Me ol' mate helissio, where we have previously said he only wins when he makes mistakes.... even typed in chat box before i called 'it will let you off'... and bink, first card....
I cant do that with a real deck, its always something like 9h next card.... exciting deck innit.
Player
Action
Cards
Amount
Pot
Balance
TheWaddy
Small blind
20.00
20.00
1560.00
Helissio2
Big blind
40.00
60.00
1380.00
Your hole cards
9
6
2
5
TheWaddy
Call
20.00
80.00
1540.00
Helissio2
Raise
80.00
160.00
1300.00
TheWaddy
Call
80.00
240.00
1460.00
Flop
5
6
5
Helissio2
Bet
120.00
360.00
1180.00
TheWaddy
Raise
600.00
960.00
860.00
Helissio2
All-in
1180.00
2140.00
0.00
TheWaddy
All-in
860.00
3000.00
0.00
TheWaddy
Unmatched bet
160.00
2840.00
160.00
TheWaddy
Show
9
6
2
5
Helissio2
Show
K
A
5
4
Turn
K
River
10
Helissio2
Win high
Full House, 5s and Kings
2840.00
2840.00
No qualifying low hand
I challenge you to do this. Take a 'real' deck of cards. Take out the cards belonging to our respective hands in this hand. And then the cards that make up the flop.
Shuffle the pack and deal out the turn and river again and again. Then please share with us the results. Making a video of this would be even better! Let see the difference a 'real' deck of cards make!
Clearly, you are unable to get out of your head that we were basically EV 50/50... ONCE YOU HAD SEEN MY CARDS..... the only point being made on this occasion is that a player with a rocketing graph online, has only 200 chips invested and reraises all in KNOWING he has to hit and when he does, likely to be half back in a 2 player game. You were 25% to win the hi. So why you want all in heads up, drawing mainly just for the lo, to split IF YOU HIT, is clearly not a winning play.
You also do this on multiple occasions, with no high and just A2 in your hand, drawing purely to get your stack back. This is not a tactic that would give you a skyrocketing graph in the real world.
But you continue to focus on EV, which is just for the fact i had virtually no chance to win the low, if it showed up. If i held any low card other than the 9 in my hand, you would have been in such poor shape, we wouldnt even be still trying to explain this hand to you!
But as we know, online poker is not satisfied in your bad play just splitting...... hence your graph being inexplicable when you cant even recognise it after the event.
You should be coming round to the fact, that in a place were everyone disagrees with everything i post.... you have had no support saying you are correct on this. No hi, A2 counterfeitable low draw, heads up, reraising all in, knowing your getting called.... whats all that about from a player with a online graph like yours.
You should be coming round to the fact, that in a place were everyone disagrees with everything i post.... you have had no support saying you are correct on this. No hi, A2 counterfeitable low draw, heads up, reraising all in, knowing your getting called.... whats all that about from a player with a online graph like yours.
Its quite inexplicable.
Most of us have got rather bored with your rants. But there really are only 2 possible explanations in the longer-term as to why @Helissio2 has both a good record at HU generally, and against you in particular:-
1. SkyPoker have managed to persuade their owners to risk a multi-billion pound business empire to make sure you lose £1, and secretly have software capabilities conspicuously absent on the site generally; or 2. He is better than you.
You have spent years adjusting your play to maximise profits against weak players. Can quite see why you do that. It's both the correct thing to do, and maximises your profits against weak players.
You identify what you perceive to be weaknesses in his game. I think you overstate these, but I see your point.
The trouble you have is this. As you adapt your game to play optimally against the weak, the game evolves. Best play against competent players changes. And, crucially, people can make adjustments in relation to your weaknesses. Because we all have them.
So-keep with your conspiracy theories. But remember-there is a reason why you don't play higher stakes any more. And it is not the supposed vagaries of online poker.
It is not "inexplicable". It is just you don't see it.
You should be coming round to the fact, that in a place were everyone disagrees with everything i post.... you have had no support saying you are correct on this. No hi, A2 counterfeitable low draw, heads up, reraising all in, knowing your getting called.... whats all that about from a player with a online graph like yours.
Its quite inexplicable.
Most of us have got rather bored with your rants. But there really are only 2 possible explanations in the longer-term as to why @Helissio2 has both a good record at HU generally, and against you in particular:-
1. SkyPoker have managed to persuade their owners to risk a multi-billion pound business empire to make sure you lose £1, and secretly have software capabilities conspicuously absent on the site generally; or 2. He is better than you.
