astroglide/ question for you [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

MicroBob

08-04-2004, 09:57 PM

his stats are in the very thread that you started.

on my dial-up line it takes a little while for screen-shots such as astro's to fully load or show-up or whatever....so you may have to wait it out.
anyway, it's somewhere around page 7 or 8 or so.

not to speak for astro....but for my situation i just play the cards for the most part. there are a few players on each table who i will either recognize as a rock or a maniac (so i can either really respect their raise or i can re-raise to isolate the maniac).
and the pokertracker notes/stats export thing helps a lot too....but these games were beatable before that feature came along.

if someone caps PF with J6o i'll make a note on that player....but sometimes i'll miss it completely because i'm out of the hand and on a different table.

anyway, astro's stats are pretty impressive...but there are other players like me who can pull off 1-1.5BB/100 playing anywhere from 4 to 6 tables.
it really shouldn't be that tough at all to beat the 2/4 and 3/6 games for a measly 1BB/100.

to get to astro-like levels i'll certainly need to improve my game and his screen-shot stats will serve as a reasonable goal for me to try to attain in the next few months.

pudley4

08-05-2004, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
but you must be the most prolific poster on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously he's not, but the fact that you can't figure this out, coupled with the fact that you can't find his response in your original thread proves that you are the stupidest poster on this site.

Congratulations.

bdk3clash

08-05-2004, 10:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously he's not, but the fact that you can't figure this out, coupled with the fact that you can't find his response in your original thread proves that you are the stupidest poster on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's close, but my vote goes to airpoaneman (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showprofile.php?Cat=&User=13353&Number=861123&Boar d=micro&what=showflat&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1& vc=1). I'm probably in the top ten or so.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb032.gif

PokerHorse

08-05-2004, 02:08 PM

i dont know what your talking about. and either do you

PokerHorse

08-05-2004, 02:13 PM

i hate to break it too you guys but there were quite a few posts in that thread .i tried to answer as many as poossible but I just didn't read them all the astroglide post I read didnt state that he posted them in the thread.

razor

08-05-2004, 02:16 PM

yawn

MicroBob

08-05-2004, 02:22 PM

he stated in the thread...'hey, i posted them....just look at all the pretty pics'
it shouldn't have been too hard to find or figure out.

since everyone in the thread was talking about his impressive numbers and asking how many tables he plays, etc it should have been self-evident.

PokerHorse

08-05-2004, 02:54 PM

Thanks for directing me to the stats. Are you guys complete morons????? Any scientist would laugh these stats off.
here is why: He played for 1 month! It doesnt matter if it is 100000 hands when you are able to play 350 or more hands per hour. It is the time that is significant.
what it boils down too is that he had a okay month, or if he was playing only 4 hours a day then 2 months.
I have had stretches of 5-8 months of over 1 bb bet per hour at normal rates of speed.
Seeing more hands per hour does not change the probabilities of the game.he is making less than 1 bb per hour i should point out. Also at 6 games you are risking significantly more money than at a standard 3-6 game/ 6 times as much. Whats the point here???
A one month result does not tell me the game can be beaten long term this way.
i was really hoping to see a 1 or 2 year result.

You guys think I'm some sort of idiot while you are having the wool pulled over your eyes. I have read recent posts /images/graemlins/wink.gif by astroglide claiming that he would eat players for breakfast at 15-30 if they tried to move up. These kind of statements make me wonder if he actually grasps the true nature of how you win,LONGTERM at this game.
Go ahead and flame away boys and girls, you are being duped.

razor

08-05-2004, 02:57 PM

NICE!!!

You Win!

djack

08-05-2004, 02:58 PM

We aren't being duped. Most of us are making that kind of money.

Vehn

08-05-2004, 03:04 PM

Dumbest poster ever.

NoChance

08-05-2004, 03:06 PM

Please just let this die. Does it really matter that this person doesn't get it? It changes nothing. He is only wasting your time and he seems to be pretty good at it.

moondogg

08-05-2004, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter if it is 100000 hands when you are able to play 350 or more hands per hour. It is the time that is significant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, dude. I mean, wow.
Get yourself a statistics book, man. Even gabyyy doesn't say shiit this dumb.
So, if he was able to play 1,000,000 hands in one month, it wouldn't matter because it's only one month?
Oh [censored] it, never mind. Your a moron.

PokerHorse

08-05-2004, 03:08 PM

One further point as I look at these stats. In order to make 50k a year playing the full year with the ups and downs you would need to play 96 hours a week, since it translates to 10hr. Like I said on my original post ,It's not no big deal, it is a big deal. when you play 6 games at once are you playing 3-6 or 36-72? bye bye

PseudoPserious

08-05-2004, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter if it is 100000 hands when you are able to play 350 or more hands per hour. It is the time that is significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't comment on anything else in this thread (I don't consider myself qualified), but this I'll take a stab at.

I disagree with this statement. I can't imagine that you honestly believe it. Let's start with your basic assumption and see where that takes us:

(your statement) Time is significant factor in getting to the long term, not the number of hands played.

- So, there is an amount of time played (let's call it X years) at which your actual results start to approach your long term results.

- Let's say that I play one hand per year. I've played X hands total. By your reasoning, I've approached the "long term".

Ahh, but now you say, that's silly, obviously during the time it takes you reach the long term, you must play some "reasonable" number of hands, or the time doesn't count. Let's call the "reasonable" number of hands for your time to count Y hands per year.

Okay, so now I play Y hands in 1 year, then don't play again until the next year, in which I play another Y hands. I continue this for X years. By your reasoning, I've reached the long term after X years. This is X*Y total hands.

But how is that any different than playing X*Y hands all in a row, instead of waiting for a new calendar year every time I hit a multiple of Y? Who cares is I played all of those hands in one month, or if I spend them out over a number of years? And so isn't the total number of hands much, much more important in determining when the "long run" is reached than the time spent actually playing those hands?

100,000 hands. Figure 30 hands per hour at a B&M room, and that's over 2 years of playing live poker 40 hours a week every week. That's a bunch. Maybe not enough to reach the "long term" (which is insanely long), but it's certainly a statistically significant sample size.

Ignore the "one month" part of Astro's pretty picture if it bugs you that much, and focus your criticism on the rest of it. I won't deny that's it's possible that Astro is just running well, not playing well. I won't argue with you if you claim that the reason that he's doing well despite it being "impossible" is because it's not impossible, just highly unlikely, and even a million-to-one shot will hit, on average, one of of every million players, so SOMEBODY must be doing very well at the "impossible", and that somebody might as well be Astro. But I don't believe that to be true, and you'll need to attack some other, more significant, number in his stats than the "one month" time frame.

Cheers,
PP

bpb

08-05-2004, 03:16 PM

In addition to being a moron, you suck at math too.

4 tables = 200 hands /hr
x 8 hrs a day = 1600 hands/day
x 5 days a week = 8000 hands/week
x 50 weeks = 400,000 hands/year
x 3 BB (=$18)/100 hands = $72,000

So at 3 BB/hr, you can make $72k playing 40 hrs/week with 2 weeks vacation 4 tabling $3/6.

