I disagree with Mason and David....

[Redhotman]

In several of the 2+2 books, it is said that as long as you are playing correctly and making positive EV plays you are winning money, even if you lose the hand.

This is completely false. There is no correlation from one hand to the next. If I flip a coin and it lands on heads, it doesn't mean that the next coin is more likely to land on tails.

If you make more positive EV plays than negative EV plays you have a better CHANCE of winning than losing, however when you lose, you are certainly NOT winning.

[ZeeJustin]

Generally when they talk about this, they use the phrase "in the long run".

They are also talking about mindset. You should think "I'm making money because I'm making the correct +EV plays". You shouldn't think that "I only make money when I catch good cards".

[Mike Gallo]

If you make more positive EV plays than negative EV plays you have a better CHANCE of winning than losing, however when you lose, you are certainly NOT winning.


Redhot,

I think you need to reread Theory of Poker for a better understanding of what the esteemed authors have written.

If you bet top pair top kicker, and someone flat calls with two pair or a set, you have gained. I will leave you to your own devices to figure out why.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If I flip a coin and it lands on heads, it doesn't mean that the next coin is more likely to land on tails.

That's not what they're saying. If you bet money on heads and get 6-5 odds and the coin comes up tails, you still were correct to make the bet, and should not shy away from making that same play again even though there's no guarantee that any particular flip will come up heads, (assuming a fair coin, of course).

[Redhotman]

They are assuming that every poker hand you play while on earth is part of one long session, this is incorrect.
Every night when you stop playing you have won or lost what you have won or lost.

Once again, I understand the FTOP and the "point" they are trying to make, I just disagree with life being one long poker session.

[Redhotman]

by the way there was a thread about this on RPG awhile back.

[J_V]

I've always said "EV doesn't pay the bills!"

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always said "EV doesn't pay the bills!"

[/ QUOTE ]
exactly

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to reread Theory of Poker for a better understanding of what the esteemed authors have written.

If you bet top pair top kicker, and someone flat calls with two pair or a set, you have gained. I will leave you to your own devices to figure out why.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly!!!

[adios]

"They are assuming that every poker hand you play while on earth is part of one long session, this is incorrect.
Every night when you stop playing you have won or lost what you have won or lost. "

The idea is that one session is insignificant in the long run of many thousands of hours of play. Basically you're saying what they say, in the short run variance dominates your results but in the long run (lots of hours) variance is insignificant. That's easily proven.

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
This is completely false. There is no correlation from one hand to the next.

[/ QUOTE ]

the whole point is that as long as you make a +EV decision in a certain situation, and you keep making that +EV decision in that particular situation you will eventually recoup your losses in those situations and eventually show a profit in that situation. this is something that can only be seen in the long run for that particular situation.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no correlation from one hand to the next. If I flip a coin and it lands on heads, it doesn't mean that the next coin is more likely to land on tails.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea, but eventually it will have landed on tails as many times as it has landed on heads.
just like the cards don't have a memory but eventually, certain scenarios will play out as they should and make you money if you play them the same +EV way.

[sleepyjoeyt]

this response is absolutely perfect.

well done!!

[sleepyjoeyt]

and if you don't understand what David and Mason are saying, then neither do you (pay the bills).

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
They are assuming that every poker hand you play while on earth is part of one long session, this is incorrect.
Every night when you stop playing you have won or lost what you have won or lost.

Once again, I understand the FTOP and the "point" they are trying to make, I just disagree with life being one long poker session.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to your theory then every night when you go to sleep your entire life starts over when you awake in the morning. Do you now see why you are incorrect and they are not?

[Mike Gallo]

[ QUOTE ]
According to your theory then every night when you go to sleep your entire life starts over when you awake in the morning. Do you now see why you are incorrect and they are not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.

[MaxPower]

Redhotman,

Can you tell me how you would define expected value? It may not be the same as S&M are defining it. I'm not talking about how you would compute it, I talking about what you think it means.

I think this might be the cause of your objection.

If you are correct than there are a lot of statistics textbooks that need changing.

