Reputation
387
Top tag
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Cast close & reopen votes
Badges
2 10
Impact
~16k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 1 helpful flag
  • 11 votes cast
Jul
20
comment Checking from behind
@LeeDanielCrocker. With those last two scenarios you described, that would certainly be cheating. I think in order for my scenario to not be cheating, the players need to play entirely normally, unless they are the only ones left in the hand. If they can accomplish that, your scenarios could not occur. One could argue that very few people can realistically play that way though, which means most people who would check it down with friends would probably end up colluding somewhat, whether intentional or not.
Jul
20
comment Checking from behind
To potentially rebutt my argument to #1, just because people do it all the time doesn't mean it isn't cheating. However, I can't think of how you could possibly gain an advantage by doing it, therefore I don't see it as cheating. In order to cheat you must be gaining an advantage. Suppose 9 players at a table are doing this with each other, unless they are in a hand with the 10th player. Is this cheating? I'm hesistant to say this, but my gut makes me want to declare, still not cheating. I'm trying to imagine myself as the 10th person and how this would hurt me...
Jul
20
comment Checking from behind
For #1, as long as the friends don't do it if someone else is in the hand, I wouldn't consider it cheating. I see spouses/partners do it all the time, and they're typically open about it. #2, I've done this myself. I only called instead of raising with the nuts, because I was trying to earn points with an attractive girl (though it didn't work out so in retrospect I should have raised). #3 isn't that unusual- missed draw vs nuts... #4 I agree, if the rule is in effect in a tournament, then this situation should not be given special treatment.
Jul
20
comment Checking from behind
@Michael. By checking you get to see your opponent's cards, which may be valuable information to you.
Jul
20
comment How do you deal with devastating bad beats?
If you're at a casino, there are many things you can do to deal with a bad beat/cooler: swear loudly, yell at the dealer, throw your cards, bend your cards, rip up your cards, tell the other player how bad he is, and tell everyone about your bad beat/cooler. I've seen people do all of these many times (except rip up the cards- only saw that once). I can't really tell if it makes them feel better, but it might...
Apr
13
comment Systematic all-in
I think we have to assume that. Otherwise as soon as villain wins a hand, he would have to get up and leave the table, because the only way he can ever play another hand is if he calls all in with his now 10x buy in. (Since hero with more chips is all in every hand.)
Apr
13
comment Systematic all-in
cont... if they lose some hands to a 100bbs player they only lose 100bbs. The chances of any one player winning 3 in a row is just 1/100 (since anyone can win the first one to reset the count). Of course, hero's stack can grow well beyond 10000bbs every time he clears the table, and every else is reset, so the stars may need to align a bit in the beginning for hero to start worrying.
Apr
13
comment Systematic all-in
Here's what I'm thinking: suppose a 10 person table and everyone goes all in every hand, and a villian wins 3 in a row. After the first hand they have 1000bbs, hero has 9900, and everyone else rebuys for 100. After hand 2, villian has 2800, here has 8900, and everyone else rebuys for 100. After hand 3, villian has 6400, hero has 6100, and everyone else buys in for another 100. So someone has to win 3 hands in a row to but hero into second place. The chances of the villain winning 3 in a row are 1/1000, but, the reality is that it doesn't have to be in a row,
Apr
13
comment Systematic all-in
Intuitively to me I thought the table could devise a strategy to win, and you seem to feel the opposite. But your thought might be based on a guess of 40% win probability. Suppose 9 other players all agreed to call every hand and split up hero's winnings later if they break him. Might that tip the scales in their favor? Hmmmm.... maybe not- even if hero wins 1/50 hands instead of 1/10, he might still clear the table each time it happens.
Apr
13
comment Systematic all-in
@TobyBooth - yep- you're correct!
Apr
13
comment Who has the higher hand: 44 vs. A2 on a JJKK2 board?
The popular term for this situation is called "counterfeited": something which has value suddenly has no value due to the board making a better hand.
Apr
12
comment Systematic all-in
Agreed this would be identical as long as he rebuys for the same as the largest stack at the table. Then the question is how many hands before he burns through 10000 BBs.
Apr
12
comment Quantifying the amount of luck required to win a tournament
Great answer. You pose a lot of questions and provide a lot of scenarios which make my original suggestion for how to quantify luck less useful. I will edit the question with my reasoning behind the original question.
Apr
12
comment Quantifying the amount of luck required to win a tournament
@IharS, your update to the answer makes a lot of sense. This is exactly the kind of idea I was aiming for.
Apr
10
comment Heads Up NL Holdem: Best strategy against all in every hand
Ahah! You're definitely on to something with the counter strategy to sklansky's system with AA, KK, AKs. You didn't actually say it but I'm going to put words in your mouth and revise the question. Great point!
Apr
10
comment Heads Up NL Holdem: Best strategy against all in every hand
(Comment length is limited so I'm using multiple comments.) I think your on to something with 22+, AJ+. I think the numbers you are quoting though, are the precentages for winning the hands you play, but doesn't necessarily correlate to your chances of winning that particular tournament, since you're also losing all of the hands you don't play at all, and your stack is dwindling in the process. Your comment of "until he figures out your strategy" doesn't apply since he doesn't care- he never even looks at his cards.
Apr
10
comment Heads Up NL Holdem: Best strategy against all in every hand
I believe your first sentence is not true. I don't think you'll win very often if you only play KK and AA. Of course it depends on the blinds to stack size, but let's say it's 100 to 1. ($1000 buyin starting with $5-10 blinds.) Against scenario 1, you'll be out $15 every two hands you don't play, or $7.50 on average per hand. So you can last 133 hands before you bust out. If you don't see KK or AA in 133 hands, you'll bust out without ever seeing a hand. Furthermore, if you finally play a hand say after blinding off half your stack, even if you win, you're still only back to where you started.
Apr
9
comment Outs counting correction
I rarely downvote but I had to here because I believe the conclusion of your answer is wrong- and misleading. You wrote: "if you take it into consideration, then it can drastically affect the size of the hypothetical bet you're willing to call with your hand." That is not true. If you calculate the remaining outs the way you described, the probability of hitting the flush or straight does not change at all. One thing I do agree with in your answer is maybe the possible assumption that your opponent has a King because of the way he is playing his hand.
Apr
7
comment Quantifying the amount of luck required to win a tournament
@IharS - yes, the player that consistently wins more than the expected number of tournaments is obviously displaying skill. Perhaps an alternate way of thinking about the original question is to quantify how much luck is involved for winning tournament players. But the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to think that the usefulness of my original question is lessened, in that the "answer" isn't sufficient unless it assumes a skillful player to begin with.
Apr
6
comment Effect of number of players in the probability distribution of poker hands
@gonvaled: Although this statement is false: "Depending on how many players are on the table, the chances of being dealt a certain hand will vary.", the following statement is true: "Depending on how many players are on the table, the chances of SOMEONE being dealt a certain hand will vary." But this can never change the probability of making a particular hand.