PokerHorse

08-05-2004, 03:20 PM

having the ability to play more hands per month doesnt answer the question unless you say that you are going to play until you make 50,000 and then stop playing. You get a grip mr stats. The point is, lets say that astroglide continues to play and not stop. You believe that he should have the same result as the first month every month. You are deluded sample size is relative . A lifetime used to be x number of hands. Now its changed because of this ability to play so many more hands, but since these hands arent coming from just 1 game, you arent really playing 3-6 are you. you are playing a much larger game collectively. so if you want to really break it down , you arent even playing 3-6 to begin with, its many times the size. if you happen to play 6 hands all at one time, how much are you risking? somewhere over 200.00 ? is that 3-6? no, so back the stats out to a single 3-6 game which comes out to $10.00 an hour. In order to make 50k at 3-6 at his win rate(which is very respectable) he has to play 96 hours a week.
now you go get your stats book my friend.

pudley4

08-05-2004, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One further point as I look at these stats. In order to make 50k a year playing the full year with the ups and downs you would need to play 96 hours a week, since it translates to 10hr. Like I said on my original post ,It's not no big deal, it is a big deal. when you play 6 games at once are you playing 3-6 or 36-72? bye bye

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, you prove me right with every post you make.

pudley4

08-05-2004, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for directing me to the stats. Are you guys complete morons????? Any scientist would laugh these stats off.
here is why: He played for 1 month! It doesnt matter if it is 100000 hands when you are able to play 350 or more hands per hour. It is the time that is significant.
what it boils down too is that he had a okay month, or if he was playing only 4 hours a day then 2 months.
I have had stretches of 5-8 months of over 1 bb bet per hour at normal rates of speed.
Seeing more hands per hour does not change the probabilities of the game.he is making less than 1 bb per hour i should point out. Also at 6 games you are risking significantly more money than at a standard 3-6 game/ 6 times as much. Whats the point here???
A one month result does not tell me the game can be beaten long term this way.
i was really hoping to see a 1 or 2 year result.

You guys think I'm some sort of idiot while you are having the wool pulled over your eyes. I have read recent posts /images/graemlins/wink.gif by astroglide claiming that he would eat players for breakfast at 15-30 if they tried to move up. These kind of statements make me wonder if he actually grasps the true nature of how you win,LONGTERM at this game.
Go ahead and flame away boys and girls, you are being duped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea why scientists and statisticians look at long-term data? It's because they need a certain number of results to ensure their conclusion is accurate. If they could speed up the data-gathering process, they would. It would still remain valid.

Here's a quick question:

Say you have no idea about how to calculate probabilities and you want to track the results of throwing two dice. You manually toss the dice and record the result. Each one takes 6 seconds. So every minute you get 10 results. Say you figured you needed 100,000,000 results to be able to draw an accurate conclusion. It would take you about 20 years to get 100,000,000 results.

Now let's say you recruit 10 of your friends to help you. You can now get 10 results in 6 seconds. So it will only take you about 2 years to get the 100,000,000 results you need.

Now you go out and buy a computer. It calculates the 100,000,000 results in about 6 seconds. Is this any less valid a result than when you did it by hand by yourself?

This is exactly what is happening with online poker - more tables + more hands/hr = faster convergence to your true win rate

If you don't understand this (or don't believe it), then you deserve to lose all your money.

PseudoPserious

08-05-2004, 03:36 PM

Before heeding the advice of others, I'll post one more thing.

I don't agree with your figure of 96 hours per week.

Astro makes 2.95 BB/100 hands. So, he makes .0295 BB for every hand he plays. At $3/$6, that's 17.7 cents a hand. To make $50,000, he'll have to play 282,500 hands.

In a B&M casino, that's 9416 hours at 30 hands per hour, or 181 hours every week. Quite unlikely.

On the internet at a single table, that's 4708 hours at 60 hands per hour, or 90 hours every week. Not impossible like B&M, but not easy to say the least.

Assuming 60 hands per table per hour, let's see what playing on multiple tables does:

2 tables - 2355 hours - 45 hours a week
3 tables - 1570 hours - 30 hours a week
4 tables - 1177 hours - 22 hours a week
5 tables - 942 hours - 18 hours a week
6 tables - 785 hours - 15 hours a week

So, it looks like by multi-tabling, making 50K/year at 3/6 is doable.

-----------

This might be the source of your confusion concerning the 96 hours number: in his PT stats, there are two blocks called "Hours" and "Total minutes" which are about 1.5k and 94k, respectively. These blocks represent total table time, not actual time spent in front of the computer. So, by playing simultaneously at two tables for an hour, he'd get 2 hours and 120 minutes added to those totals, but he'd only have spent 1 hour of his life playing poker. Don't let those two blocks distract you -- focus on the important numbers, the main figure of which is BB/100 hands.

----------

If you want to attack his credibility, you need to assess the sustainability of his 2.95 BB/100 hands results -- figure out the associated error +/- x BB/100 hands, or assess the probability that his true rate is significantly lower (say, 1.5 BB/100 hands), and that he's just been running well lately.

Cheers,
PP

moondogg

08-05-2004, 03:58 PM

Ok, one more poke at the troll, and then I'm done. I promise.

[ QUOTE ]
You believe that he should have the same result as the first month every month. You are deluded sample size is relative .

[/ QUOTE ]
Normally, no, based on the number of hands people normally play in a month. However, if he plays over 100K hands in a month, yes, I would expect him to get reasonably close to the "long run" the vast majority of months.

[ QUOTE ]

A lifetime used to be x number of hands. Now its changed because of this ability to play so many more hands, but since these hands arent coming from just 1 game, you arent really playing 3-6 are you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure you are.
[ QUOTE ]

you are playing a much larger game collectively. so if you want to really break it down , you arent even playing 3-6 to begin with, its many times the size.

[/ QUOTE ]
No you're not.
[ QUOTE ]

if you happen to play 6 hands all at one time, how much are you risking? somewhere over 200.00 ?

[/ QUOTE ]
At any given time, yes you may be wagering over 200. However, you are not wagering all of it on one hand. You are wagering it across 4 hands, each of which is independent of each other. The fact that they 4 hands are proceeding simulatneously is irrelevant. I believe that you are attempting to imply that his variance and standard deviation would increase, but you failed, because it is not true. If that $200 were based on the outcome of one hand, yes, his variance would increase. However, because it is based on the outcome of 4 independent hands, his variance actually decreases. By the sheer fact that so many more hands are going by per hour, this expected variance over the course of any hour goes down as short-term luck fades more quickly. Here's a simple demonstration of why: if variance demonstrated by unlikely events happening, then in order for a single hand to cause variance the unlikely has to happen once; in order for 4 simulataneous hands to cause variance, the unlikely has to happen several times, making it exponentially more unlikely. Any given hand where you lose money is more quickly offset by the other 3 hands that are falling within the bounds of what is likely, expected, and probable.
This is why such things are measured by the number of trials, rather than the time over which the trials are executed. See the one-hand-per-year response above.
[ QUOTE ]

is that 3-6?

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, yes it is. In fact, as explained above, it is a much more stabilized 3/6 game.
[ QUOTE ]

no, so back the stats out to a single 3-6 game which comes out to $10.00 an hour. In order to make 50k at 3-6 at his win rate(which is very respectable) he has to play 96 hours a week.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, if you actual take the two seconds necessary to calculate it, it's $11.46/hour. Anyhow, someone just addressed this part above. I know you don't like to actually read the responses to threads you start, so just look for the one that starts with something like "in addition to being a moron, you also suck at math".
[ QUOTE ]

now you go get your stats book my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you attempting to suggest that there was anything in your post having to do with statistics? Or probability? I know you mentioned risk/etc, but you clearly didn't know what they hell you were talking about there. Anyhow, I have some books. I actually read them. Hell, I even go so far as to admit there are things that I don't know much about. Beats the hell out of jumping into a forum, getting on a soapbox, and bitching and moaning about how everone is either lying or delusional.

FWIW, I am going to leave this thread, topic, and moron for now. The conversation, which was pretty stupid to begin with, has descended into a bizarre level of ignorance.

Have a nice day.

Now go away.

MicroBob

08-05-2004, 03:59 PM

i officially cannot understand how you can be this misinformed.
what's sad is that most americans' understanding of statistics is just as terrible as yours.
they take a couple of concepts that they think they understand...inappropriately combine them...and make up something that logically makes no sense whatsoever.

it's kind of sad actually.
you are unfortunately proving my point that no matter what you do or how clearly you explain the obvious some people just cannot be helped.

how you deduced that he needs to play 96 hours a week is beyond me.
did you get together with gabbyyy on that whole 2000:1 shot on an inside-straight draw thing??

the math and hourly win-rate necessary has been laid out for you several times and you don't seem to get it somehow.

you asked for someone to post their stats and they did and now you claim that it doesn't count because he played the hands too fast.
truly truly bizarre.

and somehow i don't think you are a troll and i somehow think you are serious...but what do i know?

