Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
On locking thread/banning etc... On locking thread/banning etc...

04-29-2014 , 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyBrooks
You're right, there's no point in responding to you, so that's on me. I won't reply again. Best of luck in your endeavors.
ty (for your attempts not necessarily for leaving i mean) u2!
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:41 PM
posting so Adyo can quote me.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-29-2014 , 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by R*R
posting so Adyo can quote me.
Some of you are great tho!

7 days 1 thread in mttsng. Title: Official players mttsng cooperative discussion thread:
Quote:

We want this thread to serve a specific purpose, however its not my place to specifically identify what that is (rather the players are to navigate collectively). But I do want to make a few suggestions in order to build/stoke the fire so to speak. Once things get rolling, I expect to not only get out of the way, but to be upstaged by many other greater thinkers on this specific aspect of the economy of the game.

But I have come to an certain understanding and it is quite difficult to share in a few sentences. But it involves a cooperative effort and therefore this is what this thread is to be. I will give a 'poker' related cliffs to the above link, but it would definitely help the process if anyone interested in engaging in cooperative dialogue might take the time to read the paper on above. It is written someone who it seems was highly praised by Einstein, and although it has some esoteric higher level mathematical meaning, on a fundamental it perfectly spells out what this thread is to be.

But if you don't feel like reading it just please understand this: We mean this thread to be a cooperative discussion on making good changes for the game. And we define a good change by one that is favourable to the entire player community, as that is fundamentally all we are.

We also want to use this thread to cooperatively dispel some myths we might have on the game in a mathematical fashion, and we are therefore going to have to rely on the most creative and mathematically adept players to help us do so. What this means is as time goes by players are going to awaken to new understandings as they shed some of the old myths they collectively shared on the game. And the reason I point this out is you cannot simply jump into the end of the thread, lest we suffer from the same ignorance we are trying to cure ourselves of. So please, if you wish to participate in a meaningful manner, do take the time to read the collective posts from the collective community in this thread.

I'm not going to talk about how we should act and treat each other and stuff like that. The same forum rules should apply here, and I see no reason for myself, alone, to try and lay down any extras.

So this is the simple OP, I have a few specific details to discuss to start out, and then we might might quickly see we can make some significant and tangible cooperative change in which ALL players regs and recs alike gain.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 01:07 AM
Ban this idiot. Ip please.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflehouse1
Ban this idiot. Ip please.
Well one would think first they would give me some ultimatums of what not to do anymore, even if it was a general things like "don't post".

On the other hand, your a mod and all i want is the OP above your post as a thread for 7 days, and I'll voluntarily take an ip ban if it doesn't bring significant change.

But whatever, it wouldn't take much at this point to convince me to not come back, obv i don't fit in.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 03:50 AM
What are some of these myths of which you speak? You sound like you're selling a get rich quick scheme where you don't give any detail where you dont' give out any info until someone pays for the conference.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by plaaynde
112 posts 113 and counting. And I was accused when making just one ****ty post in another thread.
Tsk, tsk. ;-) There were 112 posts already made when you posted this, which makes yours the 113th post in this thread. Don't you think that this should have been taken into account?

Lee

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adyo
I want you to understand something please, with your sincerest of intentions. What you point out here is what I want to point out to the players. I want to show them mathematically, to each solution that has been proposed, that they players are asking for things that stars will not grant. The players want to tell me Im stupid because its the only things we can ask for and the only way to do it, and I want them to first admit this is not possible, and ONLY EVER THEN can we discuss a solution.
For those of us who never read the original threads, and aren't going to spend the time doing so now - would you PLEASE be so kind as to tell us what the proposals you want to make are? And show them mathematically? You can do this right here, in this thread, for starters.

Only then can there be an intelligent discussion on the merits of your suggestions.

Thank you.


Quote:
You want to tell me poker is set at the market equilibrium, I want to show you why it is bull**** and keynsian thinking that nash dispelled in his paper ideal money. The markets are not at an equilibrium because 2 + 2 is holding the players hostage (perhaps unknowingly) in the negotiation process.
Wait, wha???? 2+2 controls the market equilibrium of poker? Or Pokerstars???

I had no idea that this site had so much power!!

Lee

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adyo
With snippages for brevity.

So when I say good players make +ev changes, we are talking for both the current game and the longevity of it. Makes 100% sense right, that a smart person would not want to ruin the game.