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are assuming that every poker hand you play while on earth is part of one long session, this is incorrect.
Every night when you stop playing you have won or lost what you have won or lost.

Once again, I understand the FTOP and the "point" they are trying to make, I just disagree with life being one long poker session.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to your theory then every night when you go to sleep your entire life starts over when you awake in the morning. Do you now see why you are incorrect and they are not?


[/ QUOTE ]
As soon as a hand is over it is GONE FOREVER. However you played the last hand is now COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS.
If you start playing with $100, make all positive EV plays and lose that $100, YOU HAVE NOT GAINED ANYTHING. You MAY gain something in the LONG RUN. But your pockets are empty. So yes, everyday you wake up essentially is the first day of the rest of your life.

OBVIOUSLY, if you make more positive EV plays than negative EV plays you will become a winner in THE LONG RUN.

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]

Redhotman,

Can you tell me how you would define expected value? It may not be the same as S&M are defining it. I'm not talking about how you would compute it, I talking about what you think it means.

I think this might be the cause of your objection.

If you are correct than there are a lot of statistics textbooks that need changing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Expect Value - The amount of money you expect to gain on a bet after several trials.

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
and if you don't understand what David and Mason are saying, then neither do you (pay the bills).



[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think he doesnt understand it?
Jesus, some of you guys are wound too tight.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


the whole point is that as long as you make a +EV decision in a certain situation, and you keep making that +EV decision in that particular situation you will eventually recoup your losses in those situations and eventually show a profit in that situation. this is something that can only be seen in the long run for that particular situation.

yea, but eventually it will have landed on tails as many times as it has landed on heads.


[/ QUOTE ]

The first statement is correct, the second one isnt. Overall, I agree with redhotman in his disagreement with the concept that a losing play that happened to have +EV is somehow "banking something for the future". Yes, if you continue to be given +EV opportunities you will be a winner in the long run. However, the total of that eventual win will be net of the loss from this encounter. Once its out of your bankroll it is gone forever. The logic behind that can be seen from a correct coin flip scenario.

If you flipped a fair coin 100 times, called tails, and lost because you got 100 heads in a row, probability does not predict that eventually they will even out. It predicts that in the next 200 flips the expected number of heads is 100 and tails is 100, for a total of 200 heads and 100 tails....still down 100. After the next 2 million flips (from the first 100) the expected total is 1,000,100 heads and 1,000,000 tails....still down 100. As the number of flips gets larger and larger the ratio of heads to tails is expected to approach 1, but only because the first 100 become insignificant in comparison to the total.

The concept of playing one "lifelong session of poker" is not directed at this mis-application of the "law of large numbers" however. It is directed at the (extremely silly) notion of "money management", and the supposedly profitable techniques such as "stop losses", "win limits" and so on. Taking stop losses as an example, if your limit is -$2000 spread over 4 sessions of -500, and you quit after losing the first 500, only to return tomorrow to lose another $500 (or win the first 500 back and then some, it doesnt matter whether you quit in the middle (assuming losing the first 500 didnt lower your skills because of steaming etc) and restarted, or lost it all in one longer session. If you have the skills to win, the cards can turn the next hand after you lose the first $500, or you could continue to lose. Putting a time gap in between hands doesnt change anything, as long as you are commited to putting the whole 2k bank at risk.

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
OBVIOUSLY, if you make more positive EV plays than negative EV plays you will become a winner in THE LONG RUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

what are you getting at then? what is your major malfunction?


what is the difference between a 20 minute session, a 60 minute session, a 5 hour session and a 24 hour session? what difference is there between any session no matter the lenght?


[ QUOTE ]
If you start playing with $100, make all positive EV plays and lose that $100, YOU HAVE NOT GAINED ANYTHING.

[/ QUOTE ]


you have not gained anything, YET.

for all you know, you might lose your next $100.

but then again, you might win with your first $100.

but you won't know until it happens. so seeing how this is the case, how else would you play it?