[ QUOTE ]
sample size is relative . A lifetime used to be x number of hands. Now its changed because of this ability to play so many more hands,

[/ QUOTE ]

yes....now he can get in 9x as many hands in a lifetime without breaking a sweat.
this does not change the confidence that one can have in a 100k hand sample size. why you think it should is beyond me.

unfortunately, someone already beat me to the punch on the longevity of one's sample-size.
i was debating whether to use 'one hand a day' or 'one hand a year' and then i saw it was already posted.

if astro plays 100k hands in a month....and you play 20k hands in 2 years...are you really saying that you can have more confidence in your results just because you played the hands at a slower rate??

if astro plays 500k hands in a year and you play 400 hands over the course of 20 years then is there magically somehow a greater degree of confidence because of how long it took you to play your hands.

perhaps you really are on to something here.
i'm going to go to the casino and just play 10 hands a day for 20 years and make my living that way. i can have greater confidence in my hourly win-rate.

additionally, i think we all should ask our dealers to deliver the cards more slowly.

'oh crap...there goes the confidence in my win-rate...that damn dealer spread out the flop WAY to fast! slow down my man....we ain't in no hurry here!!'

MicroBob

08-05-2004, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The conversation, which was pretty stupid to begin with, has descended into a bizarre level of ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

good line.
i think i'm going to have to borrow the phrase 'bizarre level of ignorance' every once in awhile.

Rudbaeck

08-05-2004, 04:05 PM

I'm new to this site, but not new to the internet and 'poster husbandry'.

To everyone: Do not feed the troll!

TimM

08-05-2004, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but since these hands arent coming from just 1 game, you arent really playing 3-6 are you. you are playing a much larger game collectively. so if you want to really break it down , you arent even playing 3-6 to begin with, its many times the size.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing 6 tables of 3-6 for one hour is nowhere near the same as playing one table of 18-36 for one hour. It is much closer to playing one table of 3-6 for 6 hours.

Standard deviation per hour (SD/hr) would be about 6 times higher for the single table 18-36 game vs a single table of 3-6, while the SD/hr of 6 tables of 3-6 would be closer to 2.44 (sqrt(6)) times the SD/hr of a single table of 3-6.

Ulysses

08-05-2004, 04:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
now you go get your stats book my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the most ironic statement ever posted here.

MMMMMM

08-05-2004, 04:29 PM

"Go ahead and flame away boys and girls, you are being duped."

Yes, by you I suspect.

PokerHorse

08-05-2004, 04:37 PM

i didnt see the post till today. there were just too many, and i truly had not seen it.
i said 36-72 in the other posts, i meant 15-30, i was thinking about 6-12 sorry for the mistake.

Ulysses

08-05-2004, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i was really hoping to see a 1 or 2 year result.

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of people with the skills to beat 3-6 for rates like astro's do what astro did. Move up to play multiple tables of 10-20 or 15-30 online. If someone has the skills to make $200+/hr in bigger games, why on earth would they play 3-6 for 1 or 2 years?

3-6 at a $50k/yr rate = 15-30 at a $250k/yr rate. Multiple people on these forums are beating the 10-20 and 15-30 at a rate much higher than that.

The problem is clear here. You are not very smart and not very good at poker. Your lack of math and logic skills is evident in your posts. You have been playing for 18 years and are still toiling away, ekeing out a small profit at low limits. Many of the players who have responded to you have built 6-figure bankrolls starting from a few hundred dollars in the course of a couple of years. If you had skills like that you would realize how easy it is to beat the game for these rates. Ironically, it's because there are so many people like you playing poker that it is possible for those of us much better than you to make so much money at the game.

Thanks!

Ulysses

08-05-2004, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i said 36-72 in the other posts, i meant 15-30, i was thinking about 6-12 sorry for the mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I'm sold. Best troll ever. Nice work. But you screwed up here. Nobody is quite this dumb.

kyro

08-05-2004, 04:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
here is why: He played for 1 month! It doesnt matter if it is 100000 hands when you are able to play 350 or more hands per hour. It is the time that is significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

WOW. That has to be one of the most illogical things I have ever read. You're kinda dumb.

So on January 1, 2003, I rolled a die. It was a 1. On January 1, 2004, I rolled another die, it was only the second time in that span I rolled one, and it came up 1 again. My friend rolled a die 100000 times between January 1, 2003 and January 2, 2003. The results were pretty even. But obviously 1 comes up more often then the rest, because I took more time to complete my experiment.

Thanks for making my day...

theghost

08-05-2004, 04:55 PM

Dude- if you're not joking, you're dumb as dirt - and should thank anyone who has been patient enough to address your misconceptions in this lame ass thread.

I have been trying not to write this all day. You finally broke me down.

PokerHorse

08-05-2004, 04:59 PM

thats great but unless you are playing 350 hands per hour at ONE game, then you are playing higher, i said 36-72 which was a mistake, but you are effectively playing 15-30, so I assume he had over 5k in his account, where-as someone who wants to play 3-6, reads the ssh foreward and gets excited because David says 50k is no big deal, so he takes his 1500, which is his total roll and hopes to make 4k per month. Not misleading???
Look at it this way. if Astroglide played 100k hands playing one game only, would the results be even close? Of course not. Time, number of games is a factor here.
**If I told you I played 291 hours of 15-30 and made 18,000, and I wanted to know if I should go Pro, would you tell me Yes? Making 60 an hour at 15-30 is impressive, but it's only 291 hours. Thats only 6 weeks playing at 40hours a week right?
You would tell me i need a larger sample size, before i made the decision. Well, this is no different. Think about it. Footnote: this is my last response, so sorry other flamers I just dont have time right now to respond. good luck

Big Mo

08-05-2004, 05:07 PM

You are definately my type. Come on over here and let Big Mo give ya some sugar.

daveymck

08-05-2004, 05:08 PM

I think the point you are badly making is not everyone is ready to 4/5/6 table at 3/6 to achieve 50k a year, and in that you are correct.

But with a bit of work, study etc then as others have posted it is not that high of a goal, providing you have the time, the ability and bankroll to deal with the swings and obviously the ability to multi table.

Can everyone do it, no of course not, should the peopple at .50/1 with a 300bb bankroll do it then no not without beating the limit and moving up.

There are many posters here making a living off the game playing multi tables I dont see how you can make comments when the evidence is all around you.

TimM

08-05-2004, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are definately my type. Come on over here and let Big Mo give ya some sugar.

[/ QUOTE ]

And remember, being with Big Mo is just like being with six average women at once!

astroglide

08-05-2004, 06:42 PM

that was over 4 months. i have a full-time job and a consulting business in addition to poker.

i have been playing online for many years, and i have been playing mid limits for many years. i was only playing 3/6 to experiment with 6-tabling (a relatively novel concept at the time). once i hit 100,000 hands i was confident enough that i could play 6 tables well that i switched to a more normal game for me, 15/30. prior to playing on partypoker & affiliates i 2-tabled the 20/40 and 15/30 games at paradise poker.

i would be happy to play higher limit games if they had as many beatable tables. for mass numbers at the time, it was pretty much 3/6 or 15/30. the other games were more sparsely populated. i've been 6-tabling 15/30 for many months now, and play around 60 hours per month (north of 20,000 hands). i would expect my winrate to be in excess of 3.5bb/100 playing 3/6 with full adjustments.