You have spent years adjusting your play to maximise profits against weak players. Can quite see why you do that. It's both the correct thing to do, and maximises your profits against weak players.
You identify what you perceive to be weaknesses in his game. I think you overstate these, but I see your point.
The trouble you have is this. As you adapt your game to play optimally against the weak, the game evolves. Best play against competent players changes. And, crucially, people can make adjustments in relation to your weaknesses. Because we all have them.
So-keep with your conspiracy theories. But remember-there is a reason why you don't play higher stakes any more. And it is not the supposed vagaries of online poker.
It is not "inexplicable". It is just you don't see it.
It is that continuing ridiculous quote that Sky have just affected my games at £1 and that they have risked everything just for that.
You can do better than this, if you want to make a point. I stick to the facts in screenshots, odds and results, i dont try and bend truths.
I have quite clearly said it is for the whole of online poker, regardless of the stake or game. Its big business. But if you want you can post your opening gambit as it me saying they are just picking on my £1 games as an individual.
Your 2nd reason is that he is better than me. I think for my calling out of what is wrong with reraising all in with just A2 with no hi after the flop heads up alone... and him not understanding it.... is proof enough that this is not the case.
Im at about 50/50, or slightly worse in games against the 'online help sensation', i would say in 90% of the games lost were errors such as these that got specific cards required when highly unlikely. Not by winning the low as he is attempting, but actually scooping with the hi with some kind of bizarre runners.
So if you are only giving 2 choices to the reason Helissio has a good record against me, there is only the first left isnt there?
Then again, you are in the same mind as Helissio, that bad decisions can be justified by quoting odds and EV's AFTER THE HANDS are revealed.... which is a bizarrely poor way of looking at things.
eg a player pushes all in 5k chips with AQ on the turn with a K J 9 8 board, with just 300 in the pot and blinds of 20/40..... the opponent calls with his remaining 4000 chips holding 33.Its horrendous call... but you guys would just say hes right cos of the odds AFTER the event.
Your 2nd reason is that he is better than me. I think for my calling out of what is wrong with reraising all in with just A2 with no hi after the flop heads up alone... and him not understanding it.... is proof enough that this is not the case.
Im at about 50/50, or slightly worse in games against the 'online help sensation', i would say in 90% of the games lost were errors such as these that got specific cards required when highly unlikely. Not by winning the low as he is attempting, but actually scooping with the hi with some kind of bizarre runners.
So if you are only giving 2 choices to the reason Helissio has a good record against me, there is only the first left isnt there?
Clearly, you are unable to get out of your head that we were basically EV 50/50... ONCE YOU HAD SEEN MY CARDS..... the only point being made on this occasion is that a player with a rocketing graph online, has only 200 chips invested and reraises all in KNOWING he has to hit and when he does, likely to be half back in a 2 player game. You were 25% to win the hi. So why you want all in heads up, drawing mainly just for the lo, to split IF YOU HIT, is clearly not a winning play.
You also do this on multiple occasions, with no high and just A2 in your hand, drawing purely to get your stack back. This is not a tactic that would give you a skyrocketing graph in the real world.
But you continue to focus on EV, which is just for the fact i had virtually no chance to win the low, if it showed up. If i held any low card other than the 9 in my hand, you would have been in such poor shape, we wouldnt even be still trying to explain this hand to you!
But as we know, online poker is not satisfied in your bad play just splitting...... hence your graph being inexplicable when you cant even recognise it after the event.
So I take it you are not going to make the video I suggested? :-)
I had a white Strat exactly like that built for me by Todd Krause (Eric's builder) but had to flog it for fundage.
And even though this is good, Scorsese didn't get the best show. It's great that this one was finally released to the public though. Oh the best was Irving Plaza - 28th Nov 1994 Not that I'm an EC nerd or anything haha.
As you were. Back to talking **** about strange decks.
I had a white Strat exactly like that built for me by Todd Krause (Eric's builder) but had to flog it for fundage.
And even though this is good, Scorsese didn't get the best show. It's great that this one was finally released to the public though. Oh the best was Irving Plaza - 28th Nov 1994 Not that I'm an EC nerd or anything haha.
As you were. Back to talking **** about strange decks.
Ahh, I never knew you were into guitars & guitarists.
Thanks for the Irving Plaza nudge, I'll give it a whirl.
PS - I'm an EC nerd too.