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
As the number of flips gets larger and larger the ratio of heads to tails is expected to approach 1, but only because the first 100 become insignificant in comparison to the total.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea, that's what i meant.

it's silly to think that the coin remembered that it landed heads for often than tails for the first few trials so it has to "make up" the missed tails.

likewise, the cards do not remember, but the point is playing in +EV situations is the only way you give yourself an edge aside from knowing your opponent's cards and upcoming cards.

[sucka]

Every hand IS independent.

When you are on a flush draw and you make the +EV play to call when you have pot odds to do so - it's a correct play. You'll hit and win ~40% of the time and lose the rest.

If you play an hour session and flop 10 flush draws and make +EV plays on all but only hit on 1 - that's poker.

The point is - playing correctly ensures that even though you are often investing money in hands where you aren't the favorite - you do so in such a manner that when you make these hands that the return on your win compensates for the times that you draw and lose.

Poker is a long term game. If someone is going to sit down and play poker for 1 hour and never play again - the point could be argued that this person might just play every hand however that person so chooses and at the end of the hour they see how it goes.

For the rest of us, it's quite different.

[MaxPower]

That's good. If we define it as the average amount one expects to win if the bet is repeated over many trials, then I don't see your point.

You win money with a +EV bet, not literally, but statistically.

Yes, each time you make this bet it is an independent event, but you still earn your expectation each time you make it.

[J_V]

Not only is this not an excellent point it is flat out wrong. Your poker life essentially starts over every hand and every day too.

In the literal sense, when you make a +EV play and lose, you will not get anything for your efforts. Obvious I know, but that's his point. And my point is "Ev doesn't pay the bills!"

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only is this not an excellent point it is flat out wrong. Your poker life essentially starts over every hand and every day too.

In the literal sense, when you make a +EV play and lose, you will not get anything for your efforts. Obvious I know, but that's his point. And my point is "Ev doesn't pay the bills!"

[/ QUOTE ]
Right on. The point is obvious, yet so many people don't seem to understand it.

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]

That's good. If we define it as the average amount one expects to win if the bet is repeated over many trials, then I don't see your point.

You win money with a +EV bet, not literally, but statistically.

Yes, each time you make this bet it is an independent event, but you still earn your expectation each time you make it.


[/ QUOTE ]
statistically doesnt pay the bills.

[daryn]

um.. ok. so what is the point of this whole discussion? let everyone believe what they want to believe about sessions and EV.. and we will separate the winners from the losers "in the long run"..


see you all in the winners group

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
um.. ok. so what is the point of this whole discussion? let everyone believe what they want to believe about sessions and EV.. and we will separate the winners from the losers "in the long run"..



see you all in the winners group

[/ QUOTE ]
there is something very serial-killeresque about your picture.

[daryn]

i often think i am one step away from becoming a serial killer, but then i remember i'm not crazy

[1800GAMBLER]

Are you just trying to disagree or just look stupid?

[Stagemusic]

Let me get this straight. What Red is saying is that when I put $100 into a pot with KK against a full field with 5 callers and get sucked out on by a measly little 66 when a 6 hits the turn I had absolutely NO expectation of winning the hand. That $100 is gone and I have, once again, NO expectation of ever getting it back. Correct so far?

What the rest of you are saying is, if I play this same hand 100 times against the same people in the same situation I should EXPECT to win the hand 86 times (heads up against 66 with a random board). How am I doing?

So the idea is to maximize the amount of $ in these HIGH EV situations in order to minimize losses and maximize winnings to account for the difference in the 14 losses out of 100 hands I can EXPECT in my scenario. How's dat? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ccwhoelse?]

this is getting ridiculous.

when you make any type of play, the outcome is unknown until the cards are all out.

so before you know the outcome, how else would you play a hand other than for +EV?

everything else is irrelevant

[MaxPower]

Tell that to the insurance industry.

What exactly is your point and how will it help me play poker?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

They are assuming that every poker hand you play while on earth is part of one long session, this is incorrect.