------------------------------

08-05-2004, 07:00 PM

Astroglide plays ABC autopilot poker. Thats how he can play 6-8 tables. He doesn't understand advanced concepts.

astroglide

08-05-2004, 07:05 PM

you got me

Moozh

08-05-2004, 08:06 PM

Good reading material:

Bankroll and Multi-Tabling (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=headsup&Number=798806)

My attempt:

[ QUOTE ]
thats great but unless you are playing 350 hands per hour at ONE game, then you are playing higher

[/ QUOTE ]

It is ONE game. The six tables just means he's playing that ONE game faster. He is NOT playing higher because he is multi-tabling.

[ QUOTE ]
i said 36-72 which was a mistake, but you are effectively playing 15-30

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he is effectively playing 3-6 six times as fast. This is different than playing one table of 18-36. Again, variance is related to HANDS PLAYED, not time played. Because he multi-tables, he plays more hands and has less variance.

[ QUOTE ]
where-as someone who wants to play 3-6, reads the ssh foreward and gets excited because David says 50k is no big deal, so he takes his 1500, which is his total roll and hopes to make 4k per month. Not misleading???

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the beauty of multi-tabling. you do not need to increase your bankroll requirements to multi-table. More hands played leads to less variance. The incredible thing about online poker is that you can take a bankroll of $1800 and play 3/6 multi-table.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at it this way. if Astroglide played 100k hands playing one game only, would the results be even close? Of course not. Time, number of games is a factor here.

[/ QUOTE ]

He IS playing one game only. He's just playing it faster, six times faster to be exact. Take all the hands you played over the last 18 years and pretend you're watching them in fast-forward. Would the results change? Would the statistics change? No.

[ QUOTE ]
**If I told you I played 291 hours of 15-30 and made 18,000, and I wanted to know if I should go Pro, would you tell me Yes? Making 60 an hour at 15-30 is impressive, but it's only 291 hours. Thats only 6 weeks playing at 40hours a week right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not qualified to answer the question about going pro or not, but again you're making the mistake of equating time played to confidence. The amount of time you play does not affect your statistical confidence intervals. Only the number of hands played does.

[ QUOTE ]
You would tell me i need a larger sample size, before i made the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure

[ QUOTE ]
Well, this is no different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is different. That is what you are missing.

[ QUOTE ]
this is my last response, so sorry other flamers I just dont have time right now to respond. good luck

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a 'flame'? It's a shame you are going to ignore this as there are a number of posters here who would be willing to continue to discuss this in a rational manner.

Blarg

08-05-2004, 11:10 PM

If I could make Astro's results, I'd play ABC, CIA, OB-GYN, AK-47, or whatever other kind of poker it took.

Alobar

08-05-2004, 11:34 PM

I am now stupider for having read this thread. I'm now going to go weep for the 15 minutes of my life that I just lost

pudley4

08-05-2004, 11:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
thats great but unless you are playing 350 hands per hour at ONE game, then you are playing higher, i said 36-72 which was a mistake, but you are effectively playing 15-30, so I assume he had over 5k in his account, where-as someone who wants to play 3-6, reads the ssh foreward and gets excited because David says 50k is no big deal, so he takes his 1500, which is his total roll and hopes to make 4k per month. Not misleading???
Look at it this way. if Astroglide played 100k hands playing one game only, would the results be even close? Of course not. Time, number of games is a factor here.
**If I told you I played 291 hours of 15-30 and made 18,000, and I wanted to know if I should go Pro, would you tell me Yes? Making 60 an hour at 15-30 is impressive, but it's only 291 hours. Thats only 6 weeks playing at 40hours a week right?
You would tell me i need a larger sample size, before i made the decision. Well, this is no different. Think about it. Footnote: this is my last response, so sorry other flamers I just dont have time right now to respond. good luck

[/ QUOTE ]

You are so wrong it's laughable.

Go to your local community college.
Sign up for a basic statistics course.
Get an A.
Then come back and apologize for being an idiot and wasting our time.

Until then, you're not worth any more responses.

PseudoPserious

08-06-2004, 02:03 AM

Hi PokerHorse,

I do hope that you aren't lumping me in with the other "flamers". I am *not* gay, despite what my friends might say. And what my Mom might think.

Pseriously, I tried to be respectful in my posts to you. Since my posts were two of the earlier posts in this thread, I would have hoped that you'd have had the time to respond to me, or at least to read what I had to say.

I wish you the best,
PP

Tosh

08-06-2004, 02:23 AM

There should be a law against being as ignorant as this guy.

MicroBob

08-06-2004, 02:46 AM

maybe so....but many many gamblers really are.

i can't begin to tell you the number of roulette players who believe that betting a variety of numbers at 35:1 is better than betting just one.....or who think that betting the inside numbers at 35:1 is the only to win and betting red or black at 1:1 is an obvious loser because it doesn't pay as much.
'how can you win playing that way?? play like me....you have to bet a lot of different numbers. because when it hits you get paid a lot. and when you bet more numbers it hits more often.'
this logic actually isn't too far removed from pokerhorse's assertion that playing 350 hands in an hour on 6 tables is somehow different than playing 350 hands on 1 table.

for whatever reason....there are a LOT of people out there who can't come to grips with really basic math concepts.

Sponger15SB

08-06-2004, 03:17 AM

Mr. PokerHorse, 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 on this board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Senor Choppy

08-06-2004, 04:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So, it looks like by multi-tabling, making 50K/year at 3/6 is doable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen it happen and it didn't take a full year. Rumor has it this person was making 2.75 bb/100 playing 8 tables too.

Mediocre players are more than capable of making $50k a year just playing 3/6, and Astro is far from mediocre.

kyro

08-06-2004, 09:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]

for whatever reason....there are a LOT of people out there who can't come to grips with really basic math concepts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so. But if I was 99% sure about something, and then about 100 people, all who are knowledgeable on the subject I'm debating, tell me I'm wrong, I'll normally stop being such an ass and at least be open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

Just tell us you don't understand, and we'll do our best to explain it to you. Or you can be a dumbass and continue to insult and ignore the words of people with intellect superior to yours.

Guy McSucker

08-06-2004, 01:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Any scientist would laugh these stats off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me preface my post by letting you know I have a PhD in mathematics and am now, by anybody's definition, a scientist.

[ QUOTE ]

here is why: He played for 1 month! It doesnt matter if it is 100000 hands when you are able to play 350 or more hands per hour. It is the time that is significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly right.

What nobody else seems to understand is that in poker there are good months and there are bad months. You win more in good months than bad months. Sometimes you might even lose money in a bad month.

The trick to successful play is to play more hands in your good months than you do in your bad months.

Playing the same number of hands in all months is known by statisticians as a "self-weighting strategy" and is sure to lead to losses in the long term.

Unless, of course, you are insane and I am mocking you.

Guy.

benfranklin

08-06-2004, 02:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What nobody else seems to understand is that in poker there are good months and there are bad months. You win more in good months than bad months. Sometimes you might even lose money in a bad month.

[/ QUOTE ]

The good months are the ones with an "R" in the name.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless, of course, you are insane and I am mocking you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's time to quit beating a (brain) dead (poker) horse.

PokerHorse

08-06-2004, 02:28 PM

if you want to use the 100,000 hands astro glide played as representative of 3-6 then you have to forget the hours.It backs out to 10$ an hour or about 22k a year which is not bad, but its not 50k a year.

