Because I don't use the cashout feature. It might as well not exist to me.

FWIW you can also have 99.95% equity. For example if you have AdKd against KhQh on JdTd7d, the opponent needs to hit 9d8d on the turn+river to chop. It's not possible to lose with >=99.95% in hold'em but it would be in some other poker variants. In 7 card Stud for example I think the worst possible beat is to have 99.992% equity and lose. This could happen with something like AAAA vs. 222s3s on 4th street and the opponent drawing three perfect cards to a straight flush.

Yes.




I find his blatant dishonesty amusing. His latest iteration hasn't been banned yet, so since the mods are kewl with his violating the TOS, why should I care?

He obviously feels he has a GREAT CAUSE, so let him have at it!

Violating the TOS in not a crime. But its funny that he is decrying unethical behavior while himself engaging in it (albeit at a very low level).

He can start a Discord group and rant all he wants and set his own rules. We are all GUESTS on 2+2.

And that's my point - you really don't care about the morality of sock puppets, lol. They are not unethical and dishonest as much as they are amusing.

I wonder what the biggest favorite in any poker variant is? These seem up there for sure

Table 'NLHSilver24' 6-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: Hero ($100 in chips)
Seat 2: 1d1891f5 ($100 in chips)
Seat 5: f9818c27 ($40.55 in chips)
Seat 6: 178fed0b ($160.84 in chips)
178fed0b: posts small blind $0.5
Hero: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Ts Kh]
Dealt to 1d1891f5
Dealt to f9818c27
Dealt to 178fed0b
1d1891f5: folds
f9818c27: folds
178fed0b: raises $2.5 to $3.5
Hero: raises $6.5 to $10
178fed0b: calls $6.5
*** FLOP *** [5h 8h 3c]
178fed0b: checks
Hero: bets $13.5
178fed0b: calls $13.5
*** TURN *** [5h 8h 3c] [Qc]
178fed0b: checks
Hero: bets $30
178fed0b: calls $30
*** RIVER *** [5h 8h 3c Qc] [3s]
178fed0b: checks
Hero: bets $46.5 and is all-in
178fed0b: calls $46.5
Hero: shows [Ts Kh] (Pair of Treys)
178fed0b: shows [5s 6s] (Pair of Fives and Pair of Treys)
*** SHOWDOWN ***
178fed0b collected $194 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $200 | Rake $5 | Jackpot $1 | Bingo $0
Board [5h 8h 3c Qc 3s]
Seat 1: Hero (big blind) showed [Ts Kh] and lost with Pair of Treys
Seat 2: 1d1891f5 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: f9818c27 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: 178fed0b (small blind) showed [5s 6s] and won ($194) with Pair of Fives and Pair of Treys


You going to tell me that this player wasn't cheating? You going to tell me that this player just so happened to make the perfect play. He snap called the river btw. With someone like this in the game, then I should sit down and camp out and pray he never leaves. Anyone who calls down with middle pair bad kicker in a 3 bet pot out of position vs a player that is uncapped and has been playing tight up to this point should the biggest fish. I looked him up in Smarthand and he is one of five people I have found that is winning. Maybe he works at Pokertracker, holdem manager, pokersnowie, etc. etc. etc. or he is a house bot. That's my guess, house bot.

If you think I am dishonest person then you obviously have never met me, have never spoken to anyone who knows me, because if you did then

Yeah. You shouldn't have 3bet to begin with, unless you mean to say that the rigged RNG made you do it. Looks like you just got owned. Fold pre

While it's funny enough that you think one hand is proof of anything, it's not nearly as funny as the fact that you're still playing at the site that you have spent so much time making multiple threads with multiple accounts to tell us over and over again how rigged it is.

Oh, c'mon, it's not possible that his opponent has him tagged as a fish that will tilt and bluff all three streets. Or that his opponent could be a fish that got lucky. No, it's got to be a house bot. Or someone who works at Pokertracker, holdem manager, pokersnowie, because that would allow them to beat him by...I don't know, some magical way I guess.

Fair enough. If our latest Rigmaster was a total bore, I'd be happy with (or at least indifferent about) him being banned.

+1

If you three-bet KTo and get called, you're probably toast unless you hit the flop hard.

Do you believe that it is honest to wilfully violate the 2+2 TOS?

In this instance I would compare it more to the likes of righteous indignation or civil disobedience rather than dishonesty, whether justified or not.

I would only call it "dishonest" because one explicitly agrees to abide by the TOS when signing up on 2+2.

And you willfully encourage him to continue on doing so while condemning him for it at the same time, all for your amusement - some would call that hypocritical, if not evil.

I think you might have a point if I was a moderator who was capriciously banning some but not others. But, I'm not violating the TOS that I agreed to by hoping he sticks around. It's our new "friend" who is violating the TOS, not me.

Apparently the mods agree with me that his entertainment value outweighs his violating the TOS.

In order for me to be a "hypocrite", I'd have to be guilty of applying a double-standard, which I'm not. For example, I would be a hypocrite if I called for the banning of an equally-entertaining poster but not our new friend.

I don't think there is any bigger favorite in what I would consider a common variant. You could come up with bigger favorites in less common variants like 8-card stud.

If we allow ANY poker variant I could make a custom one that allow for arbitrarily low probabilities by making new hand classes that are very hard to achieve and by adding as many decks as I need to make them. If we restrict to poker variants that use 5 card hands, an easy upper bound would be drawing 5 perfect cards, which is 99.99996% against from a fresh deck.

Maybe you didn't notice because of the neglect to properly format the hand history but it's SBvBB. Folding KTo would be awful and 3-betting is fine. Postflop is also fine. It's laughable to mad about this hand though. Villain had a bluffcatcher and he called your bluff, big whoop. This should be happening to you multiple times every session.

I just think you were going a bit out of your way to pass moral judgement over something as silly as sock puppetry.

For some reason I'm starting to get the impression that poker players are just getting somewhat bored these days. . .myself included.

ah okay yeah thats of course good

Wut?

You repped and played like you had A/k or big Ace. A third heart never hit the board so could have had you on a busted flush draw, also.

I'd bet if you sat with this player before, and many others, your are not tagged as tight or a strong player. The fact that you always whine about house bots and riggie bs is evidence you're not a strong player here. It is probably easy to see on the table for any solid player. You way overplayed your KTo. Your preflop raise and flop bet called should have slowed you down.

If you look at this hand from his pov, assuming he knows you can play any two:

PF - his 5s6s will win 43% of the time;
F - his 5s6s will win 63% of the time;
T - his 5s6s will win 59% of the time;
R - his 5s6s will win 59% of the time.

If you think he could be playing any two:

PF - your TsKh will win 60% of the time;
F - your TsKh will win 45% of the time;
T - your TsKh will win 36% of the time;
R - your TsKh will win 38% of the time.

In this particular hand:

PF - he wins 39% of the time;
F - he wins 75% of the time;
T - he wins 86% of the time;
R - he wins 100% of the time.

E&OE

I think that that is a fair criticism.

#metoo

I'm taking a break after a big cash out: $50

I'll be back to single-tabling $.55 SNGs on Global soon enough.

I love it when a fish punts her stack away and blames the villain for cheating or being a house bot.

It's far easier and less time-consuming to scream "Cheaters!" than it is to study hard to get better at poker.

And if I'm honest, I probably went out of my way a bit too. Not sure why it bothered me so much. I should've just given you the benefit of a doubt and let it go, my bad.