The OP of this thread is based on the time that I got banned in the midst of discussing it.

I do know that TT gave me a hard time about it before, and said it will never happen.

But I guess you are right, you haven't seen anything to this affect....

BECAUSE I GOT BANNED WITH NO WARNING OR EXPLANATION!!!

In other words, no one has ever told you the conversation is banned. Thanks for clarifying that, and it would be great if you could stop repeating that falsehood.

I'm still not clear if you already forgot that I told you just yesterday who it was that banned you, or if you were just pretending you didn't know.

Bobo, I already clearly explained this, and even recently a few posts back. I believe you, I am being sarcastic.

I expect a mod who bans someone to at least have the decency to formally tell you it was them, and the decency to explain why.

And you don't need to scrutinize my words more and come back and say "Omg you dont know why you were banned?"

I understand, I am pointing out the indecency.

We both know you understand all this, but as a mod you are simply arguing anything you can, so that we don't have to deal with the correctness for the solution.

When we are done trying to scrutinize and ruin my character, let us address the actual correctness of the solution please.

I don't recall you ever explaining that, so I guessed I missed it?

You would have gotten a ban reason - when you tried to log in, that would've been the only time you'd see it. Unfortunately, the software doesn't show who gave you the ban like it does for an infraction, and most mods don't think to, or bother to, sign their bans. But if the reason wasn't sufficient, or you didn't see it, you should PM the mod and ask him.

No, I have no idea where your head is at most of the time. And I stopped wasting my time arguing with you yesterday; I only posted again because you kept saying you didn't know who banned you.

Speak for yourself; I haven't said a word about your character today, nor have I scrutinized you. But I know you'll have a hard time believing that since you seem to think everyone is out to pick on you.

As I've said before, I'm not concerned about the "correctness of the solution", as I don't participate in that thread or forum.

I'm going out for a run now; maybe you should get some fresh air yourself.

This guy claimed i didn't know maths and hadn't done my research and can eat a big fat banhammer **** imo

I also explained that you don't know enough to know that you don't know. I also gave evidence and reasoning.

But what I don't know, is why you and others with the same intentions, are allowed to participate in this discussion.
In the previous two posts we finally have a perfect example of what is going on, and why I have been banned.

Just because good players have an interest in +EV changes (+EV for whom?) and just because they can make good decisions with their cards doesn't mean these good players know what the +EV changes to the game are, and it doesn't mean that losing players don't know what these changes are.

Lol

But you see this exactly the myth we need to dispel. This is why I laid out this foundation http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...98&postcount=5 of 1 certain way we can view the game. Its not a proof the game should be a laid out this way, its 1 certain perspective we might take.

It happens to be the one that shows that what you are assuming here is just that, an assumption. And it is the conversation started with you, about a better way to play PD, that started all the these people ridiculing me and saying I don't know what a nash equilibrium is or what it is for.

But I've learned a lot since then, and I've come to know I am right, as when I started I was only fairly sure because I couldn't show it.

Now with one thread I can show exactly how the players can work together for significant mutual gain.

So when I say good players make +ev changes, we are talking for both the current game and the longevity of it. Makes 100% sense right, that a smart person would not want to ruin the game. And it stands to reason just as much that a poker player that looks for +ev opportunity to exchange there time and money for can also recognize and support certain +ev lines.

Now I admit we are functioning on the assumption that regs are winning players that make +ev decisions, and recs are losing players that play purely for the enjoyment. But sometimes adding an assumption actually clarifies things without necessarily having its own ground. (I think its called induction but I am terribly sorry if its not the word, maybe recursion).

Please don't take offense, but I must say it. If you don't realize that the intelligent poker player wants decisions that are good for the entire community, then you are one of those players that doesn't understand. We have been functioning too long as a community that pretends we can not identify the posters that will help this game. We pretend this on the tables fine, but publicly certain playesr will be seen to have a TRUE and INTELLIGENT intent for the overall morality and integrity of the game as laid out in my link. And what we mean by that is ALL players should covet a fair and profitable game, that is profitable to regs, where regs are those that work hard for what they are given, and what they are given is money in exchange for entertainment.

The problem we are having, is that too many bad players, and i really mean "bad players" (adyo definition) have been running around suggesting we must run a game that tricks degenerate gamblers, rather than running a game that attracts those that are looking for entertainment.

You might say, "so what thats obvious" and I hope so, but I want to show, in one single section of the forum, how exactly this leak has spewed into our entire collective game, and what can be done to put an end to it.

1 thread, 1 small change, and it will be undeniable that we have new direction to move that is +ev for every single player in the game.

Thank you for as far as you have read.

So if we can mathematically show that a certain suggestion is not good for the game, then it stands to reason....

If your idea to expound more upon this, then, no, do not want.

