A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

I don't plan to address (or read) the whole long thread. I did want to discuss this idea, though:

VERY RARE, VERY SLIM +EV SITUATIONS ARE NOT PROFITABLE, BECAUSE OF THE LIKELYHOOD THAT WE WILL NOT SEE THEM ENOUGH TIMES DURING OUR POKER LIFETIMES FOR THE NUMBERS TO NORMALIZE.

This notion is 100% erroneous. How often you are offered a bet does not determine in any way whether it is profitable or not.

To prove this to yourself, you can view any set of bets as a single bet with many possible outcomes. For instance, say you flip a coin three times. For each time it comes heads, you win $1. Each time it comes tails, you lose a $1.

Instead of looking at it as three different bets, you can view it as a single bet with eight possible outcomes. That is, if it comes HHH, you win $3. HHT, and you win $1. Etc. There is no difference in "profitability" whether you view it as a series of N independent "common" bets, or one "rare" bet with 2^N possible outcomes.

Likewise, your bankroll doesn't care what game you are playing, or what situation came up. All it cares is that you made a bet with an EV of +$X/wager with a std. dev. of $Y/wager. It doesn't care if that wager was made at faro or tiddle-e-winks.

Hell, if it were true that "rareness" makes bets unprofitable, then no one would ever win at sports betting. After all, each game is completely unique. You will NEVER have another opportunity to bet on last week's Dolphins game.

Finally, you guys are way too worried in general about the relationship between EV and variance in limit poker. While it is extremely important that you avoid overbetting your bankroll on thin edges in sports, blackjack, or the stock market, you just don't have to worry about it at limit poker (obviously, provided you have a bankroll of a few hundred bets). As has been pointed out, the opportunity to make these super thin wagers just doesn't come up often enough to worry about it. The large majority of you guys will end up doing much better in the long run if you simply IGNORE THE WHOLE THING and make any play if you think it is +EV. Again, this recommendation is only for playing limit poker with a bankroll of several hundred bets. (If you want to learn more about the relationship between EV, variance, and bankroll, google 'Kelly Criterion'.)

If you guys find yourself having negative swings of 400 or more bets it ISN'T because you are "pushing too many thin edges." It's because you don't play that well in general. You are making lots of -EV mistakes.

If you aren't having negative swings that large, then what are you worried about?

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

THE CHAMP IS HERE!

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you guys find yourself having negative swings of 400 or more bets it ISN'T because you are "pushing too many thin edges." It's because you don't play that well in general. You are making lots of -EV mistakes.


[/ QUOTE ]

My question is then, take 1800gambler who is a good winning player who's had a 400bb loss, or GOT who had one that was over 300, were they making lots of -EV mistakes?

This is a serious question, not a jab at you or either one?

My guess is I'm sure they made some, as we all do, but I really wonder if they were making more than normal or just a horrible string of luck.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you guys find yourself having negative swings

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but the phrasing would imply to me that he means multiple, or regularly.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

Hey Ed,

If you guys find yourself having negative swings of 400 or more bets it ISN'T because you are "pushing too many thin edges." It's because you don't play that well in general. You are making lots of -EV mistakes.

You're pretty much wrong on this one. Like Kick already mentioned, there are players on these boards who are beating a game for over 3bb/100 (I assume Gambler is, though I don't know for certain) who have gone through the type of downswings you mention. The worst I've experienced so far is -300 BB's, though I fully expect to have a 400 big bet loss if game conditions stay the same. I've dropped over 80 BB's in 30 minutes in that game; that's just the way it is. It doesn't take "lots of -EV mistakes" to do.

BTW, El Diablo has also gone through a 400 BB downswing too.

GoT

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

My question is then, take 1800gambler who is a good winning player who's had a 400bb loss, or GOT who had one that was over 300, were they making lots of -EV mistakes?

1. They are playing in games that are generally tougher and more aggressive than the micro and small games the target audience of my post is playing. I would be very surprised if either of those guys would experience a 400 bet downswing in the $1-$2 games most of you guys are playing. FWIW, I've never played with 1800, but I have played with GuyOnTilt, and he is a very good player.

2. They may play a lot of shorthanded games. The rules for shorthanded are a little different because you end up in marginal situations a whole lot more frequently.

Here's my real point. Poker players tend to think they "know better." They've played a few years, they've won a few bucks, and they start to think that their way is the right way. When someone comes and tells them that actually they have been misplaying certain situations, the natural response is, "No I haven't."

