The time must be close, Granny didn't mess about tonight.

[Lori]

With the Ghost of Mae currently haunting the boards and apparently soon to be telling us something important, I was worried about playing my GM today.
I shouldn't have been, no messing no nonsense.

Game #445806126 - $0.50/$1 Texas Hold'em - 2004/02/22-14:43:01 (CST)
Table "Akiaki" (real money) -- Seat 9 is the button
Seat 1: lorinda ($77.00 in chips)
Seat 3: skunkworks ($63.75 in chips)
Seat 6: fshn4fun ($5.00 in chips)
Seat 7: Danny Gee ($14.00 in chips)
Seat 8: ChoroLobo ($34.00 in chips)
Seat 9: rasalgul ($78.75 in chips)
Seat 10: fingal ($23.75 in chips)
fingal : Post Small Blind ($0.25)
lorinda : Post Big Blind ($0.50)
fshn4fun: Post ($0.50)
Dealing...
Dealt to lorinda [ Qs ]
Dealt to lorinda [ 5s ]
skunkworks: Fold
fshn4fun: Check
Danny Gee: Fold
ChoroLobo: Fold
rasalgul: Raise ($1)
fingal : Call ($0.75)
lorinda : Raise ($1)
fshn4fun: Call ($1)
rasalgul said, "walked into it this time..."
rasalgul: Call ($0.50)
fingal : Call ($0.50)
*** FLOP *** : [ Js As Ts ]
fingal : Check
lorinda : Bet ($0.50)
fshn4fun: Call ($0.50)
rasalgul: Fold
fingal : Call ($0.50)
*** TURN *** : [ Js As Ts ] [ 4h ]
fingal : Check
lorinda : Bet ($1)
rasalgul said, "nh hope you dont get rivered"
fshn4fun: Call ($1)
fingal : Call ($1)
*** RIVER *** : [ Js As Ts 4h ] [ 3c ]
fingal : Check
lorinda : Bet ($1)
fshn4fun: Call ($1)
lorinda said, "GRANNY MAE"
skunkworks said, "alright it was nice talking with you lori and ras"
fingal : Fold
skunkworks said, "GO GO GO"
skunkworks said, "YEAH"
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $12 | Rake: $0.50
Board: [ Js As Ts 4h 3c ]
lorinda bet $4, collected $12, net +$8 (showed hand) [ Qs 5s ] (a flush, ace
high)
skunkworks didn't bet (folded)
fshn4fun lost $4 [ 4c Ah ] (two pair, aces and fours)
Danny Gee didn't bet (folded)
ChoroLobo didn't bet (folded)
rasalgul lost $1.50 (folded)
fingal lost $3 (folded)

Lori

[astroglide]

in addition to the -ev stupidity of this hand, don't you think that people will be able to flag people as being from a group of otherwise decent players by shouting out GM at the end of the hand?

[Lori]

don't you think that people will be able to flag people as being from a group of otherwise decent players by shouting out GM at the end of the hand?

How exactly would they do that?

I post as Lorinda and Lori, I play as Lorinda and I chat constantly through my games about all manner of trivial drivel.
If they can't work out who I am from that, I don't think that shouting an apparently random name is going to help them much.

As to the -EV, I've commented many times about why it is so crazily close to 0 that it doesn't matter, I can't be bothered to go through that again.

Granny was a friend of mine, and I will remember her in my own way.

Lori

[astroglide]

anybody that plays q5s like a maniac and says GRANNY MAE at the end of the hand - you are not the only one - is not hard to spot. i'm referring to people associating you and every other player who does it together. it's a very easy way for them to detect decent players. 'oh this guy said it too - i'll note that they are associated with the other ones'

it is nowhere near close to 0 ev.

[HavanaBanana]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the -EV

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, might be -EV but I have won money on that hand,almost makes be believe that I should close my eyes and bet every doublesuited hand all the way to the river /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lori]

it is nowhere near close to 0 ev.

I'll play you heads up play money for an hour.

I will play every Q5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif in that time without missing a bet.

