2p2 legend ChicagoJoey PLO Podcasts (PLO and Poker Life episodes)
03-21-2016
, 10:08 PM
03-23-2016
, 05:10 PM
03-23-2016
, 05:34 PM
Last edited by TopPair2Pair; 03-23-2016 at 05:37 PM.
Reason: this timex mother ****er is late? Get a watch bro
03-24-2016
, 12:48 PM
03-24-2016
, 01:58 PM
(Just mean to start off by saying I think every sincere player should watch this cast, very relevant, very +ev for the players to discuss and understand these thing imo)
At 29:00 there is something discussed I think is very significant and also very relevant so I wish to highlight it. I listened a couple times to make sure I am hearing what I think I am so forgive me if this is not what Timex is discussing.
It is my understanding that Timex is talking about “rake targeting” from the view of the sites. He describes the difference in effective rake (do we all have the same definition of this?) between different formats and suggests or alludes to the likelihood that sites would (or should) rake target optimal profitability (from the sites perspective).
This is a significant point I hope we don't gloss over.
Poker is a game of incomplete information. The game played between the players and sites in regard to policies, that might be favorable or unfavorable, and also might be opaque (deceptive) or transparent (understood by recs) is like a meta version of our game of incomplete information.
When the players have run out of strategy options we can turn to a higher order-philosophy. Understanding the game fundamentally, together. Here is a great example of something we all benefit from if we understand Timex.
Although the nature of the incomplete information (ie winrates and statistics of deposits and withdrawals and raked monies of all players) renders this impossible to prove from the perspective of the players, there is a strong conjecture that all games will tend to have policies that target the same effective rake.
If one field can be raked to break-even or less, why would we think that a site wouldn't rake all other fields to the same metric?
This insight should cause concern for otherwise unaffected fields, when they see complaints, for example, that plo is over-raked. This is obviously helpful “politically” for the players. The realization encourages cohesion and solidarity that competitive players are usually otherwise criticized for not being capable of.
Lastly I don't know if Timex will read this or care, but I think I have good reason to believe that changes in rake % affect the fields (whether negatively or positively) in a NON-linear fashion. I hope you consider this possibility because if its true I think your sentiments weren't completely accurate.
Also I'm very surprised neither of you suggest players should be hedging their future expectations vs. AyaPS. I don't understand why this wasn't emphasized
At 29:00 there is something discussed I think is very significant and also very relevant so I wish to highlight it. I listened a couple times to make sure I am hearing what I think I am so forgive me if this is not what Timex is discussing.
It is my understanding that Timex is talking about “rake targeting” from the view of the sites. He describes the difference in effective rake (do we all have the same definition of this?) between different formats and suggests or alludes to the likelihood that sites would (or should) rake target optimal profitability (from the sites perspective).
This is a significant point I hope we don't gloss over.
Poker is a game of incomplete information. The game played between the players and sites in regard to policies, that might be favorable or unfavorable, and also might be opaque (deceptive) or transparent (understood by recs) is like a meta version of our game of incomplete information.
When the players have run out of strategy options we can turn to a higher order-philosophy. Understanding the game fundamentally, together. Here is a great example of something we all benefit from if we understand Timex.
Although the nature of the incomplete information (ie winrates and statistics of deposits and withdrawals and raked monies of all players) renders this impossible to prove from the perspective of the players, there is a strong conjecture that all games will tend to have policies that target the same effective rake.
If one field can be raked to break-even or less, why would we think that a site wouldn't rake all other fields to the same metric?
This insight should cause concern for otherwise unaffected fields, when they see complaints, for example, that plo is over-raked. This is obviously helpful “politically” for the players. The realization encourages cohesion and solidarity that competitive players are usually otherwise criticized for not being capable of.
Lastly I don't know if Timex will read this or care, but I think I have good reason to believe that changes in rake % affect the fields (whether negatively or positively) in a NON-linear fashion. I hope you consider this possibility because if its true I think your sentiments weren't completely accurate.
