High Stakes Poker thread (11/12 - 500k Buyin - Part 2 Spoilers ahoy) - Page 35

JDesab · #**341** 11-19-2007, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Farhas always trying to chop pots when its heads up. Also in the old episode that they showed last night at 8 oclock he calls like 7k with q6 heads up with elezra. Then before the flop is dealt eli bets 12-13k blind. Farha says he might move all in, actually moves all of his chips towards to center of the table. He then tells elezra that if he bets 23k he will go all in the dark. Elezra throws the chips in to make it 23k and then farha pulls his chips back.

Yea he doesnt angel shoot at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

no that's not angle shooting. don't be so serious all the time.

chopping pots is not angle shooting. if he were being "serious" with eli then you'd have a case.. but if you can read people at all you'd see that his behavior in the 23k hand was just fine with eli. eli didn't feel he was being manipulated at all.

relax bro. it's still a game. no matter how much money is involved it's a game

JDesab · #**342** 11-19-2007, 01:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your statement says that you believe that in some way PA did something wrong. he did nothing wrong. he got jamie to put all his chips in the middle a as a big dog. somewhere between a 3.5 and 4:1 dog. PA agrees to run it three times and while in most cases he would be wrong to do this it worked out further in his favor. imo, he played this hand dreamily. enough for all of his fans to keep it up for weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your retardation consistency is very impressive. Also a major lol at "PA agrees to run it three times and while in most cases he would be wrong to do this it worked out further in his favor." seriously, if you think running it 3 times, or 2 times, or 46 times is somehow a "mistake" you clearly have no idea wtf you're talking about. explain how you think this is a mistake, I'm curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you read my post.. and perhaps you would have needed to do it slowly .. you will see that my post says "although he made no mistake his fans seem to still need to make excuses for him"....
yet i will explain myself.

going to the river anotonius is better than a 3:1 favorite. 3 out of 4 times he will win.

so if he offers to run it twice... he's 3 of 4 to win the first. he's testing that twice by running it twice. giving gold 2 chances to draw one of ten cards right.

now running it 3 times he's giving gold 3 chances to draw one of 10 cards.

wouldn't you rather just give your opponent one chance to draw at ten cards? i will say that i like it that PA chose 3 times rather than just 2. he can only really fear gold getting lucky once.. and by running it three times he's figuring he's guaranteeing himself a profit on the hand. it just so happens that gold got very lucky and got two of three.

i used the word mistake... perhaps that's not the appropriate word. i do know that if i have you 3:1 i'm more likely to say "run it once".

Keyser. · #**343** 11-19-2007, 03:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your statement says that you believe that in some way PA did something wrong. he did nothing wrong. he got jamie to put all his chips in the middle a as a big dog. somewhere between a 3.5 and 4:1 dog. PA agrees to run it three times and while in most cases he would be wrong to do this it worked out further in his favor. imo, he played this hand dreamily. enough for all of his fans to keep it up for weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your retardation consistency is very impressive. Also a major lol at "PA agrees to run it three times and while in most cases he would be wrong to do this it worked out further in his favor." seriously, if you think running it 3 times, or 2 times, or 46 times is somehow a "mistake" you clearly have no idea wtf you're talking about. explain how you think this is a mistake, I'm curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you read my post.. and perhaps you would have needed to do it slowly .. you will see that my post says "although he made no mistake his fans seem to still need to make excuses for him"....
yet i will explain myself.

going to the river anotonius is better than a 3:1 favorite. 3 out of 4 times he will win.

so if he offers to run it twice... he's 3 of 4 to win the first. he's testing that twice by running it twice. giving gold 2 chances to draw one of ten cards right.

now running it 3 times he's giving gold 3 chances to draw one of 10 cards.

wouldn't you rather just give your opponent one chance to draw at ten cards? i will say that i like it that PA chose 3 times rather than just 2. he can only really fear gold getting lucky once.. and by running it three times he's figuring he's guaranteeing himself a profit on the hand. it just so happens that gold got very lucky and got two of three.

i used the word mistake... perhaps that's not the appropriate word. i do know that if i have you 3:1 i'm more likely to say "run it once".

[/ QUOTE ]

you're wrong. and kinda dumb. Running it x amount of times doesn't change the EV, as has been discussed on here a few hundred times.

Gullanian · #**344** 11-19-2007, 03:33 AM

A good way of explaining running it x times is:

The river card is the last card to come. Player 1 is 80% favorite, player 2 is 20% favorite.

1 card comes: 80% player 1
run it 47 times: 80% player 1

running it 47 times will give each player their % odds of the pot exactly. So just running it less than that is increasing variance

jjshabado · #**345** 11-19-2007, 04:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your statement says that you believe that in some way PA did something wrong. he did nothing wrong. he got jamie to put all his chips in the middle a as a big dog. somewhere between a 3.5 and 4:1 dog. PA agrees to run it three times and while in most cases he would be wrong to do this it worked out further in his favor. imo, he played this hand dreamily. enough for all of his fans to keep it up for weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your retardation consistency is very impressive. Also a major lol at "PA agrees to run it three times and while in most cases he would be wrong to do this it worked out further in his favor." seriously, if you think running it 3 times, or 2 times, or 46 times is somehow a "mistake" you clearly have no idea wtf you're talking about. explain how you think this is a mistake, I'm curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you read my post.. and perhaps you would have needed to do it slowly .. you will see that my post says "although he made no mistake his fans seem to still need to make excuses for him"....
yet i will explain myself.