At the end of the hour, if I have got 0 or more chips from the hand, you give me $100 otherwise, I'll give you $100

Lori

[astroglide]

in a single hour it's unlikely that you will get dealt q5s once, and heads up play is completely different from 10-handed play. thanks for the offer to 'demonstrate', but your method is completely unscientific.

[Lori]

in a single hour it's unlikely that you will get dealt q5s once

The -EV of a hand I won't get has me quaking.

Lori

[astroglide]

you can be a tool about it if you'd like. however infrequently you get dealt q5s, if you play it like a maniac it is signifigantly -ev.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
if you play it like a maniac it is signifigantly -ev.

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of BBs/hand, what would you say Q5s's EV is played like a maniac?

Edit: Please assume that you already have a standard TnA image at the table for those who pay attention to such things.

[JohnShaft]

That does zero to prove it's +EV though Lori.

Even if in headsup play it wasn't hugely different (and not only is it different but it's a strongish hand).

But the significant thing is, playing it super-aggressively, you will *win* a high percentage of the time. That doesn't make it +EV. You could bet any hand down and win with it a lot (even 32o). That wouldn't make up for the loss in BB's you'd build up the times it lost though.

Winning pots isn't the issue. Winning BB's is.

It's blatantly -EV outside of the blinds imo. I don't think it's even close.

[Lori]

It's blatantly -EV outside of the blinds imo. I don't think it's even close.

How can something that occurs less than once in 1000 hands be "Not even close" to 0 EV?

Lori

[JohnShaft]

It doesn't matter how often it occurs. It has nothing to do with it's EV.

AA has an EV of approximately +3BB, per hand.
It's likelyhood to be dealt to you has no bearing on it's EV.

Now if you said that playing Q5s super-aggresssively would barely affect *your* EV, as opposed to the hands, that I would have less disagreement with. As you said if you only get dealt it every 12 hours or so it's not going to single-handedly wreck your entire EV over that table.
But that doesn't mean you aren't giving up a couple of BB's (or even much more) by basically betting the thing down if it hits or not, every time you are dealt it.

[Lori]

Now if you said that playing Q5s super-aggresssively would barely affect *your* EV, as opposed to the hands, that I would have less disagreement with

Clearly that is what I am talking about.

I took "-EV nonsense" to mean the playing of this hand as a rule, not the actual hand.

If I wanted advice on my play, I'd post the HH in Small Stakes.

Lori

[JohnShaft]

I'm not advising on the play in the hand. I wouldn't presume to do as much in the Zoo. I'm merely springing to the defence of what I believe was an erroneous statement.

As for you saying that you meant that playing the hand didn't make *you* a -EV player, that's fine. I don't disagree with that.

I just took one of your statements:
As to the -EV, I've commented many times about why it is so crazily close to 0 that it doesn't matter, I can't be bothered to go through that again.
To mean you were talking about the *hand*.
I don't see how you stating that it is "crazily close to 0" can be construed as being about anything *other* than the hands EV. You surely weren't talking about *your* EV when talking about close to 0.

But anyway, I don't want to get into an argument with you, nor debate semantics. I'm sure we've both got better things to do with our time.

[JTG51]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the -EV, I've commented many times about why it is so crazily close to 0 that it doesn't matter, I can't be bothered to go through that again.
To mean you were talking about the *hand*.
I don't see how you stating that it is "crazily close to 0" can be construed as being about anything *other* than the hands EV. You surely weren't talking about *your* EV when talking about close to 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

I shouldn't bother because I'm not really interested in getting into an argument over semantics either, but I took Lori's statement to mean that playing the hand Granny Mae style has nearly zero impact on her overall winrate, which is obviously true.

[Lori]

Ok, clearly a misunderstanding,

To clarify, what I should have said, and what Im sure from your other posts you will agree with is:

Over the period of my session, the effect that always playing Q5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif has on my EV is negligable, especially factoring in future play in that session.

Lori

[JohnShaft]

[ QUOTE ]
Over the period of my session, the effect that always playing Q5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif has on my EV is negligable, especially factoring in future play in that session.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in complete agreement. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Now, enough of the EV talk in the Zoo, let's get back to debating the important issues like how much Party's support sucks, and the latest occurance of UB dying.