So you either *don't* understand, or *choose not to* understand that when you start and end a session are totally arbitrary points and irrelevant to the cards or the probabilities.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If you start playing with $100, make all positive EV plays and lose that $100, YOU HAVE NOT GAINED ANYTHING.

No. You simply have not gained anything by the point you quit. If you fail to recognize that your play was correct and begin altering your play ("I never hit a flush draw, I don't care how much is in the pot, I fold!), you lessen your chances to recoup and move into the plus column.

The best poker players in the world, playing against average competition, will lose approximately 1/3 of all sessions.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

"Ev doesn't pay the bills!"

If he's at the point where the result of a particular session is crucial to paying the bills, he needs a day job.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Tell that to the insurance industry.

ROFLMAO. This is easily the most succinct, yet absolutely true, answer posted in the thread.

If you *truly* undestand EV (and the insurance industry certainly does), EV absolutely pays the bills.

Great post.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No. If you *really* understood EV, you'd know it *does* pay the bills.

[RollaJ]

If you drive through an intersection when you have the green light, and some driver blows through the red light and hits you it doesnt mean you were wrong to go (no matter what the insurance company says). Sure at the end of that day while you are laying there eating dinner through a straw you may feel like it was the wrong choice, but you will surely come to realize that in the long run you are better driving though intersections when you hve a green light than when it is red.......'nuff said /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[CrackerZack]

I don't suck! I'm just the most unlucky player in the world. I make +EV plays all the time from all positions, but I just keep getting unlucky. I hate this game.

[Barry]

This whole thread is quite unbelievable. How about a poll?

You arrive at a poker room and see 2 tables at your limit each with 1 seat open. The floorman tells you that you can have either one. At one table just to the left of the open seat is Redhotman at the other just to the left of the open seat is KurnsonofMogh. Everybody else at both tables is average.

[PlayerA]

[ QUOTE ]
however when you lose, you are certainly NOT winning.

[/ QUOTE ] - that's a tautology. Does that statement really have any value? It states the obvious and offers no guidance in making a decision in a particular situation.

I think that M & D understand that when you don't win, then you lose.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The Captain /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[J_V]

By that logic, I would too. But if you saw my bank account I don't. That's really an ignorant statement and I would bet this poster is not only very intelligent but also a very good player.

You S&M munchkins would be better served to think for yourself.

[Mike Gallo]

Now I found that extremely funny.

Guaranteed to tilt a rack away, the captain.

Fred G Sanford and I had the "pleasure of playing with that maniac at Foxwoods a few months back.

I respect anyone who can cap without looking at his card. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

But if you saw my bank account I don't.

So my guess is you tend to make good EV decisions.

I would bet this poster is not only very intelligent but also a very good player.

Point out where I said I thought he was a) stupid or b) a bad player. My point is simple that when we discuss EV, we're discussing the long run, not individual hands or sessions.

You S&M munchkins would be better served to think for yourself.

I'm sure the posters here who have met me in person are laughing themselves silly at me being called a munchkin.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Guaranteed to tilt a rack away, the captain.

In the 10/20 game I played he needed a fork-lift to take his chips to the cage.

I respect anyone who can cap without looking at his cards.

But that's what amazed me about him. He actually looks at his cards. I have no idea why, but he does look. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Andy B]

I'm holding out for a table with some below-average players.

[Barry]

LOL

If I could stand the variance that he can cause, so would I. But I think he's a 4 S.D. kind of guy.

[Benman]

When you start and when you end are irrelevant to how the cards come, but they are very relevant to poker success in the real world. I get so frustrated with the insistence of some so-called experts that stop-losses and so forth are stupid. Stop losses are stupid only, I repeat only, if you have perfect discipline and bad beats don't have any effect whatsover on your game. I'm a very , very disciplined player, myself. I may have faults in my game, but steaming, even mildly, is not one of them. Nevertheless, I'll occasionally get up from a good game if I've lost a big wad of money. I do it because I know how bad even a mild steam can be on my bankroll, so why risk it? People that say stop losses are useless are just eggheads trying too hard to show how theoretically smart they are. If the cards are running bad, and you're mad that the cards are running bad, just get up. Come back tomorrow.

