This occurence will happen very very seldomly. I do not believe the best pre-flop hand should win everytime. I enjoy holdem the way it is, but there's always room for improvement.Do you like the hole-card cam? I do. That was implemented only a few years ago.Do you like the ban on smoking in tournament final tables? I do. That was implemented only a few years ago.There is, and will always be, room for improvement.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you like the hole-card cam? I do. That was implemented only a few years ago. Do you like the ban on smoking in tournament final tables? I do. That was implemented only a few years ago.
Umm, these changes don't actually affect the mechanics of the game. Your suggestion changes the order of winning hands. Maybe you should implement it in a house game, except you should change the name of the game from 'Poker' to something else. Maybe call it 'Noker'. That name's available.I'm guessing that you set this whole thread up as a pedant trap, in which case: kudos. You've trapped another pedant.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you like the hole-card cam? I do. That was implemented only a few years ago. Do you like the ban on smoking in tournament final tables? I do. That was implemented only a few years ago.
Umm, these changes don't actually affect the mechanics of the game. Your suggestion changes the order of winning hands. Maybe you should implement it in a house game, except you should change the name of the game from 'Poker' to something else. Maybe call it 'Noker'. That name's available.I'm guessing that you set this whole thread up as a pedant trap, in which case: kudos. You've trapped another pedant.
I can safely say that I'm a much better poker player due to the advent of the hole-cam. I can safely presume that 90% of the people on this site are, as well. The hole-cam may not have changed the "rules", but it totally redifined the landscape of the game. In young educated folks like myself and most people on here, for the better.The hole-cam impacted the game so much more than my proposed "rule change" ever will.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The hole-cam impacted the game so much more than my proposed "rule change" ever will.
that is an even more ridiculous statement then this lame idea. Your idea twists the game around and makes no sense. Whereas the hole cam just lets us peer into a player's thinking and makes the game more exciting. Your idea makes it more confusing. Just look at the poll, your the only one who voted yes, kinda telling isn't it. I don't see how 40 people can be wrong and you be the only one right
Link to post
Share on other sites
It just doesn't seem like it's protecting the better players.
what makes u assume the guy playing AK is a "better" player than the guy playing 24 in your example?it may protect the tighter players who play higher cards... but whats the point of that?
Just away to minimize the luck a little more, and maximize skill. Maybe you need the luck, I don't know.
You need a proper balance of luck and skill in poker games or that sub-game of poker tends to die off. For a while Omaha was very rarely spread because the fish won so rarely at it. It's only since the poker boom that Omaha has gotten really hot again. If the fish never win from being lucky, they will stop playing. If there are no fish (or at least people a solid amount less skilled than YOU) you won't win at poker.If you want a more purely skilled game where fish are punished, play NL cash games, Omaha of any type, or 5 card draw. Good luck finding that last game though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Geez you really are persisting with your logic on this? Are you just trying to argue or do you really believe this?We'll ignore the fact your rule change is bad and destroys postflop play. Postflop play which uh, well, helps good players? I bolded a statement above. It hurts the good players because fish either stop chasing (which you don't want if you have a clue), or the fish continue to chase, bust out, and stop playing poker. The second is another thing you don't want.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Where did you get the number 98%? I'd like to see how you calculated that. Last I looked, Smash had very few if any losing sessions in his 50-1000 quest. Is he the luckiest guy on earth? The sharks already have an edge over the fish. If you dont have an edge, you're not the shark you think you are. If you do have an edge, quit complaining about the pots you lose. Let the fish win with runner-runner trips on a trash hand. It makes them feel like sharks so they keep playing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Where did you get the number 98%? I'd like to see how you calculated that. Last I looked, Smash had very few if any losing sessions in his 50-1000 quest. Is he the luckiest guy on earth? The sharks already have an edge over the fish. If you dont have an edge, you're not the shark you think you are. If you do have an edge, quit complaining about the pots you lose. Let the fish win with runner-runner trips on a trash hand. It makes them feel like sharks so they keep playing.
