DoubleMe... i am aware i made an error in mentioning specifically ICM in relation to sit and go's and should have said push/fold charts.
My post relates to charts as a whole, in all forms of hold em, in different situations and have been referring the whole lot as ICM .... that was my mistake, but im sure you know my point is about using charts solely to make a decision.
I myself for a while 13yrs or so ago, used an 'Omaha Indicator' programme on FullTilt to see what it was all about. I found it telling me to do certain things due to hand ranges, but the thing was i very often knew EXACTLY what hand they had, due to the pretty straight forward nature of hi lo (which many get badly wrong of course). So in the end, i ditched it, as i had to go against it cos i knew why the opponent was doing things, rather than there be a chance that there was a range involved.
Im pretty sure with these hold em charts there is common sense involved too, but as with Cheong in the WSOP example, i would imagine very, very few are using it. Im sure online they just have an open programme and just go with it.
This was my argument with JohnMonty... he did not know what hand ranges i was using, as the guy had never played with me before and we were literally at hand 8 or so of a newly formed final table. So K10 for me against an unknown quantity, tho he was aware of my forum posts and endless hand shots where i have the goods.... i was surprised common sense does not come into it when it would make him the short stack... does he call regardless, if he knew i had AJs, or is the decision based on thinking theres a very good chance i have worse than his hand or a race with a low pair? I dont know, you guys will have to fill me in on that one but it just seems like gambling it up and the risk to reward just isnt there in this example....
So on 1 thread you say that you can have any 2 just over 3bb and its an auto call, but your just over 4bb shoving range is super strong and K10s is an easy fold. You lost a 60/40 in a free roll its about time you got over it
Oh man, first one you had 58k with just 9k to call to win 19k... leaves you 49k if lose, same pos in rankings, up places if you win..... you fold...... Blinds have increased and 2nd one you have 50k with now 20k to call... if lose it leaves you 30k and the short stack if you lose.... you call.
You keep quoting things as if the hands are indentical.
Freeroll of course is irrelevant, as it was for £110 ticket for a decent size prize pool tourn which attracts a small field, you have invested your time, you want to win, there is no lack of care.
I was just asking if you go by the chart and dont consider any personal decision at all given the situations. Was a genuine question. It appears on the face of it, not... as you just keep quoting the chart, ignoring the situation.
I mean thats fine, its just its not my thing for a chart to make my decision without thought.
Meanwhile, we have that 'no giving away' situation once again, where i challenged EssexPhil to put a similar hand that actually lost(please dont quote on the flop call from me, im playing the man not my hand).
Its gone a bit quiet. Even quieter from the undergraduate (his words, not mine) Bean81, as to why he is just playing £6 with his self proclaimed ability and belief in online poker...
The reason i play micro, is because giving away is banned....
I'm usually multitabling. I never post hands-I don't have time to record/post hands. Not on this thread. On any thread. Because I am too busy playing poker. And I don't share others' belief that you can be helped. Not because you have no ability-you do. But your ego prevents you improving.
You seem wedded to the idea that every time you win it is because of your superior play, coupled with your "understanding" of how online poker really works. And when you lose it is because other people get lucky. Heard it all. Every poker player has. Difference is most people just do it for 1 minute after they lose a hand. Not for months and years on end. Are you really still banging on about that K10 call?
Which means that your ego is getting in the way. Similarly, your criticism of someone for "only" playing stakes on average 6 times higher than you. Which, apparently, is proof that they don't really know what they are talking about. As opposed to you, naturally. He has an ROI of 47.1%-in other words, his profit per game is higher than your stake (and therefore max profit if you won 100% of your games HU) per game. You mentioned previously that size of stake is not the be-all and end-all. True. Profit is. The stakes he plays are entirely up to him.
He might be an "undergraduate". He is still learning. As, indeed, am I. And so are the players who are better than me on this thread. You are an 18-year veteran reduced to trying to bully the newbies in the £1 poker kindergarten. Where poker should be fun, and for people trying to learn. And trying to prove you know more about poker than people who play at stakes you feel unable to play.
I'm usually multitabling. I never post hands-I don't have time to record/post hands. Not on this thread. On any thread. Because I am too busy playing poker. And I don't share others' belief that you can be helped. Not because you have no ability-you do. But your ego prevents you improving.
You seem wedded to the idea that every time you win it is because of your superior play, coupled with your "understanding" of how online poker really works. And when you lose it is because other people get lucky. Heard it all. Every poker player has. Difference is most people just do it for 1 minute after they lose a hand. Not for months and years on end. Are you really still banging on about that K10 call?