Now I admit we are functioning on the assumption that regs are winning players that make +ev decisions, and recs are losing players that play purely for the enjoyment. But sometimes adding an assumption actually clarifies things without necessarily having its own ground.
"Assume" - you do know the classical definition for this word, don't you? "Makes an ASS out of U and ME". Please don't make assumptions, assuming that they'll necessarily be correct. They often aren't.

Quote:
If you don't realize that the intelligent poker player wants decisions that are good for the entire community, then you are one of those players that doesn't understand. We have been functioning too long as a community that pretends we can not identify the posters that will help this game. We pretend this on the tables fine, but publicly certain playesr will be seen to have a TRUE and INTELLIGENT intent for the overall morality and integrity of the game as laid out in my link. And what we mean by that is ALL players should covet a fair and profitable game, that is profitable to regs, where regs are those that work hard for what they are given, and what they are given is money in exchange for entertainment.

The problem we are having, is that too many bad players, and i really mean "bad players" (adyo definition) have been running around suggesting we must run a game that tricks degenerate gamblers, rather than running a game that attracts those that are looking for entertainment.
Really? Where is it written that all regs are profitable players? I for one know a lot of regs who regularly lose money at poker. And I know some recreational players who are winners at the game (in fact, one of the biggest winners I know is a recreational player.)

One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

More importantly, though, are your statements regarding what intelligent poker players want. Who are you, or anyone, to decide what everyone's wants and needs are? Not everyone wants the same things, and even if - as you seem to be arguing - intelligent poker players are in this for the money, not all such players go about seeking profits the same way. Or in the same type of games.

One size definitely does NOT fit all here!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adyo
So if we can mathematically show that a certain suggestion is not good for the game, then it stands to reason....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lattimer
Some may want it anyway because they feel the change will make it more fun. It might not be better for you, or better for "the game", but better for them. Who are you, or we, to deprive them of that?
Actually, while I agree with most of what Lattimer says here, I will point out that perhaps making the game more fun (even if lessening the EV from a purely immediate profit standpoint) might not only be better for the game, but more profitable for the those making money at it. Please read what Mike Caro and others have to say on this subject for a more detailed analysis.

Lee

Last edited by Mike Haven; 04-30-2014 at 01:07 PM. Reason: 3 posts merged
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 08:32 AM
Best pissing contest in a long time . Op showing great stamina though he is long winded, condescending and I could see how his style wouldn't convince people to side with him even if he was right.

Last edited by ZeckoRiver; 04-30-2014 at 08:38 AM.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovesantiques
Tsk, tsk. ;-) There were 112 posts already made when you posted this, which makes yours the 113th post in this thread. Don't you think that this should have been taken into account?

Lee
No.

Don't shoot the messenger
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReidLockhart
So there's like a truly mathematical zero chance that this Adyo and Wolfske guy are different people, right?

I'm sure Tyler has an even better list of filled checkboxes than I do.


Hey Adyo, I don't know who you are. I don't know your past work. I don't know other people's opinions of you. From this thread based on your posts alone, I think you have some sort of disorder like narcissism that's causing you to think that you are somehow above criticism because everyone else just isn't smart enough to be on your level.

Of course, whether this is true or not is irrelevant to the real discussion you're trying to have. I just wanted to point out that the resistance you're receiving is not solely based on people's past knowledge of who you are and your posting history...that stuff can be gleamed just from this thread alone. I don't want to derail from the actual discussion though:

When you run your own company and have sole control over all decisions, then you can mold your model to benefit the minority of people that use your product. Those "smart people" that share a certain goal will greatly enjoy it, while the "recreational people" will rather use a product that caters to their wants and needs. Pokerstars doesn't want to make changes that benefit the few and presumably hurt the many. I don't know that this would be the effect of your ideas, but when you're sitting over there being all cryptic about the changes you'd like to implement instead of just telling us what they are, you're not helping your case any. Maybe you DO have some awesome ideas that would be beneficial to EVERYONE. I don't know, but I don't know because you haven't shed any light on it, not because I'm too stupid to understand.


Side note on being too stupid to understand, by the way. I feel like the end of this discussion when/if you finally make the reveal of your idea is going to be akin to how someone says they have a way to beat roulette and, after a long thread of arguing and claims of "you're just not smart enough to see it how I see it", we find out the guy is onto some form of Martingale. Everyone throws their arms up in the air in disgust like "OMG I wasted to much time on THIS??"


