people, gutshots are not profitable!!!!

[StonedViper 0]

Online poker is driven by computers and anyone thats says they can't program online poker any way they please isn't thinking straight.It's just like the slots in any casino, they program them to pay out a certain amount and the machine does, same goes for online poker.And personally i think it's worst at ultimate bet, it doesn't take a genius to program the % of times you will win or lose with a draw, they can make people win on draws 100% of the time if the want.IF underdog flops flush draw, THEN make flush 20% on turn IF underdog doesn't make flush on turn, THEN make flush 80% on riverIt's just silly to think that online poker is a mirror image of a live game and that the odds are the same.

[allinbluff35 0]

Online poker is driven by computers and anyone thats says they can't program online poker any way they please isn't thinking straight.It's just like the slots in any casino, they program them to pay out a certain amount and the machine does, same goes for online poker.And personally i think it's worst at ultimate bet, it doesn't take a genius to program the % of times you will win or lose with a draw, they can make people win on draws 100% of the time if the want.IF underdog flops flush draw, THEN make flush 20% on turn IF underdog doesn't make flush on turn, THEN make flush 80% on riverIt's just silly to think that online poker is a mirror image of a live game and that the odds are the same.

Another one bites the dust.

[Emptyeye 0]

Here's a question along these lines:Okay, we want fish in the game, long run they give us their cash, and various other cliches that people console us with when he take a bad beat after our flopped set of aces loses to the jackass who hit a runner-runner straight with his 6-2o.But how many fish, and by fish I mean "people who will call anything to the river no matter what" have to be in the game before it becomes unprofitable for a good player?Yes, the odds of an individual chaser hitting their miracle card are slight. But when you have five people calling you down to the river (Despite using sound, aggressive tactics) , only ONE of them has to hit something on the river that beats your, say, TPTK. If there are six people still in the hand, and you don't have a monster hand, I don't see how it's profitable to keep calling bets (Somehow this is a "+ev play", on the grounds that one time in a million you'll be wrong and no one will have hit anything), no matter how big the pot, when there's a 99.9% chance youre beat.Maybe I'm not seeing something here, but I think an excessive number of fish in a game is a losing proposition for the "good player". Am I alone in this line of thinking?

[justblaze 0]

wow. the fact that you can bear to have this drivel associated with yourself blows my mind. Online poker is driven by computers and anyone thats says they can't program online poker any way they please isn't thinking straight.thats all very well and good, but provide me with one reason they would rig it in any manner. They rake millions a day legitimately. the extra revenue they could generate from having house players whose cards are juiced is marginal, and would ultimately dilute the fund pool which will be gobbled up by the rake anyhow. The action flop theory is mathematical garbage as well. Action hands take more time to play, and the rake maxes out long before the river anyways. having 3 small uncontested pots raked for 50% of the max would be far more profitable than 1 actionpacked pot in the same time frame. As well, action flops would cause players to go broke quicker, leaving the site with less action and less rake. It's just like the slots in any casino, they program them to pay out a certain amount and the machine does, same goes for online poker.except on a slot machine, you play the house. In a poker room, you play other players and the house gets a piece no matter who wins.And personally i think it's worst at ultimate bet, it doesn't take a genius to program the % of times you will win or lose with a draw, they can make people win on draws 100% of the time if the want. still ignoring the fact that there is no logical reason for them to do this. more likely, you are a mediocre poker player at best who lost a bunch playing on UB. IF underdog flops flush draw, THEN make flush 20% on turn IF underdog doesn't make flush on turn, THEN make flush 80% on rivernumerous statistical studies have concluded that this is not the case. the cards fall in a manner which is congruous with the manner they ought to fall in, statistically speaking. It's just silly to think that online poker is a mirror image of a live game and that the odds are the same.Actually, analysis of hundreds of thousands of hand histories have shown conclusively that the odds ARE the same. Whats silly is making extravagant conspiracy theory claims without proof or even logical reasoning.

