At this point Monteroy is more delusional than any "riggie" in this thread. Way to get the entire thread off track.

Please get back to posting 2c-4c hands for a friend and asking for advice on how to play them.

Thanks for responding to my PM as a one time courtesy Monteroy. If I talk like a riggie and act like one then you act and talk like someone that is extremely delusional.

Maybe you should step away from the keyboard and get back to taking care of your cat.

The mods should've just locked this thread instead of renaming it. What a **** show.

Project much? Sorry you are so frustrated, but in the end that is your issue. Consider posting 4 hands (you can take them from your quad collection). Posting hands helps the other guy when he needs to vent, so it might benefit you as well.

All the best.

I've played about every single day for over a month. Played over 50k hands I'm sure. Done very well for myself playing $.50/$1, $1/$2 & $2/$4. I've made far more money from people over playing hands than I have from big setups. I've watched crazier hands watching Live at the Bike videos than I have at Global. It's literally nothing different that what I saw happen at FTP ten years ago. Only had KK run into AA once. Haven't had second nut flush lose to nut flush yet. I've had several sets lose to straights or flushes, but it happens. The play in those hands were textbook. No nut boats losing to quads.

Just a lot of people over valuing their hands and losing then crying rigged.

Can't really do that. I mean, you're right, the thread devolved when PT shifted his strategy to ad hominem attacks on Monteroy and others followed suit.

But if the Global rep had locked the thread, the next thread would be even louder with accusations of Global trying to cover up all the transgressions they are being accused of.

IMHO Global sort of has to let this thread continue until they make an unequivocal statement they are dealing a fair and honest poker game and have a certified RNG to back up that statement. Granted they don't have to, they can do what they want with this thread... but I think if they close it down now it looks bad.

Indeed. The site's great.

Monteroy develop an incorrect statistical model, passed it off as fact, used this incorrect statistical model to support a theory to debunk my theory, which was completely inaccurate.

So he produces incorrect data, gets many of you to believe it to be true, then asserts because his incorrect data is true, I am unwilling to believe in my theory. Because he does not have the expertise to develop correct statistical analysis, yet presents it here as factual so others less knowledgeable people believe it (including you), all in an effort to show my theory is wrong because I will not use his flawed model to prove my theory.

Sorry glutenfree, but lying to people to people and attacking me,and others, like he has done has no place in this thread. He continues to attack individuals, produce false statements, and direct lie about the statements of other. Dishonest people have to called out and I hope everyone will just ignore all of his post until he can produce actual facts and real answers to question.

He is admiting he is trolling and stirring things up. Now everyone knows the truth about him. Enough said.

Whatever you say, chief.

He would have felt much better if he posted 4 hands (all of which would be coin flips regardless of the cards), or stating this more in a style of how he posts:

He would not be mad if he incorrectly did not post lying hands , because he would not be unwilling to not post them. That is now not proven to be the un-truth. This conversation is now not un-closed.

This is what I was trying to say, but you know, the kids don't listen.

+1

If i could jump in this **** show for a min, i just addressed this in a different thread. If i had continued to play, technically the pending cashouts would never approve or had i not lost my cool and was successful in cashing out. "i was verified and let a few withdrawals chill for a while till i cancelled it cause it was taking to long" had they completed was GLOBALPOKER breaking there own rules?

The 34k pot Illusive took also violated the TOS. Lmao

Just spewing out and out lies. Your model was not confirmed as a guarantee way of profitability by anyone, but you are still trying to get someone to do it and still spreading lies here to everyone. Your own guy, you relied on, sent it through a simulation of 1,000 sample hands He did the simulation one million times. The most likely event is you would either win or lose 500BBs each session. You proposed 10,000 hands; 3,000 heads up hands and you are guaranteed a profit of $10k. The analysis and modeling could not and did not confirm any of your conclusions. Not one person has mathematically confirmed your position

However, the results of the modeling your guy did was directly in line with what I told you. You did not believe me then, so you may never believe. It is just beyond your comprehension


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you saying we need a TOS thread? I'd have fun with that bring out all the lawyers in the community, im not one personaly but have seen judge judy and **** so i know whats good.