So let's hear your idea. I'm sure it's well thought out. I'd hate to never get to hear it because you assume everyone is too stupid to understand it.
We actually asked for different things. I actually put a lot of time in making a constructive post. Yes it did resemble Adyo's meaning in a way but I was asking for something totally different actually.

Tbh I don't think you really read my posts? (not an accusation, it's just a feeling I get)

It's not about hurting the many and benefiting the few .. that's MY whole point. Some changes were made due to the MTTSNG thread because 1 person demanded it and even while most people didn't want it to happen .. still it did happen because it led to recs losing les in the long time (they pbb don't care) and regs winning less (they prob do care). I don't know many people that like the 27 place payout and I'm not even sure if recs like it because the first prize is lower and stuff.

The thing I suggested was a thread in wich everyone can discuss things and where we can make decisions that are supported before they are implemented so that it cannot hurt the many. So a large group in the thread has a shared opinion (this may be a group of recs also) and there is 1 person that can post this message in the pokerstars mttsng thread.

If you do not agree with my point of view I'd like to know why. But it's not fair that you tell me I'm the same person as Adyo while my opinion is totally different and while you didn't say anything that refutes my opinion (tbh you actually said things that just support my opinion).

I also don't hope this post sounds agressive because I feel I can have a good discussion with you about this. You actually used arguments in your post
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReidLockhart
What are some of these myths of which you speak? You sound like you're selling a get rich quick scheme where you don't give any detail where you dont' give out any info until someone pays for the conference.
I gave detail, and I was giving it until I got banned, here is a very specific example, of both what I want to start to change, and exactly why these players are getting pissed with me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 180reg View Post
This guy claimed i didn't know maths and hadn't done my research and can eat a big fat banhammer **** imo
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=143

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovesantiques
For those of us who never read the original threads, and aren't going to spend the time doing so now - would you PLEASE be so kind as to tell us what the proposals you want to make are? And show them mathematically? You can do this right here, in this thread, for starters.

Only then can there be an intelligent discussion on the merits of your suggestions.

Thank you.
But who comes into a thread ignores what was said and asks the OP to state it again lest the OP hasn't started an unintelligent point? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=143

This is what you want to see, it an example of what I want to straighten out and there are more. Might you please just come back and say "fair enough, i asked for a factual tangible example, and you have given one."
Quote:
Wait, wha???? 2+2 controls the market equilibrium of poker? Or Pokerstars???

I had no idea that this site had so much power!!

Lee
Are you 4? The collective players in our mttsng suggestions thread, does not have a clue wtf they are talking about. I just want a thread, that doesn't involve stars, to begin the discuss that will change that. There is no equilibrium in a market where the agents have suppressive knowledge or incorrect religious belief. Or maybe you disagree, and still believe its an equilibrium. Find but when you educate the consumer, you give them pull.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovesantiques
"Assume" - you do know the classical definition for this word, don't you? "Makes an ASS out of U and ME". Please don't make assumptions, assuming that they'll necessarily be correct. They often aren't.
I don't know if you know what math is, but sometimes we can make assumptions, an that if we make the right ones we can come up with a solution. I do think its called induction, although it doesn't matter, where we say "lets assume x =1 and see what happens" and it turns out if you just try and 'assumption' you are able to see a clear answer to the formula without using the assumption in your solution. I used the assumption to see the problem in a different light, and that light lead me to a solution that doesn't involve the validity of the assumption. Classical definition, sorry you are asking me to show tangible math, and you are telling me we are going to use your classical definition of assumption? Come on.


Quote:
Really? Where is it written that all regs are profitable players? I for one know a lot of regs who regularly lose money at poker. And I know some recreational players who are winners at the game (in fact, one of the biggest winners I know is a recreational player.)
This was part of the assumption. We need to view the game in a certain light for you to understand why I am approaching things from this angle. None of this is complex, or anything other than fundamental, but you have ignored the explanation, and asked me to explain. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/members/313832/

We are talking about their WANTS and a FUNDAMENTAL basic, we have said 'let us view RECS in the light of wanting ENTERTAINMENT, and let us view REG in the light of wanting INCOME" Just for the purpose of understanding something I wish to point out. I have already also pointed out the obviousness that recs like money too, and regs like entertainment, and that the ideal player wants both.

and this is why we do this because you say you have a rec friend that wins tons of money. We don't call that income tho do we? Winnings in this sense is not income for the purpose of analyzing the economy of poker. If we don't straighten this out we start to double account and double speak about things in relation to each other (communicating).

