Yep, but lol at anyone saying a day will come when poker isnt beatable at the lower to mid stakes. Sure the games have and will get harder but there will always be people, because of their egos and or stupidity, that will choose to invent reasons they lose as apposed to accepting responsibility for their game and working to improve. It would be amusing if their lies didnt have the possibility of reaching like minded or gullible people and end up hurting every player in the long run. That part riggies should read. I always hear them say, "Why would someone reply to my posts so much if they werent getting paid by poker companys?". Listen, if one person believes your lies and doesnt deposit because of them it takes money out of all the winning players pockets. I cant speak for others but this is why I respond and correct your lies when you spew them. You dont need to work for a poker company to have reasons to want to dispute your idiotic lies. Any player that works hard to try to play for profit has reason enough.

I'm in a nice phase. I looked back at my posts and found these gems:

Aside from OP being an idiot, he also must not know that...
...
This guy knows nothing about online poker, and is an idiot. His intentions may be good, but his facts are so bad they aren't even wrong, they're just made up.
...
No, people jumped on you because you made a preposterous, ludicrous statement that would be false at the most rigged up site in the world, and if you don't know that then you are an idiot.
...
Then why mention it? You ruined your entire post by making yourself look like a rigtard idiot,
...
which makes you an idiot for even using it as an example of anything.
...
It should also be obvious even to a moron

Don't give me too much credit, I could snap and go all qpw on somebody's ass.

I couldn't ever imagine behaving in such a way.

you're still a muppet

60 minutes = prisoner?

Thats not what Russ Hamilton said.

You're doing it wrong

It's

UB + 2p2 + Josem = 60 MINUTES

Like someone hitting a 7 on the river to win the pot when they are a whole 2:1 dog? I mean really, hitting that 7 is a 50/50 chance, it either comes out or it doesn....right?

ELE = Sn8keChaRmer = banned

It's funny because it's true.

he worked so hard to get his little pictures up too

I am, after all this time, still confused by arguments such as this. It seems to me that the only reason we care when the money went in is because it gives us a simple way to calculate EV for the hand. The hand with 37% preflop equity won. Nothing shocking, there, but the 5 board cards really weren't turned over all at once. They were dealt normally, dribbling out a little more information with each street. After the turn, when we had almost complete information about the hand, we were able to say that the underdog had only a 9% chance of winning.

Surely that means something. To me, the point at which the money goes in is irrelevant except that it gives us a way to measure one aspect of poker skill. It doesn't change anything about the probabilities of the hand -- the underdog was still 37% preflop and 9% after the turn, no matter when or how much money was wagered. If we're looking for statistical anomalies, why should we care who wagered what, or when?

And why shouldn't we be surprised when the 9 percenter hits? No matter what the preflop percentage was, we now have more information about the hand. This seems roughly analogous to the Monty Hall problem. Once the contestant has more information about that game, he can make a more informed decision. In other words, now that he knows a goat is behind Door 2, he can say Door 3 is a 2-1 favorite to have a car behind it rather than a 2-1 dog, as it was "preflop."

The extra information made a difference in the Monty Hall contestant's expectation. Why shouldn't it also make a difference in poker? Once we have more information about a hand, the preflop percentages are no longer valid. We should be just as surprised when a 9% river card hits (regardless of the preflop numbers) after the money went in preflop as we would be after the money went in on the turn. It's still 9%, no matter when the money went in. The money just lets us compare EV versus winnings. It doesn't change the expected result, only the weight of it.

Where is my thinking wrong? I've been wrong lots of times before, so I won't be surprised to have overlooked or misunderstood something, here.

The flaw in this thinking is you're analyzing numerous outcomes instead of one single outcome within the same hand. Every single hand where you're all in on the flop is going to involve a changing of percentages throughout the remainder of the hand. Whether a guy hits an ace to win (somewhat likely) or two running straight cards (less likely) is irrelevant as that 37% includes the ace possibilities as well as the runner runner possibilities. If you're drawing out of a hat with 100 balls, and a red or a green ball can beat you.... there are 35 green balls and 2 red balls, drawing one of the red ones doesn't make it any more of a bad beat than drawing one of the green ones. Now, perhaps if there was a concern that the deck was rigged to give people running straights too often, then sure we could test for that. Such an occurrence though would be easily detectable by a detailed analysis.

This is part of Weevil's answer. The 37% is the unconditional probability that averages all the possible outcomes including the 7 on the river. But the other part is that once the player was all-in preflop, all five community cards were guaranteed to be dealt, with no other option and no other decisions. Aside from arguments about a continous shuffle which are somewhat pointless, we could take the top five cards from the deck, shuffle them, and deal them in any order, and we will never change the outcome of this hand by doing so. On the other hand, if more bets were allowed, other outcomes become possible.

If the straight had fallen in the flop cards, while the T9 was indisputably 37% to win, then the turn and river cards would not have been relevant at all as the other hand would be drawing dead. Saying that the probability "changed" to 100% because those cards were exposed first (arbitrarily) is obviously wrong in this case. Furthermore, we could shuffle the entire deck stub, pick any five cards and deal them out, and if we do this enough times he will win 37% of the time. That's what the probability means. There is no scenario where he is going to win this hand 9% of the time, and calculating that after the turn has no meaning because no bet takes place there.

The only logical way to evaluate equity or expectation is ""when the money goes in". That probability is saying that, when we deal the next five cards I will win 37% of the time. Saying he has a 9% chance to win at the turn is just wrong, because it is already predetermined before that whether he will win or not, at the point when they made the decision to guarantee dealing all five board cards.

I think the simplest answer is that the 37% is his probability of winning the pot. That's the definition of equity in poker. And that only matters at the point when the bet is made, and nothing changes that chance no matter how we deal the board. We are saying that "I have a 37% chance to win this pot". That can't change between streets on an all-in, since there is no other bet.

This isn't my idea, it's pretty universally accepted in the gambling literature. Hopefully I explained it properly.

Yeah it's tough to explain that well, and I knew spade would do a better job of it than I.

I do think though this is a key place where a lot of "rigged" enthusiasts fall into their own little trap. They can get their money in as a 2 to 1 dog, see that the turn completely changed their odds to make them a favorite to win the hand, and when their opponent hits a 10% redraw on the end they feel like they were slighted. Reality is over the long haul, the shape you're in when the money gets in is what will ultimately determine whether you're a winning player. But naturally, they look at the irrelevant percentage swing when the turn is dealt and if it improves their hand, they feel entitled in some way for it to hold up. On the other hand if the turn hurts their chances and they end up drawing dead, they probably don't think twice.

I suppose you could also argue that the outcome probabilities do change as each new card is exposed, but that it is simply irrelevant on an all-in hand. Only the preflop equity is relevant (when the money went in).

What? Sarcasm right?

If we produce enough energy to achieve moving at the speed of light, in theory we can "punch" a hole in spacetime, bending gravity and space around us to travel to another dimension.

Skeptics say the theory is impossible b/c if one could time travel, then theoretically he could travel back in time to kill his parents and therefore never exsisted to create the time machine.

Aside from the fact that I'm pretty sure you've mischaracterized a whole lot there, what is your point?

wat?

If one could travel in time, he could play the Sunday Million, then write down or print out all of the hand histories and ship it to himself at 670,616,629 Mph.

but light obv moves at the speed of light, does that mean that light can travel back in time? If I turn on a flashlight now, should I have seen it yesterday?

It would be a lot easier to go and win a lottery.

What is your point?