Your team of actuaries really needs to help you with your reading comprehension. You continue to confuse the variance of wins and losses of the 0EV coin flips with the expected income of the 0EV coin flips.

The expected income of the coin flips is $0. It is always $0 regardless of the stacks.


The coin flips have an expectation of zero regardless of how many flips or the size of each flip. The fact you continue to not get this is amusing.


What you continue to dwell on is that indeed you will likely win or lose money net with the coin flips, and that is a function of the variance of the flips (stacks, number of flips etc). Larger flips will result in more variance, and smaller flips will result in less variance of these results.

The key though (and this is a very basic math concept) is that the expected profit is zero from the flips. It is that simple.


No, you are not guaranteed it as again that is a function of the variance of the coin flips, however given that the flips always have an EV of 0, the expectation of profit (or loss) simply becomes a function of how much rake you pay (based on what percentage you are called), and how much dead money and blinds you steal when not called, and any additional VIP benefits you earn in the process.

As my very easy to follow example showed - it is quite easy to ensure a health expectation of profit by simply shoving every hand, albeit with some healthy variance on the coin flips when called (so a healthy bankroll is needed).

Your silly belief of every all-in is a flip creates a 50/50 (regardless of cards) creates a very simple way to have an EV edge depending on the number of times you are called, and if that edge exists it is very easy to use it to make expected profit. This is how casinos work when they provide players with games where the casinos have an edge. Does that mean the casino wins every hand or game? No, but long term the edge creates expected profits.

They did. You just change reality to fit your personal agenda when needed

This is a sequence of chat from the thread


You read that and say "see, he agreed with me, stack size matters, end of debate because you cannot comprehend!" You and your "team" live in an interesting version of reality. Perhaps that explains your haphazard approach to this whole thing.


Every hand heads up all-in is 50/50 got it. Very easy to test and prove (which you will not do), but ok.



Oh wait, now it is that underdogs win way more than they should. Even easier to test and prove (which you will not do), but ok.


Apparently they are playing a game where every all-in is a 50/50, or one where underdogs win too much. Perhaps action hands instead?


I understand.


Well, now we know who your "team" is.



Dumbest rig ever...

All the best.

You posted his comments he made before he did the modeling and saw the results. The modeling did not confirm you conclusions, and He did not validate the position you took and confirmed my position. So keeping taking things out of context. You agued the flips would be 50/50 and you would be positive by winning the blinds. The data does not show that at all. As he said, you will have to do many short sessions. You will likely win and lose in the individual sessions, but if you add all the sessions up you should get 0. The modeling you put forth is not confirmed at all

You proposed this as easy and guarantee. Those are the words you put forth. Win win. No chance to lose. Positive EV. I guess you do not consider 500BB loss to be an issue when you are trying to win 30 or so BBs

The data shows the swings can be significant by doing your modeling. You are asserting your profit is coming only from the blinds. Your max scenario I think at you at something like 60BBs won over 10,000 hands


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BB swings of 500 likely over 1,000 hand sample. We are not arguing the modeling now, we are arguing your statements that this was easy and guarantee What is easy and guarantee about the very strong possibility you lose 500BBs just so you can win, maybe, 60 BBs over 10,000 hands. 100hours of play

That is just not a bet that I see as viable because I do not gamble like that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You put this out there that there was no way this was lose. Then you are asking, well if you had say $100k would this model work when clearly you needed more than $100k just to get through 1,000 hands; much less 3,000 hands


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the record everyone. Monteroy has deleted key parts of information on the thread so please read it yourself to have accurate information


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I encourage anyone interested to read it.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...ebate-1669206/


$100,000 to get through 1,000 hands at $200 per flip when called? Seriously? OK, let's do the math on that. You need to lose 500 extra flips to be down $100,000 (ignoring any money accumulated from blind and dead money steals).

1,000 hands in that means you needed to lose 750 or more fair coin flips (ie: go 250-750 or worse).

Lets see the odds of that using a binomial calculator...

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Oops, it seems that the odds of that happening are greater than the calculator can show.

Just to give an idea, the odds of losing 50 or more extra flips in a 1,000 run is about 1 in 1,200 or so, but in your world it is actually possible to go 250-750 in a 1,000 trial of fair coin flips?