Quote:
One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.
You have to read what I write in order to comment on it, and the validity of it.

Quote:
More importantly, though, are your statements regarding what intelligent poker players want. Who are you, or anyone, to decide what everyone's wants and needs are? Not everyone wants the same things, and even if - as you seem to be arguing - intelligent poker players are in this for the money, not all such players go about seeking profits the same way. Or in the same type of games.
I said an intelligent player wants what is good for the game. And you wish to argue that? Or you thought I said something more specific? I've been purely fundamental tho whole way which is how I know I'm not wrong because I haven't said ANYTHING that is not fundamental. I didn't say an intelligent player wants this or that, I said they want what is good for the sustainability and profitability of the game, where the game is profitable for regs, and entertaining for recs fundamentally of course, where regs are looking for entertainment and pros are looking to provide that in exchange for income. And yes I already explained there are other factors, others ways to view it, and other things to look at.

Quote:
One size definitely does NOT fit all here!!
but we have to start somewhere don't we? Let us all start in the places in which we all can fundamentally agree. Let us read each others arguments before commenting on and judging them.


Quote:
Actually, while I agree with most of what Lattimer says here, I will point out that perhaps making the game more fun (even if lessening the EV from a purely immediate profit standpoint) might not only be better for the game, but more profitable for the those making money at it. Please read what Mike Caro and others have to say on this subject for a more detailed analysis.
Its so frustrating, that what you point out, is EXACTLY what I am saying I want to do, and EXACTLY what all these people are telling me is bull****. If you would consider for 1 sec I'm not an idiot *******, and that I might be right, you would see this is exactly what I want to mathematically dispel. We are looking in the wrong place to analyze the effect of a persons suggestion on changing the structure of the game. You dont know this because you haven't read the mttsng suggestions thread. We are getting ****ed, because collectively we don't know how to calculate the ev of change of the poker economy. I am trying to tell the players it doesn't work the exact same as poker ev.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeckoRiver
Best pissing contest in a long time . Op showing great stamina though he is long winded, condescending and I could see how his style wouldn't convince people to side with him even if he was right.
Me too but its fun watching them squirm about it isn't?

Cliffs!

Here is the problem http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...read-1166623/:
Quote:
Bad player: hey stars can you make a change to the game that costs players money?
Good player: hey stars can you make a change to the game that brings money to the players?

Stars: Dear players we have made a change that effects you in a negative way.
Good players: we didn't want that change, why are you doing things we don't want?

Stars: You all asked for it though (quotes bad player) Bad player: hey stars can you make a change to the game that costs players money?
That thread is full of both that and player berating the stars rep for not getting what they want, and for stars picking ideas that are not in the favor of the entire player population.

I am asking for one small logistical change, in that in the above thread we only use one account to make proposals to stars, and we discuss everything in another, for the specific purpose that stars cannot assert that the players asked for an idea that they did not. *I am not suggesting this will stop stars from adopting ideas players do not want.




Here is the solution, player will hold their discussions in this thread, and use 1 single dummy (impartial player) account to bring their ideas forth (Title: Official players mttsng cooperative discussion thread):
Quote:

We want this thread to serve a specific purpose, however its not my place to specifically identify what that is (rather the players are to navigate collectively). But I do want to make a few suggestions in order to build/stoke the fire so to speak. Once things get rolling, I expect to not only get out of the way, but to be upstaged by many other greater thinkers on this specific aspect of the economy of the game.

But I have come to an certain understanding and it is quite difficult to share in a few sentences. But it involves a cooperative effort and therefore this is what this thread is to be. I will give a 'poker' related cliffs to the above link, but it would definitely help the process if anyone interested in engaging in cooperative dialogue might take the time to read the paper on above. It is written someone who it seems was highly praised by Einstein, and although it has some esoteric higher level mathematical meaning, on a fundamental it perfectly spells out what this thread is to be.

But if you don't feel like reading it just please understand this: We mean this thread to be a cooperative discussion on making good changes for the game. And we define a good change by one that is favourable to the entire player community, as that is fundamentally all we are.

