I mean the answers to why im all in, are all there.... if you think i should be folding either of those given the situation, id be surprised, especially against a player who usually has very little.... and the fact i got lucky just backs up the fact there is a very high rate of lead changes late on, which you all deny....
Of course i will benefit from these too in these 'no choice' situations. Enhanced hands are there for the long term help for chip throwers....
Have you ever considered becoming a human dartboard? Sheesh!
I can help you. Almost everybody else here will be able to do this in 3 seconds on a calculator or via Google
The odds of a 25% chance winning 20 times consecutively is 1 in 4 to the power 20. In other words, 1 in 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4. That's over one trillion to one. Given these enormous odds, we then need to figure out what's more likely:
1. Your observation this this happened is accurate. Sky software therefore has a fundamental flaw, which you would have to be insane not to exploit for thousands of pounds.
2. You have a bad case of confirmation bias.
3. You are grossly exaggerating what you've seen.
4. Some combination of 3 and 4.
The number 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4= 1,099,511,600,000
(one trillion ninety-nine billion five hundred eleven million six hundred thousand)
If We had a sand pit- 1/2 a meter deep and filled it with 1,099,511,600,000 grains of sand, it would approx cover the area of Hyde Park.
I now ask you to pick one grain of sand from this pit.
The chances of randomly picking the exact grain is the sort of odds we are talking about here.
The number 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4= 1,099,511,600,000
(one trillion ninety-nine billion five hundred eleven million six hundred thousand)
If We had a sand pit- 1/2 a meter deep and filled it with 1,099,511,600,000 grains of sand, it would approx cover the area of Hyde Park.
I now ask you to pick one grain of sand from this pit.
The chances of randomly picking the exact grain is the sort of odds we are talking about here.
Yeah, but he knows what he's seen and would definitely remember seeing a trash hand lose all in pre. I dont understand why he told anybody this and why he isn't making thousands from knowing this software flaw.
I can help you. Almost everybody else here will be able to do this in 3 seconds on a calculator or via Google
The odds of a 25% chance winning 20 times consecutively is 1 in 4 to the power 20. In other words, 1 in 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4. That's over one trillion to one. Given these enormous odds, we then need to figure out what's more likely:
1. Your observation this this happened is accurate. Sky software therefore has a fundamental flaw, which you would have to be insane not to exploit for thousands of pounds.
2. You have a bad case of confirmation bias.
3. You are grossly exaggerating what you've seen.
4. Some combination of 3 and 4.
The number 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4= 1,099,511,600,000
(one trillion ninety-nine billion five hundred eleven million six hundred thousand)
If We had a sand pit- 1/2 a meter deep and filled it with 1,099,511,600,000 grains of sand, it would approx cover the area of Hyde Park.
I now ask you to pick one grain of sand from this pit.
The chances of randomly picking the exact grain is the sort of odds we are talking about here.
Yes, but if you shovelled those grains of sand in a drawer and asked me to find a particular one, my chances would be zero, my wife’s however would be 100% 😉 “ You had a man look Tom”
Yes, but if you shovelled those grains of sand in a drawer and asked me to find a particular one, my chances would be zero, my wife’s however would be 100% 😉 “ You had a man look Tom”
Ha, there's something to be said for this example as it pertains to poker. I have a similar problem at home. My partner will send me upstairs to fetch something for the boy. I'm so used to that thing not being where she says it is, that no matter how long I spend turning a drawer or box upside down now, its not in there. She will then find it within three seconds in the place I just turned upside down.
Both items always gets me thinking about what I think I saw at the tables. Without a HUD on Sky, I often record my sessions. Therehave been many sessions where I think I ran bad on all-ins with cards to come, then realise I forgot a number of all ins that held and were just not notable. Or i dont remember when I face a check raise with trips top kicker on the flop, only to then hit one of my outs on the turn to cooler my opponent's flopped boat.
That's a fascinating link, & a very well-known but poorly understood phenomenon.
Totally genuine & honest people very often remember things wrongly. It's not intentional, & they are not (deliberately) lying, it's just how the mind works in certain situations.