[justblaze 0]

But how many fish, and by fish I mean "people who will call anything to the river no matter what" have to be in the game before it becomes unprofitable for a good player?

the question makes no sense. the more fish, the more profitable it is for someone who understands the odds. there is no number where the game becomes unprofitable.

[yeffy 0]

Online poker is driven by computers and anyone thats says they can't program online poker any way they please isn't thinking straight.It's just like the slots in any casino, they program them to pay out a certain amount and the machine does, same goes for online poker.And personally i think it's worst at ultimate bet, it doesn't take a genius to program the % of times you will win or lose with a draw, they can make people win on draws 100% of the time if the want.IF underdog flops flush draw, THEN make flush 20% on turn IF underdog doesn't make flush on turn, THEN make flush 80% on riverIt's just silly to think that online poker is a mirror image of a live game and that the odds are the same.

Please enlighten us as to how it is profitable and sensible for these companies to spend very expensive programing time on creating complicated logarithms to run these bad beat protocols you claim must exist.And since I would be "not thinking straight" to deny their existence, also please explain how it is worth the risk of fraud exposure to create these same protocols to rig the site risking losing their entire customer base.

[yeffy 0]

Here's a question along these lines:Okay, we want fish in the game, long run they give us their cash, and various other cliches that people console us with when he take a bad beat after our flopped set of aces loses to the jackass who hit a runner-runner straight with his 6-2o.But how many fish, and by fish I mean "people who will call anything to the river no matter what" have to be in the game before it becomes unprofitable for a good player?Yes, the odds of an individual chaser hitting their miracle card are slight. But when you have five people calling you down to the river (Despite using sound, aggressive tactics) , only ONE of them has to hit something on the river that beats your, say, TPTK. If there are six people still in the hand, and you don't have a monster hand, I don't see how it's profitable to keep calling bets (Somehow this is a "+ev play", on the grounds that one time in a million you'll be wrong and no one will have hit anything), no matter how big the pot, when there's a 99.9% chance youre beat.Maybe I'm not seeing something here, but I think an excessive number of fish in a game is a losing proposition for the "good player". Am I alone in this line of thinking?

No you're not. There was a great cardplayer article a while back that discussed this. If I can find it I'll post the link. The author ran simulations and determined there is indeed "too much of a good thing" when it comes to calling stations. He also discussed a pooling effect of the fish where they essentially gang up on the better player through loose passive play destroying his ev.

[Blue58 0]

But how many fish, and by fish I mean "people who will call anything to the river no matter what" have to be in the game before it becomes unprofitable for a good player?

the question makes no sense. the more fish, the more profitable it is for someone who understands the odds. there is no number where the game becomes unprofitable.

I think what he means is, if there are 6 players in a pot and you have AA, assuming they will all call you down to the river, your AA is actually not a favorite to drag the pot because you have 5 people who have hands that are easier to improve then your AA. In the long run, if you were to play a 6 handed game like that and you had AA versus 5 random hands every time, you would make more money then any single player, but they would collectivley win alot more.. thats all he is driving at.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

Here's a question along these lines:Okay, we want fish in the game, long run they give us their cash, and various other cliches that people console us with when he take a bad beat after our flopped set of aces loses to the jackass who hit a runner-runner straight with his 6-2o.But how many fish, and by fish I mean "people who will call anything to the river no matter what" have to be in the game before it becomes unprofitable for a good player?Yes, the odds of an individual chaser hitting their miracle card are slight. But when you have five people calling you down to the river (Despite using sound, aggressive tactics) , only ONE of them has to hit something on the river that beats your, say, TPTK. If there are six people still in the hand, and you don't have a monster hand, I don't see how it's profitable to keep calling bets (Somehow this is a "+ev play", on the grounds that one time in a million you'll be wrong and no one will have hit anything), no matter how big the pot, when there's a 99.9% chance youre beat.Maybe I'm not seeing something here, but I think an excessive number of fish in a game is a losing proposition for the "good player". Am I alone in this line of thinking?