We also want to use this thread to cooperatively dispel some myths we might have on the game in a mathematical fashion, and we are therefore going to have to rely on the most creative and mathematically adept players to help us do so. What this means is as time goes by players are going to awaken to new understandings as they shed some of the old myths they collectively shared on the game. And the reason I point this out is you cannot simply jump into the end of the thread, lest we suffer from the same ignorance we are trying to cure ourselves of. So please, if you wish to participate in a meaningful manner, do take the time to read the collective posts from the collective community in this thread.

I'm not going to talk about how we should act and treat each other and stuff like that. The same forum rules should apply here, and I see no reason for myself, alone, to try and lay down any extras.

So this is the simple OP, I have a few specific details to discuss to start out, and then we might might quickly see we can make some significant and tangible cooperative change in which ALL players regs and recs alike gain.

Here is an example of what we wish to change, how we might do it, and the type of math involved:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurnzDK View Post
Hey Guys I dont know if this thread should go here or not - so excuse me if its placed in the wrong forum

The thing is I am a midstakes grinder abi~30-35ish. I want to move up the stakes and have considered getting a coach (for the first time in my carrer). I have a contact with a coach which is considered among one of the best coaches in my country. I respect his game a lot and he has proven results both coaching and playingwise. Usually he charges 150-200$/h but that unfortunately is too much out of my current bankroll to take out to coaching - and I really dont want to jump much lower than now since I am very comfortable at this level.
Then he suggested that he could coach me for a part of my profit. Since I never done stuff like this before i have no clue how to decide what is fair. Fwiw I dont think he ever did a deal like this before either so we are both on new ground here.
Do you have any suggestions for how to find a solution that is fair for both parties? All inputs are highly appreciated
Quote:
Originally Posted by 180Reg View Post
Work out how many hours you think he will coach you per month

Find out your avg profit per month (as an estimate based on games played, avg bi and roi).

say he coaches you 10 hours a month, at 150 an hour, thats 1.5k coaching fees approx.

if you profit 6k a month then its 1.5k/6k so split would be 25/75 in your favour

The fact you can have losing months, and he still coaches could change the above I guess, also, id advise to have proper coaching times set in place, you don't want to be in the position that your going good and you don't recieve coaching.

That was all just a guess and i may be completely wrong but hope it helps
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adyo View Post

Originally Posted by 180Reg View Post
Find out your avg profit per month (as an estimate based on games played, avg bi and roi).
This is what the players need to discuss, we are giving this answer, but if we did the math we would realize we don't have enough information to get an accurate answer like you are suggesting.

We have to look at the variance and understand what kind of sample sizes are needed.

Since you are a 180 reg (180s are a lot easier to study in this light) and since any 180 player that has looked at this and actually gone through all the numbers...we can assume you haven't actually spent time looking into what you are suggesting cause if did you would know that not even 180s will produce what you are suggesting with a decent confidence rate.

The OP plays MTTS which means they have this issue even further.

As for the rest of it, and OP's questions, I might not have the answers, or correct ones
Here is an example of the math on variance of 180s, but I must admit I'm not trained in this math, and would prefer someone more knowledgeable do a more accurate job (I'm not sure if I am correct but if I am not I wish someone would make a correct version for the players) http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...-180s-1410720/

Here is what players that don't understand say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 180reg View Post
This guy claimed i didn't know maths and hadn't done my research and can eat a big fat banhammer **** imo

Last edited by Mike Haven; 04-30-2014 at 01:07 PM. Reason: 2 posts merged
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 12:24 PM
good golly ^^^^^
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 12:50 PM
Adyo-

If you can't do the math yourself, how do you know you are right?
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
Adyo-

If you can't do the math yourself, how do you know you are right?
Because my only claim is really that we haven't done the math collectively. That's all I need to prove. And I've shown its obvious.

About what the math will show, I know I am right to myself, but all I am proposing that is FACT in this regard is that we haven't done it together, we should not fear doing it together, we all stand to gain, and we have the tools to do it.

(To be clearer in a different way, I have actually shown the math, while admitting I'm not strong in the area...so no doubt someone will correct part of it, or even point out I don't have much of a clue)

But I have played around with it enough to have come to the realization, that we are losing individual hourly $'s because of our failure to cooperatively apply variance formulas to our EV calculations.

Last edited by Adyo; 04-30-2014 at 12:59 PM.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 01:15 PM
Calling Bobbo Boba is pretty clever, mean, but clever.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned4lyfe
Calling Bobbo Boba is pretty clever, mean, but clever.
Bobbo?
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 01:26 PM
Have your thread in mttc. You have 7 days.