Which means that your ego is getting in the way. Similarly, your criticism of someone for "only" playing stakes on average 6 times higher than you. Which, apparently, is proof that they don't really know what they are talking about. As opposed to you, naturally. He has an ROI of 47.1%-in other words, his profit per game is higher than your stake (and therefore max profit if you won 100% of your games HU) per game. You mentioned previously that size of stake is not the be-all and end-all. True. Profit is. The stakes he plays are entirely up to him.
He might be an "undergraduate". He is still learning. As, indeed, am I. And so are the players who are better than me on this thread. You are an 18-year veteran reduced to trying to bully the newbies in the £1 poker kindergarten. Where poker should be fun, and for people trying to learn. And trying to prove you know more about poker than people who play at stakes you feel unable to play.
And failing.
2 minutes to learn a lifetime to master..Quote . Mike Sexton
His ROI is very good, as is mine.... I was just asking why he plays that low, isnt that a fair question? I have an answer to why i play low, i was just wondering what his was. Im completely aware of the difference in stakes between us and what that means for his profit over mine.... a little silly to point out the obvious. But hes gone from giving it the Billy big bollox, to silence so.....
The hands are recorded for you. Its called 'hand history', even has a 'copy' facility to paste on the forum. Takes a fraction of the time, that you 'dont have' to post other stuff!?
Do i claim to know poker than those playing larger? I play the odd freeroll in Hold em and thats it during the last 18yrs, that would be rather silly of me. I was simply trying to establish how often these guys move away from their computer programmes, or whether its just a rigid thing. Anyone successful in hold em online these days, is 100% using it right?
I feel they are mastering the charts, not the game. As with Cheong, in the example.
Im only 'banging on' about one hand, probably cos they are avoiding answering it and it was a very good example of the question 'are players willing ever to deviate from what a chart is telling you'. Of course i know, that he will know alot more about the maths of hold em than i ever will, is more capable due to his extensive knowledge of push/fold ranges.... but it did raise my eyebrows in do these guys ever think from a poker point of view or just simply go with calling ranges.
I'm usually multitabling. I never post hands-I don't have time to record/post hands. Not on this thread. On any thread. Because I am too busy playing poker. And I don't share others' belief that you can be helped. Not because you have no ability-you do. But your ego prevents you improving.
You seem wedded to the idea that every time you win it is because of your superior play, coupled with your "understanding" of how online poker really works. And when you lose it is because other people get lucky. Heard it all. Every poker player has. Difference is most people just do it for 1 minute after they lose a hand. Not for months and years on end. Are you really still banging on about that K10 call?
Which means that your ego is getting in the way. Similarly, your criticism of someone for "only" playing stakes on average 6 times higher than you. Which, apparently, is proof that they don't really know what they are talking about. As opposed to you, naturally. He has an ROI of 47.1%-in other words, his profit per game is higher than your stake (and therefore max profit if you won 100% of your games HU) per game. You mentioned previously that size of stake is not the be-all and end-all. True. Profit is. The stakes he plays are entirely up to him.
He might be an "undergraduate". He is still learning. As, indeed, am I. And so are the players who are better than me on this thread. You are an 18-year veteran reduced to trying to bully the newbies in the £1 poker kindergarten. Where poker should be fun, and for people trying to learn. And trying to prove you know more about poker than people who play at stakes you feel unable to play.
And failing.
2 minutes to learn a lifetime to master..Quote . Mike Sexton
Two minutes to learn that the deck is rigged online.
A lifetime to master exploiting it... at the lowest possible stakes.
His ROI is very good, as is mine.... I was just asking why he plays that low, isnt that a fair question? I have an answer to why i play low, i was just wondering what his was. Im completely aware of the difference in stakes between us and what that means for his profit over mine.... a little silly to point out the obvious. But hes gone from giving it the Billy big bollox, to silence so.....
The hands are recorded for you. Its called 'hand history', even has a 'copy' facility to paste on the forum. Takes a fraction of the time, that you 'dont have' to post other stuff!?
Do i claim to know poker than those playing larger? I play the odd freeroll in Hold em and thats it during the last 18yrs, that would be rather silly of me. I was simply trying to establish how often these guys move away from their computer programmes, or whether its just a rigid thing. Anyone successful in hold em online these days, is 100% using it right?
I feel they are mastering the charts, not the game. As with Cheong, in the example.