going to the river anotonius is better than a 3:1 favorite. 3 out of 4 times he will win.

so if he offers to run it twice... he's 3 of 4 to win the first. he's testing that twice by running it twice. giving gold 2 chances to draw one of ten cards right.

now running it 3 times he's giving gold 3 chances to draw one of 10 cards.

wouldn't you rather just give your opponent one chance to draw at ten cards? i will say that i like it that PA chose 3 times rather than just 2. he can only really fear gold getting lucky once.. and by running it three times he's figuring he's guaranteeing himself a profit on the hand. it just so happens that gold got very lucky and got two of three.

i used the word mistake... perhaps that's not the appropriate word. i do know that if i have you 3:1 i'm more likely to say "run it once".

[/ QUOTE ]

you're wrong. and kinda dumb. Running it x amount of times doesn't change the EV, as has been discussed on here a few hundred times.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a small nugget of truth in that post though. He's so close to the fact that the more times PA runs it the more confident he can be that he'll end up winning. IE. the more its run the lower the variance.

zer0 · #**346** 11-19-2007, 02:14 PM

same lineup tonight?

Kevmath · #**347** 11-19-2007, 02:45 PM

Same lineup, Negreanu will be on the show Nov. 26.

JDesab · #**348** 11-19-2007, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]

There's a small nugget of truth in that post though. He's so close to the fact that the more times PA runs it the more confident he can be that he'll end up winning. IE. the more its run the lower the variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

look .. it's simple. you let a person have more than one chance there's better odds that they'll suck out on you. over a hundred trials you should win 77 and lose 23. but we all know that in any group of one hundred trials.. you could win only 65 and lose 35. and... it's even possible for you to lose 51 and win 49. very very very unlikely but that's the thing with random activities. it could happen. so, what i was saying was that it was smart for PA to choose the number 3. you can't expect gold to hit the boat two out of three times but it is possible for him to hit 1 out of 2. if gold gets lucky 1 out of two times antonius makes nothing (very very little) ... if it goes as expected and antonius wins 2 out of 3 .. or 3 out of 3... antonius has thereby increased his chances of making a profit on the hand. antonius was somewhere around 75 to 77% to win this hand. not a lock by any stretch.

my post was actually giving antonius praise. and was mocking those of you that are obvious fanboys that were still exploring the possibility that antonius had made some form of mistake.

Dromar · #**349** 11-19-2007, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

so, what i was saying was that it was smart for PA to choose the number 3. you can't expect gold to hit the boat two out of three times but it is possible for him to hit 1 out of 2. if gold gets lucky 1 out of two times antonius makes nothing (very very little) ... if it goes as expected and antonius wins 2 out of 3 .. or 3 out of 3... antonius has thereby increased his chances of making a profit on the hand. antonius was somewhere around 75 to 77% to win this hand. not a lock by any stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

The EV is the same no matter how many times you run it. You may or may not have been aware of this. But when you state that running it more times gives PA a better chance of profiting on the hand, while true, it's somewhat misguided.

Here's the thing: PA had 77% equity in a 700K pot (or whatever, I don't remember the exact pot size anymore). He's already made his profit, and it's fixed. Specifically, 77% of the pot basically belongs to him. Any difference between his "profit" and his actual win is just variance. So, similar to what you said, running it more -> decrease variance -> higher chance that PA has more money than he started the hand with. But keep in mind that it doesn't change the EV.

It's possible, based on how you stated things, that you think PA makes more money by running it more, evidenced by having a higher chance of profiting on the hand. I'm just trying to say that, while he will profit more often, the profit will be smaller on average (because Jamie will almost certainly get at least some of the pot) the more times the hand gets run.

On a related note, I believe that running it 3 times was a good idea for PA, specifically because it left a greater chance for Jamie to have money after the hand. Losing with top set against a straight (no matter how good or bad he played) is the type of hand that makes someone not want to rebuy.

jjshabado · #**350** 11-19-2007, 08:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There's a small nugget of truth in that post though. He's so close to the fact that the more times PA runs it the more confident he can be that he'll end up winning. IE. the more its run the lower the variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

look .. it's simple. you let a person have more than one chance there's better odds that they'll suck out on you. over a hundred trials you should win 77 and lose 23. but we all know that in any group of one hundred trials.. you could win only 65 and lose 35. and... it's even possible for you to lose 51 and win 49. very very very unlikely but that's the thing with random activities. it could happen. so, what i was saying was that it was smart for PA to choose the number 3. you can't expect gold to hit the boat two out of three times but it is possible for him to hit 1 out of 2. if gold gets lucky 1 out of two times antonius makes nothing (very very little) ... if it goes as expected and antonius wins 2 out of 3 .. or 3 out of 3... antonius has thereby increased his chances of making a profit on the hand. antonius was somewhere around 75 to 77% to win this hand. not a lock by any stretch.

my post was actually giving antonius praise. and was mocking those of you that are obvious fanboys that were still exploring the possibility that antonius had made some form of mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a fanboy. And we weren't mocking Antonius or anybody else but you.