Without. Because you also heard him say that 60% of the way through he almost told them "don't bother" because they weren't bringing him much that he didn't already know about the sessions.

embarrassing post.

After 25k hands and all the the free high level HU strat Doug and others have been sharing it is amazing people who have followed this from the beginning still think like this. Poker not dead

Meh, I get it. A lot of people use "brave" any time someone voluntarily takes on a challenge that is inherently harmful in some way. So there is a fine line – or more accurately – a significant amount of overlap between what is "brave" and what is dangerous or even reckless.

It goes the other way, too. Suppose one person accused me of being too chicken to free-climb El Capitan. Then another person then said, no, he's smart enough not to attempt it. I'd say they're both correct, because those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

.

Every time Daniel mentioned luck during his final post-session interview:

Thanks Doug for showing your cards during the last session.

So much more fun to observe.

Did Polk say he had 50 data analysts? He had analysts, but 50?

Dnegs was obviously using coaches too and that is partly how he improved from the beginning of the challenge.

lol at Dnegs bringing up the Stones cheating incident and saying he wants Veronica to review all of the hands. I know he was just joking, but adding that to the multiple times he's said, "I know it's not rigged, but..." it's just a bad look for poker.

Poker players don't necessarily want to berate fish and discourage them for losing money

Thanks to both DP and DN for doing this, great event for the poker community.

LMAO this is either a massive troll or a massive cope.

It's been said before in this thread but I don't think people truly understand how "unlucky" or "lucky" they can be until they start putting in high volume. I think the resilience to become a true online professional comes from accepting the things DN talks about as "bad luck".

The flip side is we never, ever talk about how lucky we are for long stretches. For most people there is "running normal" and "running bad". I know with the benefit of hindsight that I've had 5,000 game stretches at spins where I ran really good. I just didn't realise it at the time.

Think we are on a countdown to where the online game will collapse once a poker gto app is available to the masses.

As a recreational player the reasons I play is for fun, a challenge, and earn a little money from my hobby.

Those 3 reasons will no longer exist when the pros can play like super computers.

If anyone is out there with the funds and creativity to create an entirely new card game (where it can't be solved to a high degree) they should get to work on it. Will be a space in the market soon for all the players like myself looking for something to fill the poker void.

How do you do that and keep skill in the game? What im asking is wouldn't an unsolvable game be all luck. Besides with enough computing power probably any game can be solved no matter how complicated. unless we're talking solving abstract numbers like grams number or tree3

If that happens all we need to do is #BringBackTheJoker

There is no such thing as an unsolvable game. You can keep adding stuff to the game to make it more complex but the bots will catch up, especially when we get quantum computers.

At some point we'll have to stop playing for real stakes online because of the risk, or find some reliable way to validate that players are not using RTA.

Heck, if cybernetics keep improving at a pace we might even have to stop playing for real stakes live.

I think Doug said it was a group of Upswing members who monitored hands and updated a spreadsheet with standard stats to track basic frequencies. Doug also said that DN agreed to allow this, so it's reasonable to assume that DN's team did the same type of tracking on Doug. It would be very inexpensive, especially relative to what DN probably dished out to pay his coaches.

Also lol @ the guy labeling these button pushers as data analysts. Yes, it's such skilled labor to track whether Dnegs cbet the flop or missed the flop cbet at each opportunity. Probably reqs at least an ivy league university degre in quantum statistics. If WSOP allowed tracking software it wouldn't have been necessary.

Was thinking, have a lower percentage (25-33%?) of the game skill based and the rest luck based. That way the solver part can't dominate the results.

Perhaps where the skill and luck of each hand fluctuates.

Women

Coin flipping

Women are the rake, so yeah.

Last time I checked, people were ridiculed for 1evbb/100 winrates in general, let alone playing heads-up against opponents who have never won a dime playing heads-up online in their life.

But hey, congrats, you took a guy who clearly has serious mental issues for $1.2m, employing a full squad of rocket scientists in the process, constantly humiliating your opponent to the max at every opportunity and when you were done, you even made an "acceptance speech" like you cured cancer lmao

I don't even like Negreanu, but you sir are the clown of all clowns.

woah...

Chess does OK mostly.

If multi-way NLHE were effectively solved it is probably complex enough where playing with anywhere near engine accuracy would be extremely suspicious and be addressed by a controlled environment test to see if accuracy suffers. Most mid-stakes cheaters wouldn't be slick enough to not be obvious. High stakes games would probably need more front end scrutiny. Like back in the day when stars started offering 100/200 FLHE (astronomical stakes at the time) and you had to be pre-cleared to play.

This would of course requires sites to be very active. Which lol no we are doomed.

Someone is salty...