I agree. My comment was written quickly before I looked at any reasonable numbers and there's essentially no way you can be a loser after 2000 sets. So what probably happened was that the poster who made this claim misremembered exactly what his results were.

Mason

What was my error?

To which I responded:

I was incredibly surprised to see that you wrote it and that you didn't bother responding to it after quote responding to someone who quoted me a few posts later. The surprise was entirely because I know you know better than this.

I am not sure what cfp means. Is it coaching for profit?

Honestly I dont play much anymore so I dont really have a dog in this fight but i am a bit shocked how blatant you are stating yeah i use an unfair advantage! What about it? If you are not putting as much time in trying to get unfair advantages you are just lazy!

I think its a weird mindset.

coaching - nothing wrong with it unless its during gameplay and even that was very common when i was around. although actually not cool.

datamining - clear unfair advantage and against the rules on most sites. sharing databases especially by a a huge stable is also. its kind of a violation of the one player to a hand rule when by extension u play your entire stable instead of just you.

mda - depends how you acquired the data. But yeah if you acquired the data by sharing databases or mining its clearly unethical.

solvers - depends using them during play clear cheating using the to study is obviously fine.

So in essence it seems like you are a cheater and advertising cheating on here. Is that just cool these days?

I mean at what behaviour do we draw the line. I might not be as motivated to put in the theoretical work and and to break rules to acquire the databse you have but i am a big guy and can get a gun.

So why dont i just camp outside the game you play in or your house and take your **** there?

Weak people will always make up excuses but are just not willing to put in the training to become strong and or get a gun.

Thank you for making my point.

So funny that some micro stakes online winner that pays to advertise his coaching services on 2p2 is lecturing us about how poker is all luck/variance, when he has scammed a stake and ghosted backers. This guy is so ridiculous he calls out an OG shill for shilling, while he is shilling his own coaching. This site might be dying but it still produces so many funny threads A+ work here PooPooPoker, you should take yourself even more seriously than you already do lol.

He didn't really make your point, though.

You said that datamining/sharing databases is merely "frowned upon" and he correctly pointed out that it is literally cheating according to the ToC's of most sites.
It is mentioned next to colluding and using RTA in the rules.

exactly it is pretty straight up cheating. everybody has a problem with account sharing and multi accounting but this is just an extension of that.

While i am playing against someone who was coached based on a 245 million hh database that might contain thousands of hands i have played against somebody else.

How is that not an unfair advantage?

A player has history on me without me having any chance to know that he has this history. i dont think thats acceptable.

Now i will gladly admit that i am too lazy to put much time into poker these days and I am sure doodoopoker would wipe the floor with me with or without this advantage.

That is absolutely beside the point though.

If you beat me because you play better, which i am sure you do, more power to you. if you play better because you have information on me that i have no way of knowing you have, thats something i dont like. its unfair and clearly a violation of the rules.

doodoo breaks rules to gain an unfair advantage. doodoo even made a business of breaking rules to get others an unfair advantage too.

the justification is if you are not working on getting an unfair advantage like that you are just too lazy.

What is the difference between this and someone stating anybody who doesn't use rta these days is just too lazy and doesn't go with the times?

Everthing goes right? the Site rules dont matter. Everything is frowned upon these days!

So why not just get an even more drastic advantage and just take the chips straight out of the opponents stack?

Obviously robbing someone is a very drastic comparison but if we just follow the rules we want to follow where do we draw the line?

Whats the big difference between taking ev from someone by skirting or straight up breaking the rules and stealing from someones pocket?

could you tell me more about this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
First of all, this concept regarding multiple opponents can be simply illustrated by noting if your hand has a 50% chance of beating one opponent it tends to mean that it has about a 1/2 x 1/2 chance of beating two. But that's only 25% or 3-1 against, while you are only getting 2-1. Their hands average to about 37.5 % each. Your made hand would generally need to be over 55% to be profitable against two different types of drawing hands that would be 45% against you heads up.

To which I responded:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaKing
I can't believe you actually wrote this, this shows a complete fundamental lack of understanding of multiway equity. Did you only look at a small pocket pair vs two overcard hands with no overlap e.g. 22 vs QJss and 87dd? What do the equities look like 3 ways with JTs vs 22 and 88?

I was incredibly surprised to see that you wrote it and that you didn't bother responding to it after quote responding to someone who quoted me a few posts later. The surprise was entirely because I know you know better than this.

I said "beating" instead of "not getting drawn out by". Because my comment was just an introduction to the fact that aces with a smallish stack need not be worried about multiple opponents to the degree other hands might be. So I didn't bother to mention the exception to the general math principle would be when the hands chances against opponent #2 goes way up given he beats hand #1. But that exception was not germane to the actual subject of my post, so I got lazy with my wording.

Who pays to advertise their coaching services on 2p2?