On this forum, people generally don't say, "Ed, you're wrong." Instead, they say, "Well, Ed's plays are really OPTIONAL. They are only for those who want to get every last cent. I'm happy with my 95% optimal strategy, and, hey, this way I won't have downswings that are as bad."

In other words, they use these EV/variance arguments as a JUSTIFICATION for making mistakes. They say to themselves, "It's not a mistake, it's just a choice I make."

Well, there are some plays that can be made for EV/variance reasons. David discusses these in essays in some of his books. For instance, he recommends that if you are "taking a shot" at a juicy high-limit game that you tighten up some preflop. In a spot where you might play K6s on the button, don't play it if you are deliberately playing higher than your bankroll can handle.

But for the most part, this EV/variance argument is employed when someone is making an error and simply doesn't want to change/doesn't quite believe that he's wrong.

Most of you guys play small anyway. You play $0.50-$1, $1-2, $2-$4, etc. If you lose a few hundred bets, who cares? Spend an afternoon mowing lawns and you'll have a brand new bankroll. Use this time that you are playing small to learn to play CORRECTLY. Don't make excuses. Force yourself to make some plays that are uncomfortable for you. Try them again. Get some experience.

I'm not making this stuff up. I'm not being nit-picky. If I put it in the book.. particularly if I backed it up with an example.. it's IMPORTANT. Make sure you absolutely 100% understand a concept before you start selectively ignoring it. Don't just dismiss it as "too high variance."

BTW, this is why I included the "Don't alter these recommendations for your own reasons. Chances are you'll be wrong and it will cost you money," line. It's not because I think I'm never wrong.

A statement like that doesn't apply to someone who understands poker better than I do like Roy Cooke... or the many mid-limit posters on this site like snakehead, Gabe, El Diablo, Clarkmeister, etc.

It's directed at the guy who has played for a few years, won a few bucks, and thinks that he generally plays a near-perfect game. Most of those guys make tons of mistakes... and they might actually get better if they'd just listen. But a lot of those guys will read the book, see a lot of stuff that doesn't jive with how they play, and say, "That Miller guy. He's an idiot. He has no idea what he's talking about." My statement was just a little extra warning not to leave the book with that opinion.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

You're pretty much wrong on this one. Like Kick already mentioned, there are players on these boards who are beating a game for over 3bb/100 (I assume Gambler is, though I don't know for certain) who have gone through the type of downswings you mention.

The 400 number isn't the important point. Maybe I should have said 500 instead. My point is that if you want to make a lot of money playing poker, you just have to play the "high-variance" style. If you "I want to keep my variance down" yourself all the time, your winrate will drop a ton.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

Two things.

1) I've posted a number of times re: how much people underestimate the swings in these games. See my latest post re: Gonores' challenge and his variance. I think a 400BB downstreak is definitely possible for a 3BB/100 winner in these aggro online games, especially the SH ones. This actually goes hand-in-hand w/ Ed's point. To maximize earn, you push all the thin edges and play a pretty high variance style. With that comes an occassional brutal streak.

2) Every time I've had a 200BB+ downswing (and I've had a few), it has always involved an "unreal" streak of really bad luck, but is usually augmented with some pretty bad play at times along the way. Mini-tilts of 20BB here and there plus some missed bets at times can easily turn a 150BB run of bad cards into a 250BB disaster. So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.

Phew. At first glance I thought you were going to call me a liar. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

GoT

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

But you all agree that moving to a new limit which has a significantly different playing texture it is preferrable to err on the lower side of variance, until one is comfortable with where pushing in places where an edge truely does exist?

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.


I think that's the real basis of the critique of small +EV plays, allthough no one's phrased it as such. Does the long term earn outweigh the short term negative psychological consequences of a down session due to variance for the average SSH player?

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

Unanswerable question because there's no such thing as an average person.

Also, the possibly psychologically negative outcome of pushing your edges and not having it pay off ties directly to the financially negative results of that happening. Big games or small, the swings are something that probably most people don't handle well because financial setbacks going hand-in-hand with psychological ones makes for a nasty mix. And people really DO care about their 100 or 200 BB lost at 1/2 or 2/4 as well, and for some people that really is a substantial amount of money. So pushing small +EV edges can result in dramatic psychological and financial outcomes.