[Wake up CALL]

"Stop Losses" as they are commonly defined are stupid. They normally refer to quitting after a specific loss in dollars after a certain period of time not contingent on the game conditions nor your frame of mind. What you stated has nothing to do with a stop loss but with what is recommended as to how to evaluate your personal game and whether you should, either take a break or stop completely and return another day.

[Benman]

OK, you make some good points. The problem is that it gets hard to evaluate your own play sometimes after you've taken a few beatings. A stop loss has the benefit of not relying on your own subjective evaluation of your frame of mind. I think most players have a point at which they will crack, and it's hard to say whether they will have the presence of mind to notice. If you set a stop loss pretty deep into your bankroll, and you unfortunately happen to get to it, how good do you feel about saying, well the game is still good and I think I'm OK, so I'll stay around? I say why risk it. There will be other good games.

[MMMMMM]

Why aren't you one of the regulars on the Other Topics forum?

[J_V]

I think he understands the point, but he is taking it very literally. What Redhot is saying is right. And S&M point is good very good too. It's almost quadnines nitpickyk, but when you lose a hand, you do not win money. I think that's what he was saying. Not sure why he said it, but he's right.

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
but when you lose a hand, you do not win money. I think that's what he was saying. Not sure why he said it, but he's right.

[/ QUOTE ]

it means nothing. there is nothing anyone can learn/take away from this. it's totally useless. who cares if you lose a pot making a +EV play. what good does the knowledge that this happens do anybody?

he can say it and be right all he wants.

but i say, ok, your right and your point is?

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
This whole thread is quite unbelievable. How about a poll?

You arrive at a poker room and see 2 tables at your limit each with 1 seat open. The floorman tells you that you can have either one. At one table just to the left of the open seat is Redhotman at the other just to the left of the open seat is KurnsonofMogh. Everybody else at both tables is average.



<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1066671934Barry">
<p>Which table do you sit at?

<input type="radio" name="option" value="1" />The table with Redhotman
<input type="radio" name="option" value="2" />The table with KurnsonofMogh
<INPUT TYPE=Submit NAME=Submit VALUE="Submit vote" class="buttons"></form>



[/ QUOTE ]
You are a Class Act Barry.

ps: if i was another person i would perfer to sit next to myself as opposed to kurn.

[John Cole]

M,

Good question. Find out if he's a conservative, liberal, or libertarian.

John

[MMMMMM]

I just thought he sounded like he'd fit right in...on any side.

[Redhotman]

Im a libertarian...LOL

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Im a libertarian

Good. We agree on something. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I do it because I know how bad even a mild steam can be on my bankroll, so why risk it?

Then that's not s "stop-loss" in the common sense of the term. You're making a judgment about the effect of the previous hands and your frame of mind on your future play, which is a good thing.

[Barry]

Well let’s see…

If I was looking for some good conversation, I would sit next to KurnsonofMogh. He is bright, articulate, humorous, and we share similar political philosophies. However, if I am looking to make money, I would rather sit next to you.

An analogy to your thinking is similar to classical physics (your view) and quantum physics (other’s views). Classical physics is relatively, (no pun intended) easy to understand and can be viewed as intuitive. Quantum physics is difficult to understand and can be counterintuitive. You can do “OK” with just understanding classical physics, but you can’t do really well until you understand quantum physics.

To understand what the others are saying, you have to cast loose the shackles of your own dogma and really try to understand what the others are saying; rather than blindly rationalizing your position.

We are here to help, really! But you need to hear.
.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'll buy you lunch next time we're at Foxwoods /images/graemlins/wink.gif

But, could you say things like this to cute young (18+) girls.

[Barry]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll buy you lunch next time we're at Foxwoods

[/ QUOTE ]

You're on! I've got a busy travel schedule coming up and won't get back to Foxwoods until the weekend of Nov 22-23.

[ QUOTE ]
But, could you say things like this to cute young (18+) girls

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think I caught Angel_Fish?