[Lori]

Now, enough of the EV talk in the Zoo, let's get back to debating the important issues like how much Party's support sucks, and the latest occurance of UB dying.


Deal.

By the way, Party support has improved a lot with the event of them stopping the 24hour support for several days now /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Lori

[astroglide]

lol@the number of posts in this thread

[ QUOTE ]
How can something that occurs less than once in 1000 hands be "Not even close" to 0 EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's retardedly myopic of you to think this way. how could folding queens preflop be -ev if you can still show a profit overall without them? answer: the ev for each hand is independent. if you're thinking in terms cumulative ev, IT IS AN AVERAGE. that means that every single hand is factored in, and thus matters.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
you can be a tool about it if you'd like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know women could be "tools."

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
I shouldn't bother because I'm not really interested in getting into an argument over semantics either, but I took Lori's statement to mean that playing the hand Granny Mae style has nearly zero impact on her overall winrate, which is obviously true.

[/ QUOTE ]
if a person loses 3 big bets in an hour (that's being modest: raise, bet, bet, bet, lose) and had made 2bb that hour their win rate would be reduced to -1bb for that hour. most things are signifigant, even in the long run. this one isn't even close to debatable.

[JTG51]

[ QUOTE ]
how could folding queens preflop be -ev if you can still show a profit overall without them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should look over the definition of EV before you start calling other people retarded.

[astroglide]

maybe you should learn to discern the difference between calling a thought retarded and calling a person retarded. 'retardedly' was used to describe the level of myopia, and the thought, not lori, was the subject. the aim of my statement was perfectly understandable. if you think you can correctly disagree with it, feel free to try.

[astroglide]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tool

"A person used to carry out the designs of another; a dupe." there are multiple definitions.

[JTG51]

Nice come back.

I agree though, with you talking about -EV folds before the flop and losing 3 big bets an hour by overplaying a hand that comes up once every 1326 hands, this thread has become retarded.

How did I let myself get sucked into this?

[BradleyT]

What's pokertracker say about granny?

[astroglide]

with almost 100k 3/6 hands in the last 3 months i've been dealt q5s 283 times. let's consider some reasonable loss rates misplaying it:

1bb/hd = -$1698
2bb/hd = -$3396
3bb/hd = -$5094

3/6, 3 months. insignifigant?

as for -ev preflop folds, it is genuinely pissing money away if it rates to win more than its fair share. the same is true of playing (especially overplaying) hands that don't rate to win more than their fair share.

the bb/hr statement was made for that one specific hour, and stated to illustrate the signifigance.

[AAmaz0n]

There is more to profit than just the EV of individual hands, and that is something to consider in this case.

1 hand out of 1326, played super aggressively is not going to affect anyone's bottom line significantly. The individual hand may be -EV on it's own, but it has other value as well.

My experience is that I get a lot of value from this hand at tight tables where I get folks to lay down and then show the hand. The advertisement value - something that has shown up in a lot of Caro's articles - needs to be factored in.

There was a post recently about someone who was playing NL at the Commerce who got a lot of action out of otherwise tight players after showing down a Granny.

I've pulled my Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif out of the other Q5s in Poker Tracker and after 13K hands it's still a winner, so it clearly hasn't affected me adversely as of yet. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

IMO, the added value I get from showing it down to folks who are used to seeing me come in with much better hands is worth any slight difference in earnings from the hand on it's own.

Shauna

[Lori]

1bb/hd = 1698

No way is it -1bb/hd, even as a stand-alone.

Id accept -0.1bb/hd and maybe even -0.25.

Then you get back something on your big hands due to extra payoffs, so I think maybe you could have lost $100 in this time, which you could make up with and extra 4 minutes play per day.

You could make one less post here and cover that.

For me, 4 minutes a day is worth remembering a friend.