However, poker is cruel and doesn't give a damn about you or anyone else. You simply have to suck it up if you want to maximize your profit, and the more thin edges you push, the more you have to suck it up when things go bad. However, that's the price you pay for success. If you want to pay less of a price, you have to give up a lot of potential success too.

You have to pay a definite price for being unsually successful in poker. You can't just play the way you want to play; you have to play well.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

who is this person that allows poker to affect him emotionally, and why is he still playing?

peace

john nickle

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
My question is then, take 1800gambler who is a good winning player who's had a 400bb loss, or GOT who had one that was over 300, were they making lots of -EV mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a full size ring game of 10 players, I find 400 bets to be too extreme of an amount to lose. I would even find 300 big bets to be too extreme.

Short handed I know it's a different story.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

Ed,

I understand fully what you are trying to explain here and I think it makes complete sense. But still, even with a solid big bankroll, let's say a 500 BB bankroll, wouldn't pushing thin edges with sligh +EV be too risky? I tend to think of it as a reward vs. risk factor and the risk factor is too high given the reward.

I can see how this would compare to a casino that houses a game that perhaps only has a slight edge (say 5%). But the house has an almost infinite bankroll and thus can sustain long term risk, or one that is very close. But say some super rich tycoon comes along and decides to gamble in the millions. This is going heavily influence the house's bankroll even though the house has a thin edge on the player.

So if I have 500 BB bankroll, and I keep pushing these thin edges as you describe it's going to effect my bankroll if things run bad in short or medium run. And given the nature of many loose low limit games bordering on lag most of the time, it's not that uncommon I think to to take a dip in the bankroll.

I don't know all the math behind this, but on any given week if I were push such thin edges and drop a good 100 - 150 BB running bad, then would the possible slight +EV gained offset the amount/risk I put forth? I don't think it's worth it so, but I could be wrong.

I've always advocated a style and game based on maximizing the edge and my +EV, not pushing thin ones.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can see how this would compare to a casino that houses a game that perhaps only has a slight edge (say 5%). But the house has an almost infinite bankroll and thus can sustain long term risk, or one that is very close. But say some super rich tycoon comes along and decides to gamble in the millions. This is going heavily influence the house's bankroll even though the house has a thin edge on the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad analogy. The casino scenarios have wildly different variance due to the difference in betting units. You don't get that choice in limit poker.

EDIT: The casino analogy, taken to limit poker, would be to move down in stakes so that your total variance decreases vis-a-vis your total bankroll.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
has a slight edge (say 5%).


[/ QUOTE ]

isn't 5% a huge edge? is there any casino game where the house has that high an advantage?

--turnipmonster

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

That is a good point. If the swings get so wild that a) you have to move down in limit more often or b) have to have a much larger BR (which is the same as being forced to play at a lower limit) how does that impact the situation?

With infinite money and infinite time it is easier to argue that you should take razor thin +EV situations.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
isn't 5% a huge edge? is there any casino game where the house has that high an advantage?
--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch, most notably American roulette (with "0" and "00"), sports betting, money-wheel games, some slots and video poker, assorted craps bets, custom table games like Sic Bo, and most egregiously keno, whose house edge is generally in the 20-30% range.

Wizard of Odds is an awesome resource for stuff like this. Here's a page detailing the house advantage of a bunch of games--and this is all assuming perfect play if skill is involved.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've always advocated a style and game based on maximizing the edge and my +EV, not pushing thin ones.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are confused. If you're not pushing thin edges, you're not maximizing your EV.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

Ed, thank you so much for this post. It makes me cringe when I hear people use rareness as an excuse to pass up small EV+ situations.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did want to discuss this idea, though:

VERY RARE, VERY SLIM +EV SITUATIONS ARE NOT PROFITABLE, BECAUSE OF THE LIKELYHOOD THAT WE WILL NOT SEE THEM ENOUGH TIMES DURING OUR POKER LIFETIMES FOR THE NUMBERS TO NORMALIZE.

This notion is 100% erroneous. How often you are offered a bet does not determine in any way whether it is profitable or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit of a tangent but I wanted to ask this anyways.

Ed, does this concept apply when the bets are very large relative to bankroll? I learned about risk-aversion in Econ class and to me, this would be the perfect example of it. I know we weren't talking about huge games and stuff (just the usual 1/2 games we play), but IF we were talking about huge life-savings type bets, even if it were +EV, wouldn't it still be correct to pass it up?