Playing 6 games of 3-6 all at the same time= roughly a 15-30 game or a little higher because of the total money risked. yes, each game is 3-6 but you are effectively playing a much higher game because of the money at risk each hand.

pretend that in all 6 games astroglide got ak at the same time. he raises in each of those 6 games. from his bank roll
comes $36.00 . A person who is multi tabling 3-6 is doing so in hopes that the players are much weaker than the higher levels , but wants income or hourly rate = to a higher limit that he/she could otherwise play.
all you are doing is splitting up your bankroll. It's still your bank roll and you are simply cutting a larger game into smaller pieces to take advantage of weak players.

so, you can look at astroglides results a couple of ways. if you want to look at the 100k hands and figure his hourly rate at 3-6 its 10hr which is great.

if you are looking at his current win/hours= 60hr then you have too look at it as a larger game/ aprox 15-30, prob/ larger.
I'm trying to state this several different ways.

if you play 100000 hands of 3-6,its a little under a years worth at 40hrs a week aprox

If you play 6 or more games of 3-6 at the same time 100,000 hands is only 1 months worth of play, so the results of multi=tabling 6 games are not conclusive by any means. But you can derive that 10hr rate from his results which is great, but again its not 50k a year unless you are playing multi-table/ the results arent conclusive,and when you multi table you are effectively playing much higher.
sorry gang I'm right here

razor

08-06-2004, 02:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
sorry gang I'm right here

[/ QUOTE ]

you ROCK!!!

astroglide

08-06-2004, 02:37 PM

if you want to use the 100,000 hands astro glide played as representative of 3-6 then you have to forget the hours.It backs out to 10$ an hour or about 22k a year which is not bad, but its not 50k a year

while it's obvious that you are trolling at this point, i'll point out for the sake of those that could be remotely confused that the hourly rate is a published fact. $18,013 over 291.08 hours is $61.88 per hour. this is undebatable, simple math. at this point i would recommend that others refrain from commenting except to offer specific, warranted clarifications.

PokerHorse

08-06-2004, 02:41 PM

you r obviously a good player and there is nothing personal here.
if you are 6 tabling 15/30 you are effectively playing a much bigger game, since you are simply cutting up your bankroll. I'm guessing you are in the 120 an hour range? Which is higher than anything offered on line as far as i know.
please see my post below as far as my point. thx good luck

theghost

08-06-2004, 02:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
pretend that in all 6 games astroglide got ak at the same time. he raises in each of those 6 games. from his bank roll comes $36.00

[/ QUOTE ]

So lets say, for arguments sake, that AK will win 1/3 of the time.

Wagering $36, you will lose $36 2/3 of the time.

Wagering $6. 6 times, you will win the pot twice.

Where is the greater variance?

If you have $100 and play blackjack for $1/hand 100 times, will you have the same variance as playing $100 on one hand?

How about $6 on six hands vs $36 on one hand?

[ QUOTE ]
you are effectively playing a much higher game because of the money at risk each hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Each hand in 3/6 is the same as any other, by definition.

BTW, have you sent Astroglide the $500 yet "for his time"?

PokerHorse

08-06-2004, 02:53 PM

its an hourly rate based on playing 6 games at one time! . im not trolling. when you play 6 games at one time the amount of money your are risking is higher. when you play 6 games at one time 100,ooo hands is much less significant than 100k at a one game pace.

Is this what you want me to say: Yes, you can make 50k a year playing 3-6 limit if you play 4 or more games at the same time>. That's what all you guys are saying, but you are risking much more than a 1500 swing which is a much much larger game in reality.
Bye the way, you should video yourself playing 6 games at once. That has got to be a sight to behold. i would love to see your set-up for this. good luck

razor

08-06-2004, 02:55 PM

So if I play an orbit of 3-6, that's not really playing 10 hands of 3-6... it's really 1 hand of 30-60... holy ssh(it)! No way I can afford to play that high!!! yikes!!

Imagine if I sat down for 10 hours of 3-6... that's what about 350 hands? so that's like 1000-2000!!! yikes... that's in-freakin'-sane... that's Phil Ivey territory... I don't know much but I know I'm not as good as Phil Ivey.

PokerHorse RULES!!!

astroglide

08-06-2004, 02:56 PM

18013 / 291.08 = 61.883331043012230314690119554762

MicroBob

08-06-2004, 03:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bye the way, you should video yourself playing 6 games at once. That has got to be a sight to behold. i would love to see your set-up for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

nothing against astro's accomplishments...but it certainly isn't so amazing as to be worth videotaping or beholding.

i have played up to 8 tables at a time. and 6 full-ring isn't THAT impossible once you get used to it.

i usually play 3-4 tables now, but that sometimes includes 1 or 2 short tables plus i like to surf exciting threads like these and my p-tracker stats, etc while playing.

but 6 tables of full-ring without the surfing is more common than you (and some others) think.

MaxPower

08-06-2004, 03:11 PM

So PokerHorse, what kind of bankroll do you think one would need to mutitable 6 3/6 tables?

You are saying that playing 6 3/6 tables is like playing 15/30, so I assume you would need a bankroll around 9 to 10 thousand dollars, right?

mrjim

08-06-2004, 03:14 PM

I...CAN'T...STOP...READING........

wow, just wow.

MicroBob

08-06-2004, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I...CAN'T...STOP...READING........

[/ QUOTE ]

same here.

adamstewart

08-06-2004, 03:24 PM

Haha, i was just going to write a reply, when I read your reply, NoChance.

I will comply with your request /images/graemlins/smile.gif (Since the 'important' people know what you're talking about).

Ulysses

08-06-2004, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
pretend that in all 6 games astroglide got ak at the same time. he raises in each of those 6 games. from his bank roll comes $36.00 .

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretend he is playing in one 3-6 game. He gets AK 6 times in a row and raises. From his bank roll comes.... Well, I'm no math expert, but I think it's about $9. Wow. You're right!!! Up until now I thought playing 6 hands at the same time was the same money-wise as playing 6 hands in a row, but now I see that it's much cheaper if you get the AKs spread out over time. Wow, fascinating, but you can't argue with the math. Playing 6 hands at the same time costs way more money than playing 6 hands in a row.

Sorry for doubting you. Until I did the math, I thought you were either a very good troll or a complete f'ing idiot who lacked a basic understanding of probabilities and statistics. My apologies.

moondogg

08-06-2004, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for doubting you. Until I did the math, I thought you were either a very good troll or a complete f'ing idiot who lacked a basic understanding of probabilities and statistics. My apologies.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's very noble of you.

It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.

I am not a big man.

razor

08-06-2004, 03:31 PM

I'm a big man... but I still won't admit El Diablo is wrong.

Rudbaeck

08-06-2004, 03:43 PM

It's like when you were a kid and found a dead badger by the road, and poked at it with a stick.

Someone desperately needs to pm this guy every time a 2+2 table sets up!

Duggers

08-06-2004, 04:26 PM

I play 6 tables, every da, 6 hrs a day. It is not difficult if you get a monitor that can fit all 6 tables in view. For a brief time I tried it with dual monitors - that was tougher....

Duggers

08-06-2004, 04:30 PM

PH is so moronic, we all know you dont need a bigger rolll to play multiple tables as long as there is no correlation between the table results (at least until you take it to a rediculous extreme). Ive been 6 tabling 3/6 for a while now and my BR swings are exactly the same as the were when i played fewer. About 300BB is my biggest downswing.

sammy_g

08-06-2004, 04:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I play 6 tables, every da, 6 hrs a day. It is not difficult if you get a monitor that can fit all 6 tables in view. For a brief time I tried it with dual monitors - that was tougher....

[/ QUOTE ]
What resolution do you need to fit all 6 tables?

MaxPower

08-06-2004, 04:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
PH is so moronic, we all know you dont need a bigger rolll to play multiple tables as long as there is no correlation between the table results (at least until you take it to a rediculous extreme). Ive been 6 tabling 3/6 for a while now and my BR swings are exactly the same as the were when i played fewer. About 300BB is my biggest downswing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhh. I wanted to hear his response, not one that makes sense.

Homer

08-06-2004, 04:40 PM

MicroBob

08-06-2004, 04:41 PM

i struggled with the dual monitors at first as well. i just wasn't used to glancinng at the 2nd monitor (which i position to the left of my laptop because it works best on my desk).

anyway, after i got used to it i found it to be a breeze.

but if you're happy with your 1-monitor set-up then that's fine too.

i have 1400x1050 on my laptop monitor and 1200x900 or even 1000x800 on my cheapo desktop monitor.

