09-18-2007 , 12:26 PM
Quote:
I felt the need to bump this, because recent events show that at least one player has adopted my strategy of twocards&gt;pairs with sterling results. GG DOUBLEDRAG! Don't let these morans who accuse you of cheating get you down, me and you understand the real maths behind the pokers.
Prove it.
Your theory is flawed and people that use it help me make \$\$\$
09-18-2007 , 12:37 PM
Quote:
Prove it.
Your theory is flawed and people that use it help me make \$\$\$
Prove it wrong.
09-18-2007 , 12:46 PM
Quote:
Quote:
that you need more then one out to improve...and the aces need none
But thats completely irrelevant. You determine how good your hand is by counting how many outs you have, and then converting those outs to a percentage of the time where you win, and then seeing if you're getting "pot odds." So, for example, If I have 2 spades in my hand and there are two on the board on the turn, then I have nine outs because there is a 9/46 chance that I will make my flush, so I need to be getting more than 46:9 on any money I put into the pot. The same concept applies to your pocket pairs. You only have two outs, so you'd better be getting 46:2 on your money or you're playing like a donk. With KQ, you've got 6 outs, so if your'e getting 46:6 on your money, then you're ok. Do you understand now noob?
so if I have 2 Aces and 2 aces fall on the flop, I need to fold cause I have no outs left (47/0 no way getting the pot odds)?

Whats sites and with what name do you play?
09-18-2007 , 08:39 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
that you need more then one out to improve...and the aces need none
But thats completely irrelevant. You determine how good your hand is by counting how many outs you have, and then converting those outs to a percentage of the time where you win, and then seeing if you're getting "pot odds." So, for example, If I have 2 spades in my hand and there are two on the board on the turn, then I have nine outs because there is a 9/46 chance that I will make my flush, so I need to be getting more than 46:9 on any money I put into the pot. The same concept applies to your pocket pairs. You only have two outs, so you'd better be getting 46:2 on your money or you're playing like a donk. With KQ, you've got 6 outs, so if your'e getting 46:6 on your money, then you're ok. Do you understand now noob?
so if I have 2 Aces and 2 aces fall on the flop, I need to fold cause I have no outs left (47/0 no way getting the pot odds)?

No, obviously not, you have a made hand there. But how often do you think you're going to make quad aces, noob? You keep banking on four aces, and I'll keep playing my pot odds, moran.
09-18-2007 , 08:47 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
that you need more then one out to improve...and the aces need none
But thats completely irrelevant. You determine how good your hand is by counting how many outs you have, and then converting those outs to a percentage of the time where you win, and then seeing if you're getting "pot odds." So, for example, If I have 2 spades in my hand and there are two on the board on the turn, then I have nine outs because there is a 9/46 chance that I will make my flush, so I need to be getting more than 46:9 on any money I put into the pot. The same concept applies to your pocket pairs. You only have two outs, so you'd better be getting 46:2 on your money or you're playing like a donk. With KQ, you've got 6 outs, so if your'e getting 46:6 on your money, then you're ok. Do you understand now noob?
so if I have 2 Aces and 2 aces fall on the flop, I need to fold cause I have no outs left (47/0 no way getting the pot odds)?

No, obviously not, you have a made hand there. But how often do you think you're going to make quad aces, noob? You keep banking on four aces, and I'll keep playing my pot odds, moran.
lol how can this still be fun for you?
09-18-2007 , 08:47 PM
jman stop berating the fish. I was playing with this hobbes guy the other day.

jeez, ruin my livelihood man. DONT TAP THE GLASS JMAN.
09-18-2007 , 08:57 PM
ZOMG f u to whoever bumped this thread, i was having a productive workday until i started reading this, for the first time.
09-20-2007 , 05:25 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
that you need more then one out to improve...and the aces need none
But thats completely irrelevant. You determine how good your hand is by counting how many outs you have, and then converting those outs to a percentage of the time where you win, and then seeing if you're getting "pot odds." So, for example, If I have 2 spades in my hand and there are two on the board on the turn, then I have nine outs because there is a 9/46 chance that I will make my flush, so I need to be getting more than 46:9 on any money I put into the pot. The same concept applies to your pocket pairs. You only have two outs, so you'd better be getting 46:2 on your money or you're playing like a donk. With KQ, you've got 6 outs, so if your'e getting 46:6 on your money, then you're ok. Do you understand now noob?
so if I have 2 Aces and 2 aces fall on the flop, I need to fold cause I have no outs left (47/0 no way getting the pot odds)?

No, obviously not, you have a made hand there. But how often do you think you're going to make quad aces, noob? You keep banking on four aces, and I'll keep playing my pot odds, moran.
Using your dumb math where 2 cards are a 3:1 fav, I should make them quite often. Did you even consider the guy drawing to a royal flush? (sarcasm)

MORAN!!!
09-20-2007 , 05:27 PM
Hobbes may be double leveling you.