Oh yes. I really didn't like selling the TK Olympic White. When I ordered it back in 2005 it was fairly easy to get one built by him (but still about a year wait). In recent times the lead times are massive. I also had a Goldleaf built by Yuriy but that had to go too. I still have a couple of EC Strats though, and a Cherry ES-335 and Martin 000-28EC
Clearly, you are unable to get out of your head that we were basically EV 50/50... ONCE YOU HAD SEEN MY CARDS..... the only point being made on this occasion is that a player with a rocketing graph online, has only 200 chips invested and reraises all in KNOWING he has to hit and when he does, likely to be half back in a 2 player game. You were 25% to win the hi. So why you want all in heads up, drawing mainly just for the lo, to split IF YOU HIT, is clearly not a winning play.
You also do this on multiple occasions, with no high and just A2 in your hand, drawing purely to get your stack back. This is not a tactic that would give you a skyrocketing graph in the real world.
But you continue to focus on EV, which is just for the fact i had virtually no chance to win the low, if it showed up. If i held any low card other than the 9 in my hand, you would have been in such poor shape, we wouldnt even be still trying to explain this hand to you!
But as we know, online poker is not satisfied in your bad play just splitting...... hence your graph being inexplicable when you cant even recognise it after the event.
So I take it you are not going to make the video I suggested? :-)
BTW What % were you to scoop the whole pot?
Im gonna give up on this. This my friends, is the level of this guys inability to take in what is being said.
He has a uphill online poker graph. Wow, Just wow!
Your 2nd reason is that he is better than me. I think for my calling out of what is wrong with reraising all in with just A2 with no hi after the flop heads up alone... and him not understanding it.... is proof enough that this is not the case.
Im at about 50/50, or slightly worse in games against the 'online help sensation', i would say in 90% of the games lost were errors such as these that got specific cards required when highly unlikely. Not by winning the low as he is attempting, but actually scooping with the hi with some kind of bizarre runners.
So if you are only giving 2 choices to the reason Helissio has a good record against me, there is only the first left isnt there?
Only if you are delusional.
This can only be so if you have 3rd reason! I think Helissio's insistance i do a video for a 48%, 52% EV situation, despite it being totally irrelevant to what is being said is embarrasing you, as it only leaves hes a better player than me.
I can just picture you there everytime Helissio does a 7th post not getting it, you saying to yourself 'good god man, your not helping me out here!'.....
Clearly, you are unable to get out of your head that we were basically EV 50/50... ONCE YOU HAD SEEN MY CARDS..... the only point being made on this occasion is that a player with a rocketing graph online, has only 200 chips invested and reraises all in KNOWING he has to hit and when he does, likely to be half back in a 2 player game. You were 25% to win the hi. So why you want all in heads up, drawing mainly just for the lo, to split IF YOU HIT, is clearly not a winning play.
You also do this on multiple occasions, with no high and just A2 in your hand, drawing purely to get your stack back. This is not a tactic that would give you a skyrocketing graph in the real world.
But you continue to focus on EV, which is just for the fact i had virtually no chance to win the low, if it showed up. If i held any low card other than the 9 in my hand, you would have been in such poor shape, we wouldnt even be still trying to explain this hand to you!
But as we know, online poker is not satisfied in your bad play just splitting...... hence your graph being inexplicable when you cant even recognise it after the event.
So I take it you are not going to make the video I suggested? :-)
BTW What % were you to scoop the whole pot?
Im gonna give up on this. This my friends, is the level of this guys inability to take in what is being said.
He has a uphill online poker graph. Wow, Just wow!
You said I was '25% to win the hi'. What % were you to scoop the whole pot? I can tell you if you prefer.
I asked a while ago in this thread, if anyone had an example where a player blatantly tried to giveaway and the deck had allowed it. Tumbleweed rolled by.
This is what im talking about, where the player has given up, tried to just lose.... then the magic happens... ive honestly never seen one lose.... online that is...
Clearly, you are unable to get out of your head that we were basically EV 50/50... ONCE YOU HAD SEEN MY CARDS..... the only point being made on this occasion is that a player with a rocketing graph online, has only 200 chips invested and reraises all in KNOWING he has to hit and when he does, likely to be half back in a 2 player game. You were 25% to win the hi. So why you want all in heads up, drawing mainly just for the lo, to split IF YOU HIT, is clearly not a winning play.
You also do this on multiple occasions, with no high and just A2 in your hand, drawing purely to get your stack back. This is not a tactic that would give you a skyrocketing graph in the real world.