You're probably not alone in your thinking, but I disagree with you. People automatically assume TPTK against draws makes you a favorite, but if someone has a really strong draw, you might not be. However, if you have a set against 5 gutshot draws, it is indeed true that you will be sucked out on a lot. At the same time, the gigantic pots you win when your hands hold up will easily make up for those suckouts, and then some. There can never be too much fish, you just simply have to know how to play against them.

[StonedViper 0]

Woohoo my first flames...lolNever claimed they exist, just stating thats it's not too hard to do.Everyone loves fish, but not many so called fish have unlimited money to lose, now i don't know what the % of fish to good players is on say party poker, but i ASSume (out of you and me...lol) that their are alot more players that would be considered fish then are good.Now if all the fish lose their money in 2hrs and leave then PP (or whatever site) lose money since they went from 500k people online to 75k. Now wouldn't it be more profitable to play with the odds a little to help the fish stay affloat and keep playing to make them money??All i'm saying is that this is capitalism and people want to make as much money as they can and if tiping the odds a little to help the fish raises your bottom line even a small amount they it will be done in alot of places.Again, i'm not saying i have proof of this being done anywhere but it sure as heck wouldn't suprise me. Remember nobody watches these online sites to make sure the are all playing fair, they have these so called industry regulators or whatever that are on the company payroll.

[Pupsta 0]

Maybe I'm not seeing something here, but I think an excessive number of fish in a game is a losing proposition for the "good player". Am I alone in this line of thinking?

you're not alone. the boat used to include me, until I realized that fish make the world go round. Think of it this way. When you play a hand that's a 20% favorite over the field, if you're called down by every one of them, you lose 4 out of 5 times. The 1 of 5 times you win, you win 9:1 on your money. There's your profit margin, oversimplified.

[allinbluff35 0]

Now if all the fish lose their money in 2hrs and leave then PP (or whatever site) lose money since they went from 500k people online to 75k. Not all the fish lose their money. To many guaranteed prize pools in tournaments and to much short term luck involved for the majority of them to go broke.

[StonedViper 0]

Online poker is driven by computers and anyone thats says they can't program online poker any way they please isn't thinking straight.It's just like the slots in any casino, they program them to pay out a certain amount and the machine does, same goes for online poker.And personally i think it's worst at ultimate bet, it doesn't take a genius to program the % of times you will win or lose with a draw, they can make people win on draws 100% of the time if the want.IF underdog flops flush draw, THEN make flush 20% on turn IF underdog doesn't make flush on turn, THEN make flush 80% on riverIt's just silly to think that online poker is a mirror image of a live game and that the odds are the same.

Please enlighten us as to how it is profitable and sensible for these companies to spend very expensive programing time on creating complicated logarithms to run these bad beat protocols you claim must exist.And since I would be "not thinking straight" to deny their existence, also please explain how it is worth the risk of fraud exposure to create these same protocols to rig the site risking losing their entire customer base.

Why do any number of comapnies lie?? To either make more money or lose less money, why didn't Enron tell the world that they f'ed up beyond belief? Cuz it would hurt the share prices if they admitted it, as if they all thought they would ever get away with sweeping it under the carpet.

[Emptyeye 0]

I think what he means is, if there are 6 players in a pot and you have AA, assuming they will all call you down to the river, your AA is actually not a favorite to drag the pot because you have 5 people who have hands that are easier to improve then your AA.

Exactly. The more people are in the pot, the more money my reasonable hand stands to win, but the likelihood that any one person has hit a miracle card at some point has also increased.I want one or two people calling my Aces down to the river. I do not want the entire table (Of the top of my head, I think it's around 5 callers where you become more likely to lose than to win with pocket aces) calling me down to the river; even though two times out of ten my aces hold up and I take down a likely massive pot (Again, a "+ev play"), it's far more likely that I lose and make nothing on that given pot.Yeah, in the long run I probably stand to make money, but it's more likely that on three different hands, Fish #1 has hit runner-runner 2-pair, Fish #2 rivered his flush, and Fish #3 hit his gutshot straight draw (I'm speaking hypothetically here). While I make money on one of these fish invidually, when all of three them continually call me down to the river, it's quite likely that at least one of them hit something that beats me.In fairness, I suppose I should point out that I just took down a relatively big pot when my pocket jacks held up to three clubs and other scary draws on the board.

