yes, plenty of players do this -- Ike has said that in live games he'll look at his watch and use the second hand for RNG calculations (if he's supposed to call 25% of the time, and if the second hand is between 0 and 15, he'll call).

Does he give credit to Dan Harrington?

(See "Harrington on Hold'em", Vol #1, 2004, pg. 24)

It's pretty easy to implement this if you're playing online:



This guy often begins his reasoning as to what he will do with something like "I roll a 69, so ..."

I didn't realize people actually did this... cool

If you're going to implement a mixed strategy, then using an RNG device is the only way. If you would try doing something 25% of the time in a certain spot your biases would guaranteed affect your decisions and you would become unbalanced.

computer clocks are an almost perfect substitute for an rng device. you sacrifice basically nothing. and just doing it in your head is going to be so close that it'll almost never be a factor unless you're playing against someone whose really, really digging into the data to make inferences as to your frequencies.

...


funny to see people shitting on the significance of ai adjusted ev. who said it's a perfect estimate? nobody. it's just a better estimate than not adjusting.

and doug is currently up about 300k in ai adjusted ev over 11k hands, which has doug winning at about 7bb/100.


does anyone know how much does filtering out allin ev impact the standard deviation? not sure how you'd get that figure.

edit: http://www.quantitativepoker.com/201...0as%20we%20can.

looks like it impacts it a good chunk for cap games. probably much less so for full stack games.

Have been studying more HUNL during this challenge than ever before - so many decisions to make with not much mental break in between with very wide ranges. I'm very interested to see how the strategy evolves from the point it's at now where people are 3betting very wide ranges from the blind and the frequencies with which certain hands are 3betting.

It would be nice to hear from HUNL veterans how the strategies and approached to HUNL have changed over the past 10+ years or so.

I don't know how I can ever play without an RNG again.

Playing 6m after playing HU is quite interesting with how many more hands you want to play but can't.


Players build strategies to fold/call/raise % of the time and then will use an RNG to decide which.

For example:

You raise K7o on the BTN and the BB calls

Flop is 983

You might use a strategy where you're betting 65% and checking 35%

You use your RNG to decide what to do in that situation. It shows a 33 and you decide to check.

Round #21 of the High Stakes Feud begins in about half an hour.

Going into today's action, Doug leads by $694,290 following approximately 11,400 hands.

https://upswingpoker.com/hu4grudge/
---

Round #21 Live Cast: Upswing Poker Twitch Channel (currently streaming Round #20 replay)
---

Round #21 Live Cast -- Doug Polk Poker YouTube Channel
upload pending
---
Round #21 Live Cast -- GGPoker YouTube Channel (feat. Jeff Platt, Brent Hanks, Amanda Negreanu)

---
Round #21 Live Cast -- Joeingram1 YouTube Channel (feat. Joey Ingram)

---
Round #21 Live Cast -- Solve For Why YouTube Channel (feat. Matt Berkey, Christian Soto)

_____

Round #21 Live Cast -- Doug Polk Poker YouTube Channel (feat. Jamie Kerstetter, David Lappin)

That's not the point. You shouldn't worry about someone reading your frequencies. You should worry about your tendencies pushing you towards making mistakes that add up over time.

Example: hero is on the river with no showdown value. Solver says hero should jam 5% and check back 95%. Lets say hero is a very bluffy aggro sticky type of player that hates giving up in pots.

You honestly think hero is gonna just wet his finger, stick it in the air and correctly guesstimate a 5% frequency?

No, most likely hero will overbluff, which is a mistake and costs him EV in the long run.

You don't need a perfect rng device, you just need one that's not affected by your biases and tendencies.

But, I mean, couldn't you just as easily have tendencies ("instincts" or what have you) that push you towards making the right play that add up over time?

I don't think these guys are using RNG because they assume their tendencies are more likely to be on the wrong side, they're doing it purely to be balanced, no? In which case, what he said is exactly the point

It's possible I'm missing something here, this isn't my forte

Q8 call by Daniel looks very bad blocking QJ. He definitely should have other 8x with better blockers.

Being balanced and neutralizing your tendencies to overbluff/overfold are the same thing. You're not as likely to be on the right side because this isn't a right side/wrong side proposition... there is a razor thin line that is the balance. It's very unlikely you hit that by randomly guessing.

In the end, people are absolutely terrible at mimicking randomness.

The famous experiment in statistics class is to assign homework to flip a coin 50 times and record the results. Some kids will actually do it, some will cheat and just write a sequence from their head. The professor can very confidently pick most of the cheats from the group because their sequences will be noticable.

A typical thing you will not see a human do for instance is to make a 5% play twice in a row.

Doug top pair 10s over snap-called 8s for 223k

I didn't bet on Doug based on anything he said. No 'propaganda' was involved in my willingness to bet on Polk. I and most people bet on him because he beat everyone HU including: Isildur, Baj, Jungle, Ike, Kanu etc etc and then finally Sauce until nobody would sit him.

When a tourney pro wanted to play him the result seemed obvious.

FFS the bias is not man made but fact based.

Jungle crushed Doug, as per Doug himself.

This is what Doug fans actually believe.

From what I remember, Jungle played a bit vs Doug over the years, was up few buy ins, but stopped giving action. Doug wanted to play.

Doug doesn't really have fans on here, in the way Daniel has.
Has anyone been irrational defending Doug?

Daniel fans keep polishing a turd. From supporting more rake, to blackface, to disparaging poker players, to constantly doing the thing that all decent poker players hate the most......whining about bad beats. Daniel has nothing to like about him.
Now some fanboy wants to change the rules, so daniel can win lol.

The constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps you've heard of it.

5 hour session.

Doug up approx $120k for the day according to Jamie K.

Daniel and Doug on postgame.

Such as the 85 check-raise. As soon as that happened, most people chalked it up to some low-percentage outcome in whatever RNG Daniel is using (which he affirmed in the postgame interview).

It was pretty funny when it happened, though.

EDIT: and not for nothing, I often wonder if Postle could have answered many of the allegations against him 14 months ago by saying he had an RNG app on his phone. "Was I looking at my phone in my lap? Why yes, I was, and here's why..."

This must put them close to 12.5K hands. I guess they are going the distance.

It may have been through an indirect route, or he may have figured it out on his own.

As a weak amateur I use the second hand during weekend tournaments to make sure I'm bluffing enough. I make certain I choose a couple of hands where I commit to the second hand making the decision.

Can't do worse.