Im only 'banging on' about one hand, probably cos they are avoiding answering it and it was a very good example of the question 'are players willing ever to deviate from what a chart is telling you'. Of course i know, that he will know alot more about the maths of hold em than i ever will, is more capable due to his extensive knowledge of push/fold ranges.... but it did raise my eyebrows in do these guys ever think from a poker point of view or just simply go with calling ranges.
The thing is you lose even if your proven right. If next week there was indisputable evidence that online poker is rigged its all over the news massive scandal and the stations talking about it 24/7 and front page of every single news paper you still lose.
Btw I dont think that will happen because even if a rig was proofed I doubt it would be mainstream news.
However why do you lose? I mean you then get to tell everyone here you were right and they were wrong all along right? and they cant argue anymore in this scenario its checkmate right?
well yes you would get the I was right and you were wrong moment sure. However in the meantime many of the people you argue with have made thousands, tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands continuing to play the game and getting on with it rather then moaning and limiting their stakes to the micros.
So if it is the case that someone has made £300,000 from playing online poker say over the last 8 years then they have made £37500 a year on average from the game suppose the game is rigged for the recs in some way or they have house players or whatever else, and say this person really should have made say twice that, they still made that £300,000 and you still made pennies when if you just worked on your game you could have made £300,000 over those 8 years who has lost here and who has won?
So you lose even if your proven right. Further what is defined as skilled or not is subjective I do not use charts in life play. if people are doing that then depending on the terms of the site they are cheating. If people learn plays from the charts and make plays based on that at a later point whilst not referring to the charts during life play that is legit.
deviating from the charts is up to the player some regs really do play a learned system not paying attention to how other regs or recs play but It would always be more profitable to adapt to your opponents.
Doubleme: So if it is the case that someone has made £300,000 from playing online poker say over the last 8 years then they have made £37500 a year on average from the game suppose the game is rigged for the recs in some way or they have house players or whatever else, and say this person really should have made say twice that, they still made that £300,000 and you still made pennies when if you just worked on your game you could have made £300,000 over those 8 years who has lost here and who has won?
I do get this (took a bit of reading a few times mind!)
I personally am not comfortable wagering large sums on something i feel is not performing to the true odds im basically betting on. Im not an out and out gambler, i like to play games with an edge in my favour. If i cant do that, then its for fun only, micro stakes. But you are correct that this may be a missed opportunity....
My feelings are its just producing enhanced hands, which in turn is likely to help the poorer player than the solid one, hence doing what it is intended. Thats all it has to do to help a poorer player be closer to being equal. It does not have to do anything to favour a player, or ensure they win. Hence they will not lose at the rate odds say they should. Maximum amount of players are able to stay longer on sites, creating more traffic, paying more fees... rake in cash is also maximised.
Sounds like a business plan?
Lets stick to the thread title though, we have been through all this!
ALL PAIRED STARTERS Dealt: 293,671 (5.8734%) Expected: 294,118 (5.88%)
AK SUITED STARTERS Dealt: 15,096 (0.3019%) Expected: 15,083 (0.30%)
AK OFF SUITED STARTERS Dealt: 45,208 (0.9042%) Expected: 45,249 (0.90%)
ALL AK STARTERS Dealt: 60,304 (1.2061%) Expected: 60,332 (1.21%)
Note: Statistical tests show that the starting cards are distributed close to random
TABLE CARDS
2,021,772 (40.4%) hands had 5 table cards (the other hands were finished before the flop and turn was dealt).