Yeah, you really get how this works...


The modeling simply showed the variance of the coin flips. The EV is $0. It is always $0. Seriously, you continue to argue whether there is edge in a pure coin flip. Weird.

If you really doubt this, go ahead and ask him directly. When he says you are wrong you can read that to mean that you are right, since that is what you do.

You would be positive winning the blinds depending on how often you were called (and had to pay rake).

The coin flips have zero edge. The fact you think coin flips have anything but zero edge and zero expectation of profit is funny.

That reduces the variance of the coin flips, but it does nothing to change the expectation of $0 profit from the actual coin flips.

This is no different than when clearing a casino bonus one can wager lower amounts per hand to reduce the variance of the winning/losing of the game.

SO, are you saying that the expectation of profits from 0EV coin flips is not zero? Yes or no?


It is massively positive EV in my model, correct.

Heh, again I ask you the following, would you accept this proposition:

You get paid $1 every time you are dealt a hand of poker.

You play 10,000 hands

30% of the time you need to do a coin flip (with zero edge) for $200.


Yes or no - would you accept this proposal? After all, you could get unlucky in the flips and net lose money. That is the concern you are having with my model, so I assume you would not accept this proposal? In contrast, I would in a second and I would repeat it as often as I could knowing that each trial has an EV of $10,000. Obviously one needs the proper bankroll to handle the variance of the flips, but long term the math works itself out.



Definitely, but they are 0EV flips, and if the amount of money made from stealing blinds and dead money is considerably more than rake paid (when called) then it becomes a good gamble if one has the banroll to tolerate the variance. You just fail to understand how it works so I will again ask


would you accept this proposition:

You get paid $1 every time you are dealt a hand of poker.

You play 10,000 hands

30% of the time you need to do a coin flip (with zero edge) for $200.



and from the extra dead money in the pot, and from any VIP rewards. The costs are the rake you pay when called.

The flips themselves have a $0 expected value.

It was over 6,000 BBs for 10,000 hands. A common way to measure profit in cash games is with a bb/100 number, so since 10,000 divided by 100 is 100 I then took the 6,000+ figure and divided that by 100 to get to 60ish BB/100 figure.

Hope that math was not too hard to follow for you and your team.

Dumbest rig ever...

All the best.

BTW we are not arguing expected EV from coin flips so stop saying I am saying expected EV from coin flips is not 0. We are arguing your modeling. That is the part you just do not get. Yes you can get everyone to tell you your EV from coin flips is zero, but when you factor in the units wagered each coin flip are not constant between participants, then the winnings produced by the coin flips are not always the same. That is what the modeling showed. As I stated to you, you did not give him the correct model and he returned data based upon the model you provided. You then took this out of context and posted here to say hey look this data shows I am right. But when he got the correct modeling he did simulations to show what would happen with stack size variation. For some reason you deleted the part that confirm my position. Nice going liar!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bottom line is you are wrong and you do not have a understanding to know you are wrong. Like I said, you are just putting out lies. Nice troll!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just think about all the time you'd have back if you never commented on this thread monteroy. You haven't even played on Global. Do you even play poker at all?

$100,000 to get through 1,000 hands at $200 per flip when called? Seriously? OK, let's do the math on that. You need to lose 500 extra flips to be down $100,000 (ignoring any money accumulated from blind and dead money steals).

1,000 hands in that means you needed to lose 750 or more fair coin flips (ie: go 250-750 or worse).
.[/QUOTE]


This is where your ignorance shows

No rake no blinds. $100 cap buyin

You lose first two flips. Your opponent has $300 you make your 2nd buy in of $100.

You win next flip $200 each

Then he wins $400 for him you rebuy for $100

You win next flip He has $300 you have $200

He wins next flip. He has $500 you rebuy for $100

This trend continues with you each wining every other flip for 1,000 flips

Over 1,000 flips he wins 501 flips and you win 499 flips. You have to make 501 total buy ins but you win the last flip and have $200 to walk away with yet you lose $49,900 in the session

Like he said the EV of the coin flip is expected 0 EV and is zero EV, but wining and losing in a session can and likely will be significant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk