Ready to move up?

[valenzuela]

Just play 3000 sngs. That way u cant complain against bad beats.

[Blarg]

It can take tens of thousands of hands before your pair hands come into alignment as their proper percentage of winners.

[Shilly]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's simply fundamentally wrong to look at your winrate and say "well I had bad beats so it's not really accurate". It's just wrong."

Why not? I'm not trying to argue here, I just dont understand it. If AA is supposed to win 70% or 80% of the time and I get only 42% and every time I lose it costs me a whole Buyin isn't it relatively safe to assume that I would have a higher ROI if AA did in fact win 70% of the time?

However one cant change the way the cards fall, thats true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although your AA got cracked so many times, is it not possible that you have done the same to your opponents over the same amount of time?

[Voltron87]

I'm sorry to say, but right now you just don't have a very good theoretical understanding of poker or how it generally "works", and the general mathematical dynamics of the game. Don't worry, it will come in time. All of the so called "big wheels" on this forum were at your level once too, so don't take this as an insult just as me saying you're a beginner right now and that will change if you keep playing and thinking like you are for long enough.

[jek187]

Preflop:
Wouldn't it make more sense to raise this hand preflop? It seems that because a hand like TT is so weak when OCs come, you can't allow players to with face cards to limp into the pot behind you.

Flop:
What does a typical Party 33 player raise with after a caller? Someone can correct me, but I'd say something like: AA-99, AK-AT, KQ, KJs, QJs, JTs.

Out of this group, we can hope for AK, AT, or 99. Everything else is trouble. Is 3.5-1 enough to take a card off here? I don't particularly care for the check/call. Also, if you are up against one of the 3 "good" hands, your check allows your opponent to take a precious free card for his 6, 7, or 2 outter, respectively. I think I'm in favor of a probing bet of my own here on this flop, however any resistance, and I'm willing to call it quits here.

Turn:
The card that helps 2 of the 3 hands we're hoping for our opponent to have, gets there. Although we have now picked up a rather dubious open ended straight draw. At this point we "know" we're behind, but would like to draw. By betting 175, we're giving ourselves 2.3-1 to draw at our hand, which is woefully inadequate. I don't really see a better hand folding here (AJ maybe, but that's it.) I think a very small bet may be the way to go here, and pray we don't get raised. The whole situation sucks at this time.

Is a Party 33 player laying down anything you're behind to here 32% of the time? I just can't imagine that, especially not TPTK.

Please point out any errors in my thoughts here.

[Atropos]

I dont take this as an insult, I just think it is complete bullshit. I hate those posts where people only talk and dont use any numbers to make a point.

If you decide to flip coins with a rich man. He will pay you 5$ if the coin hits heads, you lose 1$ if it hits tails. Seems like a good game?

After 100 flips you are down 100$. The coin seems normal, so you figure the odds of hitting heads/tails are 50% each. Maybe the coin is a little rigged so that it is 55:45 but you dont know that. (like you dont know your exact winrate).

However you can say: The chance I hit heads is 50%. I did not hit heads over 100 flips. The chance for this is (1/2)^exp 100. You assume that your winrate is not -100$/100 flips for this game, because the outcome seems highly unlikely to you. You hope that the probabilities will even out at some time, the so called LONG RUN.

If you argue, plz argue with that. I am not impressed by words, if you think you are above "beginner" level and classify others you have to prove it to me first. Otherwise I would prefer if you do not answer in my threads anymore, because you do not add anything of worth. Dont take this as an insult, it's just the way I see things.

[Atropos]

"Preflop:
Wouldn't it make more sense to raise this hand preflop? It seems that because a hand like TT is so weak when OCs come, you can't allow players to with face cards to limp into the pot behind you. "

I had been running bad so to reduce variance I just wanted to play TT very passive for set value only. A raise is probably better, but I think implied odds for limping are still there.

The rest of the hand I cant really comment on. Under normal circumstances I would check-fold the hand here. However when I played the hand I thought I had a good read on my opponent and wanted to try something gigabet-like.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
A raise is probably better, but I think implied odds for limping are still there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly correct. Limping is +EV, it's just that raising is more +EV.

[ QUOTE ]
However when I played the hand I thought I had a good read on my opponent and wanted to try something gigabet-like.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did you read him as having? I think I prefer to leave gigabet's plays up to gigabet.

[Blarg]

You do seem to have a snappy tongue and a big ego, dude. That can't be good -- and no, I don't have a mathematical basis to make that assertion.

Your response to Voltron neither proved your point nor disproved Voltron's. All it did was express anger. So what was the point of it? It added nothing.

A more productive response might have been to ask him to simply explain more clearly what he meant. By just rejecting what he said out of hand, you haven't created anything positive out of what could be a potentially fruitful exchange; you've just squandered an opportunity and seem to have willfully sought out the opportunity to create an enemy.

And made yourself look silly while doing it.

Here's my suggestion, and you can add me to the list of people you hate because of it, if you like: Next time you feel like making a post like that, wait ten minutes or so first, and then see if you still feel like making it.

[Atropos]

"You do seem to have a snappy tongue"
Everyone who knows me would attest you this it true. However if I write in english it is often unintended. If I say "I hate this" I only say "hate" because it is shorter than "do not like" and other words dont come to my mind because I dont know them.

The rest seems like nonsense to me, it just seems nobody understands me and I dont understand anyone either. I in fact did not see any point he tried to make. He said:
"It's simply fundamentally wrong " and "It's just wrong."

His general point was clear to me, I did not need to ask what he meant: He says I should not discount bad beats that happen against me, because then I would have to discount everytime I suck out too. Thats fine, logical and obvious, everybody understands that. There is no need telling anybody this, unless you think he is an idiot.

Why my example with the coins did not prove my point I cannot understand. Perhaps there is in fact something wrong, but somebody would have to disprove it mathematically.