If we combine selective memory & confirmation bias, & then we throw in a dose of "there's none so blind" weird things happen.
That's a fascinating link, & a very well-known but poorly understood phenomenon.
Totally genuine & honest people very often remember things wrongly. It's not intentional, & they are not (deliberately) lying, it's just how the mind works in certain situations.
If we combine selective memory & confirmation bias, & then we throw in a dose of "there's none so blind" weird things happen.
There is a lot of associated info related to this. Just to give 3 quick examples:-
1. Lie detectors. Much loved by TV, but they are not admissible evidence in any civilised judicial system. Because they are totally unreliable. All they can really measure is how important the subject regards the question-not whether their answer is true or false
2. Football commentary is a classic example of how commentators automatically add perceived information without any actual evidence. So-for example-a commentator referring to a midfielder's "physicality"? Far more likely to be Black. Whereas "educated left foot"? Far more likely to be White. It's not racism (except in the very broadest sense of the term). It is unconscious bias
3. Juries have all sorts of preconceptions about guilt or innocence. Which is why any sensible Defendant will be wearing a suit. And his Lawyer will be desperately hoping his client's eyes aren't too close together
"3. Juries have all sorts of preconceptions about guilt or innocence. Which is why any sensible Defendant will be wearing a suit. And his Lawyer will be desperately hoping his client's eyes aren't too close together"
I think that's similar to the "Job Interview" thing, where we (as the interviewer) make our minds up as to whether we will offer this person a job within seconds of them entering the room, &, at best, after the briefest of introductions, even just how we say "Hi", "Good morning", or the physical tells we get from a handshake. There are SO many clues.
Some individuals are not even familiar with handshakes, why we deo them, & what they tell us.
And on those things, we often make broad judgements. Those judgements are often incorrect, but the majority of the time they are broadly accurate.
That's a fascinating link, & a very well-known but poorly understood phenomenon.
Totally genuine & honest people very often remember things wrongly. It's not intentional, & they are not (deliberately) lying, it's just how the mind works in certain situations.
If we combine selective memory & confirmation bias, & then we throw in a dose of "there's none so blind" weird things happen.
I've got a weird wee story, In the early 80s ah was waiting for a bus at Euston train station to come up the road to Scotland. Ah had a few hours to kill so ah decided to go for a couple of pints, went to this pub along the road a bit, nips in through the side door, about 30 mins later am having a pint reading ma paper and a young woman comes in with one of they big poodles, she starts talkin to me and after a few mins asks if ah could watch her dog for a few mins, ah said no problem, So am reading ma paper clapping the dug and about 10 minutes later ah hear loads of shouting and whistling I look up and the pub is mobbed, at the front end of the pub this young women ( who's dug am watching ) is doing a strip tease ( she was the lunch time stripper ) next minute she disappears. Next thing she appears with a couple pints, thanks me for watching the dog and off she goes. Now the weird thing is 20 odd years later in the pub up the road about 6 of us are in company and were all talking a lot of shyte, and one of the guys in the company who had stayed in the same street as me, drank in the same pubs, was a work mate and had become a very good friend starts telling this story about a time he was in London ... and it's same story what happened to me in the pub in Euston. Ah had never told anybody that story not even ma wife, so a was going to pull him up and tell him he was talking a lot of shyte and that it was me that was in the pub, but ah let it go. To this day ah don't know if ah was in that pub, or it was him, and ah had heard the story before from him, but I am 99.9% sure it was me.
Perfect example. One of you is wrong, but neither are deliberately lying. t's also just about possible that it happened to you both, but if we apply a sense-check, it's exceptionally unlikely.
Whenever we hear a tall or unlikely story, we should always apply a sense check.
Sense checks are much under-estimated. If we see, say, 2 + 5 + 9 = 19 we rarely sense check it, as it looks about right. But when it says it equals 147, sense-checking it insta tells us it's wrong.
How many times do we see someone come on the Forum & say "I lost with Aces 10 times on the bounce", or "Jacks always lose" so we sense-check it sub-consciously, & deduce that it's almost certainly untrue & recency bias has come into play. They probably lost the last 2 or 3 times max. But they genuinely think they are telling the truth.
