OT: Is winning 1st in 4 out of a set of 8 a grand slam? [Archive]

11-16-2005, 02:30 AM

No way. If 3,4,5,6 is a slam, then a 4-tabler should count it if he gets 3,4 in one set and 1,2 in the next.

I'm putting my foot down here: it's only a slam for an 8-tabler if he gets 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8.

tshort

11-16-2005, 02:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No way. If 3,4,5,6 is a slam, then a 4-tabler should count it if he gets 3,4 in one set and 1,2 in the next.

I'm putting my foot down here: it's only a slam for an 8-tabler if he gets 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noah is right. It is obvious why...

Assuming even finish distribution, the chance of winning each tournament in a set of 4 is .01%. On the other hand, the chance of winning 4 out of a set of 8 is .46%. You can't call that a grand slam when it is 46 times as likely to happen.

The 3,4,5,6 or 2,3,4,5, etc, argument is bad too. This scenerario is 3 times as likely to happen as winning a set of 4.

11-16-2005, 02:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No way. If 3,4,5,6 is a slam, then a 4-tabler should count it if he gets 3,4 in one set and 1,2 in the next.

I'm putting my foot down here: it's only a slam for an 8-tabler if he gets 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a grand slam if it's 4 in a row, but this is only if it is counted by when a tourney is started. I'm sure some people will see 4 wins in a row and think they got a grand slam but if someone is 8 tabling in a set then this logic would be incorrect. Also I think this can only count if it's in the same session

raptor517

11-16-2005, 03:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No way. If 3,4,5,6 is a slam, then a 4-tabler should count it if he gets 3,4 in one set and 1,2 in the next.

I'm putting my foot down here: it's only a slam for an 8-tabler if he gets 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a grand slam if it's 4 in a row, but this is only if it is counted by when a tourney is started. I'm sure some people will see 4 wins in a row and think they got a grand slam but if someone is 8 tabling in a set then this logic would be incorrect. Also I think this can only count if it's in the same session

[/ QUOTE ]

zing. it has to be 4 in a row, doesnt matter when they are started. back to back to back to back. holla

Big Limpin'

11-16-2005, 03:34 AM

If i see 4 finish in a row, and they all are 1sts, thats a gran slam. To me anyways. I claim it. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Sure its somewhat more probable with many games in sets, the ITMs are all bunched up. But its still super rare, for me anyways.

Im a singles hitter, man ....usually one out of a set is a 1st. SOme sets are doubles, odd triple...homerun.

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Is getting 4 in a row, 3 in a row, 2in a row on the same day considered hitting for the cycle? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

UMTerp

11-16-2005, 03:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I like the push though. I don't do that very often when I flop a monster but maybe I will start doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were probably one of those people that thought Tiger Woods won the Grand Slam after he won the Masters that next year too, eh?

Has to be either 1-4 or 5-8 (counting in the order you started them) if you ask me...

jeffraider

11-16-2005, 03:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If i see 4 finish in a row, and they all are 1sts, thats a gran slam. To me anyways. I claim it. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Sure its somewhat more probable with many games in sets, the ITMs are all bunched up. But its still super rare, for me anyways.

Im a singles hitter, man ....usually one out of a set is a 1st. SOme sets are doubles, odd triple...homerun.

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Is getting 4 in a row, 3 in a row, 2in a row on the same day considered hitting for the cycle? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitting the cycle is 1st 2nd 3rd 4th in a row!

HesseJam

11-16-2005, 03:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No way. If 3,4,5,6 is a slam, then a 4-tabler should count it if he gets 3,4 in one set and 1,2 in the next.

I'm putting my foot down here: it's only a slam for an 8-tabler if he gets 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a grand slam if it's 4 in a row, but this is only if it is counted by when a tourney is started. I'm sure some people will see 4 wins in a row and think they got a grand slam but if someone is 8 tabling in a set then this logic would be incorrect. Also I think this can only count if it's in the same session

[/ QUOTE ]

zing. it has to be 4 in a row, doesnt matter when they are started. back to back to back to back. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the pure GS is a set of 4 for 1st and not match 3, 4 of the first pack plus match 1,2 of the 2nd set. Also, if you count it like you propose and you start 8 games within a couple of minutes, chances are that your 4 1sts take longest and thus finish consecutively.

11-16-2005, 03:42 AM

Everyone who disagrees with me on this is a cheater, a commie, and of questionable sexual orientation.

Hope this clarifies things.

11-16-2005, 03:51 AM

i want a grand slam!!!!!!