He literally clarified, before you posted, the same point you made in your post.
Maybe you genuinely just missed it.
Really don't get why ppl have to be constantly on the attack on 2p2. The anti mason n david vibes are immature and tired imo.

Lionel is incorrect that DooDoo paid to advertise coaching services. In my understanding, the sites' new owners changed forum rules (probably after being lobbied) to allow people to become 'verified coaches' (for free, and easily) which is why DD has the undertitle. He coaches NLHE MDA stuff.
This naturally turns every disagreement a coach is involved in into questioning their authority (rightly or wrongly). My point is just that the forum grants this sort of artificial authority and there is a downside to it although overall the undertitle is obv great for coaches as their services are blasted out everytime they post.
Not gonna get into the other drama. It's all on 2p2 you can do your own deep dive into it if you really want.

I'm not aware of any lobbying, the rest is accurate. I'd be highly surprised to find out that anyone posting in this thread paid for their coaching thread or "verified coach" under title or the ability to promote their services.

I thought that the stickied coaching threads (such as DDP's) had paid to be stickied in the coaching forum. Otherwise they, like the other free coaching threads, are not kept at the top of the forum?

This post by Andrii states how to get your coaching thread stickied:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...-here-1793277/

So if I verify my identity, l can be a verified coach?

Just asking. Think I don't have significant tilt issues, could pass that on.

($ 100 per hour would be totally fine)

At least that's how I understand it. Everyone who wants to be a poker coach can be a poker coach and everyone willing to get verified can be a verified poker coach.

I can assure that you that Mason would never use "small probabilities" or "tiny" to refer to an event that is even 8σ above/below a mean. My sample of flopped sets in NLH MTTs would have a positively skewed EV winrate compared to cash hands, but using that data it would have been a >15σ event for me to lose with flopped sets over a sample of 2000... I don't think you comprehend what 15σ means. I also know that if Mason looked at the data I provided from primedope that he would have just been able to look at the EV winrate combined with the σ and extrapolate the "infinitesimally small" probability of losing over the sample from that.

He cleared it up in the post he quoted me in and we both arrived at the same conclusion that the event JimL originally described likely (almost certainly) didn't actually occur. I had eyeballed JimL's claim and using my own boomer math in my head knew that it simply didn't occur. I knew you wouldn't flop a set every ~150 hands played just by thinking of playing ~3000 hands on a Sunday MTT session and expecting to see ~20 flopped sets on average over that sample, just no lol. Mason's math for arriving at the total number of sets flopped if a flop was seen every time was accurate, he just forgot a key part of the equation that changes that frequency.

So there's more to flopping sets than 0.06 x 0.12 = 0.0072, that's ~= 1/139. How big part of hands end preflop? How big part of pairs are folded pre? If half the hands end preflop, and half the pairs are folded pre we suddenly have 1/4 x 1/139 = 1/556. So we are flopping a set every 500th hand. That's six flopped sets per 3000 hands. Plenty of room for bad beats.

You're right I would say that 8σ just doesn't happen. In fact, I would say that for practical purposes 4σ doesn't happen. Also, if you were to read my Gambling Theory book you would see that for many situations, I think in terms of the whole population approximately being represented by three standard deviations.

Perhaps it did happen. Do you think there was some chance he was cheated? If you do, then there is a small chance it did occur.

In the small stakes games, a lot of players do play almost every pair they are dealt, and most players do play in the small stakes games.

MM

Could anyone either post here or share a link explaining what exacty goes on with the verification stuff? Does 2p2 take any responsibility if ddp or any other coach screw up or smth like that? What do they verifiy exactly? Again, a link to some FAQ is enough to me, thank you.

See post #192.

4σ regularly does happen when dealing with the positive tail end of distributions (much more likely to be seen in practice than negative tails) or data sets with selection bias. Look at the relative skill level of the best poker players or the best professional athletes in a given sport compared to the total population that have participated in those activities. I understand what you're saying though, generally when dealing with an actual random population you would expect not to see 4σ deviations "often," I would say that 3σ for an entire population sets the bar a bit too low though.

He wasn't cheated by an unfair RNG on FTP nor any level of potential collusion that could have caused such a massive deviation from the expected mean. They just seem to be an unreliable witness and their story is incredibly vague with a low level of precision. It starts out as a "300 - 500K hand plateau," shifts to "almost 500K," then shifts again to "6+ months" using a different metric than had been previously used, using length of time instead of the number of hands. They also didn't use any actual numbers to describe their "crushing" winrate or the number of sets they had on the flop which should be quite important details to the story.

Sometimes when you raise a PP you win the pot uncontested, sometimes you open and get 3b then cold 4bet, sometimes you have 22 UTG and fold, etc. There are a lot of reasons/ways to not see a flop every time you have a PP. In practice the 1 in ~150 frequency will be noticeably lower no matter what format/stakes you are playing.

Now I felt embarrassed for my laziness hahah

Thank you very much nonetheless madlex, got it