Re: A quick note about emulating your teacher
 

"Most of you guys play small anyway. You play $0.50-$1, $1-2, $2-$4, etc. If you lose a few hundred bets, who cares? Spend an afternoon mowing lawns and you'll have a brand new bankroll."

Ed, I think SSHE is terrific, and your theories are as strong as David's. I think your explainations are direct and to the point. Thank you.

I now see the same arrogance, conceit, and dismissal in your posts as I often see in David's. You must be very proud. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is a good point. If the swings get so wild that a) you have to move down in limit more often or b) have to have a much larger BR (which is the same as being forced to play at a lower limit) how does that impact the situation?

With infinite money and infinite time it is easier to argue that you should take razor thin +EV situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting this wrong. The variance in limit poker is already high enough where pushing small EV situations isn't changing it much. The situations in Ed's book that get everyone's panties twisted--like raising a possible second best hand in a huge pot--is costing an extra bet or two. If your bankroll can't handle 2-3 BBs to slightly improve your chances of winning 15-20 BBs, you're playing too big already.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

I know we weren't talking about huge games and stuff (just the usual 1/2 games we play), but IF we were talking about huge life-savings type bets, even if it were +EV, wouldn't it still be correct to pass it up?

Yes. This is the principle behind the Kelly Criterion.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

I've always advocated a style and game based on maximizing the edge and my +EV, not pushing thin ones.

My point is that in LIMIT poker, these Kelly-overbetting situations just don't come up often enough to worry about. That's because there is a cap on how much you are allowed to bet.

If the amount you can bet is unlimited, then you have to be careful about comparing the size of your edge to the size of your bankroll and sizing correct. (Again, read up on the Kelly Criterion.) But in LIMIT poker, it's really not a pressing concern.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
VERY RARE, VERY SLIM +EV SITUATIONS ARE NOT PROFITABLE, BECAUSE OF THE LIKELYHOOD THAT WE WILL NOT SEE THEM ENOUGH TIMES DURING OUR POKER LIFETIMES FOR THE NUMBERS TO NORMALIZE.

This notion is 100% erroneous. How often you are offered a bet does not determine in any way whether it is profitable or not.

To prove this to yourself, you can view any set of bets as a single bet with many possible outcomes. For instance, say you flip a coin three times. For each time it comes heads, you win $1. Each time it comes tails, you lose a $1.

Instead of looking at it as three different bets, you can view it as a single bet with eight possible outcomes. That is, if it comes HHH, you win $3. HHT, and you win $1. Etc. There is no difference in "profitability" whether you view it as a series of N independent "common" bets, or one "rare" bet with 2^N possible outcomes.

Likewise, your bankroll doesn't care what game you are playing, or what situation came up. All it cares is that you made a bet with an EV of +$X/wager with a std. dev. of $Y/wager. It doesn't care if that wager was made at faro or tiddle-e-winks.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you very much for your reply... this was the concept that confused me. i'm still not sure about it, but thank you none the less. independence is tricky in these situations. look at my post about gambling gus in the probability forum. i don't believe your sports betting analogy applies though, because the outcome chances are not fixed...

the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation. you'll generally need the trips. the times you hit trips and so does someone else will even out the times when you win without trips (because even though rarer, you'll lose a lot more when you both flop trips)

in my mind, the DEFAULT play would be to fold unless you were sure that both of your raisers very likely don't have JJ, QQ, KK or AA, because if they do, it is -EV. the rarity and variance issues came up as i was trying to prove this. TT should not call there because it is GENERALLY not +EV even in these loose games. an early raise is still an early raise, and 2 early raises is screaming AA,KK,QQ,AKs.

anyways, i'm sure the postflop sections will give me a few new insights, and i look forward to the rest of the book.

until then, i want to remind you again that you were wrong on the explanation of why position has value... it is because you KNOW what they are doing ALWAYS. their guessing wrong does not imply profit ALWAYS, only most of the time. you should add a footnote in the second edition. something like "* unless they guess you will bet and they intend to raise in a situation where you are favored".

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]

the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation. you'll generally need the trips. the times you hit trips and so does someone else will even out the times when you win without trips (because even though rarer, you'll lose a lot more when you both flop trips)

[/ QUOTE ]

You hit trips with TT a lot more often than 6%.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

E-Drug Trader,

[ QUOTE ]
anyways, i'm sure the postflop sections will give me a few new insights, and i look forward to the rest of the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to buy a new book, since you soiled pages 56-80 already.