DISTRIBUTION OF TABLE CARDS
Card 1st (Flop) 2nd (Flop) 3rd (Flop) 4th (Turn) 5th (River) Ace 150,257 149,882 150,157 150,254 153,554 Frequency 7.4319% 7.4134% 7.4270% 7.4318% 7.5950% Two 151,317 151,936 151,326 157,218 157,961 Frequency 7.4844% 7.5150% 7.4848% 7.7762% 7.8130% Three 153,892 154,080 153,946 156,607 157,251 Frequency 7.6117% 7.6210% 7.6144% 7.7460% 7.7779% Four 155,085 154,546 155,599 155,986 156,847 Frequency 7.6707% 7.6441% 7.6962% 7.7153% 7.7579% Five 157,286 157,721 157,561 157,307 156,257 Frequency 7.7796% 7.8011% 7.7932% 7.7806% 7.7287% Six 157,165 157,395 157,178 156,772 155,511 Frequency 7.7736% 7.7850% 7.7743% 7.7542% 7.6918% Seven 157,255 157,307 157,247 156,482 155,668 Frequency 7.7781% 7.7806% 7.7777% 7.7398% 7.6996% Eight 158,285 158,102 157,925 157,300 155,066 Frequency 7.8290% 7.8200% 7.8112% 7.7803% 7.6698% Nine 158,529 158,441 158,807 156,078 155,284 Frequency 7.8411% 7.8367% 7.8548% 7.7199% 7.6806% Ten 159,383 159,835 159,743 156,561 153,826 Frequency 7.8833% 7.9057% 7.9011% 7.7438% 7.6085% Jack 156,973 156,497 156,397 154,769 154,801 Frequency 7.7641% 7.7406% 7.7356% 7.6551% 7.6567% Queen 154,704 154,194 154,674 154,400 154,511 Frequency 7.6519% 7.6267% 7.6504% 7.6369% 7.6424% King 151,641 151,836 151,212 152,038 155,235 Frequency 7.5004% 7.5100% 7.4792% 7.5200% 7.6782% Not dealt* 1,326,291 (26.5%)
Note:
1. 1,326,291 (26.5%) hands were completed before the flop 2. 1,057,050 (21.1%) hands were completed at the flop 3. 594,887 (11.9%) hands were completed at the turn 4. 2,021,772 (40.4%) hands were completed at the river *Not dealt means that the specific round was never played. For example, other hands finished before the River card was dealt.
Im not sure what this proving... if these hands were dealt randomly it may look like this...if they were creating enhanced hands it definitely would look like this.
So back to the thread title... none of you hold em guys seem keen to talk about whether you stick to the ICM or push/fold tables in all instances, or there are times when its right to ditch it in certain situations.
Bean81 says it accounts for absolutely everything, so im guessing he sticks rigidly to his programme. Monty on the other hand, says he made his move as its standard (using ICM), then some days later put up the mysterious 'no charts'.
I mean plenty of you have said you are keen for me to listen and that i could learn something, but on this one you seem to be holding back.
I use no charts i didn't even know what ICM meant until i saw this thread i use instincts and personnel knowledge , i play for fun , an escape, beats never bother me i've seen hundreds of them in my time here i've also sucked out hundreds of times i've deposited once in the last 5 years , i don't play as much now like i used to due to work and getting up early i'm not the best but i'm competent at the stakes i play at I've not looked at scope for a few years now so god knows how i'm doing , losing a bit ,winning a bit i don't know , i don't know what my ROI is , may by someone can tell me
Comments
My post relates to charts as a whole, in all forms of hold em, in different situations and have been referring the whole lot as ICM .... that was my mistake, but im sure you know my point is about using charts solely to make a decision.
I myself for a while 13yrs or so ago, used an 'Omaha Indicator' programme on FullTilt to see what it was all about. I found it telling me to do certain things due to hand ranges, but the thing was i very often knew EXACTLY what hand they had, due to the pretty straight forward nature of hi lo (which many get badly wrong of course). So in the end, i ditched it, as i had to go against it cos i knew why the opponent was doing things, rather than there be a chance that there was a range involved.
Im pretty sure with these hold em charts there is common sense involved too, but as with Cheong in the WSOP example, i would imagine very, very few are using it. Im sure online they just have an open programme and just go with it.
This was my argument with JohnMonty... he did not know what hand ranges i was using, as the guy had never played with me before and we were literally at hand 8 or so of a newly formed final table. So K10 for me against an unknown quantity, tho he was aware of my forum posts and endless hand shots where i have the goods.... i was surprised common sense does not come into it when it would make him the short stack... does he call regardless, if he knew i had AJs, or is the decision based on thinking theres a very good chance i have worse than his hand or a race with a low pair? I dont know, you guys will have to fill me in on that one but it just seems like gambling it up and the risk to reward just isnt there in this example....
You keep quoting things as if the hands are indentical.
Freeroll of course is irrelevant, as it was for £110 ticket for a decent size prize pool tourn which attracts a small field, you have invested your time, you want to win, there is no lack of care.
I was just asking if you go by the chart and dont consider any personal decision at all given the situations. Was a genuine question. It appears on the face of it, not... as you just keep quoting the chart, ignoring the situation.
I mean thats fine, its just its not my thing for a chart to make my decision without thought.
Its gone a bit quiet. Even quieter from the undergraduate (his words, not mine) Bean81, as to why he is just playing £6 with his self proclaimed ability and belief in online poker...
The reason i play micro, is because giving away is banned....