Interesting story @rabendiro - maybe it happened to both of you?
We've worked hard on creating equality of opportunity at work. Things like anonymising CVs and having a mix of genders and ethnicities on the panel We normally agree on the right candidate, but ti's good to keep our individual biases in check.
everytime you recall a memory, the mind is not recalling the actual event, its recalling the last time you remembered remembering it.........thats why the details of a story can change wildly over a period of time.......i am open to be fact checked on that
@rabdeniro its the matrix man, error in the simulation code.....lmao
The first time someone bothered to try to test your ridiculous assertion despite knowing there’d be a curveball excuse or ‘well it’s only one and I’ve seen hundreds’ type BS.
Comments
I can help you. Almost everybody else here will be able to do this in 3 seconds on a calculator or via Google
The odds of a 25% chance winning 20 times consecutively is 1 in 4 to the power 20. In other words, 1 in 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4. That's over one trillion to one. Given these enormous odds, we then need to figure out what's more likely:
1. Your observation this this happened is accurate. Sky software therefore has a fundamental flaw, which you would have to be insane not to exploit for thousands of pounds.
2. You have a bad case of confirmation bias.
3. You are grossly exaggerating what you've seen.
4. Some combination of 3 and 4.
The number 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4= 1,099,511,600,000
(one trillion ninety-nine billion five hundred eleven million six hundred thousand)
If We had a sand pit- 1/2 a meter deep and filled it with 1,099,511,600,000 grains of sand, it would approx cover the area of Hyde Park.
I now ask you to pick one grain of sand from this pit.
The chances of randomly picking the exact grain is the sort of odds we are talking about here.
oops
(one trillion ninety-nine billion five hundred eleven million six hundred thousand)
If We had a sand pit- 1/2 a meter deep and filled it with 1,099,511,600,000 grains of sand, it would approx cover the area of Hyde Park.
I now ask you to pick one grain of sand from this pit.
The chances of randomly picking the exact grain is the sort of odds we are talking about here.
Yeah, but he knows what he's seen and would definitely remember seeing a trash hand lose all in pre. I dont understand why he told anybody this and why he isn't making thousands from knowing this software flaw.
https://www.youtube.com/live/i7CYXxP0y4k?feature=share
Some crazy swings for Tom Dwan.
The odds of a 25% chance winning 20 times consecutively is 1 in 4 to the power 20. In other words, 1 in 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4. That's over one trillion to one. Given these enormous odds, we then need to figure out what's more likely:
1. Your observation this this happened is accurate. Sky software therefore has a fundamental flaw, which you would have to be insane not to exploit for thousands of pounds.
2. You have a bad case of confirmation bias.
3. You are grossly exaggerating what you've seen.
4. Some combination of 3 and 4.
The number 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4= 1,099,511,600,000
(one trillion ninety-nine billion five hundred eleven million six hundred thousand)
If We had a sand pit- 1/2 a meter deep and filled it with 1,099,511,600,000 grains of sand, it would approx cover the area of Hyde Park.
I now ask you to pick one grain of sand from this pit.
The chances of randomly picking the exact grain is the sort of odds we are talking about here.
Yes, but if you shovelled those grains of sand in a drawer and asked me to find a particular one, my chances would be zero, my wife’s however would be 100% 😉
“ You had a man look Tom”
More interestingly, the ability of the human brain to recall witnessing things that didn't happen is always interesting to me:
https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases
Both items always gets me thinking about what I think I saw at the tables. Without a HUD on Sky, I often record my sessions. Therehave been many sessions where I think I ran bad on all-ins with cards to come, then realise I forgot a number of all ins that held and were just not notable. Or i dont remember when I face a check raise with trips top kicker on the flop, only to then hit one of my outs on the turn to cooler my opponent's flopped boat.
That's a fascinating link, & a very well-known but poorly understood phenomenon.
Totally genuine & honest people very often remember things wrongly. It's not intentional, & they are not (deliberately) lying, it's just how the mind works in certain situations.
If we combine selective memory & confirmation bias, & then we throw in a dose of "there's none so blind" weird things happen.