But you continue to focus on EV, which is just for the fact i had virtually no chance to win the low, if it showed up. If i held any low card other than the 9 in my hand, you would have been in such poor shape, we wouldnt even be still trying to explain this hand to you!
But as we know, online poker is not satisfied in your bad play just splitting...... hence your graph being inexplicable when you cant even recognise it after the event.
So I take it you are not going to make the video I suggested? :-)
BTW What % were you to scoop the whole pot?
Im gonna give up on this. This my friends, is the level of this guys inability to take in what is being said.
He has a uphill online poker graph. Wow, Just wow!
You said I was '25% to win the hi'. What % were you to scoop the whole pot? I can tell you if you prefer.
I think we have covered this. Poor essexphil has just put his head in his hands after claiming he was a more competent player lmao.... The 33 over the AQ in that superb example above was 75% u know... so this proves the 33 player was correct to put his entire stack in... in yours and phils eyes anyway....
Comments
All you have to do for that is to try to play as though you are SH!T when you play weekend and Bank Holidays..... but obviously not all the time
Shuffle the pack and deal out the turn and river again and again. Then please share with us the results. Making a video of this would be even better! Let see the difference a 'real' deck of cards make!
You also do this on multiple occasions, with no high and just A2 in your hand, drawing purely to get your stack back. This is not a tactic that would give you a skyrocketing graph in the real world.
But you continue to focus on EV, which is just for the fact i had virtually no chance to win the low, if it showed up. If i held any low card other than the 9 in my hand, you would have been in such poor shape, we wouldnt even be still trying to explain this hand to you!
But as we know, online poker is not satisfied in your bad play just splitting...... hence your graph being inexplicable when you cant even recognise it after the event.
Its quite inexplicable.
1. SkyPoker have managed to persuade their owners to risk a multi-billion pound business empire to make sure you lose £1, and secretly have software capabilities conspicuously absent on the site generally; or
2. He is better than you.
You have spent years adjusting your play to maximise profits against weak players. Can quite see why you do that. It's both the correct thing to do, and maximises your profits against weak players.
You identify what you perceive to be weaknesses in his game. I think you overstate these, but I see your point.
The trouble you have is this. As you adapt your game to play optimally against the weak, the game evolves. Best play against competent players changes. And, crucially, people can make adjustments in relation to your weaknesses. Because we all have them.
So-keep with your conspiracy theories. But remember-there is a reason why you don't play higher stakes any more. And it is not the supposed vagaries of online poker.
It is not "inexplicable". It is just you don't see it.
You can do better than this, if you want to make a point. I stick to the facts in screenshots, odds and results, i dont try and bend truths.
I have quite clearly said it is for the whole of online poker, regardless of the stake or game. Its big business. But if you want you can post your opening gambit as it me saying they are just picking on my £1 games as an individual.
Its poor, but each to their own.
Im at about 50/50, or slightly worse in games against the 'online help sensation', i would say in 90% of the games lost were errors such as these that got specific cards required when highly unlikely. Not by winning the low as he is attempting, but actually scooping with the hi with some kind of bizarre runners.
So if you are only giving 2 choices to the reason Helissio has a good record against me, there is only the first left isnt there?
Then again, you are in the same mind as Helissio, that bad decisions can be justified by quoting odds and EV's AFTER THE HANDS are revealed.... which is a bizarrely poor way of looking at things.
eg a player pushes all in 5k chips with AQ on the turn with a K J 9 8 board, with just 300 in the pot and blinds of 20/40..... the opponent calls with his remaining 4000 chips holding 33.Its horrendous call... but you guys would just say hes right cos of the odds AFTER the event.
"I'm about 50/50, or slightly worse" should tell you something. But it clearly does not.
Which is the simple reason why you are reduced to playing £1 games. At least you are successfully playing against the very weakest players.
BTW What % were you to scoop the whole pot?
And even though this is good, Scorsese didn't get the best show. It's great that this one was finally released to the public though. Oh the best was Irving Plaza - 28th Nov 1994
As you were. Back to talking **** about strange decks.
@NoseyBonk
Ahh, I never knew you were into guitars & guitarists.
Thanks for the Irving Plaza nudge, I'll give it a whirl.
PS - I'm an EC nerd too.
He has a uphill online poker graph. Wow, Just wow!
I can just picture you there everytime Helissio does a 7th post not getting it, you saying to yourself 'good god man, your not helping me out here!'.....
This is what im talking about, where the player has given up, tried to just lose.... then the magic happens... ive honestly never seen one lose.... online that is...