I love sheep.
They love to follow the crowd and redundantly repeat what others have already said.

After reading the part where he claimed his hand was a double belly buster when it was a simpe oesd, and the fact that he doesnt realize the concept of all in equity, i pretty much quit reading this after close to 20 seconds.



you are a moron sir, my dad has a phd, who gives a [censored].

hey youngdro. im going to trace your ip address and come over. by tomorrow you and your brothers bodies will be at the bottom of a river..

I wont make fun of ya but you theory sounds bad. I will give you K-9 and I will take A-6 and we will do 50 flops at 50 a piece.

Some quick advice:

1) Move this thread to BBV

2) Juxtapose with This thread where OP demonstrates why overcards are superior to Pocket Pairs

3) Hilarity ensues!

This theory is very close to the "Get Smart" theory about life. In that TV series the good organization was "Control" and the bad guys were "Chaos". Control always won - but they always did things the wrong way and just kind of lucked into their victories. The star of that show, Don Adams, never was able to parlay his one TV series success into stardom just as I am afraid that you will never be able to win with your fantasy theory anywhere outside of that heads up $1 game with your brother. I think you have a shot against your brother because, my guess is that he shares some of your genes.

He will have to wear his brothers jeans if he plays poker like this, he wont have any money for his own.

YoungDro's brother is also his son. Theres been alot of inbreeding going on in that family for generations.

Thanks for the response. I'm speechless.

Another Darwin thread?

Well at least you got a reply from Mason himself. Not sure if it's worth more or less than $1 tho. I'll transfer you $1 if you tell me exactly what you were smoking...

OP is correct.

Extrapolating from his post, a hand like 99 (YD number 81) should be quite an underdog to a hand like 9A (YD number 117). What is interesting is that when I test this hypothesis by running "hot and cold" simulations on PokerStove or cardplayer.com, the simulator incorrectly assigns 99 the greater win probability (by a healthy margin, too: PS thinks pocket 9's are about a 7-to-3 favorite over A9).

In addition to its implications for what Sklansky might term "reverse domination" situations (o! the irony!), OP's system correctly implies that suited hands offer no advantages over offsuit hands, which should be intuitively obvious to all of you. (Clearly, it is just as good to have two chancese to make a four card flush as it is to have only one chance at a three-carder. (3-1=2; but 4-2=2 as well. Q.E.D.))

These examples support OP's assertion that much current poker thinking is incorrect: Sklansky has not only inadvertantly tricked many of the readers of these forums; indeed, his corrupting influence appears to have spread even to those computer programmers who design poker software.

To Y0ungdr0:

Thank you very much for your help! If you do manage to collect some donations, please let me know. I certainly believe your work deserves compensation.

Personally, I would most like to present my money to you "over the table", ideally by going all-in preflop in one or two heads-up NL situations your system has identified.

My thought is, we can reveal our hands preflop, and in order to assure that you receive your due, I will take the worst of it in any of the mismatch situations that you've discovered, EG by playing A6 against your K7. I really like this, because my donations will be in direct proportion to the value of your thoughts (especially over the course of the many hands I hope we can get in, so as to further my learning). Given the strength of your ideas and your great generosity in sharing them, I feel like no matter how much I end up eventually donating, I'll be getting one heck of a bargain!

I'll look you up next time I'm on PS. Thanks again for your terrific thoughts!

Warm regards,
Jogger

Yep, sorry Dave Im gonna have a DS book burning now because I have seen the light.Does anyone else want to burn away years of DS hard work so we can follow YOUNGDRO? Sorry YOUNGDRO just havin some fun at you exspense.

Forget supposed, put this in pokerstove monte carlo and let it run a couple zillion hands and see what you get...
*cough* its about 19 "points" as you call them going the wrong way...
Dude if this was supposed to be funny, its not...

Cool.

On the contrary, I played a freeroll today in a field of 200 players, came out in 6th place (intentionally again, as one player was continually disconnected for 2-3 mins every single hand at the final table, so i went out with a bang and took the $5). I was the chip leader (my stack was three times the size of the 2nd place stack) the entire time of the tournament until I got to the final table.

Proof of these statements can be verified if you want. I can simply request a hand history, load the data from pokeroffice, or show screenshots if the truth of my claim is challenged.

So... I must be doing something right in order to be such a superior and dominant player.

To quote one of my opponents: "You should be out of this tournament by now. You are so lucky."

I knocked out 40-50 of the players in the tournament in situations where I was significantly dominated (by Sklansky's system that is).

The underlying philosophy of my post is what guided me so successfully in this tournament. True, I make clever bluffs, intuitive reads, and testicle-requiring calls - so skill and experience definitely gives me an advantage over most players. However, I repeat... my fundamental theory is what makes my poker game what it is. (and that is a winning game)

Of course, even if your hand values worked, you've yet to explain how you'll ever be able to use it. Perhaps you can get your opponents to play with their hands exposed. Then no doubt you will have an advantage.

And I can see where your fundamental theory is what makes your poker game what it is--a winning game, as you say. What you're winning I don't know. The rest of us are winning money and don't have to beg for dollars and cry about a $100 loss desrtoying our credit. Of course the rest of us would have never have given out personal data to a stranger with a hustle. But who am I to argue with success?

I think your theory is a good start, in that you give higher cards a higher value. That's good, because the rules say higher cards beat lower cards. You definitely need to add in something to deal with suits, though, for flush possibilities. Also, pairs should be given some sort of "bonus" since they don't even need to hit any outs to win the hand (because pairs beat high-cards).

I'm not sure multiplying the values together is the best thing... maybe adding them would be better? But, then, give them values that aren't sequential, but more exponential or logarithmic. Not sure which way would be best.

Then you can give them another bonus for how "connected" they are; >4 apart would not get a bonus, though, since that doesn't help you get a straight.

In the end, you should end up with a list of all possible starting hands, ranked by value in an order that closely resembles the true odds that hand will win when calculated using a simulator over many-thousands of hands.

Hey, Phil H has a new 2+2 account!

whos phil h?

"luck odds" = best pokah term EVAH

I was jk bro. youve put some thought into your playing system and I respect that.

YD,

I think in refining your system that possibly using logarithmics will help.

Also, I think there should be bonus. You know how you're saying the closer the cards, the more luck? Well, when you have 99, you can't get any closer than that, right? That should get extra points. For example, anything that is as close together as being a pair should get 50 extra points.

So, obviously, AA would get 246 while 22 would get 54, yet 32 would get 6 points. 72 would get 14 points, however, I think one gappers should get a bonus of 5, so 32 would get 11 points, and cards more than 3 gaps should have 5 points taken away (unless they're a suited King) so 72 would be 9 points, and 62 would be 7 points. But, this doesn't take into account using logarithms, and...

You'd have to get pokertracker or someone to write a program using all of your math, and your luck odds, and just combine them and use an overlay because at one point it might be difficult figuring out all the math involved for each of your hands.

Plus, you could also take this further, and attach points to the flop PLUS your hand, and on and on. If anyone is taking this seriously, I apologize in advance.

Well, great post, and keep up the good work. Someday, someone will understand I'm sure. You're probably going to win Stars Sunday Million at one point, and outside of few of the recent winners, I think that most on here would agree that you could win it.

I see why your broke and need donations!

It takes ingenuity to come up with something as ******ed as this.