1. Lie detectors. Much loved by TV, but they are not admissible evidence in any civilised judicial system. Because they are totally unreliable. All they can really measure is how important the subject regards the question-not whether their answer is true or false
2. Football commentary is a classic example of how commentators automatically add perceived information without any actual evidence. So-for example-a commentator referring to a midfielder's "physicality"? Far more likely to be Black. Whereas "educated left foot"? Far more likely to be White. It's not racism (except in the very broadest sense of the term). It is unconscious bias
3. Juries have all sorts of preconceptions about guilt or innocence. Which is why any sensible Defendant will be wearing a suit. And his Lawyer will be desperately hoping his client's eyes aren't too close together
"3. Juries have all sorts of preconceptions about guilt or innocence. Which is why any sensible Defendant will be wearing a suit. And his Lawyer will be desperately hoping his client's eyes aren't too close together"
I think that's similar to the "Job Interview" thing, where we (as the interviewer) make our minds up as to whether we will offer this person a job within seconds of them entering the room, &, at best, after the briefest of introductions, even just how we say "Hi", "Good morning", or the physical tells we get from a handshake. There are SO many clues.
Some individuals are not even familiar with handshakes, why we deo them, & what they tell us.
And on those things, we often make broad judgements. Those judgements are often incorrect, but the majority of the time they are broadly accurate.
What a fascinating topic this is.
"Which is why any sensible Defendant will be wearing a suit".
The clothes they wear & whether they have cleaned their shoes are hugely telling.
Another monster one is eye-contact.
I could almost write a book on the importance of eye-contact (or lack of it) & how it defines an introduction & relationship.
Body language is another very very telling thing. (Defensive/aggressive posture etc).
Ah had a few hours to kill so ah decided to go for a couple of pints, went to this pub along the road a bit, nips in through the side door, about 30 mins later am having a pint reading ma paper and a young woman comes in with one of they big poodles, she starts talkin to me and after a few mins asks if ah could watch her dog for a few mins, ah said no problem,
So am reading ma paper clapping the dug and about 10 minutes later ah hear loads of shouting and whistling I look up and the pub is mobbed, at the front end of the pub this young women ( who's dug am watching ) is doing a strip tease ( she was the lunch time stripper ) next minute she disappears.
Next thing she appears with a couple pints, thanks me for watching the dog and off she goes.
Now the weird thing is 20 odd years later in the pub up the road about 6 of us are in company and were all talking a lot of shyte, and one of the guys in the company who had stayed in the same street as me, drank in the same pubs, was a work mate and had become a very good friend starts telling this story about a time he was in London ... and it's same story what happened to me in the pub in Euston.
Ah had never told anybody that story not even ma wife, so a was going to pull him up and tell him he was talking a lot of shyte and that it was me that was in the pub, but ah let it go.
To this day ah don't know if ah was in that pub, or it was him, and ah had heard the story before from him, but I am 99.9% sure it was me.
Perfect example. One of you is wrong, but neither are deliberately lying. t's also just about possible that it happened to you both, but if we apply a sense-check, it's exceptionally unlikely.
Whenever we hear a tall or unlikely story, we should always apply a sense check.
Sense checks are much under-estimated. If we see, say, 2 + 5 + 9 = 19 we rarely sense check it, as it looks about right. But when it says it equals 147, sense-checking it insta tells us it's wrong.
How many times do we see someone come on the Forum & say "I lost with Aces 10 times on the bounce", or "Jacks always lose" so we sense-check it sub-consciously, & deduce that it's almost certainly untrue & recency bias has come into play. They probably lost the last 2 or 3 times max. But they genuinely think they are telling the truth.
We've worked hard on creating equality of opportunity at work. Things like anonymising CVs and having a mix of genders and ethnicities on the panel We normally agree on the right candidate, but ti's good to keep our individual biases in check.
@rabdeniro its the matrix man, error in the simulation code.....lmao
STOKE FAIL AGAIN !
Can't even WIN with a Poker Giveaway@stokefc
You deserve to win a main this week for such a ridiculously good n funny post
Didn’t take much doing at all.