Also I'm very surprised neither of you suggest players should be hedging their future expectations vs. AyaPS. I don't understand why this wasn't emphasized
03-25-2016
, 08:08 AM
Quote:
(Just mean to start off by saying I think every sincere player should watch this cast, very relevant, very +ev for the players to discuss and understand these thing imo)
At 29:00 there is something discussed I think is very significant and also very relevant so I wish to highlight it. I listened a couple times to make sure I am hearing what I think I am so forgive me if this is not what Timex is discussing.
It is my understanding that Timex is talking about “rake targeting” from the view of the sites. He describes the difference in effective rake (do we all have the same definition of this?) between different formats and suggests or alludes to the likelihood that sites would (or should) rake target optimal profitability (from the sites perspective).
This is a significant point I hope we don't gloss over.
Poker is a game of incomplete information. The game played between the players and sites in regard to policies, that might be favorable or unfavorable, and also might be opaque (deceptive) or transparent (understood by recs) is like a meta version of our game of incomplete information.
When the players have run out of strategy options we can turn to a higher order-philosophy. Understanding the game fundamentally, together. Here is a great example of something we all benefit from if we understand Timex.
Although the nature of the incomplete information (ie winrates and statistics of deposits and withdrawals and raked monies of all players) renders this impossible to prove from the perspective of the players, there is a strong conjecture that all games will tend to have policies that target the same effective rake.
If one field can be raked to break-even or less, why would we think that a site wouldn't rake all other fields to the same metric?
This insight should cause concern for otherwise unaffected fields, when they see complaints, for example, that plo is over-raked. This is obviously helpful “politically” for the players. The realization encourages cohesion and solidarity that competitive players are usually otherwise criticized for not being capable of.
Lastly I don't know if Timex will read this or care, but I think I have good reason to believe that changes in rake % affect the fields (whether negatively or positively) in a NON-linear fashion. I hope you consider this possibility because if its true I think your sentiments weren't completely accurate.
Also I'm very surprised neither of you suggest players should be hedging their future expectations vs. AyaPS. I don't understand why this wasn't emphasized
At 29:00 there is something discussed I think is very significant and also very relevant so I wish to highlight it. I listened a couple times to make sure I am hearing what I think I am so forgive me if this is not what Timex is discussing.
It is my understanding that Timex is talking about “rake targeting” from the view of the sites. He describes the difference in effective rake (do we all have the same definition of this?) between different formats and suggests or alludes to the likelihood that sites would (or should) rake target optimal profitability (from the sites perspective).
This is a significant point I hope we don't gloss over.
Poker is a game of incomplete information. The game played between the players and sites in regard to policies, that might be favorable or unfavorable, and also might be opaque (deceptive) or transparent (understood by recs) is like a meta version of our game of incomplete information.
When the players have run out of strategy options we can turn to a higher order-philosophy. Understanding the game fundamentally, together. Here is a great example of something we all benefit from if we understand Timex.
Although the nature of the incomplete information (ie winrates and statistics of deposits and withdrawals and raked monies of all players) renders this impossible to prove from the perspective of the players, there is a strong conjecture that all games will tend to have policies that target the same effective rake.
If one field can be raked to break-even or less, why would we think that a site wouldn't rake all other fields to the same metric?
This insight should cause concern for otherwise unaffected fields, when they see complaints, for example, that plo is over-raked. This is obviously helpful “politically” for the players. The realization encourages cohesion and solidarity that competitive players are usually otherwise criticized for not being capable of.
Lastly I don't know if Timex will read this or care, but I think I have good reason to believe that changes in rake % affect the fields (whether negatively or positively) in a NON-linear fashion. I hope you consider this possibility because if its true I think your sentiments weren't completely accurate.
Also I'm very surprised neither of you suggest players should be hedging their future expectations vs. AyaPS. I don't understand why this wasn't emphasized
If there are any deeper lying issues or discussions this is the LAST PLACE ON EARTH you should be coming around talking about them.
03-25-2016
, 01:11 PM
03-25-2016
, 04:20 PM
03-25-2016
, 05:52 PM
I also liked it. Discussion of professional chess players was also enlightening. Thinking about it, I'm not sure this vibe:
is really for me though. Nothing against people who want to try of course.
