I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[Piece of Cake]

[ QUOTE ]

Awesome post, Piece of Cake!

Incredibly, the 2+2 experts don't seem to be getting your wonderful humor ... but some of us appreciate it, anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. I was disheartened that no one else was on the same level as me. But just in case Stars decides to throw the doomswitch on me I wanted to state clearly that they are indeed the nuts.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. This [censored] keeps happening 85% of the time, for hundreds of hands. You ask us for recorded stats, whereas you know this is an impossible task unless you are a computer expert.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um...OK. It takes a computer expert to use Pokertracker, does it? Maybe in your world. Anyway, what about providing us with all of the data you must have written down at least? You gave percentages of your big hands that weren't winning...so let's see the numbers! 85% of the time you say...you must be basing this off of something!

[ QUOTE ]
I tried to use pokertracker and its more complicated than photoshop (lol). And the logs of hand histories are almost unreadable and require months to analyse them.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol

[ QUOTE ]
And suppose one does all this. What can he do with them? Would these records be easy to post? And post where? Here? And besides, how will I proove that I was not selecting the stats I prefere to prove my point? Dont worry, truth will win at the end. I have not made up my mind. I still give a 5% that it is not rigged, and 5% probs do happen in life.

Oh, and you obviously have no idea about probs etc. A 5% edge is HUGE and more than enough to wipe out the opponent's entrire bankroll. You say that a good player has more than 10% edge(that is 15% before the rake is taken)! Lol!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right...you must be the expert at odds, you've proven it again and again in this thread. What do I know? I'm sure my edge on the donkey who plays 60% of his hand, never raises pre-flop, and goes to showdown with every hand, must be only 1 or 2%. Amazing how he chews through $100 at $1/2 limit in only 10 or 15 minutes, though.

[MicroBob]

FWIW - I really don't read every single word of every post. That makes me a bit more susceptible to getting levelled in threads like these by those who are trying to be fun and sarcastic.

Usually I read the first couple sentences, skim around a bit, and generally get the point.
This works most of the time in threads such as these except in case like this.


Back to our newest good pal on 2+2:

"I tried to use pokertracker and its more complicated than photoshop"


ummmm, wow.
Since when did using PT become difficult?


"This [censored] keeps happening 85% of the time"


Since you can't figure out how to use PT I assume you are making up this 85% figure.
This percentage is just your gut feeling about it? You're pretty sure it's not 91% or 78%?
You can just play there for a few hours without going back over your own hands and can definitely say it was 85%?

That's pretty impressive.

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any my analysis is over 500k hands if not more. So please no retarded variance explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please to be sharing analysis?

[/ QUOTE ]


English, do you speak it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm...you could pick at the grammar used, or answer the question. BTW, that's actually a bit of a 2+2ism, I can write just fine, thanks...what does speaking have to do with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, I don't know wtf you're talking about.

Please to be sharing analysis?

You want me to show you proof?

What good would that do, you're not going to change your mind.

You'll just try telling me I suck at poker or attribute it to variance.

No thanks.

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the statistically unreasonable losses exactly because of the very strong hands being beated by stronger hands, proove that one would be a loser even with 0% rake. Therefore ... casino is rigged (lol).

[/ QUOTE ]


Anyone have their tin-foil-hat translator handy?

[/ QUOTE ]


Think this means that he'd be a loser even with no rake, which is something we can all agree on.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, I don't know wtf you're talking about.

Please to be sharing analysis?

You want me to show you proof?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course that's what I meant. But I apologise, I did mean to clarify in my earlier post in case you actually didn't understand.

[ QUOTE ]
What good would that do, you're not going to change your mind.

You'll just try telling me I suck at poker or attribute it to variance.

No thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Good to know what I'll say in the future...of course, you're wrong. This is what we've all been asking for over and over and over again. Apparently you didn't see it, but a few months ago there was a post like OPs, but he showed actual PT screen shots. There was a HUGE problem with something...I think it was frequency of pocket pairs. This was taken very seriously by many of the usual nay-sayers (of course there were a number who still didn't believe, but that will always happen). Thankfully, it proved to be a problem with an older version of PT not displaying the hands.

So, why not provide some stats to back up what you're saying? Are you really that afraid of being mocked if someone doesn't believe you? If the numbers are legit, I'm sure you'll find plenty of support.

Or you can just be like all the others with their "poker is rigged" posts with nothing to back it up.

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. This [censored] keeps happening 85% of the time, for hundreds of hands. You ask us for recorded stats, whereas you know this is an impossible task unless you are a computer expert.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um...OK. It takes a computer expert to use Pokertracker, does it? Maybe in your world. Anyway, what about providing us with all of the data you must have written down at least? You gave percentages of your big hands that weren't winning...so let's see the numbers! 85% of the time you say...you must be basing this off of something!

[ QUOTE ]
I tried to use pokertracker and its more complicated than photoshop (lol). And the logs of hand histories are almost unreadable and require months to analyse them.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol

[ QUOTE ]
And suppose one does all this. What can he do with them? Would these records be easy to post? And post where? Here? And besides, how will I proove that I was not selecting the stats I prefere to prove my point? Dont worry, truth will win at the end. I have not made up my mind. I still give a 5% that it is not rigged, and 5% probs do happen in life.

Oh, and you obviously have no idea about probs etc. A 5% edge is HUGE and more than enough to wipe out the opponent's entrire bankroll. You say that a good player has more than 10% edge(that is 15% before the rake is taken)! Lol!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right...you must be the expert at odds, you've proven it again and again in this thread. What do I know? I'm sure my edge on the donkey who plays 60% of his hand, never raises pre-flop, and goes to showdown with every hand, must be only 1 or 2%. Amazing how he chews through $100 at $1/2 limit in only 10 or 15 minutes, though.

[/ QUOTE ]


I must be a fish, here are my stats....my old pc blew out so this is just a small sample.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
Suffice to say that I know of MANY MANY players that make money in spite of that HUGE 5% rake lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know of several players who consistently earned money for years playing nothing but Party single table sit'n-go tournaments, which were raked at 10%. At 40% in-the-money in a 10-player tournament, they were 33% better than their competition on average. Among the guys I'm referring to, 40% ITM was the record of the guy with the minimum skill.

[5thStreetHog]

RealJay,you shouldnt have posted your stats.No offence,but they are donktastic.

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
RealJay,you shouldnt have posted your stats.No offence,but they are donkastic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was a fish, not a donkey,,,i r wrong.