[ QUOTE ]

until then, i want to remind you again that you were wrong on the explanation of why position has value... it is because you KNOW what they are doing ALWAYS. their guessing wrong does not imply profit ALWAYS, only most of the time. you should add a footnote in the second edition. something like "* unless they guess you will bet and they intend to raise in a situation where you are favored".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should have read pages 56-80. Somewhere along the line Ed acknowledges that you may get trapped occasionally, but the value you extract from people who are willing to pay you off more than makes up for it. And yes, it ALWAYS profitable. You're being results oriented here. If it's +EV, then it ALWAYS is profitable, even if you happen to lose the hand.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - math please, otherwise your entire argument is bullsh[/b]it

2 - there are preflop situations where you will win less than your "fair share", yet are hugely profitable when played correctly, so saying "you only win 6% of the time" isn't necessarily an argument for folding a hand.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

Doesn't the "thinness" of the edge depend on the range of hands you put your opponents' on?

For example, I hold KJo. If I put my opponent on exactly KT, I have a huge edge. If I put him on "anything but a pair higher than TT," I have a smaller edge. If I put him on "any two face cards that aren't a pair", I have a very thin or non-existent edge. And if I put him on a pair, JJ or higher, he dominates me.

Aren't the accuracy of my read and the ability to narrow the range of hands I consider possible to my opponent more important than the "edge" that I calculate?

Garbage in, garbage out.

Sabre170

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

What did that have to do with what I wrote?

We have several players that are acknowledged as good players that tell us they have had downswings of 400-500BB.

This means that they either a) play at a lower limit that someone with less variance can play or b) have to move down in limits more often.

This affects earn rate.

And there are tonnes of small edges you can decide to push or not that will lead to quite a substantial increase in variance.

If the answer to this question is "well they play a tougher game so it doesn't matter but for everyone else it will work" it seems like quite the evasion.

Unrelated
 

Ed-unrelated to this post, but your book has really helped my game, and I have been winning big pots I never would have been in before.

Thanks

Re: Unrelated
 

Ed-unrelated to this post, but your book has really helped my game, and I have been winning big pots I never would have been in before.

Thank you. I appreciate the positive feedback. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
the times you hit trips and so does someone else will even out the times when you win without trips

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you have anything besides your 'hunch' to back up the validity of this statement?

Just because you think it will even it out doesn't mean it really will.


Additionally, hitting trips doesn't have to be the only way to win the hand. TT unimproved will actually take it occasionally too as difficult as they that may be to believe.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

You're missing my point. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I claimed that poker is naturally variance rich and pushing a handful of small +EV situations isn't going to increase your variance noticably. Please show me how a handful of hands every thousand or so will make your variance measurably greater.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

You're missing my point. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I claimed that poker is naturally variance rich and pushing a handful of small +EV situations isn't going to increase your variance noticably.

This is essentially my claim as well. As long as you are playing a fundamentally tight game, adding proper aggression should pump up your variance only a "notch" or two. At the very least, it will improve your winrate at the same time, mitigating the effect the increased variance will have on your ability to run bad.

Now playing in aggressive GAMES will increase your variance a fair bit. Playing in these games also (depending on the quality of the aggressive players) can cut your winrate a bit, leading to the double cold streak whammy of increased std. dev. and lower winrate.

Playing shorthanded will also bump up your variance.

I guess my point is this. The style you play isn't the major determiner of the size of your swings. It's whether you choose to play in the Mirage $20-$40 (a "docile" game) or the Party $15-$30 that plays a bigger role.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my point is this. The style you play isn't the major determiner of the size of your swings. It's whether you choose to play in the Mirage $20-$40 (a "docile" game) or the Party $15-$30 that plays a bigger role.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, in Diablo's case, Party 10/20 6-max.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - math please, otherwise your entire argument is bullsh[/b]it

[/ QUOTE ]
well, the book said, flop a set or fold... that was what i was going on.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am a huge winner at 10-20 games and below. I usually play 6-12 to 10-20 in B&M and 4 tables of 5-10 at once online. I've been playing over 5 years, and now it is my sole source of income. I wrote a bot that screen-scrapes hand history data from an online poker site, and recently my win rate in big bets per hand was the highest against any other player in a 250,000 hand sample at the limits i play. I'd like to think i am getting by far the best of it at all times.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, after all that, do you really not know how often a set is flopped, or do you think they only win about half the time?