If you can separate the fish from the pro's by just 1%, a typical pro who will earn, say $20 million over his career will end up winning an extra 200 grand. Minor changes to well-oiled-machines such as poker are few and far between, but when put into action, can make a large impact over the course of a lifetime.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In it's simplest form, your idea is basically that the best hand wins the pot most of the time, but in certain circumstances we should ignore the order of hands and give the pot to the best pre-flop hand. Stated like that, can you see why people think it's ridiculous? Now, your justification is either that good players should have a bigger edge so they can beat the fish faster, OR that bad players dont deserve to get lucky...I'm not sure which. Can you see why people think this is just plain silly?You're not taking luck out of the game...you're just changing the ways people get lucky since now you can occasionally crack a set with 2pair on the river. Make no mistake about it, you will have fish cracking your set of jacks with runner-runner QK pairs. Now, what do you say to people who sit down at your home game, have hardly ever played, and want to know what the order of hands is? The answer is "it depends". Why would you want to complicate a simple and elegant game like poker for the sake of...ummm...it's not clear what this change would accomplish? Sorry dude. This is a bad idea. There are plenty of junk poke" games with rules longer than my arm. Hold'em is a simple game. That's part of the appeal. Good luck with your revolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, your justification is either that good players should have a bigger edge so they can beat the fish faster, OR that bad players dont deserve to get lucky...I'm not sure which.  Can you see why people think this is just plain silly?You're not taking luck out of the game...you're just changing the ways people get lucky since now you can occasionally crack a set with 2pair on the river.  Make no mistake about it, you will have fish cracking your set of jacks with runner-runner QK pairs.  
Fish will still get lucky...against other fish. How is this silly?The difference is, good players are less likely to chase than fish. Advantage: Good players. The way it should be.
Link to post
Share on other sites

he obviously likes to argue for the sake of arguing and being different and thinks hes a great poker player i suppose. theres really no sense continuing this argument because he will make some sort of weird excuse to justify his thinking. Judging from what you say, the rocks should always win right? Your definition of a good player is 1 that plays only good hands like AA, KK, QQ, AK. What you don't realize is your style would get killed at the higher limits. A good player isn't neccessarily tight, he'll make plays such as raising with 89 suited, 88K on the flop, Ace on the turn sometimes and crack a player who holds AK who can't let go of his 2 pair. Why should a player like this get penalized for making a good play? So what if he got lucky hitting his set, he still played it well and extracted money from it, is he not to be rewarded for this? Well by your rules, he is not, because 2 overpairs beat an underset of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A good player isn't neccessarily tight, he'll make plays such as raising with 89 suited, 88K on the flop, Ace on the turn sometimes and crack a player who holds AK who can't let go of his 2 pair.  ?
A good player won't play 89 suited hoping for a flopped set, due to the fact that he may get beaten by two over-pairs. He'll raise 89 suited looking for a straight or flush.Don't you get it? Things will have to change once this rule goes into effect. 8)
Link to post
Share on other sites
A good player isn't neccessarily tight, he'll make plays such as raising with 89 suited, 88K on the flop, Ace on the turn sometimes and crack a player who holds AK who can't let go of his 2 pair.  ?
A good player won't play 89 suited hoping for a flopped set, due to the fact that he may get beaten by two over-pairs. He'll raise 89 suited looking for a straight or flush.Don't you get it? Things will have to change once this rule goes into effect. 8)
who gives a damn what hes trying to hit, the point is he hit his set against a player unwilling to think his AK was no good. So your saying now that you have to call out the hands you hit or they don't count? So 89 suited can only hit straights and flushes otherwise it's no good? If you put the same effort into your poker game as you do arguing, you probably wouldn't still be playing microlimits. What I'd like to know is what makes you think your a good player if your still stuck playing microlimit hold'em. I tend to believe you are the fish, rather than the good player your "theory" so called helps.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that it helps the good player.If you do that, the player won't play 42os on that flop without a flush draw. You WANT him to play that, and call when you have AAKK on the flop! You will win that pot 14 times out of 15 if he has 3 to to the flush and you don't have any (say 2h4c with AhKh9c board).If he doesn't have a 3-flush draw, you are winning that pot 43 or 44 times for every time he wins it.As a decent player, I want him to have a reason to hang around, especially if he hits the 2 on the turn. At that point he's still a 21:1 underdog if he hasn't picked up a flush draw while you don't have a better flush draw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I'm bumping this one out of fun. People JFarrell once was an okay poster, but this alone turned him into the FCP village idiot, and he has decided to run with it. enjoy :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Best. Bump. Ever.
I modified my sig in honor of this bump.No wonder he still thinks he "won" today's long thread. Dude wouldn't even admit he was wrong if he claimed the sky was green and everyone proved otherwise.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...