4 tables with a bit of overlap on the laptop.
2+2 or e-mail or various porn involving sheep, crisco, midgets and eskimos on my desktop (is that too personal?).
or i'll toss in a 5th or 6th table on the desktop.
decent set-up....but i suspect 6-tabling will be much more frequent for me and easier once i splurge for a better monitor in the 1900x1400 range (or higher perhaps).

maurile

08-06-2004, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Playing the same number of hands in all months is known by statisticians as a "self-weighting strategy" and is sure to lead to losses in the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL /images/graemlins/grin.gif

MicroBob

08-06-2004, 06:27 PM

mason knows all about that self-weighting stuff.
why do i have a feeling he would disagree?

a very hearty LOL

PseudoPserious

08-06-2004, 07:06 PM

I'm hurt, Pokerhorse /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I've made three reasoned, rational, and non-insulting posts to you in this thread. Two of them were relatively early, and before you replied to any of them you said you were too busy to respond any more. But here you are responding to other posts, and not mine.

Sorry to have wasted your time,
PP

kyro

08-07-2004, 12:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You guys think I'm some sort of idiot

[/ QUOTE ]

Why yes, yes we do.

Actually I just think this thread should never leave the first page, so BUMP!

Joe826

08-09-2004, 04:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's close, but my vote goes to airpoaneman (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showprofile.php?Cat=&User=13353&Number=861123&Boar d=micro&what=showflat&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1& vc=1).

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one that remembers Gh0stbuster (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=706534&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&fpart=1&vc=1)?

He's my all time favorite poster.

AviD

08-09-2004, 10:45 AM

+n
gg k thx

OrangeHeat

08-09-2004, 10:53 AM

Pokerhorse is trying to say that no matter how many hand you play in three months you do not have any confidence in the results for the next month.

The problem with his theory is that even though the sample size is small (in terms of months) the standard deviation in $$ earned/month over a months time gets smaller as you play more hands in each of those months.

Orange

joker122

08-09-2004, 08:11 PM

Actually, where is going wrong is asserting that a meaningful winrate is a function of the amount of time taken to play x number of hands when all that matter is just x.

Sorry if your post was meant to be satirical because I didn't pick up on it.

OrangeHeat

08-09-2004, 08:48 PM

He is thinking $$/month and we all think $$/hand.

What he fails to realize that for a B&M player only getting 4800 hands/month the stdev of his $$$/month will be much higher than an online player getting 25,000 hands.

i.e. B&M player may have an average monthly win of $1000 and a stdev of $300

Online player may have average win of $4000 and a stdev of $300.

Now after a couple months - B&M player cannot be sure if he is a winner or loser because the stdev/ave ratio - online player on the other hand can have a much higher confidence in his reults because they are inherently more consistent because of the high number of hands.

Nothing satirical.

BigBaitsim (milo)

08-09-2004, 09:09 PM

Gotta say, I love the avatar Tim.

BigBaitsim (milo)

08-09-2004, 09:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I...CAN'T...STOP...READING........

wow, just wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

That should read:

I...CAN'T...STOP...READING..... .

It just makes the post clearer.

TimM

08-09-2004, 09:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Gotta say, I love the avatar Tim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. I post more now just so I can look at it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Edit: I just found out today there's another:

http://www.posternow.com/imagem/c/c18998.jpg

MicroBob

08-10-2004, 12:24 AM

this is a tough call. but pokerhorse's continued insistance that he is correct gives him the edge over airopaneguy and ghostbuster imo.

although pokerhorse was certainly more polite then the other two.

man, i just can't decide.

Gonzoman

08-10-2004, 04:48 AM

Is there any way to automatically get a page on my cell phone whenever PokerHorse posts anything. I don't want to miss the chance to laugh and point.

mrjim

08-10-2004, 09:43 AM

Good addition.

bdk3clash

08-17-2004, 03:15 PM

It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.

"It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
Jack Handy

PokerHorse

08-17-2004, 03:39 PM

This post irritates me. so you are saying that playing 6 games at once and at after 291 hours making 60 an hour isnt playing a larger game? its not more stabilized its simply a larger game collectively. TIME- is a factor here. if it werent you could never make 60 an hour playing 3-6 could you, unless you play 6 games at once. if you are a losing player could you not lose 60 an hour? It's a larger game your playing no matter how you want to dissect it.

bdk3clash

08-17-2004, 03:46 PM

There really should be a feature on this board that e-mails you whenever a specific poster creates a new post--I just can't get enough of PokerHorse.

The dichotomy between how right he thinks he is and how wrong he actually is makes for a very entertaining dynamic.

razor

08-17-2004, 03:50 PM

Your posts irritate me.

Each freakin' hand is independant! Get over it already!!

moondogg

08-17-2004, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This post irritates me. so you are saying that playing 6 games at once and at after 291 hours making 60 an hour isnt playing a larger game? its not more stabilized its simply a larger game collectively. TIME- is a factor here. if it werent you could never make 60 an hour playing 3-6 could you, unless you play 6 games at once. if you are a losing player could you not lose 60 an hour? It's a larger game your playing no matter how you want to dissect it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, Jesus, are you dragging this sh*t up again?

I'm glad it irritates you. Irritating you is funny.

I try to not be rude to people, but you are king of the f'n trolls.

Nonetheless, I believe my post adequately and thoroughly addressed your fallacious and misguided views. If you disagree with my dissection, explain where my logic is flawed.

If you don't understand what I said because it was unclear, I will be happy to clarify it.

If you don't understand it because you just don't understand it, then perhaps you will finally realize an accept that you're the ignorant moron we all know you to be.

If you are going to just repeat the same crap that everyone here has thoroughly discredited, PLEASE go tell it to a brick wall instead of posting it here. Trust me, the wall will be FAR more impressed by your intelligence.

PokerHorse

08-17-2004, 03:54 PM

here maybe this makes more sense. because you can play 350 hands an hour at 3-6 or any other level by playing 4-6 games at once, the game plays bigger than a normal ring 3-6
can you at least admit to this, or is this just too much?
How else could you make 60 an hour? It plays bigger period.
I understand all your points.
On a different note:
Bye the way, astroglide played 20-40 at paradise 2 tables with angelina. How did he do. she claims to have busted just about everyone there, except for him of course. He claims that he could win 3 bets an hour idf he made adjustments at 3-6. Such as......... ah maybe reading players???? How can you do that playing 4-6 tables. love to see it. Ive looked at the 3-6's 5-10s, 10-20s and 15-30s online, and they are tighter overall, not looser than the ring games I play in. The shear cockiness should be a red flag for anyone who is trying to make the proper decisions.
anyone who is new to this game and reading this should question the validity of the claims of these few who have nothing better to do but post here and make claims.

razor

08-17-2004, 03:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, the wall will be FAR more impressed by your intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Walls aren't that stupid.

OrangeHeat

08-17-2004, 03:58 PM

Jealous eh?

Orange

moondogg

08-17-2004, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
here maybe this makes more sense. because you can play 350 hands an hour at 3-6 or any other level by playing 4-6 games at once, the game plays bigger than a normal ring 3-6
can you at least admit to this, or is this just too much?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I can not admit that.

You clearly do not understand how multiple independent events affects variance.

You clearly have no desire to learn it, so I will not bother teaching it to you.

[ QUOTE ]

How else could you make 60 an hour? It plays bigger period.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they average a certain amount per hand. You are not making a few big bets, you are making several small bets. Period.
[ QUOTE ]

I understand all your points.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly you don't.
[ QUOTE ]

On a different note:

[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't give a sh*t about your other notes. I'm sure that are just as delusional.

[ QUOTE ]

<Blah blah blah, some stupid crap>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

anyone who is new to this game and reading this should question the validity of the claims of these few who have nothing better to do but post here and make claims.

