I used your quite to answer his, sorry for not making that clear.
I'm not interested enough to further answer here, I have a feeling OP has an agenda regarding staking/backing or smth?

Have a good night everyone

The internet has put a giant black box of miscommunication between me and you. The quickest way for me to explain, but also might upset you, is that I am 5 levels above you. But you must excuse all my calculations and proof have been deleted everyday for the last year, so please lay off me in that regard.

taking all the players with the top 20 most played games does not help you, so how would taking players with significantly less games help you? 2k games is not significant enough to read anything out of nor is 10k games.

These ways that preclude my inference also do not help the situation, its just that I know this because I have done the numbers and you do not know it but assume that what I say is not true.

Yes, you are a poker player yet you cannot help but tilt at one sentence from me and now you want to tell me you are better at poker than me. I tilt the **** out of all of you and somehow that means I cannot know what I am talking about. The spreadsheet was not opinion it is FACT. And then I explained the stats with relevant points that were again FACT, and THEN I gave my opinion based on FACT.

Nobody here but me has done their homework, nobody here is making an observation based on reality but me. I present the data and the explanation of it.

It is not a lesson in basic uni math sir, it is me telling you to ACTUALLY look at the ACTUAL data we are talking about.

Cliffs: starting from the assumption we have enough data, and then explaining why it is true is not addressing reality.

Soho, sit down with the data, try and do what you are telling me....you'll feel silly cause it cannot be done...

I answer them all succinctly with one phrase.

1) It is suggested there is not enough data
2) soho suggests we can use uni math to get the answer anyways
3) it is explained soho's method still falls short
4) soho ignores 3) and proposes 2)
5)???

Actually it seems like you have the agenda to me...

Don't go ANYWHERE. You tell us.. you actually know what are talking about...do you claim you actually know what variance is...or did you just press some graph buttons and log into a forum and post that someone's point is wrong that you haven't read or understood?

Don't just laugh at someone that put the time in..tell us....do you know what variance is (hint: its not a horse sound like pfffffttt).

what a shocker that randoms dont wanna play fullring regfilled stalling 180man sit and goes where the first 35 minutes is just folding

SHOCKER!!!

OP is this guy. Search his thread making history for "Ideal Poker" and make of it what you will.

Hahahahaha. Thanks for the late night laugh
I can recommend to search him.

what is interesting is only one of us has done our homework.

Mr. AvoidMe...again I ask, do you claim you actually know what you are talking about when it comes to variance or are you just clicking ss buttons?

I want to know..because so far we have had zero people come in and show any evidence to the contrary. showing the top players are making 14% collectively is not going to show this.

Show me the games are of the "skilled" kind...show me that we have no meter for profitability yet we COULD produce one if we "simply wanted too".

I stand by my conjecture. I have looked at the players results. I have been through them, I have compared them and done my homework to the best of my ability. I am aware of what Soho explains, and I put it to the community to prove me wrong:

You cannot discern win-rate in the way players are suggesting, the games cannot be shown to be a game of skill, and those that suggest otherwise have CLEARLY not done their homework.

They already did, in this thread. You ignored it. You have a stupid spreadsheet with no calculations and frankly, it looks like it was organized by an infant. It is completely devoid of any meaningful statistical analysis. The only thing I learned from it that you probably have delusional disorder.

Now if you're really serious about wanting proof that poker is a game of skill, I recommend reading "The Mathematics of Poker". Of course it's a math book and you'd need to understand some math and based on your spreadsheet I'm not terribly confident in your ability to do arithmetic let alone calculus. That being said the book proves very early that it's a skill based game. This has been an established fact in the mathematics community since the early days of game theory. There is a rigorous, mathematically exactly proof that it's a skill game. Whatever statistical nonsense you're going on about is irrelevant.

You're wrong, and for ****s sake learn to use an ellipsis correctly.

I've read that book multiple times, and your rant makes me think that you haven't...
The spreadsheet is meant to be "devoid" so that others can show there OWN analysis based on FACTS. My "analysis" is in other related and linked posts. Nobody showed anything here. There is no delusion but those that will not face the numbers and the stats...

Again, I did my homework you clearly haven't...but how quick you call me crazy. Poker is not rigged in the sense you point out, but that book does not deal with effective rake. The game is not profitable, calling me a riggedtard does not change that.

The empirical evidence clearly shows, the variance is too high to dispute such a claim.

Again, another person that has not done their homework comes to call the one person that has crazy. Is this poker? Are we me? Or are children?

You're not profitable, the game is. You're bad, the game isn't. I like to think you're delusional, but it's possible you're just stupid. Delusional disorder can be treated, there in no cure for being dumb. Your so called "empirical evidence" doesn't magically refute a proof. Proofs are proofs they don't go away they don't change and they sure as hell aren't refuted by a spreadsheet.

Has anyone ever agreed with you about this? Can you find a single person in the entire world who understands what you see in that spreadsheet? If you can just one person anywhere in the entire universe who looks at your data and reaches the conclusion that poker can't be beaten I'd be incredibly impressed. You'd probably have to pay them a lot of money though.

You haven't read the material, and you haven't truly looked at the sheet, this is clear. But you argue what point?