Your post there is a spew of nonsense completely devoid of either math, proper definitions of terms, sound logic or even common sense. If it was a freshman paper in an intro to logic class I'd probably give it a C-. That you hold it up as a paragon of something is laughable.

Some may want it anyway because they feel the change will make it more fun. It might not be better for you, or better for "the game", but better for them. Who are you, or we, to deprive them of that?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=143

nono, ^this is the topic, I want you to judge me on this and know that what I outline in that link is exactly the real issue.

Please read it first (or maybe you have already) and THEN tell me about the logic, and know that I am saying exactly this: You are confused by these posters, the problem is outlined in the link

What I am being accused of is this

Read his linked post on the morality and integrity of poker and all will become clear.

Um, that post also sucks. In it you say "if we did the math we would realize" (but don't do any math) and then "We have to look at the variance and understand what kind of sample sizes are needed." (but don't look at variance or sample sizes needed.) And finally "I might not have the answers, or correct ones either...but ill not give it much of a try until I know that I'm not just going to get trolled for pointing such things out."

Uh, strong work?

Exactly, clear, because an intelligent player recognizes that a rec player plays for the enjoyment of the game. this is an important fundamental because it changes the types of proposal we might brainstorm about collectively.

Individually some of us know this, but we need to know it collectively, which means if we are to have a discussion on it, it should be in the stick or OP etc.

But we can also talk about different player types too, like the ideal reg. The ideal reg plays for both the want of income AND entertainment. So intelligent players and recs really have incentive to make changes that benefit the game for both.

Learn to understand sarcasm

It's not a myth just because you say it's so. You're making an assertion without backing up why it would be so. I'm saying you can't make those assumptions and expect us to just accept them.

Wanting to make good decisions and actually making good decisions are 2 different things. And the ability to make good decisions in one situation does not mean one has the ability to make good decisions in others.

Come on. Im trying to work together and you are doing the best to fight me at every turn

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...-180s-1410720/

I meant it when I say I am not the one to do the math. I am not very formally trained. So I did my best to show what I mean.

But it doesn't matter, unless you want to argue my claim vs S4V's post is wrong, and you want to claim that 180 variance alone is not to big to do what they suggested could be done.

Its simply true, that what S4V said, can be proved to show that they are not considering the proper variables in what they are saying.

And I would like a chance to show, that this has been going on in the mttsng suggestions thread for its entire existence. The cliffs is simply adding variance into every formula, but its not as simple as that.

But come on, 2 years of this from all these players?

Wait, is his argument that we need to be more like "good" live-regs that treat the fish well and don't make them feel unwelcome? Pretty sure that's solved already, buddy.

I do understand it, but I guess it failed on you. You were already clear you think my writing is jibberish.

Please don't just argue me for the purpose of arguing

Of course you are right, and yes its an assertion, you are coming into every thread of mine without knowing what the discussion is about. I was censored from talking about this and therefore not able to back it up. You are butting into 10 pages of players saying I should not get a voice to do so, and telling me its just an assertion.

1 thread 7 days! What do you think we are talking about?


You keep trying to rip apart what I am saying rather than understand it, so then I have 10 pages of someone that isn't trying to understand but rather arguing things that dont need arguing.

I am saying that we can prove mathematically that a certain persons suggestion is NOT good for the game. And then we SAY for make believe, they are not a good player, because of our definition (adyo style). You are arguing a corollary type version that I don't have a proof for, and then accusing me of being wrong.

You function on the belief that a good poker player is not necessarily a person that makes smart decisions for the community. And I agree, yesterday this was true, but tomorrow it is not. And I will show you why you are wrong if you disagree, but I need the avenue.

My argument is we can mathematical dispel some myths that are holding back the profitability and the longevity of the game.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=143

AND thats not the entire argument, because it includes a solution for implementation, that I need 1 thread for 7 days to show.

It's bad enough that you wrote these posts. Why do you keep linking to them?

See the simplicity of it? Players making decisions on the table the are bad for themselves and other regs.

I'm being unreasonable to suggest we don't have a problem identifying these intentions?

Everyone is pretending we can't identify the posts and posters with a sincere intent for profitability and longevity of the game. I think they are not being reasonable. We have a solution.

Yes nothing I do is good for you. I don't talk right. I don't write well. My ideas are ****. I am troll. I am stupid. I am arrogant. I didn't show the work on variance. I didn't give any examples. I'm condescending to posters that come in only to not read anything and straight troll me.

Why are doing what you are doing? You honestly have a fundamental motivation to sit here and argue something so blatantly obvious?

I'm not. I've read every post in this thread and a large amount of your other posts. I'm not speaking from ignorance here.

fair enough, appreciated.

You're right, there's no point in responding to you, so that's on me. I won't reply again. Best of luck in your endeavors.