Distract yourself with your other senses.

No.



Run good, make a big coaching business and jump ship to a new job before people realize you actually suck.

This is a good question.

The education there was every bit as good as advertised and I'm a lot better off for it. Getting to take a game theory class and have a seminar with John Nash, or develop my personal sense of philosophy and have Peter Singer teach in the building next door, or becoming fascinated with cognitive dissonance, telling my department advisor, and him laughing and pulling out the book he authored about the 50 years of research he's done leading the way on that topic. All of these things were phenomenal.

Princeton, while a very expensive school, also has AMAZING financial aid. Probably best in the country. They don't give merit based scholarships, but they give very generously to people who need it. No loans, 100% grant. I got a big big discount and it ended up being cheaper for me to go there than a lot of other schools.

Because of that financial aid (and the fact that some very rich privileged kids manage to be perfectly well-adjusted), there's plenty of variety. And I loved that variety. Growing up I always had one foot in a bunch of different social circles - I was on the basketball team, I was a hippie, I was a nerd, I had goth/emo friends, I was in a Christian youth group, I was all over the ****ing place. So I really liked that when I went to Princeton my freshman year roommate was from Mexico City, my best friends were a top fencer from New Jersey and a girl from West Virginia who had lived in a trailer park, and I got to know people of so many different backgrounds with so many different talents and such a wide range of different personalities.

There certainly was a much higher percentage of rich privilege an snootery than at other places I might have gone, but there was easily enough flow against that culture to make it a really good experience.

rams85 discuss

I honestly don't have all that much gameplay with him.

I've never played anyone who gets it in as badly so many times as this guy. His SS astounds me.

Mers, as a %, how much do you attribute a disciplined BRM to making a good profit/living from poker?

He's good.

This isn't quantifiable like that. It's necessary but that includes discipline in moving up as well as down.

I get it in bad a lot too.

Did you have dreads?

Favorite type of incense?

Ever date a girl with hairy legs and/or armpits?

or ?

So do I, but I don't have a big 6 figure profit.

Given that this player rams85 has such good results while "getting it in bad" often and the fact that other players are running awfully (look at this but bring your barf bag) makes me suspect that the long term at super turbos is indeed very very large.

How is it possible that some players have such bad luck and others run good over "large" (~20k) sample sizes in a game with such small edges?
Serkules is a very good player but he also runs very good, Moca Choca is a another example (150k in a month 9% ROI!) while there are many other good players like SkaiWalkurrr, Lotte Lenya who don't run consistently as good while being more technically skilled than the rest (so is the consensus among the experts). What is a good sample size at super turbos? > 100k games? Is this table meaningful for super turbos? How was it calculated?

It's really hard to tell because your winrate changes every game.. I don't think there's such a thing as an accurate winrate over a large sample.

I may be totally wrong though.

I'd only played him 20-30 times, but it was just something I noticed. I know there is a massive amount of variance in ST's, just wondered how his results were so good.

rams is really good though. He can easily look bad in 20-30 games if, for example, he constantly runs into the top of your range when 3bet jamming suited junk.

exactly pretty sure hes one of the best.. doesnt he play on stars?

Win rate refers to the mean win rate over a sample of games which obv converges to your true win rate as your sample size increases. I think that table is based on the assumption that the distribution of win rates is Gaussian.

My point is: what exactly does your winrate converge to? I don't think the idea of "true win rate" makes sense because your winrate is different every game. There's way too many factors like game selection, how good/bad you're running, tilt control, etc. Every game you play either pushes your "true longterm winrate" upwards or downwards depending on your edge vs your opponent.

Example: two players have the exact same skill level. One player game selects carefully, the other snap rematches anyone, even people who he is expected to break even against. The first player will show a higher winrate over a large sample than the second player because the second player has more games "pulling" his winrate down to 50%.

Are we on the same page, or are you talking about something else?

I was thinking in terms of statistics. The outcome of each match is influenced by all the factors you mention. In any case your win rate (the sample mean) will converge to your true win rate which is the mean of the underlying distribution of the outcomes. The problem is we don't know that distribution because it is influenced by many factors (among those you mention). My question is: what is a good approximation? Is that table good enough for super turbos? Or are we underestimating the required sample size to know if we are a winner at these games?

There is a reason why good players may often seem to get it in bad..

If a good player thinks you 3bet then fold to a 4bet too much. They adjust their 4betting range to be much wider. Every time they 4bet its a +EV shove vs your range because of the fold equity.

Now, if you are someone who 3bet folds to much, then you finally call a 4bet. You are going to be near the top of your range and the 4better knows your 4bet calling range is far stronger then his 4bet range. So while this good player made a +EV move vs your entire range, he got it in bad.


I'm sure everyone knows all this, but its funny when people say things like "Can you believe he 4bet 69s??? what a donk!" when there are instances that this is the most +EV play. When it doesn't work, yeah sometimes you look like a tool, that doesnt mean it was the incorrect play vs his range.

sorry to clog the well, bored.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=90072

barrel turn or no?

Nice post greenbast. I don't know if that's what's going on with Rams or not, iirc he was fairly aggressive and not a nitty winner though, so could very well be true.

Often reputation is obvious while skillsets are less obvious. It's not like we haven't seen hands from really good players posted where they lol @ a fish or reg that probably made a +EV play in hindsight.

rams hugely overrated itt imo

hes good i agree, but its not like hes adjusting or playing flawlessly and hes "unbeatable" in sts if u really try

I think rams85 is very solid in supers, one of the better players.

How many tables can you comfortably play? Do you think this varies depending on game structure?

I play 2 without any loss of individual EV, 3 with some loss of individual EV, 4-5 with more. 6 tables is my max for playing where it's conceivable that I'm getting max total EV.

It varies on game structure in different ways, not a huge difference.

What do you think of cbetting 40% as your default in STs? À la spacegravy et al.

This made me ROFLOL . Probably because I am doing my masterthesis lol.

OT: Any tips for starting to "solve" ST's? How would you start making an optimal plan for these ST's. I dont know if you read h2olga's post in his well where he explains the basic gist?

Would like to know your POV on that.