I post a spreadsheet of the leaderboards and the players respective stats so that no one can argue without evidence. I laid it out, and if we need to manipulate data to reach conclusions, lemme know what to do (we can because its on a spreadsheet).

I haven't shown here that poker isn't profitable, I have shown that there is no evidence to suggest 180 's are profitable and all signs post to the fact that they are not.

None of the claimed winrates have any basis behind them.

Yes many people agree since it is quite obvious once you actually look. How many posters will refuse to actually look at the data?

someone ban this forboon idiot.

Also your analysis is ******ed, you looked up top 20 players and posted their number of games, profits and roi, woopie fkn doo.

Another unknowledgeable player that thinks their graph justifies their ignorance. Can we at least address our emotional state? Why are we getting so upset because somebody wants to look at the results? Can we really just say things like "I refuse to look at the data presented" or "So what you analyzed real results"?

1 person has done their homework 5 or so show up simply to point out to the community that they have not, and refuse to...What is the definition of ignorance? Set4vegas, you can't just get mad at me because you don't understand what is going on! Somebody make comments on the data not just expressions of your lack of emotional control please.

There are two types of players, those that want a profitable game and those that are bad players...woppie fkn doo is the mark of a child. Why are we acting like children?

Lol it's funny that this Borfoon idiot is making so many people angry. He's a noob with 20 posts...I wouldn't really bother, but just laugh

So, in a nutshell, are you saying that 180's aren't profitable Borfoon? lol i would say that regs play them for a reason...not just to pass the time of day...but to make $$$

BTW dude no offense but you speak like a pompous little bit ch. No offense. lol

you forgot to sign ur post sir

@petesgotaces

I am a VERY well known reg in my field with more games behind me than you could achieve or comprehend in a life time. I also have 10 times more posts than you on this forum alone. In fact I likely have more deleted posts then you have posts.

I am simply pointing out, with the data, that there is no evidence to show the profitability of the game...

and again for the 6th or 7th person (note: soho DOES get the math, but fails to realize it is still not enough), you have no understanding of the maths involved, you refuse to address the data. You ridicule me and make an ass out of both of us...

and still I maintain...where is the proof, you all claim profitability and there lies the burden. I have shown it cannot be done with multiple writings based on multiple observation of true data. If players want to suggest there is an effective rake measurement that shows the profitability, then let them reveal it!

Ah OP you're that moron with 20 self-banned accounts that asked for a variance formula and when i gave it you said you didnt knew 'formal' math?

I'm not a moron actually, I talk over you.

I don't have 20 banned self banned accounts.

You are too slow but I will try to explain what you are talking about. I know the formula for variance. And the fact that you can produce it means nothing. When I say I don't know "formal" math it is my way of saying check your work (hint because you can't understand things, I am saying YOU ARE WRONG).

But you have no work to check because you did not do your homework like everyone else. This is why I posted the spreadsheet, with all the analysis, and all the explanation. It matters not that you and others refuse to read it. All you can show by ignoring it is your ignorance.

All you showed is you can post a formula, I am challenging you to you USE it, like I have. You are now in a group of 10 or so others that has ignored the entire content just to ridicule.

You clearly think I am not the reg I am. And it shows that you will back track. That shows you are a coward.

Is there no player here that knows math? Is there no poker player in this community that understands game theory? Does know one here like money?

Sokz I just checked your hand history post. I feel bad for making fun of you, sorry.
I didn't know you're not even really a poker player.

Is there anyone here that wants to address the reality of the situation about stats and facts using math and logic rather than spitting emotional insults?

It's not clear what you're claiming?

Stop with this madness forboon nobody cares.

Your thread title and indeed your whole writing style comes across as arrogant and self righteous. Therefore no one is willing to properly engage. Rather than starting a discussion, you are preaching and dictating to everyone.


However, if all 180s are indeed filled with 160+ regs these days, even if those regs are bad, then playing only these games for a living seems pretty foolish. And I doubt playing 20000 of these a year could be considered fun, either.

Maybe tinkering with the structure might entice more recs to play. I haven't played these for a long time but if memory serves then antes should come in sooner, stacks could start shallower allowing deeper play later so blind levels could be much smoother.

Regards

I'm going to regret asking this (the answer will probably be NASH NASH BITCOINS NASH) but how does the spreadsheet linked in OP relate to all 180 staking contracts being invalid?

I'm claiming all regs are oblivious to the observation there is no skilled money in 180s. Not any significant amount.

Yes no one cards whether poker is profitable or not. What is really happening is these 180s children think they are god's gift. The one thing they won't do though is discuss actual samples and winrates. Bty, quit poker, if your attitude is like "ballsnall". You can't succeed.

Sure arrogant self righteous. I'm the censored one will groups of boy children have nothing better to do with there lives than to log into internet forums and dismiss content in order to sling poop at someone.

Btw, arbitrarily tinkering with structure is arbitrary. Show me some math on the effects of your change. And just so we understand I'm not actually asking for the math, I already know you aren't capable of it...

Dear players, arbitrary poker decisions are not +ev. Poker is not about guess, its about taking actually real information and making the most educated decision possible. Attitudes such as "Pffffttt blap doky borboon is a dummy idiot, blat I play poker gooodzzz" These are not rational statements, they are just collective groups of children needing bottles.