jfc take this **** to politics or something, frigging splitting **** hairs over grammar. gtfo.

Nobody ALWAYS agrees, because people have to be wrong sometimes.

BECAUSE THIS IS THE WAY I TALK!

HAVEN'T YOU SEEN MY MOVIES?!

Yeah I bit my tongue a few times...sejje came in and cleaned it up w/ one statement imo.

i agree that a lot of people misinterpreted what you were getting at, but why do you care about it so much in the first place? you know the run is unsustainable/lucky/whatever, so why does it matter if others have had a similarly insane (and short!) hot streak? it's not like a winner having/not having a streak like that is any real indication of their long-term success. no one here is going to say anything like "well pythagoras, since you won 69 of 100 you're guaranteed to be at least a 7% ROI in the particular games you play" or w/e you were trying to look for. go play 500 or 1k games, then come back to us with your ROI and we'll have a better idea.

pythagoras345, can you reply to my most recent post? I am sad that you decided to ignore me. I was being halfway civil.

He wants preliminary fame. Like "omg did you hear about that dude who won 69 games out of 100? That **** is so sick." I can imagine lots of 1k regulars talking about this guy's run in the 11s.

That was a point I meant to make to you, pythagoras, and forgot: probably all of the winning regulars have had a streak of 100 games that was very comparable to yours. I know only a couple piped up, but that's because most of us could give a ****. I have never studied my short-term stats enough to even know when this might be happening.

If you want to bet me whether I've done it or not (I haven't looked), I'll think about it. Propose something.

It's because you pwned him.

I'm excited for when pythagoras starts posting strat. Seriously, I have like itchy-trigger-finger already.

I tried to ignore half of his posts but plz tell me he isn't playing 11s?

wtf are these super turbo hu tournies? there on Full tilt?

Could be wrong, that was from memory. 20s maybe?

Seriously, can't recall.

11s ..20s..same thing in my book..just makes him look even more ******ed. I honestly thought he was talking about 50s or 100s, which even then I thought was absurd w/ how he was looking for a cookie for his efforts.

He may have been talking about 50s. Apparently he played cash for 3.4 million hands, so hopefully he had some semblance of a bankroll after that.

As far as I understood it, the point of the bet wasn't that it's possible to go 71-29 over some 100 game span or something, but that a player with a solid winrate WOULD achieve it and hit a run like that at some point.

The question is how many games would you have to play before a run like that is likely to occur. It's a pretty simple calculation really. If you have a 10% winrate obviously the number is astronomically high, and if you win 90% of matches it's pretty darn close to 100, so if you have some winrate between there like everyone does, there's some number of games in between there you probably have to play.

I was just gonna look into Pythagoras' stats, guess at a winrate, guess at volume he/she plays, do some simulations and see if I like the bet or not. Simple enough.

Yea details on hyper turbo HU tournaments please.

Thanks Jake. I been playing cash game poker for 8 years, never really posted on 2+2. I tried some HU and seemed to have good success. I guess I was looking for some kind of feedback like you state. Maybe I was looking for some people to discuss big picture strategy, since I was new to this format of poker, and wanted to show that I was at minimum a solid player so people would be willing to discuss. I now realize it too early for any respect like that, and it looked like I was just throwing a big brag in the boards face. This was not the case, I have grinded 3+ million cash games hands, so i understand the swings. As of this week, I have ceased cash game play, so I can get 500 tourneys in by end of year, for the exact reasons you mention. Until them, I guess I am just a lucking donk.

To your other question, I guess I care, because I was amazed at how everyone seemed to attack me, seem to try to spin my posts and seemed to just want to write me off. The more they attacked, the more I defended agressively, before you know it we were all in with bottom pair and a draw.

Oh well, such is life.

LOL

I'm 95% sure you don't. But in this case, ignorance is bliss.

OMG can we please not post about the stupid 35%roi over 100 games anymore...beating a dead horse imo

To Jakes question, this is the exact type of feedback I was looking for, too bad it took 1000 posts. "All the winning players have runs like this, yes it a good run, but you need to be able to post these runs if you want to be a winner at HU SNG, but don't think just cause you posted one, makes you a stud"

"But hey for it to be your first 100, that is pretty cool. What do you think your keys to early success have been? Some of the keys to our success have been..."

lol. gl with this.

I like metaphors. I applaud that.

I must say that you generalize when you say that everyone was putting words into your mouth. I will grant that some of the other forumers who are against you (as I am), have misunderstood what you have said, mostly as a result of a) your rhetorics and analogy being completely unreasonable/exaggerated/pointless (you were trying to prove a point that everyone obviously agreed with and therefore did not realize you were trying to argue something nobody would've guessed you wanted to argue about, thinking you'd never try to argue that "water is wet", and thereby went with the next most likely claim you could have been making: that you could within some set parameters, repeat or create these results).... okay and the second reason is b) them not reading your post 100% carefully.

Please read my post 2 posts before this and comment on my accusations, if you wish. I assure you I did not put words in your mouth in those, and I will apologize if I did. All I did was say you are stupid, and I will do so again now, because I think that you have been very silly in backtracking and arguing for the sake of arguing.

Truly, if you indeed know that anyone will eventually have X% RoI over 100 games if they play an infinite amount of games, then why did you even BOTHER stating that you think, and I paraphrase, that if you were to improve your leaks now from before, you would be able to have 40% RoI over 100 games. You just told us that ANYBODY can achieve 40% RoI over 100 games, or even 100% winrate, over 100 games, given enough trials, in which case, it has nothing to do with improving your leaks, does it?

Do you see what is wrong with your statement? You are just saying that "THIS GUY IS GOING TO DIE" and everyone's like "no dude, he looks pretty healthy" you're like "NO SERIOUSLY HE IS", and we're like, "really? Okay, let's bet on it then? I bet he will die the next day." You say: "NO THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID" and we're like "okay, uh, next year?" and then you say "DUDE, I SAID HE WAS GOING TO DIE EVENTUALLY, I DIDN'T SAY WHEN."

And we're all like, well NO DUH he's going to die, why on earth did you mention it. We just assumed that you meant that guy was more likely to die than others or you think he's going to die very soon or something.

fwiw if you've played 3+ million hands of poker, this should take you like 3 weeks.

Nostalgicala, I did not directly respond to your post, but I think I answered.

I never really proposed the bet. Some people twisted my words, tried to frame it in a bet, and callBS on me becasue I would not take the bet the way they framed it.

My proposal was just a response bet based on what I actually said, and yes, it was unwinnable, because the point was that my original statement really could not be agured the way I actually said it.

However, an interesting bet can be made surrounding my oringal statement, and skates has framed that perfectly.