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone new to anything should be critical, because it is the best way to understand things. However, you must do so with the knowledge that a whole lot of people with a hell of a lot of mathematics knowledge are probably right where you are wrong. Actually, the first step to learning anything is the ability to admit that you are wrong. I think I can see why you don't know anything.

Have you ever yelled out "rubbish teacher, you are completely wrong" in the middle of a math class? I bet you have.

mrjim

08-17-2004, 04:12 PM

We need a new flame icon for this topic with pokerhorse being roasted over it.

pudley4

08-17-2004, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
here maybe this makes more sense. because you can play 350 hands an hour at 3-6 or any other level by playing 4-6 games at once, the game plays bigger than a normal ring 3-6
can you at least admit to this, or is this just too much?
How else could you make 60 an hour? It plays bigger period.
I understand all your points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of these games plays bigger (needs a bigger bankroll)? A game where you play:

1 hand per hour of 3/6 holdem.
10 hands per hour of 3/6 holdem.
100 hands per hour of 3/6 holdem.

(All other parameters remain the same: opponents, win rate/hand, std dev/hand, etc). Please provide an explanation for your answer.

bdk3clash

08-17-2004, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We need a new flame icon for this topic with pokerhorse being roasted over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://bubdaddy.blogspot.com/Descanso%20Fire%20-%20horse.jpg

razor

08-17-2004, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
because you can play 350 hands an hour at 3-6 or any other level by playing 4-6 games at once, the game plays bigger than a normal ring 3-6
can you at least admit to this, or is this just too much?

[/ QUOTE ]

What 'the game'? There is no 'the game'. It is, and always will be, 4-6 SEPARATE games... SEPARATE, INDEPENDANT games...

mack23

08-17-2004, 04:49 PM

Sponger this is one of the funniest posts I've seen on here! Congrats. I am sorry that your wife is a dirty, dirty tramp. Nibb High football rules!

PokerHorse

08-17-2004, 04:57 PM

they say a picture speaks a 1000 words . your picture tells me all i need to know about you.
Is this simple enough for you sponge bob: When you can make 60hr playing 3-6 holdem you are effectively playing a larger game. i know this is incoherent, but a little sponge like you might grasp it someday.

MaxPower

08-17-2004, 04:57 PM

Pokerhorse,

You still haven't answered my question. Since multitabling makes it a bigger game, that means you need to have bigger banroll, right?

Sponger15SB

08-17-2004, 05:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i know this is incoherent

[/ QUOTE ]

'nuff said.

PokerHorse

08-17-2004, 05:19 PM

300 bb is a large swing. in what period of time is this. Ive never had more than a 90 bb swing in almost 20 years,yet multitablers like yourself lose this much regularly. isnt that about 30 hours of play at your playing rate. I would expect you have these types of swings probably 3-4 times or more in a year correct? yet you yourself talk about how you hate doing this. The typical player is not going to do well having regular 200-3swings. the reason you have these swings is because you are risking
more per hour than a standard 3-6 game. this is all im saying. it's a 300 bb swing at 3-6, but its more equal too a 60bb swing at 15-30 because thats the equavalent of money that is being risked per hour. 300 bb is not a normal swing, it is the largest swing on average that you could expect to lose according to your own mason M. if you think that players regularly have this type of swing, you are mistaken. And you are not either because ..........i'm not going to say it again. 1800 swings are not normal at 3-6 i hate to tell you.

Phishy McFish

08-17-2004, 05:24 PM

N/M

Tosh

08-17-2004, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The typical player is not going to do well having regular 200-3swings. the reason you have these swings is because you are risking

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they should go play squash.

This thread has gone past ridiculous, you have no idea what you are saying anymore, if you even did in the first place.

BreakEvenPlayer

08-17-2004, 05:29 PM

Pokerhorse,

I'm sorry that you were bullied by big kids when you were growing up. There's nothing I can do to help you. But please refrain from taking out your anger on a bunch of people who are exponentially smarter than you. This will only cause more pain. You are so f-ing wrong in this matter and you still haven't given it up.

E.A.D.

PokerHorse

08-17-2004, 05:32 PM

i have nothing to prove, but apparently you do. I dont call names .i said the post irritates me. I understand everything you have said . The problem here is that there is a difference between being able to play 350 hands an hour of 3-6- ONE at A TIME in one game, and playing collectively 350 hands an hour in 6 games. If you dont see a difference in the amount of money when you play collectively then your kidding yourself.
All the multi tablers are having regular 200-300 BB swings and then saying that these are in the normal parameters of playing that limit.. WRONG 200-300 BB swings are extreme , but not if you are playing 6 tables since you are risking more per hour . Dont worry you dont have to answer since you have backed yourself into a corner with your thin logic.
Where you guys got the idea that 200-300 BB swings are within the normal range is beyond me.
Go ahaead and keep re-inventing realty.

GrannyMae

08-17-2004, 05:33 PM

hi,

i don't know who you are, but all of a sudden this thread has appeared and it seems like it is mostly people calling you an idiot. people can be VERY rude here, huh?

can you please make an outline and short summary of what this thread is about, and include an explanation as to why people think you are dense.

submit it to me via PM asap. i'm not about to read this monster, and i am trying to decide which team to play on.

thanks for your cooperation.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/k0/smashfreak.gif

Ulysses

08-17-2004, 06:00 PM

Boy are you dumb.

If the dealers started dealing really fast at the casino and the players started acting really fast, would the 3-6 game all of a sudden be a "bigger" game?

When casinos put auto-shufflers in, do the games become bigger?

The fact of the matter is simple. You're not very good at poker and it's likely in large part because of the fact that your math and logic skills are woefully lacking.

You are also correct about the ability to make large sums of money online. Someone like you who is not able to do very well at poker after having played for 20 years is unlikely to make much at poker anywhere, online or live.

Rudbaeck

08-17-2004, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All the multi tablers are having regular 200-300 BB swings and then saying that these are in the normal parameters of playing that limit.. WRONG 200-300 BB swings are extreme , but not if you are playing 6 tables since you are risking more per hour .
Where you guys got the idea that 200-300 BB swings are within the normal range is beyond me.
Go ahaead and keep re-inventing realty.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an extreme downswing to be sure. In fact 300bb is such a large downswing that it will virtually 'never' happen.

And 300bb is just a rule of thumb, which has been grossly exaggerated. You need to know your own win rate and standard deviation to calculate your needed bankroll to keep risk of ruin under a certain percentage.

Many people don't even come near 300bb downswings, because they are rocks. 300bb downswings only happen for players who are aggressive. (And very rarely at that.)

The rock: If given an opportunity to bet $1 on a 0.9:1 proposition that pays 1:1 he would take it.

The aggressive player: If given an opportunity to bet $1 on a 0.9:1 proposition that pays 1:1 he would take it.

The rock: If given the opportunity to bet $1 on a 9:1 proposition that pays 10:1 he would pass. Every time.

The aggressive player: If given the opportunity to bet $1 on a 9:1 proposition that pays 10:1 he would take it every time.

The latter proposition is MUCH more common than the former in poker. The rock passes on these propositions, and thus doesn't risk anything. The aggressive player takes it every time. Sure, sometimes he will loose 40 straight bets at those odds, but over time he will profit $0.10 per bet.

Do you understand the difference?

OldLearner

08-17-2004, 06:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am now stupider for having read this thread. I'm now going to go weep for the 15 minutes of my life that I just lost

[/ QUOTE ]

First time one of these posts has ever made me LAUGH OUT LOUD.