Lori

[astroglide]

if your opponents actually use their heads, they will quickly observe that you play rationally/well with the exception of that one hand.

you may note one of the original points i brought up in this thread was that by saying "GRANNY MAE" a person makes it all the more obvious that they, along with anyone else that plays q5s in this way, is probably a decent player and is somehow related to the others.

observant opponents should notice that you play well if you do, regardless of the occasional freakout, and should note very easily if it occurs with one specific hand and that many other decent players do the same thing.

[astroglide]

betting/raising/reraising the hand at every opportunity in a full table cannot possibly be around -0.25 in the long run.

i already made a post outlining how making it this one specific hand, shouting a specific phrase, played the same by multiple people does even more to harm whatever payoff gain you may have held. furthermore, it draws an association.

[Lori]

observant opponents should notice that you play well if you do, regardless of the occasional freakout, and should note very easily if it occurs with one specific hand and that many other decent players do the same thing.


So when I raise and bet the flop and then bet the turn, how do you adjust your play?

Lori

[astroglide]

i would assume that you didn't have q5s, because the hand isn't that common. i wouldn't be any more inclined to pay you off if you freaked out with 1 hand and played all the other ones rationally.

[AAmaz0n]

[ QUOTE ]
if your opponents actually use their heads,..snip....
observant opponents should notice ...snip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? If I think anyone at my table is using their head or observant, I go for a table change immediatly! I refuse to play with people like that! It's like....cheating or something. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Shauna

[astroglide]

so then they wouldn't care about your play of q5s...

[JTG51]

For what it's worth, Granny Mae is specifically Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif, not Q5s, so you can divide those numbers by four.

I'm not arguing that playing the hand Granny Mae style isn't losing money, just that it's impact on Lori's (or anyone that plays the hand, I don't) overall winrate in terms of $/hr is very, very small. Multiplying those pennies an hour by a zillion hours doesn't change that fact.

As for the definition of EV, that was just a meaningless jab at you on my part. I figured as insulting as you are to others here you'd be able to handle it.

[AAmaz0n]

I wouldn't overestimate the average online players powers of observation or association. I've been yelling "PRESTO!" for years now and people think that I'm just babbling. Actually, maybe that's what I am doing. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

But the point is, a lot of folks are just oblivious.

Shauna

[Lori]

i would assume that you didn't have q5s, because the hand isn't that common. i wouldn't be any more inclined to pay you off if you freaked out with 1 hand and played all the other ones rationally

Does this mean you would sometimes fold to my Q5 when you shouldn't?

Lori

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing that playing the hand Granny Mae style isn't losing money, just that it's impact on Lori's (or anyone that plays the hand, I don't) overall winrate in terms of $/hr is very, very small. Multiplying those pennies an hour by a zillion hours doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
i think that's a terrible outlook. every player that wants to play well should strive to play each hand optimally. if they don't want to, that's fine, but it's not insignifigant and they should admit that. it's taking a hand that would otherwise get folded most of the time and making it much more unprofitable.

[AAmaz0n]

AAACCCK! That last post made me a member! I don't have to pay any dues or go through some stupid initiation do I? Or write posts with actual poker content in them?

I hope that membership does have it's privilages. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Shauna

[astroglide]

'presto' is a standard poker term for pocket fives. my point is that you can't have it both ways: if they're observant, the play of q5s shouldn't have any effect on them because they would know you play reasonably and were probably doing that to mix it up. shouting 'GRANNY MAE' will only associate you with anyone else who does it (and that is a much more esoteric term than 'presto'). if they're not observant, they wouldn't notice anyway so it has no psych value. obviously there are shades of grey in-between, but these 2 extremes further worsen the psych value.

[astroglide]

everyone folds to other people when they shouldn't, and make other people fold to them when they shouldn't. it's part of the game.

i would not pay you off any more than i would. i would not adjust on the basis of one specific suited hand.

[CrackerZack]

shouldn't you be paying attention to your tournament? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[AAmaz0n]

What are you stalking me?? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hey, you've heard of "walking around money", I've got "spamming around money." /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Are you in, or sweating me? What's your name on the site?

lol,

Shauna

[CrackerZack]

I was stupidly short stacked just before the break and decided so raised PF with Kxs after 4 limpers figuring either I get back to the average stack size or not sit through it. I didn't sit through it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Actually, the only reason I knew you were in it is when signing up, the scroll window is in alphabetical order, and AA comes up pretty early. Same way I know 00pokerface plays about every tourney I enter. I'll track you down and say hi.

