More comprehension, logic and deductive reasoning fails.
97% payouts as advertised (and easily auditable by the GC) clearly isn't rigged. If that 97% payout disproportionately favours certain players and isn't advertised as such, that's clearly dishonest and therefore rigged by anybody's definition other the dictionary only available on Planet Wad.
Let's go back to that dominated ace example please. Give me your hypothesis for dominated aces winning in % terms. If 25% is a fakr deck, what is your % hypothesis? Same % for AK against AA please.
......FOLD with the Q-Queens did you mean .....or the A-Aces ??
I love the fact that despite the players he wanted to reply telling him foldddddddd... he continues to try to find someone who says call!!!
QQ is such an obvious answer, that the fact you are still questioning it is beyond belief!
As for the AA, then im still waiting for the apology that you attempted to belittle me by suggesting i would be the only one who would ever suggest that...... its not the first time you have been left with egg on your face attacking me is it???
I think you will find that the players who have took their time to explain the best Strategy in the circumstances, agree with exactly how I played it
hmmm, i think those who dont know what they are talking about said they would call... but myself, essexphil, feelgroggy and spike 4000 said if they had the time to think about it they would probably fold......
But hey, you see it the way you see it... this does not surprise me!!!!
If short stacks were consistently getting away with stealing blinds, it stands to reason in this tournament, you would get away with it too if you became a short stack. If not, the tournament should end soon anyway. Also as things get tighter as blinds increase, your bb could well be folded to you. When you got 10 players with shorter stacks than you, increased blinds will force players to push all in with ace rag etc... as this post has proven, many players will be calling with hands they simply are not good enough to fold, even though they should... and you see this all the time... eg a very comfortable 2nd largest stack calling with AK, AQ, JJ, 10 10 etc... when he does not need to get involved.
All these factors, plus much more... in my opinion (and others) you did not need to get involved. Plus the added complication of your 'A-Aces' being much more likely to be cracked by such a hand online, makes this close decision even more clear in my book! Feelgroggy and Essexphil are not even taking this part into consideration, but would still consider a fold.....
The main topic of this was the QQ .... i think its been covered that this was not even a thing to consider.... the fact that you thought it was a close decision, coupled with not even considering folding the aces might be correct... was quite telling to where you are at with poker.
But hey, continue with the jibes if you feel you are qualified to do so!
The main topic of this was the QQ .... i think its been covered that this was not even a thing to consider....
the fact that you thought it was a close decision,
coupled with not even considering folding the aces might be correct... was quite telling to where you are at with poker.
But hey, continue with the jibes if you feel you are qualified to do so!
I didn't think it was a close decision at all and that's why I FOLDED the Q-Queens......... I just put this up initially because @HAYSIE and myself were having a discussion about it 'coz I FOLDED when he thought I should have played them
You see, you don't understand what's written ......or you try and twist it to suit you
The main topic of this was the QQ .... i think its been covered that this was not even a thing to consider....
the fact that you thought it was a close decision,
coupled with not even considering folding the aces might be correct... was quite telling to where you are at with poker.
But hey, continue with the jibes if you feel you are qualified to do so!
I didn't think it was a close decision at all and that's why I FOLDED the Q-Queens......... I just put this up initially because @HAYSIE and myself were having a discussion about it 'coz I FOLDED when he thought I should have played them
You see, you don't understand what's written ......or you try and twist it to suit you
I didnt say that I thought you should have played them. I have never felt qualified to offer any advice on playing poker. What I said was that I would have played them.
Anyway for a whole month now, the deck has been performing like some automatic long odds machine. Just soooo noticeable, its scarier than ever. So if im in a winning position just needing to fold for a seat win... im not going to play AA if its close or even slightly against correct play....
As its highly, highly likely you will get stung.... and you did......
Anyway for a whole month now, the deck has been performing like some automatic long odds machine. Just soooo noticeable, its scarier than ever. So if im in a winning position just needing to fold for a seat win... im not going to play AA if its close or even slightly against correct play....
As its highly, highly likely you will get stung.... and you did......
Its what the other top players have also suggested to do at that point... obviously you may have to adjust strategy if it doesnt look like its going to turn out like it is likely to...
I dont see you challenging feelgroggy or essexphil on this. If we are saying this is probably a fold, what on earth do you think the strategy is other than to fold to victory????
Which is kinda why i call you the clique... i mean you all back up this title by your biased posts, are you really not seeing that!???
Maybe type 'FOLDING' AND 'HOPING' in posts with dodgy faces to them too?