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well let’s see…

If I was looking for some good conversation, I would sit next to KurnsonofMogh. He is bright, articulate, humorous, and we share similar political philosophies. However, if I am looking to make money, I would rather sit next to you.

An analogy to your thinking is similar to classical physics (your view) and quantum physics (other’s views). Classical physics is relatively, (no pun intended) easy to understand and can be viewed as intuitive. Quantum physics is difficult to understand and can be counterintuitive. You can do “OK” with just understanding classical physics, but you can’t do really well until you understand quantum physics.

To understand what the others are saying, you have to cast loose the shackles of your own dogma and really try to understand what the others are saying; rather than blindly rationalizing your position.

We are here to help, really! But you need to hear.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it exactly that I dont understand?
I made about thirty posts that read....I KNOW THAT IF YOU CONSISTENTLY MAKE POSITIVE EV PLAYS YOU WILL WIN MONEY.

I admit the point I was making was fairly obvious and maybe pointless...

Copernicus, who is very respected around here said that he agreed with me. I had an opinion, posted it, and debated.

You come on here, offer nothing but a lame attempt to insult me.

Here is one final opinion....You are a Grade A Scumbag...

[Barry]

Well perhaps I made this too personal, but your personal invectives are even more so.

My point is that you are completely disregarding the advice of many respected winning players here. They are not all morons.

You cannot effect the cards that are to come; you can only make decisions based upon the known cards, the other players and their betting patterns. If you make the proper decisions each time, not only will you win, but your win rate will be higher than if you don't. That seems to be the part that you disagree with.

It seems to me that your proposition, in practice, would lead you to be less aggressive when you are ahead, and have the best of it, because someone "might" draw out on you, and perhaps to not correctly draw when you have the proper odds to do so. It seems to me that you might be too afraid to lose to win. If that is the case, then perhaps you are playing with too small of a bankroll for the limits that you are playing.

If you do play that way and I played against you, I would not get charged the maximum when I'm behind and I might win a few extra pots when you were correct to continue to draw, but elected not to because you had to pay 2 or 3 bets on the turn.

I will be glad to continue this discussion in a civil manner, but I ask you to drop your preconceived notions and think about what others are saying.

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well perhaps I made this too personal, but your personal invectives are even more so.

My point is that you are completely disregarding the advice of many respected winning players here. They are not all morons.

You cannot effect the cards that are to come; you can only make decisions based upon the known cards, the other players and their betting patterns. If you make the proper decisions each time, not only will you win, but your win rate will be higher than if you don't. That seems to be the part that you disagree with.

It seems to me that your proposition, in practice, would lead you to be less aggressive when you are ahead, and have the best of it, because someone "might" draw out on you, and perhaps to not correctly draw when you have the proper odds to do so. It seems to me that you might be too afraid to lose to win. If that is the case, then perhaps you are playing with too small of a bankroll for the limits that you are playing.

If you do play that way and I played against you, I would not get charged the maximum when I'm behind and I might win a few extra pots when you were correct to continue to draw, but elected not to because you had to pay 2 or 3 bets on the turn.

I will be glad to continue this discussion in a civil manner, but I ask you to drop your preconceived notions and think about what others are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand everything you have said. I feel that you have misunderstood what it is I was trying to say in my original post, which was probally fairly pointless to begin with. I dont feel like putting anymore effort into this subject, just thought the poll was in low taste.

[Barry]

OK then, Peace.

[daryn]

i have to disagree with this.. you can do REALLY well without quantum physics.

[BruceZ]

Try this. You get paid EV dollars per hand for sitting there on your leather ass and making correct +EV plays every hand. Whether you win or lose a particular hand doesn't matter, you still get paid +EV dollars per hand when pay day comes, which may not be for a long time, but it will come as long as you make +EV plays. That doesn't mean you can't make a -EV play on a particular hand and make more money, but in general if your policy isn't to make +EV plays, you will not get paid when payday comes.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Hell, all the poll says to me is 82% of the people think I smell bad. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Barry]

Nah, it's not that, they just can't understand it when you mumble in Klingon.