hmmmmmmmmmmm who to believe Jason,Jman and other fish or poker pros like Chris Fergusson,Skalansky,Mike Caro,and software like Pokerstove,which have made billions of dollars more playing poker collectively between all those pros,and poker stove,then jman and jason.


I will take what Chris Fergusson,Skalansky,Mike Caro,and Poker Stove says over jman jason anyday anytime.


Mike DH

A bet is only a bluff if it folds out a hand that beats yours. If you expect your opponent to fold a lot but only hands that you beat, then your bet is known as a "thin value bet", except in this case its so thin that it only serves to put more money into a pot that you're behind in most of the time.

However I will say that the play probably does work in freerolls and 1$ donkaments because it serves as a blocking bet that allows you to see the next card cheaply fairly often, and it also probably serves as a bluff stopper in a lot of cases too. Just for your information, however, the pros would never make this play in the situation you described because their opponents are not so bad as to be exploited by such a ridiculous play, and the play itself has a negative expectation and is easily exploitable by anyone with half a brain.

you're not chris ferguson, you're not mike caro, you're not david sklansky, you're Mike DH and you do not speak for those people. Phil Galfond, however, does speak for himself and has already weighed in on the matter, and has been a consistent winner in the highest stakes (and is a better player than any of those that you mentioned). He's also a much better player than you, though that should go without saying...

Books and programs get you no where. I read souls and tell what you have. Its a 6th sense, some people have most dont. Id prefer 89s and win a massive pot compared to a small one with aces. Its rare that aces win massive pots

I never claimed to be those pros or to speak for them.I will still take what they the poker pros say and Poker Stove says over Jman aka phil galfrond.


What Jman is saying is wrong no ands ifs or buts about it.What he is saying is IMMUTABLY FALSE,NOT TRUE,NOT A FACT.


And while Jman or Phil galfrond(and thats if jman is even Phil Galfrond,which would be hard to prove or disprove)is apparrently a consistent winner at the highest stakes,and a better player than me,that just goes to show that one like jman aka Phil galfrond can be and is a consistent winner at the highest stakes with leaks and flaws in their game,and with them being immutably wrong no ands ifs or buts about it about things like what jman aka phil galfrond was saying that contradicts the immutably true factual right things the other pros and Poker Stove was saying,that wins billions more playing poker than jman aka phil galfrond because of that.


Mike DH

Sorry your wrong again as the Full tilt poker book and Chris fergusson say to do this play a lot depending on the situation.


If u doubt that,you really should go buy the book and read what andy bloch chris fergusson and other pros say in the book.


Mike DH

Gogo power rangers.

This was obv. a level from the get go.

Just for the record; Phil Galfond is jman28 not jman220 (OP).

is this the continuation of the 10>6 thread? (aka 53 vs ak)

prequel

Yeah, this thread spawned the AK vs. 53 thread.

this thread has given me faith in humanity, not the 'we will be a great race' kinda hope, more the, YES my life WILL be filled with watching such things as 'morans' who have no idea of the metagame or outs concepts of poker trying to argue with Jman, i mean he has 7k+ posts... we all know wat that means.

Was this thread really started in 2005. How the hell is this one still going? And I need cliffnotes and #s of pages with key LOL moments.
Oh and Mike 10>6

Wow I kind of enjoyed arguing with Mike until he started to post disertations on why I was wrong. That just made me want to beat my head up against the wall.

Mike we all know 6 is better than 2 right? Then we all know KQ > AA its really simple.

all of poker is 50/50 Mike...you really need to learn this

Mike is so out of touch with reality he thinks Chris Ferguson is a billionaire

I'm not on here too much, so I don't know if this dude is serious. If so, I understand where all the $$ comes from in poker. Do you even understand the concept of an "out?" AK vs TT, for example: TT is ahead in the hand, it doesn't NEED an "out," AK must hit to win, hence the term "out." As in, "escape." Do you figure that into your elementary math?? So as long as I've got two live cards, I should be shoving my stack, according to your logic. Villian shows me AA prelop....I'm shoving with 2-5o because I've got 6 outs vs. his 2 and I'm a mathematical favorite!!

Obviously...

Wow! I had no idea that some people were winning billions of dollars at poker! I am shocked! Shocked, I say!

And I must certainly commend you on your fine use of proper English grammer and punctuation. It warms my heart to read such flowery prose, and to see words uncluttered by commas, proper spacing, and such.

Thank you for the edification.

Lee

He also thinks PokerStove is a billionaire.

op sn

Mike,

I genuinely feel bad that you're still confused by the maths when it's all fairly simple and has been repeated numerous times on this thread. But I'm not going to try to convince you you're wrong; all I want to do here is point out a mistake you make in your calculation system.

First post: 88 has 15 'virtual outs'. KQ has 6 outs. You say 6/15 for KQ to win. That's wrong.

The event space (i.e. all possible cards to come) numbers 21. So the probability for 88 to win is 15/21, i.e. in 15 out of those 21 possible events, 88 wins. Probability for KQ to win is 6/21 i.e. the other 6 events. So 88 actually wins 71% of the time here, using your system of virtual outs.

Second post: Same issue. Event space of 24. AA to win 21/24 of those, KQ to win 3/24 of those, according to you. So AA wins 87.5% of the time here, again according to your maths when applied correctly.

I really really hope that firstly you agree that I've applied the maths correctly here whereas your way was incorrect. Secondly I hope you take a look at the results your crazy system of virtual outs gets when applied correctly, especially saying that 88 vs KQ is 70-30, and open your mind to some of the basic and fundamental knowledge given for free in this thread.

ahhhahahahah

Merry Christmas Morans!

Mikeal: I encourage you to repeat the second grade, reducing fractions is easy, you look for the lowest common denominator. KQ has six cards that makes improve (six actual cards, not virtual cards, this aint the matrix buddy). AA has 2 cards that makes it improve. Thats 6/2. You can reduce that to 3/1. That means for every four times KQ goes against AA, KQ will win three times, and AA will win once. Why is this so hard to understand? Honestly.

Also:

I am not Phil Galfond, but I did teach him everything he knows.

epic b0mp imo