You seem wedded to the idea that every time you win it is because of your superior play, coupled with your "understanding" of how online poker really works. And when you lose it is because other people get lucky. Heard it all. Every poker player has. Difference is most people just do it for 1 minute after they lose a hand. Not for months and years on end. Are you really still banging on about that K10 call?
Which means that your ego is getting in the way. Similarly, your criticism of someone for "only" playing stakes on average 6 times higher than you. Which, apparently, is proof that they don't really know what they are talking about. As opposed to you, naturally. He has an ROI of 47.1%-in other words, his profit per game is higher than your stake (and therefore max profit if you won 100% of your games HU) per game. You mentioned previously that size of stake is not the be-all and end-all. True. Profit is. The stakes he plays are entirely up to him.
He might be an "undergraduate". He is still learning. As, indeed, am I. And so are the players who are better than me on this thread. You are an 18-year veteran reduced to trying to bully the newbies in the £1 poker kindergarten. Where poker should be fun, and for people trying to learn. And trying to prove you know more about poker than people who play at stakes you feel unable to play.
And failing.
The hands are recorded for you. Its called 'hand history', even has a 'copy' facility to paste on the forum. Takes a fraction of the time, that you 'dont have' to post other stuff!?
Do i claim to know poker than those playing larger? I play the odd freeroll in Hold em and thats it during the last 18yrs, that would be rather silly of me. I was simply trying to establish how often these guys move away from their computer programmes, or whether its just a rigid thing. Anyone successful in hold em online these days, is 100% using it right?
I feel they are mastering the charts, not the game. As with Cheong, in the example.
Im only 'banging on' about one hand, probably cos they are avoiding answering it and it was a very good example of the question 'are players willing ever to deviate from what a chart is telling you'. Of course i know, that he will know alot more about the maths of hold em than i ever will, is more capable due to his extensive knowledge of push/fold ranges.... but it did raise my eyebrows in do these guys ever think from a poker point of view or just simply go with calling ranges.
A lifetime to master exploiting it... at the lowest possible stakes.
Btw I dont think that will happen because even if a rig was proofed I doubt it would be mainstream news.
However why do you lose? I mean you then get to tell everyone here you were right and they were wrong all along right? and they cant argue anymore in this scenario its checkmate right?
well yes you would get the I was right and you were wrong moment sure. However in the meantime many of the people you argue with have made thousands, tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands continuing to play the game and getting on with it rather then moaning and limiting their stakes to the micros.
So if it is the case that someone has made £300,000 from playing online poker say over the last 8 years then they have made £37500 a year on average from the game suppose the game is rigged for the recs in some way or they have house players or whatever else, and say this person really should have made say twice that, they still made that £300,000 and you still made pennies when if you just worked on your game you could have made £300,000 over those 8 years who has lost here and who has won?
So you lose even if your proven right. Further what is defined as skilled or not is subjective I do not use charts in life play. if people are doing that then depending on the terms of the site they are cheating. If people learn plays from the charts and make plays based on that at a later point whilst not referring to the charts during life play that is legit.
deviating from the charts is up to the player some regs really do play a learned system not paying attention to how other regs or recs play but It would always be more profitable to adapt to your opponents.
Didnt have my reading glasses on, thank god it said multitabling!
I do get this (took a bit of reading a few times mind!)
I personally am not comfortable wagering large sums on something i feel is not performing to the true odds im basically betting on. Im not an out and out gambler, i like to play games with an edge in my favour. If i cant do that, then its for fun only, micro stakes. But you are correct that this may be a missed opportunity....
My feelings are its just producing enhanced hands, which in turn is likely to help the poorer player than the solid one, hence doing what it is intended. Thats all it has to do to help a poorer player be closer to being equal. It does not have to do anything to favour a player, or ensure they win. Hence they will not lose at the rate odds say they should. Maximum amount of players are able to stay longer on sites, creating more traffic, paying more fees... rake in cash is also maximised.
Sounds like a business plan?
Lets stick to the thread title though, we have been through all this!
The analysis was made from 5,000,000 real money hands dealt on the Ladbrokes Poker Rooms for the Texas Hold'em game.