[dominiksdad 0]

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that a large proportion of posts complaining about fish sucking out on them start off with...

I raised with 98 off. Yes I know, not a great raising hand.

and then carry on along the lines of...

The flop comes Q92 rainbow. He bets right into me, and now it is a decent pot, and I just "know" he does not have a Q.

How did you know he didn't have a Q?Seems like both plays were a little fishy to me

[justblaze 0]

But how many fish, and by fish I mean "people who will call anything to the river no matter what" have to be in the game before it becomes unprofitable for a good player?

the question makes no sense. the more fish, the more profitable it is for someone who understands the odds. there is no number where the game becomes unprofitable.

I think what he means is, if there are 6 players in a pot and you have AA, assuming they will all call you down to the river, your AA is actually not a favorite to drag the pot because you have 5 people who have hands that are easier to improve then your AA. In the long run, if you were to play a 6 handed game like that and you had AA versus 5 random hands every time, you would make more money then any single player, but they would collectivley win alot more.. thats all he is driving at.

that was confusing, so let me simplify. If you have AA against 6 hands who all stay to the river, you are better than 6:1 to win. Therefore, if you play this scenario an infinite amount of times, you will be up an infinite amount of money. ergo, this situation is ideal for any poker player. The same logic holds true for any hand which has better equity than even money vs. the amount of players putting money in the pot. Therefore, no amount of poor players can ruin (mathematically at least) a positive edge for a skilled player. they can increase volatility, but not ruin expected value.

[justblaze 0]

Never claimed they exist, just stating thats it's not too hard to do.no one is arguing this fact.Now if all the fish lose their money in 2hrs and leave then PP (or whatever site) lose money since they went from 500k people online to 75k. Now wouldn't it be more profitable to play with the odds a little to help the fish stay affloat and keep playing to make them money??thats the beautiful thing about texas holdem. theres just enough short term luck involved that the fish go broke slowly, with the occasional one making some money although they rarely hold on to it. This is why holdem is the predominant game online. If everyone was playing stud the fish would go broke too quickly. thats why no one plays it. they cant keep the fish around, and end up just trading money with the other players who know what they are doing. All i'm saying is that this is capitalism and people want to make as much money as they can and if tiping the odds a little to help the fish raises your bottom line even a small amount they it will be done in alot of places.this is true, except there are convincing arguments as to why it does not influence the sites bottom line in any substantial way, while the arguments suggesting it is being done are merely anecdotal and speculative. Again, i'm not saying i have proof of this being done anywhere but it sure as heck wouldn't suprise me. Remember nobody watches these online sites to make sure the are all playing fair, they have these so called industry regulators or whatever that are on the company payroll.actually, people are watching the sites. One site is audited by PriceWaterhouseCooper, an enormous international accounting firm with an impeccable reputation and a lot to lose by creating fraudulent audits. Another site, Pokerchamps, is located in Malta, a democratic country which subjects all businesses to regulation and taxation. Others, such as poker room, post the longterm results of various hand combinations on their websites so that doubters may compare the actual EV to the theoretical EV. What would surprise me would be if a site like partypoker, which drops 10 million a day for doing nothing, and doing it honestly, would commit fraud in order to squeeze out an extra 500k, risking their entire business and reputation.