Thanks alot, I am at work and have just attracted the ire of many of my co-workers.

great stuff

Losing all

08-17-2004, 06:42 PM

I don't know why, but "i said 36-72 in the other posts, i meant 15-30, i was thinking about 6-12 sorry for the mistake" is my favorite 2+2 line.

uuDevil

08-17-2004, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that there is a difference between being able to play 350 hands an hour of 3-6- ONE at A TIME in one game, and playing collectively 350 hands an hour in 6 games.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct here. But standard deviation does not scale linearly, so the "collective" game is not NEARLY as big as you think it is in terms of possible downswings. Here is a quote from a poster with a mathematical bent:

[ QUOTE ]
The standard deviation scales as the square root of the number of hands played, not linearly. Playing 9 tables of 2-4 produces variations about the size that 1 table of 6-12.

[/ QUOTE ]

--pzhon (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=genpok&Number=905922&Forum =All_Forums&Words=%2Bstandard%20%2Bdeviation&Searc hpage=0&Limit=25&Main=905582&Search=true&where=bod ysub&Name=9148&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=m& olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post905922)

PokerHorse

08-17-2004, 08:36 PM

we are talking apples to oranges here. Again, I understand what you have said.

This is my last post on this, so as to move on.

350 hands an hour. if you play 20% of hands dealt that is 70 hands per hour that you are putting 3.00 at least in.
go no further than that, on average you are playing 60-70 hands per hour playing 6 tables.So regardless of how many hands you are playing at the same time 60-70 an hour is very
realistic. so you are at a minimum putting in the pre flop minimum of $3.00. which is at a very minimum 180.00 to 210.00 an hour compared to about 24.00 an hour at the very minimum playing 1 table.
Playing 1 table, having a 200-300 bet negative swing is at the very extreme end, yet playing 6 tables this is a very common occurrence. So, the idea that the inflow per hour doesnt matter because the over all varience is the same, simply isnt true. The 200-300 bet swings are common with multitable per hour because more money is being invested on an hourly basis. If you played one table and lost 300 big bets, you would probably be a poor player, yet playing multiple tables because of the increased in flow 200-300 big bet downswings are probably relatively normal. The game plays bigger, with larger swings. This is all I'm saying. we are apples and oranges.

pudley4

08-17-2004, 08:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i have nothing to prove, but apparently you do. I dont call names .i said the post irritates me. I understand everything you have said . The problem here is that there is a difference between being able to play 350 hands an hour of 3-6- ONE at A TIME in one game, and playing collectively 350 hands an hour in 6 games. If you dont see a difference in the amount of money when you play collectively then your kidding yourself.
All the multi tablers are having regular 200-300 BB swings and then saying that these are in the normal parameters of playing that limit.. WRONG 200-300 BB swings are extreme , but not if you are playing 6 tables since you are risking more per hour . Dont worry you dont have to answer since you have backed yourself into a corner with your thin logic.
Where you guys got the idea that 200-300 BB swings are within the normal range is beyond me.
Go ahaead and keep re-inventing realty.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confused about what your point is.

 FACT : If you play 6 tables of 3/6 at one time, your SD/HR will be higher than if you play one table of 3/6. No one disagrees with you.

FACT : As you add more tables, (and your SD/hr increases), your win rate also increases (for good players). It should be obvious even to you.

FACT : Your win rate increases at a rate relative to your SD such that your bankroll requirement stays the same, as does your risk of ruin.* This is the part that you fail to grasp.

*Your win rate of X won't go up to 6X at six tables, there will be some dropoff with each additional table. Also, your SD at each table will most likely increase slightly, as you aren't as able to make correct thin value bets, or correct laydowns. However, the effect of these two are small, and not even close to enough to turn your 3/6 bankroll requirement into anything close to what is needed for a "comparable 18/36" game, as you state.

Ulysses

08-17-2004, 08:52 PM

Life is not fair. You are not very smart. Sorry.

Rudbaeck

08-17-2004, 08:53 PM

Can you please explain why the swings are bigger?

I play in a casino, every 3 hours I play 50 hands. I multitable online and every hour I play 50 hands.

Why is my swing per 50 hands LARGER in the second case? If it is because my skill is somewhat diminished by multitabling? If so, wouldn't anyone who was a tiny bit worse than me have EXACTLY THE SAME SWINGS over 3 hours in a casino as I would over 1 hour multitabling online?

I don't understand how you can come to the bizarre conclusion that calculations based on a per hand basis changes when the speed of hands dealt changes??? Does a fast dealer increase my variance as well?

As not everyone plays the same amount of hours in a casino, the only real way to calculate downswings is in downswing/hands dealt. And my downswing per 50 hands played is pretty similar in both cases.

Fwiw I've never had a downswing over 70bb yet online. (Four tabling, always.)

zimmer879

08-17-2004, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The game plays bigger, with larger swings. This is all I'm saying. we are apples and oranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about the same thing but have reached different conclusions, it's not apples and oranges. Apples are right. You're oranges.

SinCityGuy

08-17-2004, 11:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Someone like you who is not able to do very well at poker after having played for 20 years is unlikely to make much at poker anywhere, online or live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Olé!!!!!!!!!!!

Qui-Gon

08-18-2004, 03:54 AM

Hi Pokerhorse!

Ok, I’ve read all the posts in both threads but haven’t posted any myself yet.

Let’s get back to the main question for a moment now.

You challenged the statement in the foreword of SSH that said something like (I don’t have the book yet so I don’t know the exact words): “making 50k a year multitabling 3/6 online is no big deal”.

All right, what this discussion and your reasoning has lead to is that you still challenge this statement because (according to you):

A: Playing more than one 3/6 table at once cannot be “considered” as playing 3/6.

B: The statement is “unrealistic” because you would need a huge bankroll to be able to mutlitable.

Wow, I mean, let’s say for a moment that you’re right, then you really have crushed that statement haven’t you? /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Can you not accept that your criticism of that statement was incorrect? That’s what this discussion used to be all about.

Drunk Bob

08-18-2004, 07:33 AM

So true.

astroglide

08-18-2004, 02:22 PM

how is this thread still happening

Ulysses

08-18-2004, 02:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
how is this thread still happening

[/ QUOTE ]

Collective boredom?

Wayfare

08-18-2004, 02:27 PM

Because people like you keep bumping it!! Nice winrate btw.

Pokerhorse is dumb fwiw.

Also El Diablo is just withering in his comments about pokerhorse's obvious lack of intelligence.

MMMMMM

08-19-2004, 02:32 AM

Pokerhorse, I think someone should congratulate you on the magnificent levelheadedness and civility which you have managed to display in the face of nearly unbearable rudeness from all sides in this thread.

One can only surmise that you must carry this equanamity with you at the tables at all times, which must be rather disconcerting to your opponents who are used to seeing most players unravel after taking merely a few bad beats. I suspect that no matter how many bad beats you take, you will be in there keeping your eyes on the ball: cooly, calmly and collectedly.

Keep up the good work and don't let the naysayers get you down in life or in poker. As you well know, it isn't how many hands you win, it's how much money you win or lose that counts;-)

One final thought: you seem somehow able to keep discussions moving forward in a consistently positive manner no matter what the peanut gallery might chance to throw at you. If only our leaders (and more poker dealers!) would do the same.

Well not to get too long-winded or anything, but I for one have greatly appreciated reading this thread. Thanks again, PokerHorse!

M

MicroBob

08-19-2004, 02:53 AM

as i said in the first thread...it is amazing how many people think in a similar way to horse's logic and insist that they are correct.

don't believe me?
just walk by any random roulette table at a casino and ask the players if an hour of playing multiple numbers per spin will give them a better chance of winning as opposed to an hour of playing just a single-number per spin.
almost all of them will tell you that their chances are obviously better if you bet more than one number and that anyone who would only bet on a single-number just doesn't know how to play.

actually, many floor-persons and dealers would tell you the same thing.

many of these same players will also tell you that if the last 3 spins landed on 32, 23 and 32 that you should bet on 23 because that is OBVIOUSLY coming up next.

so, while most of us realize on it's face how goofy p-horse's logic is...i believe a majority of americans would actually believe his logic to be correct.

to me this is pretty gosh-darn astonishing.