STARTING CARD ANALYSIS
5,000,000 pairs of starting cards were dealt
SUITED STARTERS
Dealt: 1,177,615 (23.5523%)
Expected: 1,176,471 (23.53%)
CONNECTED STARTERS
Dealt: 784,246 (15.6849%)
Expected: 784,314 (15.69%)
SUITED CONNECTED STARTERS
Dealt: 196,525 (3.9305%)
Expected: 196,078 (3.92%)
PAIRED STARTERS
AA dealt: 22,497 (0.4499%)
KK dealt: 22,542 (0.4508%)
QQ dealt: 22,927 (0.4585%)
JJ dealt: 22,577 (0.4515%)
TT dealt: 22,923 (0.4585%)
99 dealt: 22,694 (0.4539%)
88 dealt: 22,835 (0.4567%)
77 dealt: 22,887 (0.4577%)
66 dealt: 22,676 (0.4535%)
55 dealt: 22,798 (0.4560%)
44 dealt: 22,666 (0.4533%)
33 dealt: 22,533 (0.4507%)
22 dealt: 22,828 (0.4566%)
Each pair expected: 22,624 (0.45%)
ALL PAIRED STARTERS
Dealt: 293,671 (5.8734%)
Expected: 294,118 (5.88%)
AK SUITED STARTERS
Dealt: 15,096 (0.3019%)
Expected: 15,083 (0.30%)
AK OFF SUITED STARTERS
Dealt: 45,208 (0.9042%)
Expected: 45,249 (0.90%)
ALL AK STARTERS
Dealt: 60,304 (1.2061%)
Expected: 60,332 (1.21%)
Note: Statistical tests show that the starting cards are distributed close to random
TABLE CARDS
2,021,772 (40.4%) hands had 5 table cards (the other hands were finished before the flop and turn was dealt).
DISTRIBUTION OF TABLE CARDS
Card 1st (Flop) 2nd (Flop) 3rd (Flop) 4th (Turn) 5th (River)
Ace 150,257 149,882 150,157 150,254 153,554
Frequency 7.4319% 7.4134% 7.4270% 7.4318% 7.5950%
Two 151,317 151,936 151,326 157,218 157,961
Frequency 7.4844% 7.5150% 7.4848% 7.7762% 7.8130%
Three 153,892 154,080 153,946 156,607 157,251
Frequency 7.6117% 7.6210% 7.6144% 7.7460% 7.7779%
Four 155,085 154,546 155,599 155,986 156,847
Frequency 7.6707% 7.6441% 7.6962% 7.7153% 7.7579%
Five 157,286 157,721 157,561 157,307 156,257
Frequency 7.7796% 7.8011% 7.7932% 7.7806% 7.7287%
Six 157,165 157,395 157,178 156,772 155,511
Frequency 7.7736% 7.7850% 7.7743% 7.7542% 7.6918%
Seven 157,255 157,307 157,247 156,482 155,668
Frequency 7.7781% 7.7806% 7.7777% 7.7398% 7.6996%
Eight 158,285 158,102 157,925 157,300 155,066
Frequency 7.8290% 7.8200% 7.8112% 7.7803% 7.6698%
Nine 158,529 158,441 158,807 156,078 155,284
Frequency 7.8411% 7.8367% 7.8548% 7.7199% 7.6806%
Ten 159,383 159,835 159,743 156,561 153,826
Frequency 7.8833% 7.9057% 7.9011% 7.7438% 7.6085%
Jack 156,973 156,497 156,397 154,769 154,801
Frequency 7.7641% 7.7406% 7.7356% 7.6551% 7.6567%
Queen 154,704 154,194 154,674 154,400 154,511
Frequency 7.6519% 7.6267% 7.6504% 7.6369% 7.6424%
King 151,641 151,836 151,212 152,038 155,235
Frequency 7.5004% 7.5100% 7.4792% 7.5200% 7.6782%
Not dealt* 1,326,291 (26.5%)
Note:
1. 1,326,291 (26.5%) hands were completed before the flop
2. 1,057,050 (21.1%) hands were completed at the flop
3. 594,887 (11.9%) hands were completed at the turn
4. 2,021,772 (40.4%) hands were completed at the river
*Not dealt means that the specific round was never played. For example, other hands finished before the River card was dealt.
Bean81 says it accounts for absolutely everything, so im guessing he sticks rigidly to his programme. Monty on the other hand, says he made his move as its standard (using ICM), then some days later put up the mysterious 'no charts'.
I mean plenty of you have said you are keen for me to listen and that i could learn something, but on this one you seem to be holding back.
Every time I hear that " This Girl is on Fire " and no one has called the Fire Brigade.
I've not looked at scope for a few years now so god knows how i'm doing , losing a bit ,winning a bit i don't know , i don't know what my ROI is , may by someone can tell me