that.new.guy..might.be.that.other.guy..

Wait, wait, wait...you lost a hand that you were a 58-42 favorite to win? Oh...my...god. Call the presses.

Yep, I rushed right in.

It amazes me that you morons all claim to be able to spot insane rigs, but you can't spot the easiest patterns on Earth, like the fact that most of my posting happens at certain times during the day that just so happen to match up with when I take my breaks and lunches at my big boy job.

But no no, I had to discredit your poorly written little diatribe. Which site do I work for exactly, blatantlyrigged?

Gfys.

You know I actually think you're a site employee myself now. Seems consistent with your other behaviour, always jumping to the defence of the site and suggesting it's the 'riggie' who has the problem.

you gotta be kiddin' me. shoving a mid pair to a click back on a coordinated flop like that? I don't know man, I've heard better arguments for a rig than that before.

I know I'm just wasting 20 seconds here, but:


Very bad flop to continuation bet with 55 and pushing all-in after his minraise is just really awful.

Just check/fold the flop. If your arm slips and you accidentally c-bet, fold to his minraise.

So it's pointed out that you played the hand terribly (like usual), and that it wasn't remotely close to a bad beat, and the best you can do is to try to attack the poster? I guess that shouldn't be surprising, seeing as your post was pretty indefensible. But then again, you're never able to admit you played a hand poorly, so I'm sure you'll be back soon to explain how you played it perfectly.

BTW, what does the "s" in "gfys" stand for?

It was a bad beat because I was over a 50% favorite when the money went in.

gfys = go **** your self

I shoved because I put the villain on AK. Didn't think he'd be ******ed enough to call with ace high but of course Pokerstars lets him suck out.

LOL, no, losing as a 57% favourite isn't remotely close to a bad beat. But the fact that you think it is speaks volumes about your ridiculous mindset. And LOL @ "I put the villain on AK". I knew you'd try to justify your terrible play, no matter how laughable said justification would be. So, you put him on AK, and nothing but AK? L O ****ing L.

And "yourself" is one word, which is why you see people type "GFY" all the time. Just trying to help you save a few keystrokes.

"Yourself" is one word, which is why I think the question was asked.


Why exactly did you put him on AK and no other hand? How is it not possible for him to have 88, TT, QT, AQ, J9, etc. If anything, vs. unknowns in this position dynamic, I would generally think AK is somewhat less likely because a lot of people will often 3bet it pre-flop. This is the same reason why I didn't include QQ in the above list.

It isn't a good idea to just put people on AK and then play accordingly.



This flop should have been a check/fold.

Anything over 50% is technically a bad beat. Fact is pokerstars rewarded a donk who called my all in with ace high.

Thought he'd flat with AK to try and get more chips out of me. Then when he didn't hit the flop he panicked and started raising to get me off the hand.

Anyway I was totally right because he did have AK but then pokerstars rewarded his stupid donk play. I mean all in with ace high? come on...

He didn't have the right odds to call your shove once he raised the flop?



Here's a hint: Villain isn't playing AK, he's playing a range. If you were to have a bluff/semi-bluff raising range on the flop, AK is a perfectly fine hand to do it with. Especially if you are cbetting too much, and then spewing off with hands that he's essentially a coinflip to.

You have no idea how to play. You seem to think that winning poker is about getting dealt better hands than your opponent and then coolering them.

There is no "technically" to this, as it isn't a technical phrase with a precise definition, nor do I believe you'll find it in the dictionary. If you want to assign it a definition that is contrary to the vast majority of poker players, that's up to you. As I said before, the fact that you consider this a bad beat says a great deal about your mindset.

I'm just curious, how do you think it's supposed to work? If someone is a 43% underdog, in the long run, they should win 43% of the time. Does that mean you're going to be whining 43% of the time? Poker must be a very miserable experience for you.

Fact is a "donk" won a hand that he should win 43% of the time. But it doesn't matter if he's a donk or played the hand poorly - that doesn't change the fact that you played it poorly as well.

And a final LOL @ "I was totally right". Results oriented much?

I don't get this 'villain plays a range' BS. He was playing AK. I put him on AK and made a non standard play based on my read of villain, and got ****ed by pokerstars software for all my tourney chips.

I'll happily 'whine' because this **** don't happen 43% of the time it happens 90% of the time.

I read the donk perfectly and put him on the exact hand he had. No one could have played it better.

And results matter. Because stores don't currently accept 'Sklansky bucks', just real world money for now.

That is quite obvious. Also, you say this is the first few hands of the tournament, so what do you base your "read" off of? How can villain not have Qx, or a set here?


Prove it.



Sklansky bucks = $$$ in the long term.

Right, we know you don't. This is a huge flaw, but of course you have no interest in fixing it, because blaming the site is easier.

Well then, time to post your evidence and blow the lid off this scandal.

Simply amazing. You really do have the temerity to turn a poorly played hand into, not just that you played all right, but that no one could have played it better. LOL.

No, results on each individual hand don't matter, at least with regard to it proving a particular decision you made to be right or wrong.

Not on pokerstars!

And I just knew the donk had AK, it's like their favourite hand to minraise with. And maybe he 'could' have had a queen but I put him on AK and was totally right. It doesn't matter what he 'could' have had, the fact is I got the money in good and stars screwed me over, AGAIN.

wait, does typing f*** circumvent the filter?

EDIT: yes, yes it does. lol. also took out profanity

It's not the kind of thing that can be detected just from looking through hand histories. The only reason that hand would be marked as suspicious would be because of all in EV. But what about all those hands where I wasn't all in, but villain sucked out on turn or river? They happen way more than 43% of the time but there's no way to prove it with database analysis but I still know for a fact it's true.

BTW their tournaments are the worst for it on stars. Their cashgames are a bit less rigged but are still rigged to some degree, so maybe AK wins in that scenario about 65% of the time rather than 43%. So it's not quite as bad as it is over on 888poker.

LOL.

Yeah, I assumed he didn't know either.

But now you guys know, no playing innocent later...

Unfortunately you are so into your own delusions that you don't even realize when people are trying to help you. If you really believe that you played the hand well, and everyone else here is just piling on, then post your hand here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/23/small-stakes-mtt/.

Don't be shocked if everyone there tells you the same thing you are hearing in here though.

Wait, wait...you can detect that 43% hands come in 90% of the time by observation, but can't prove it with your database? Seriously??

I feel really, really, bad for you if you believe all the stuff you type, and you should really think about giving up poker if you are going to keep refusing to see things from any other viewpoint. You're destined to continue making a couple of dollars here and there at the lowest stakes, and lose long term if you move up much.

And if you don't mean any of it, leveling in this thread is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

He's posted hands in strat forums before - the result is always the same. He's never, ever, ever, wrong, and he'll continue to argue for the way he played the hand being correct no matter who tells him otherwise and in the face of all logic.

Not even Phil Ivey would have played the hand better, since I put villain on the correct hand and so was able to play perfectly against him. Every chip put into the pot was with me as a favorite.

Problem is you can detect the all in hands because of all in EV. But how do you detect the many more hands that don't end up all in but you still got sucked out on? Can't detect those and there's loads of them, literally hundreds of times I've been rivered in tournaments and cash games across the internet.

If you can admit to making any 2 mistakes in how you played your hand, costing you your tournament life, i will reimburse you the tournament buy in.

Well you must be better than Phil Ivey, because I'm pretty sure he isn't cbetting, and he's not getting it in vs a flop raise either.