[Homer]

I kind of skimmed through this, so I don't know if this has been mentioned yet or not, but Q5 spades is only dealt to you once every 1326 hands. This is just a guess but let's say this hand costs you 1 BB on average every time you play it. A live game player who gets dealt 35 hands per hour and makes 1 BB/hr will cost him/herself an average of .026 BB/hr by playing the hand, or 2.6% of his/her earn. This is not insignificant, but not earthshattering either. Plus, my estimate of 1 BB lost per time dealt might be high and I'm not taking into account how playing this hand could increase the earn of your +EV hands, so the actual loss per hour might be a bit lower.

-- Homer

[AAmaz0n]

Thanks for noticing and stopping by.

Yes, I thought that AA would make me first, like in school. didn't think about the numbers and special characters. But's that's OK, I'm special in my own way. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Sorry to interupt the thread. I'm in the limit tourney at UB, in the small money with above average chips.

Shauna

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
anybody that plays q5s like a maniac and says GRANNY MAE at the end of the hand - you are not the only one - is not hard to spot. i'm referring to people associating you and every other player who does it together. it's a very easy way for them to detect decent players. 'oh this guy said it too - i'll note that they are associated with the other ones'


[/ QUOTE ]

"And all around the 'web, as the shouts of 'Grannie Mae' echoed out of PC speakers near and far in crisp, clarion tones, the faint sounds of urine could be heard trickling down the pant legs of frightened, unsuspecting poker fish..."

[HavanaBanana]

I wrote in another Granny Mae post about how I had stopped playing the GM the way it should be played, i.e. raise all the way.
And about how I was losing money in that period (and I very seldom have longer losing periods.)
The reason was that I didn't play as aggresive as I usually do, and made bad decisions for running bad.
And didn't feel like playing the GM because I was allready losing.

So when I am winning , I am playing the GM, so it is really a good pokerhealth sign for me, and even though I could be losing in the long run on those GM hands, it is still good play.

Besides, if you lose money on your GM's, it might still be a winning hand or close to 0 EV , as your other hands get higher EV from you being perceived as a fish.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
it might still be a winning hand or close to 0 EV , as your other hands get higher EV from you being perceived as a fish.

[/ QUOTE ]
i've already stated why i believe that isn't true.

[skunkworks]

Hah! All this controversy over one tiny, insignificant hand.

Lori, that was me cheering you on in that hand. I liked your play.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I posted a while ago about the impact of Granny Mae on my PokerTracker stats. Surprisingly, it did have a +EV impact compared to similar hands but wasn't a huge sample. However the figures did stand out a mile compared to the hands around it.

Link here:
Granny Stats (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=inet&Number=508671&Forum=A ll_Forums&Words=5514&Match=Username&Searchpage=2&L imit=25&Old=allposts&Main=508671&Search=true#Post5 08671)

Sheriff

[Myrtle]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/comics/Rhymes_with_Orange.dtl

[Mike Haven]

The nub of the GrannyMae hand, and the salient point of this entire thread, is summed up in Lori's words:

Granny was a friend of mine, and I will remember her in my own way.

[astroglide]

that isn't the point. the point it she seems unable to concede the fact that playing it in such a manner is losing money. whether it is WORTH IT to do so is another matter entirely.

[MrDannimal]

According to PokerRoom.com's EV stats:

http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evstats/pairStats.php

(Q5s shouldn't have a different EV depending on suit, or at least that's the assumption I'm working on here)

Q5s across all limits has an EV of -.09 BB. This is on a full sample of 121 million hands (so assume that Q5s came up about 325,000 times). It takes into account all manner of play (fold PF, bet/raise the whole way). Even if you assume it's going to have more -EV if you play very aggressive, it's not reasonable (IMO) to say it's got an EV of -1 or greater.

At -.25, you're looking at 70 instances of Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif (283 / 4 since you didn't indicate if you were counting only GM hands, or just Q5s in general).

70 * 6 * .25 = $105

If you're a player winning 1BB per 100 hands at 3/6 (not unreasonable for a decent/good player), you've made $6000 in those 100,000 hands. Had you not lost $105 playing GM, you would have won $6,105, or a difference of 1.7%.

If Lori is saying that that a $105 hit on her $6,000 earn isn't a meaningful negtive impact on her play, I can't really argue with her.

(Aside: I think the claim that people will notice the GM phenomenon is specious at best. Between the # of people who wouldn't see this hand announced by enough people frequently enough to make a connection, they'd then need to notice that all people announcing it were "good" players, and THEN adjust play to reflect they thought said players were good. That's a long path to tread in my experience with online play. It's far more likely that someone will a) not notice at all because at 1 in 1300 deals someone gets Qs5s, then they'd need to win/showdown with it, then announce it. If you play 1300 hands a day, GM would have to win/showdown/announce every time for you to see it once a day. Since it's far less likely to win every time, if you saw that pattern once a week (in the process of playing ~10,000 hands) the odds of noticing or remembering that behavior and tying it to a group of "good" players is tiny. It's far more likely to be noted as a loose player when you showdown with Qs5s, or to set someone on tilt then it is to be tagged with "Hey, that's an otherwise solid player, I'd better be careful".)

As a semi-related note, I'm thinking about writing some queries on the PT database to look at stuff. Maybe I'll make one to look at GM performance (specifically, not just any Q5s), and I can give that query/form to anyone who wants to see how GM impacts their bottom line.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Q5s across all limits has an EV of -.09 BB. This is on a full sample of 121 million hands (so assume that Q5s came up about 325,000 times). It takes into account all manner of play (fold PF, bet/raise the whole way). Even if you assume it's going to have more -EV if you play very aggressive, it's not reasonable (IMO) to say it's got an EV of -1 or greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the pokerroom stats is irrelevant wrt the EV of Q5s played "properly" per Zoo convention. It is almost surely -1BB or worse when just bet/raised all the way.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're a player winning 1BB per 100 hands at 3/6 (not unreasonable for a decent/good player), you've made $6000 in those 100,000 hands. Had you not lost $105 playing GM, you would have won $6,105, or a difference of 1.7%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this is much more closer to 75*6 = $450. So, for this player, that would be 7.5% of their earn.

Homer made a post that shows a 1BB/hr B&M (30-35 hand/hr) player losing about 2.6% of their earn, which is right in line w/ my 7.5% figure.

Whether those figures are meaningful is up to you to decide, but that's the low end of the ballpark and the loss could easily be more.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
that isn't the point. the point it she seems unable to concede the fact that playing it in such a manner is losing money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is the point. Lori (and everyone else who plays GM like a nutter) will concede that it's -EV. However, it's not enough -EV to outweigh being able to remember GM in this way. If I play 1,000 hands/day, and playing GM costs me 2.6% of my earn, then I'll just play an additional 26 hands. At 4 tables, that's ~6.5minutes. So, I guess Lori was a bit mistaken, it probably means 2 less posts on 2+2/day than 1.

[goodguy_1]

I loved The real GrannieMae more than anybody..he/she was twisted and hilarious but also had a good heart..that being said never in my playing career have I intentionally played Q5s for any reason.I dont need to prove to myself or anyone else how cool Grannie was...if you dug Grannies schtick ..great if you didnt ..then my guess is you dont have much of a sense of humor.I began playing Holdem in early 1990's at Foxwoods...played up there and lived up there for almost a year..Granny was from Conneticut if I recall..so for me I associate GM with my fishy early fun days at Foxwoods when in reality I played pretty much anytwo cards especially anything suited..hehehe..this was way before college S&M clones..which I eventually became /images/graemlins/tongue.gif...the games were a gas..fish bountiful..we would play 10-20 with guys like "The Sheriff" and just have a blast..thats the kinda fun I think of when I also think of Grannie...its doesnt really matter where he was from GM-it's the fun,the love of the game and the comraderie among regular players that she represents for me....

peace Grannie wherever u be
-hope u runnin good!!

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
No way is it -1bb/hd, even as a stand-alone.

Id accept -0.1bb/hd and maybe even -0.25.

[/ QUOTE ]
her own words, and that is BEFORE factoring whatever psych/payoff benefits one might receive. she believes that playing GM like a maniac is -0.10 through -0.25, which is certainly wrong. raise/bet/bet/bet/lose is -1bb by itself, and that's assuming there isn't anybody else raising. the hand cannot win often enough to knock a serious dent in that.

[ QUOTE ]
If I play 1,000 hands/day, and playing GM costs me 2.6% of my earn, then I'll just play an additional 26 hands. At 4 tables, that's ~6.5minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]
bad logic. playing more hands doesn't make up for the lost money. if you hadn't misplayed GM, playing more hands would result in more profit.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
If I play 1,000 hands/day, and playing GM costs me 2.6% of my earn, then I'll just play an additional 26 hands. At 4 tables, that's ~6.5minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]
bad logic. playing more hands doesn't make up for the lost money. if you hadn't misplayed GM, playing more hands would result in more profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, astroglide, he knows that. If he makes $500/day, he's willing to pay $15/day (or $30 or whatever it actually turns out to be) as a sort of tribute to GM. Of course, had he not done that, he'd win $515 (or whatever) instead of $500. But he seems well aware of that.

[MrDannimal]

Just for giggles, I'm going to write some code to find out the EV of a GrannyMae. When I finish it, I'll give it to anyone (it'll be a tiny Access front end that will read data from the PokerTracker DB) who wants it, and they can check.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, astroglide, he knows that.

[/ QUOTE ]

the fact that he SAID OTHERWISE indicates that he doesn't. missed/donated bets cannot be made up. he didn't say, 'it's only a single-digit % mistake and i don't care', he specifically went on about how it only costs him 6.5 minutes.

[astroglide]

i don't understand, what will this app do that pt isn't doing? show them how it would be if they bet/raised/reraised at every opportunity and went to the river? that wouldn't account for people folding.

[Lori]

Hand #1096604-1710 at San Francisco ($1/$2 Hold'em)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 24/Feb/04 16:28:17

lorinda is at seat 0 with $102.25.
Bill M is at seat 1 with $30.
sandyd is at seat 2 with $102.
conductor is at seat 3 with $59.75.
eckoo is at seat 4 with $98.
stan_the_man is at seat 5 with $80.
_Blink_ is at seat 6 with $25.25.
dreadz is at seat 7 with $125.50.
Hekktor is at seat 8 with $95.
antlion is at seat 9 with $153.25.
The button is at seat 8.

antlion posts the small blind of $.50.
lorinda posts the big blind of $1.

lorinda: Qs 5s
sandyd: -- --
conductor: -- --
eckoo: -- --
stan_the_man: -- --
_Blink_: -- --
dreadz: -- --
Hekktor: -- --
antlion: -- --

Pre-flop:

sandyd folds. conductor folds. eckoo folds.
stan_the_man folds. _Blink_ calls. dreadz calls.
Hekktor folds. antlion calls. lorinda raises to $2.
_Blink_ folds. dreadz calls. antlion folds.

Flop (board: 9h 4c Tc):

lorinda bets $1. dreadz raises to $2. lorinda
re-raises to $3. dreadz calls.

Turn (board: 9h 4c Tc 6c):

lorinda bets $2. dreadz folds. lorinda is returned
$2 (uncalled).

lorinda opts to show Qs 5s.
lorinda has Qs 5s 9h Tc 6c: queen high.


Hand #1096604-1710 Summary:

$.50 is raked from a pot of $12.
lorinda wins $11.50.

Lori

[Inthacup]

Wasn't GoM supposed to make 'The Post" a few days ago? I've been axiously waiting.

I WANT THE TRUTH!

Lieutenant Cup /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[DaPlaya]

She has been at Paradise almost every morning at 6am. I asked a question this morning about whether she read a post I made here, but she did not answer. Then she left within 5 minutes after pulling a big pot.