I thought i just said it isnt rigged. To which you answered 97% payouts as advertised (and easily auditable by the GC) clearly isn't rigged
I thought id said poker is not rigged either....
I dont have any hypothesis. I dont even like gardening.....
At this point, I'm assuming you are being deliberately obtuse. Here's the summary in even plainer English in case not:
- You make a statement that you think online poker isn't rigged but the deal is deliberately off to favour weaker players. That's the very definition of a rigged/fraudulent game.
- You say that if that's the definition of rigged then it must follow that I think games offered by the house are rigged. It really doesn't follow.
- The clear and obvious distinction is about transparency and who the house favours. For example, the zero on a roulette wheel is transparent to all players as being the reason why they will lose in the long run. If somebody is winning that night, the zero doesn't start landing more often.
Anyway, what's your best guess of how often dominated aces win with an online deck? More than 25% in your opinion but how much are we talking? At least 75%?
Anyway for a whole month now, the deck has been performing like some automatic long odds machine. Just soooo noticeable, its scarier than ever. So if im in a winning position just needing to fold for a seat win... im not going to play AA if its close or even slightly against correct play....
As its highly, highly likely you will get stung.... and you did......
How often will aces lose online all in preflop? Assume the aces are against an underpair for simplicity.
Anyway for a whole month now, the deck has been performing like some automatic long odds machine. Just soooo noticeable, its scarier than ever. So if im in a winning position just needing to fold for a seat win... im not going to play AA if its close or even slightly against correct play....
As its highly, highly likely you will get stung.... and you did......
I'm assuming you mean the deck has been working against you for a good few weeks now, what with you being a winning player and all - am I right?
Comments
97% payouts as advertised (and easily auditable by the GC) clearly isn't rigged. If that 97% payout disproportionately favours certain players and isn't advertised as such, that's clearly dishonest and therefore rigged by anybody's definition other the dictionary only available on Planet Wad.
Let's go back to that dominated ace example please. Give me your hypothesis for dominated aces winning in % terms. If 25% is a fakr deck, what is your % hypothesis? Same % for AK against AA please.
I thought id said poker is not rigged either....
I dont have any hypothesis. I dont even like gardening.....
I certainly won't be apologising either
But hey, you see it the way you see it... this does not surprise me!!!!
If short stacks were consistently getting away with stealing blinds, it stands to reason in this tournament, you would get away with it too if you became a short stack. If not, the tournament should end soon anyway. Also as things get tighter as blinds increase, your bb could well be folded to you. When you got 10 players with shorter stacks than you, increased blinds will force players to push all in with ace rag etc... as this post has proven, many players will be calling with hands they simply are not good enough to fold, even though they should... and you see this all the time... eg a very comfortable 2nd largest stack calling with AK, AQ, JJ, 10 10 etc... when he does not need to get involved.
All these factors, plus much more... in my opinion (and others) you did not need to get involved. Plus the added complication of your 'A-Aces' being much more likely to be cracked by such a hand online, makes this close decision even more clear in my book! Feelgroggy and Essexphil are not even taking this part into consideration, but would still consider a fold.....
But hey, continue with the jibes if you feel you are qualified to do so!
You see, you don't understand what's written ......or you try and twist it to suit you
Also it is clear that you didnt think the AA fold was even a thing.....
Perhaps he wanted to take other peoples opinions into consideration.
Perhaps hes not a knob.
I have never felt qualified to offer any advice on playing poker.
What I said was that I would have played them.
As its highly, highly likely you will get stung.... and you did......
Is that what your Strategy would have been ?
I dont see you challenging feelgroggy or essexphil on this. If we are saying this is probably a fold, what on earth do you think the strategy is other than to fold to victory????
Which is kinda why i call you the clique... i mean you all back up this title by your biased posts, are you really not seeing that!???
Maybe type 'FOLDING' AND 'HOPING' in posts with dodgy faces to them too?
There's the Real book....... and there's POKER SATELLITE STRATEGY by @TheWaddy
- You make a statement that you think online poker isn't rigged but the deal is deliberately off to favour weaker players. That's the very definition of a rigged/fraudulent game.
- You say that if that's the definition of rigged then it must follow that I think games offered by the house are rigged. It really doesn't follow.
- The clear and obvious distinction is about transparency and who the house favours. For example, the zero on a roulette wheel is transparent to all players as being the reason why they will lose in the long run. If somebody is winning that night, the zero doesn't start landing more often.
Anyway, what's your best guess of how often dominated aces win with an online deck? More than 25% in your opinion but how much are we talking? At least 75%?