|
|
#191
07-23-2007, 10:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Annette plays $4.40 180 blind... and wins.
She wasn't trying to prove anything, she was just doing it for fun. I don't think there's any need to stir up some rumor that she possibly ever played other ones blind (putting up Scope numbers only proves she played other ones, not played them blind).
I think some players on this forum would do better playing blind in these. They would be forced to play position, and look for fold equity wherever they could find it. I think that, oftentimes, players overvalue top pair, or over pairs, and get in trouble in these. There are obviously other mistakes. I played a SnG blind last night after reading this, and I got HU and didn't win. I found it difficult to play HU since my opponent was playing every hand, and willing to go to showdown in nearly every hand. Obviously. As an aside, I folded KK three times, AA once, a set of 3's once, and a boat once. 
|
|
#192
07-23-2007, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Annette plays $4.40 180 blind... and wins.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Anyone sharkscoped her to see how many attempts it took? I put the over/under at 50. [/ QUOTE ] all blind?  [/ QUOTE ] I'd assume so; Annette has no reason to be playing those otherwise.
|
|
#194
07-23-2007, 11:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Annette plays $4.40 180 blind... and wins.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] hey stop taking my action! what odds would you expect playing 100 of them? [/ QUOTE ] Pulling a wild an unsubstantiated guess out of nowhere, I imagine the odds of anyone winning first place in 100 honest attempts is at LEAST 20-to-1. It might be 200-to-1, who knows. [/ QUOTE ] I'll take 10 to 1 on 100 tries for as much money as anybody is willing to escrow edit: there is a very easy way of verifiably doing this - one side of the bet plays on their own account, the other side tells them the action to take over AIM. it'd take A LOT of time to do this so the bet ought to be for a lot of money. [/ QUOTE ] I would consider booking this bet for 10k:1k, but I'm guessing that isnt high enough for you
|
|
#197
07-23-2007, 11:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Annette plays $4.40 180 blind... and wins.
I've won two 4/180s but not blind. My screen name is "Gene Watson" and you can Sharkscope it if you don't believe it.
|
|
#198
07-23-2007, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Annette plays $4.40 180 blind... and wins.
wait so am i one of the dumb ones or what?
|
|
#200
07-23-2007, 12:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Annette plays $4.40 180 blind... and wins.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] hey stop taking my action! what odds would you expect playing 100 of them? [/ QUOTE ] Pulling a wild an unsubstantiated guess out of nowhere, I imagine the odds of anyone winning first place in 100 honest attempts is at LEAST 20-to-1. It might be 200-to-1, who knows. [/ QUOTE ] I'll take 10 to 1 on 100 tries for as much money as anybody is willing to escrow edit: there is a very easy way of verifiably doing this - one side of the bet plays on their own account, the other side tells them the action to take over AIM. it'd take A LOT of time to do this so the bet ought to be for a lot of money. [/ QUOTE ] I would consider booking this bet for 10k:1k, but I'm guessing that isnt high enough for you [/ QUOTE ] yeah, the worst part of that bet would be playing a hundred of those [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] oh god the hourly rate lol
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