[TheIceman05 0]

I think what he means is' date=' if there are 6 players in a pot and you have AA' date=' assuming they will all call you down to the river, your AA is actually not a favorite to drag the pot because you have 5 people who have hands that are easier to improve then your AA. [/quote'']I want one or two people calling my Aces down to the river. I do not want the entire table (Of the top of my head, I think it's around 5 callers where you become more likely to lose than to win with pocket aces) calling me down to the river; even though two times out of ten my aces hold up and I take down a likely massive pot (Again, a "+ev play"), it's far more likely that I lose and make nothing on that given pot.quote]Okay, I'm really not trying to be mean, but you do understand that's irrational, right? One thing I really struggle with is the infatuation with winning pots vs. winning money. I'll admit, I struggled with it for a time, too. Now when I play online, I honestly don't think I even look at my results for any individual session. Ice

[Matt Miner 0]

i love people who have no grasp of basic statistics.

[Matt Miner 0]

yes, because the odds of hitting a gutshot are ~11-1 against that means it's can't ever happen three times in a row.:roll:

[StonedViper 0]

Thanks Blaze for at least not tearing my head off, appreciate it

[PUNNISHER 0]

Yes I did raise with a 98 off. I was in the C/O and had position with 1 limper. When the flop came Q9 what ever, and he bet into me, I knew (from playing with him, and watching him) that he absolutely did not have the Q. This guy was a very bad player, if he caught a Q he would have check-raised. If he had a larger pair in the hole, he would have brought in with a raise. Therefore, when he bet into me, about half the pot, I knew he did not have a Q. I re-raised him all in for a couple of reasons. One to state to him as well as the rest of the table, I will not be pushed off a hand in which I raised coming in, and secondly, I wanted to show the table that I do not need the nutz to push in. Also the all in made sense because the pot had already been large enough to warrant taking it down right there. If you notice with this scenario, I was the one making all of the moves. The fish was the one calling off all of his cash with J8 off for a gutshot. L*

[Emptyeye 0]

Yeah, I think I understand now.It just annoys me when I go through one of "those sessions" where I can't seem to do anything right, either because I'm always being sucked out on, or because I make a mathematically correct decision to fold, say, a straight draw, only to find that I would've hit and taken down a huge pot.I grasp statistics fine, thanks. It's just that the concept of EV seems to be (Without knowing things like pot sizes and the like) a rationalization for making what is, for that one point, a statistically incorrect call.I just don't understand how, for instance, Greg Raymer's going all in as a 60/40 dog three seperate times is stupid, (Because remember, negative progression doesn't matter, and doesn't change the fact that each seperate time he's 60% to lose) yet staying in a pot with my aces where I'm 80% to lose (Again, 3 consecutive times) is somehow less stupid because "In the long run I make money".

[justblaze 0]

Yeah, I think I understand now.It just annoys me when I go through one of "those sessions" where I can't seem to do anything right, either because I'm always being sucked out on, or because I make a mathematically correct decision to fold, say, a straight draw, only to find that I would've hit and taken down a huge pot.I grasp statistics fine, thanks. It's just that the concept of EV seems to be (Without knowing things like pot sizes and the like) a rationalization for making what is, for that one point, a statistically incorrect call.I just don't understand how, for instance, Greg Raymer's going all in as a 60/40 dog three seperate times is stupid, (Because remember, negative progression doesn't matter, and doesn't change the fact that each seperate time he's 60% to lose) yet staying in a pot with my aces where I'm 80% to lose (Again, 3 consecutive times) is somehow less stupid because "In the long run I make money".

well in raymers case, there are two factors at play. #1 is that it is a tournament, so you cant reload on chips and therefore must protect your tournament life. #2 is that the amount of money he could have won was not enough to overcome the deficit in hand value he faced. In the Aces being a 4:1 dog example, it is a statistically correct play if you are getting more than 4:1 on your money. i.e. if that 1 time in 5 you win you make more than 5x your money, do it over and over and you will come out ahead. this is important: CASH GAMES AND TOURNAMENTS ARE DIFFERENT. EV IS LESS VALUABLE IN TOURNAMENTS.

[Emptyeye 0]

All right, fair enough.Yeffy, if you can find that article, I'd love to read it.Everyone else, I was wrong, but I still don't like the concept of "It's correct to call when you're almost sure you're beat, because once you'll be wrong, and that one time will make up for all the other times you effectively urinate away your chips".Meh.