I want to make one thing abundantly clear though. We can't lock stars reps out of reading the thread, and I won't stop them from posting either. If they see an idea in it that makes them money that isn't going to be good for regs, they will likely implement it anyhow.

Also, just because you make a thread, doesn't mean you are the owner of it. Demands or loads of post reports will get it locked immediately and will result in your ban.

Are we clear?
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflehouse1
Have your thread in mttc. You have 7 days.

I want to make one thing abundantly clear though. We can't lock stars reps out of reading the thread, and I won't stop them from posting either. If they see an idea in it that makes them money that isn't going to be good for regs, they will likely implement it anyhow.

Also, just because you make a thread, doesn't mean you are the owner of it. Demands or loads of post reports will get it locked immediately and will result in your ban.

Are we clear?
ty, although it really needs to be in mttsng, but no worries I pmd TT the cliffs post here.

I should say, my change involves exactly what you point out, stars can def come into the thread if they wanted, it would just look really weird if they did.

And we know that stars will act in its own interests that is a given (one of my points is that if a player doesn't recognize this in the math of their suggestion then they should rethink what they propose).

Me and you are on the same page with ALL of that, so I hope you understand I made sure of that in thinking of how to do it. Standard forum rules apply, and I'm not asking for any different type of modding.

This is why is a very very simple small subtle change, but I want to show in real time why it is significant.

Thank you though, for even a moment of sincere consideration (even if you just agree so I will shut up) I suspect TT will allow it in mttsng because I put it in the way I presented my cliffs above. I think I stated my point better now.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 03:03 PM
What do you expect from a poker site? They cater to rec players and look out for their best interest, shocker! You can have as many threads as you want but the fact is Stars will continue to ignore suggestions that negatively impacts rec players.

The 180s payout chance won't stop reg from playing but they'll certainly keep rec players around longer. Pretty absurd coming from Awice.


I hope for your sake this isn't the way you act IRL.

Last edited by Banned4lyfe; 04-30-2014 at 03:06 PM. Reason: stop with the poker terminology
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
04-30-2014 , 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned4lyfe
What do you expect from a poker site? They cater to rec players and look out for their best interest, shocker! You can have as many threads as you want but the fact is Stars will continue to ignore suggestions that negatively impacts rec players.
What you are pointing out is my point, so I proposed a solution to put an end to the players that think they should propose changes we know stars won't make. Yet you come to argue me on something we agree on. These same players are making proposals that are not comprised of mathematically sound reasoning.

Within the same thread I'm going to prove you wrong on something you haven't said but you implied. You are implying since stars only acts in its own interest that the players have no hope to gain.

1 thread 7 days in mttsng forum, and ill prove you wrong. I'll show you how the players can gain, even tho we know stars won't budge

You aren't just arguing with me for no reason (while agreeing), you are shooting yourself in the foot...and this is why people say I'm crazy when I refer to myself as we, and that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by not at least investigating this change.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
05-01-2014 , 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adyo
But who comes into a thread ignores what was said and asks the OP to state it again lest the OP hasn't started an unintelligent point?
No need to worry on this point, Adyo. I think that everyone reading this thread realizes that you've made more than one unintelligent point.

Quote:
Are you 4?
No. We are not 4. We are one. The one. The antique one.

Quote:
I don't know if you know what math is,
Actually, you are correct here. I don't know what math is. Would you please be so kind as to explain to me what it is and how it works?

Thank you.

Quote:
Here is the solution, player will hold their discussions in this thread, and use 1 single dummy
Hold on a minute! "Dummy play" is in Bridge. Isn't this a discussion about poker? Can we please stick to one game at a time? Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adyo

(To be clearer in a different way, I have actually shown the math, while admitting I'm not strong in the area...so no doubt someone will correct part of it, or even point out I don't have much of a clue)
You gain wisdom, Grasshopper!

Lee
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
05-01-2014 , 08:55 AM
Sorry OP feels he has to go:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=3954
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
05-01-2014 , 08:58 AM
Lol after his thread got a green light.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
05-01-2014 , 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adyo
I just realize now I don't fit in here
slow pony
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote
05-01-2014 , 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by plaaynde
After all this he leaves? LOL best thread ever. Poor guy did get eviscerated though.
On locking thread/banning etc... Quote

      
m