Or he's a moran. Take your pick.
09-20-2007 , 05:28 PM
Quote:
jman stop berating the fish. I was playing with this hobbes guy the other day.

jeez, ruin my livelihood man. DONT TAP THE GLASS JMAN.
lol...never played you....lol
09-20-2007 , 05:35 PM
Lol at jman still fighting this argument two years later.
09-20-2007 , 05:38 PM
this is the holy grail of level threads
09-20-2007 , 06:28 PM
Quote:

Prove it.
Your theory is flawed and people that use it help me make \$\$\$
Here is teh proof... Jman has 6700+ posts and has been posting here for 2.5+ years. Obviously he is goot at poker.

You.. well you have 11 posts and have been here 3/4 of a year. Therefore you suck at poker or you'd have more posts.

With &lt;2 posts/month, there is no way you make \$\$\$
09-20-2007 , 07:40 PM
Quote:
STOP OVERPLAYING POCKET PAIRS AND WHINING WHEN YOU LOSE WITH THEM!
Why?
09-20-2007 , 08:04 PM
You people are worse than the kids who go on about what an idiot Daxflame is.
09-20-2007 , 08:48 PM
Quote:
Quote:

Prove it.
Your theory is flawed and people that use it help me make \$\$\$
Here is teh proof... Jman has 6700+ posts and has been posting here for 2.5+ years. Obviously he is goot at poker.

You.. well you have 11 posts and have been here 3/4 of a year. Therefore you suck at poker or you'd have more posts.

With &lt;2 posts/month, there is no way you make \$\$\$
I bow to jman then...
09-29-2007 , 04:12 PM
I MISS PARTY POKER OMG
09-29-2007 , 05:48 PM
I don't pretend to be a wizard and I only have a few posts, but the idea the overcards are a 3:1 favourite versus a pocket pair is silly. The whole argument seems to be two dimensional: your outs versus mine. It's actually three dimensional. You can hit your outs (6 YOU WIN), I can hit my outs (2 I WIN), or nobody hits anything (I WIN). Of course it's more complicated than just that, but the fact remains that the pair does not need to improve.
09-29-2007 , 06:29 PM
Quote:
I don't pretend to be a wizard and I only have a few posts, but the idea the overcards are a 3:1 favourite versus a pocket pair is silly. The whole argument seems to be two dimensional: your outs versus mine. It's actually three dimensional. You can hit your outs (6 YOU WIN), I can hit my outs (2 I WIN), or nobody hits anything (I WIN). Of course it's more complicated than just that, but the fact remains that the pair does not need to improve.
you is not so good at teh mathematics, eh?
10-01-2007 , 05:36 PM
Quote:
I don't pretend to be a wizard and I only have a few posts, but the idea the overcards are a 3:1 favourite versus a pocket pair is silly. The whole argument seems to be two dimensional: your outs versus mine. It's actually three dimensional. You can hit your outs (6 YOU WIN), I can hit my outs (2 I WIN), or nobody hits anything (I WIN). Of course it's more complicated than just that, but the fact remains that the pair does not need to improve.
Comprehension FTL
10-01-2007 , 06:06 PM
Quote:

I've seen a lot of his posts lately and he really... REALLY wants to engage in serious debates. Apparently the sarcas-o-meter some guy sold him is not only broken... but as it turns out is actually just a dead squirrel with some broken keys from a keyboard glued on to make it look high-tech.

Stop picking on the poor guy =/

I have one of those, except mine but mine is Hi-Fi.
10-01-2007 , 06:09 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I don't pretend to be a wizard and I only have a few posts, but the idea the overcards are a 3:1 favourite versus a pocket pair is silly. The whole argument seems to be two dimensional: your outs versus mine. It's actually three dimensional. You can hit your outs (6 YOU WIN), I can hit my outs (2 I WIN), or nobody hits anything (I WIN). Of course it's more complicated than just that, but the fact remains that the pair does not need to improve.
you is not so good at teh mathematics, eh?
he brings up a good point

you have 3:1 outs, but he has 2:1 ways to win (he can improve or stay, you can just improve).

When you combine those you are only a 3:2 favorite.

This may revolutionize the way the game is played.
10-01-2007 , 07:49 PM
Quote:
I don't pretend to be a wizard and I only have a few posts, but the idea the overcards are a 3:1 favourite versus a pocket pair is silly. The whole argument seems to be two dimensional: your outs versus mine. It's actually three dimensional. You can hit your outs (6 YOU WIN), I can hit my outs (2 I WIN), or nobody hits anything (I WIN). Of course it's more complicated than just that, but the fact remains that the pair does not need to improve.

i love all the serious posts debating jman is wrong. i've seriously died laughing...especially when he responds to them.

there are a lot of people that need to figure out what a level is IRT the interweb

Jman,
Thanks for starting an awesome thread. Everytime it gets bumped someone else falls into the trap.
10-01-2007 , 07:49 PM
am I the only one who doesn't think this thread is funny?
10-01-2007 , 08:02 PM
Quote:
am I the only one who doesn't think this thread is funny?
This thread was never meant to be funny.

m