Freudian

11-16-2005, 04:11 AM

1-4, 5-8. Don't listen to those that wish to dilute the meaning of a Grand Slam. We don't need their kiddie pool Grand Slams.

HesseJam

11-16-2005, 04:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1-4, 5-8. Don't listen to those that wish to dilute the meaning of a Grand Slam. We don't need their kiddie pool Grand Slams.

[/ QUOTE ]

word

Slim Pickens

11-16-2005, 04:16 AM

It has to be 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8. I six-table. Is there some sort of um... cricket or something analogy I can use? ...not that it will ever happen.

bambi

11-16-2005, 04:58 AM

does it count, if you win the last 2 of youre session, only 1 tabling, then win youre first two the next day also 1 tabling?

tshort

11-16-2005, 05:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
does it count, if you win the last 2 of youre session, only 1 tabling, then win youre first two the next day also 1 tabling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it has been discussed, but I think you can call getting all 1sts in a set of 1-tabling a "home run."

jon462

11-16-2005, 10:37 AM

can we make a new term for 1,1,1,2 in a 4 game set? please? I have no grand slams, but 5-6 of those. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Hellmouth

11-16-2005, 11:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It depends on if they were 4 that you started in a row. Winning 1,4,6,and 8 is not a slam but 1,2,3,4 is. I also feel that 3,4,5,6 is a slam.

[/ QUOTE ]

3456 is a Tiger Slam (like tiger woods wining all four majors but not in the same year)f
EDIT
Damn it I can't believe someone thought of this before me. Must resolve to read all posts before posting.

Greg

tigerite

11-16-2005, 11:11 AM

No, a Tiger Slam is when I do a Grand Slam. I've only ever had one though..

fnord_too

11-16-2005, 11:15 AM

NO! If you 8 table you are no longer elligible (that has to be spelled incorectly) for the GS, only the whatever the hell it's called when you win 8 of 8.

Freudian

11-16-2005, 11:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
NO! If you 8 table you are no longer elligible (that has to be spelled incorectly) for the GS, only the whatever the hell it's called when you win 8 of 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called "highly unlikely, bordering on impossible".

astarck

11-16-2005, 12:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
NO! If you 8 table you are no longer elligible (that has to be spelled incorectly) for the GS, only the whatever the hell it's called when you win 8 of 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Holy Grail.

11-16-2005, 12:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NO! If you 8 table you are no longer elligible (that has to be spelled incorectly) for the GS, only the whatever the hell it's called when you win 8 of 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Holy Grail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh... if you get first 15% of the time, it happens about once in every 4 million sets of eight. I think raptor gets a few of those in a day.

durron597

11-16-2005, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NO! If you 8 table you are no longer elligible (that has to be spelled incorectly) for the GS, only the whatever the hell it's called when you win 8 of 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called "highly unlikely, bordering on impossible".

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't there a poker site that gives a million bucks for winning 7 in a row? (I am intentionally leaving out the site name).

astarck

11-16-2005, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NO! If you 8 table you are no longer elligible (that has to be spelled incorectly) for the GS, only the whatever the hell it's called when you win 8 of 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Holy Grail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just thought of a new dilema (although extremely unlikely to occur) related to the OP's question.

Let's say you 10-12+ table. What do you call it if you get first 2-10 or some weird combo like above. If 2-6 isn't a Slam, then is 2-10 anything close to a Grail? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

11-16-2005, 12:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NO! If you 8 table you are no longer elligible (that has to be spelled incorectly) for the GS, only the whatever the hell it's called when you win 8 of 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Holy Grail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just thought of a new dilema (although extremely unlikely to occur) related to the OP's question.

Let's say you 10-12+ table. What do you call it if you get first 2-10 or some weird combo like above. If 2-6 isn't a Slam, then is 2-10 anything close to a Grail? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If you get 2-10, you got a grand slam from 5,6,7,8 and you get to regret firing up that first SnG. If you 12-table, you can only get a Grail from 1-8.

Christ, you all must play horribly.

AA suited

11-16-2005, 02:34 PM

Not as excited about GrandSlams (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=singletable&Number=392037 5&Searchpage=1&Main=3920375&Words=slam+AA+suited&t opic=&Search=true#Post3920375) since 10-tabling

Manque

11-16-2005, 03:03 PM

Well I'm glad I read your post because I was about to write the same thing.

11-16-2005, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
NO! If you 8 table you are no longer elligible (that has to be spelled incorectly) for the GS, only the whatever the hell it's called when you win 8 of 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the same boat as this guy.