Secret to Ohmaha? 6789s?

[gergery]

Riiiight.

Look, it’s ok, everyone makes mistakes. Just fess up. But this transparent attempt to cover up your mistake is unbecoming. I’d expect that from someone with skinny balls, but not from you.

-g

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I get 6789s UTG (no one raises anyway...) and fold, asking my amigo if he would have played that hand. He says yes, and he has seen some of the better players raise it. He goes on to say he is suprised to see that I haven't figured something out yet, but wont tell me what.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crimson - Get another amigo. This one is playing one-up mind games with you.

There's nothing to figure out. The hand is garbage in a full limit game and you're out of position to boot.

I'll maybe post some data on it later. Making 6789 suited adds complications to calculations. I'd be sort of ready with 6789n, but suitedness adds another dimension. Still doesn't make it playable (even if double suited), just harder to figure and explain.

There are some different considerations in a pot limit game (I don't know). But in a full $4/$8 limit game, 6789s from UTG belongs in the muck before the flop.

It is true that if your opponents credit you with having any sense, the hand is completely disguised - but so is 27TKs, a hand that also probably belongs in the trash, but actually is a better starting hand than 6789s.

Note that the four cards in 6789s are all "working together." Unless you say that about almost any hand, I don't think you can say that about 27TKs. And you certainly cannot way it about 23QKd, which is a very playable starting hand. "Working together" is better than not working together, but by itself is not worth much.

Four middle cards in starting hands stink in this game. Period.

Just my (very firm based on simulations and experience) opinion.

Sometimes I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong here.

Buzz

[benwood]

I strongly believe that we all have an obligation to the other participants to not bulls#it each other with bad info.Not saying anyone has done it here,but this looks like as good of a place as any to clarify this.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
That is because I made my results up. As a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

FatBallz - I see what you did as I look at what you quoted compared to what I quoted.

Twodimes.net doesn't re-run the exact same simulation. Instead, it re-reports the first result.

The numbers you posted are the same as what I posted except that you switched 100000 wins in the high wins column from the AA23s hand to the 6789s hand, and then (I presume) adjusted the totals accordingly.

So you didn't exactly make up your results. Instead you evidently ran the sim and then deliberately falsified the results for posting here on 2+2.

Is that funny?

Buzz

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is because I made my results up. As a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

FatBallz - I see what you did as I look at what you quoted compared to what I quoted.

Twodimes.net doesn't re-run the exact same simulation. Instead, it re-reports the first result.

The numbers you posted are the same as what I posted except that you switched 100000 wins in the high wins column from the AA23s hand to the 6789s hand, and then (I presume) adjusted the totals accordingly.

So you didn't exactly make up your results. Instead you evidently ran the sim and then deliberately falsified the results for posting here on 2+2.

Is that funny?

Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't even make sense of what you just wrote, but I'm happy to explain the now completely ruined joke.

I did indeed go into 2dimes, run the hands I quoted, and then monkey around with the numbers to make it look like 6789 was the favorite. You'll notice I was careless and even included the character "s" in the place of a number in one case. I saw that I did this, but left it there as a hint to the astute reader. If I had known that the fact that I ran these hands in 2dimes to get the proper formatting of the numbers before falsifying some entries was going to piss you off, I would have done it anyway; why the f would I waste my time typing all that crap out when I can just have 2dimes do the work and then jumble a couple things? This forum doesn't have a rule about plagarism or falsifying data or whatever. It's an F'ING internet forum!

I can tell you're pissed for whatever reason, but here's the deal. When someone asks a question with an answer so blindingly obvious, it's fun to make an ironic post giving the exact opposite opinion to the truth. *Any* astute reader can look at that argument and deduce that I am joking, unless they are a total moron, in which case any amount of advice will not prevent them from losing their life savings at the poker table. A great way for this thread to go would have been other respected posters chiming in on the merits of 6789, perhaps with a few morons asking befuddled questions, until someone cracks and admits "this is a joke". Then we could all share a laugh, even those who were not in on the joke in the first place. Instead, this just got painful.

If we can't make a couple playful jabs at someone who posts about 6789, or asks how to read the winning low, then someone needs to add that to the R&R, b/c I don't see them there (not that I ever looked, but I have a hunch I'm right on this one).

Edit: Buzz, ask yourself this. Is it more "detrimental" to the forum or whatever to have me making obviously joking posts like the one in this thread, or is it worse to have someone like you make a post that is not only blatantly wrong (and could cause serious ramifications for anyone who doesn't notice that your argument is flawed) but that is clearly strongly, legitimately believed-in by its author?

[Mendacious]

What is your new name going to me after Fatballz gets banned?

I was highly suspicious and was going to run the 2dimes myself suspecting a prank, but, I just read down a little further and LOL'd.

When I used to play limit, there were people who espoused the "middle card" theory when there were several raisers in the pot-- because obviously everyone else had high and low cards and the remaining cards would be middle cards. When it worked they were geniuses.

WM all humor aside, this does make it rather difficult to take your stats posts at face value.

[ QUOTE ]
WM all humor aside, this does make it rather difficult to take your stats posts at face value.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll just have to check them. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

I was hoping someone like you would be smartass enough to point out that the action wouldn't be capped heads up, so that one could conceivably get all-in in the dark even in a limit game, if the bets were made fast enough. Then I could see the thread getting hijacked by a discussion on the intricacies of in-the-dark betting.

oh well

I thought it was funny.

But I'm retarded.

You should be sent to the internet state prison for fraud and falsifying 2dimes pooker information.

[ QUOTE ]
You should be sent to the internet state prison for fraud and falsifying 2dimes pooker information.

[/ QUOTE ]
Imagine if my trangression had taken place on servers based in Singapore.