|
|
#241
05-09-2005, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Update?
You lazy piece of ....
Ok, no verdict. Half the world feels he's cheating. Half the world thinks we should explore how he does it. No details yet. Oh...and someone pretending to be the villian posted saying that we are all a bunch of jerks....he's probably right, but I can live with that. Good luck. Dave 
|
|
#242
05-09-2005, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DERB
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I have the data, and no, I'm not sharing. [/ QUOTE ] There appear to be some readers still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I believe your credibility diminishes substantially when you make statements like this. [/ QUOTE ] Just because I love to play The Devil's Advocate, featuring Keanu Reeves... If I had extensive statistics that showed players that maintained stats that would be considered 'abornmal' by the majority of the poker playing population, while maintaining higher winrates than most, I would probably either be one of those players, or be attempting to emulate them. Either way, if I weren't independently wealthy already, I would almost certainly keep them to myself. [/ QUOTE ] Hi, I liked that movie too. If what you say were the case then I don't think I'd be on this thread bragging about how there's this secret new style of play that's ultra profitable. I'd be keeping it to myself. It appears to be a pretty clear bluff, IMHO.
|
|
#243
05-09-2005, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DERB
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hey Andrew - you are saying that when I cap out of the small blind and lead every street into multiple opponents, even regardless of their action, there is a greater than 0% chance that AJ unimproved is good on the river? [/ QUOTE ] No. I'm not saying that at all. In fact, it seems that you don't even know what the actual problem that needs to be solved is. Not only do you not know how to solve the problem, you don't even know how to formulate it. Not very surprising really. [ QUOTE ] Oh yeah, let me know when you scrape together your evidence of people with 30% VPIP in very tight and aggressive games who are big winners, I'm excited to see the data. -James [/ QUOTE ] I have the data, and no, I'm not sharing. - Andrew www.pokerstove.com [/ QUOTE ] ok, I'm gonna start off by saying that you are better at poker than me and you play bigger stakes and you have a bigger penis blah blah blah, so we've got that covered should you deem this message worth rebutting. you are a douche. stop being so f-ing cryptic. you are making vague, generic arguments with no evidence or data to back you up, and you're defending your point like a first grader. "nuh-uh, YOURE wrong". you're smugly insisting you're right and you really have no basis for any of it either 1) back up your arguments with some evidence, some data, or just some insightful logic, or 2) if you're so sure you're right, then use whatever mythical magical style you say works, keep it to yourself, make $, and stop being such a prick.
|
|
#244
05-09-2005, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DERB
This has been an interesting thread. I have but one request. When there is 0% useful content left and 100% flaming (over/under is 18 hours, unless Barron releases some numbers before then), may I be the one that gets to compare someone to Hitler?
2nd
|
|
#245
05-09-2005, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DERB
[ QUOTE ]
I probably misclick once every 75,000 clicks [/ QUOTE ] nice nice, I think I misclick closer to 1 in 35,000. Yet another poker stat you kick my ass on! If you're going to factor in 1 in 75k though I think you should have also added chance that your ISP goes out, that you spill your drink on your keyboard, or that a bird flies in your window and causes you to time out [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#246
05-10-2005, 08:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DERB
[ QUOTE ]
you are a douche. stop being so f-ing cryptic. you are making vague, generic arguments with no evidence or data to back you up, and you're defending your point like a first grader. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, I'm just emulating the "Sklansky" style here. I'll let others elaborate. [ QUOTE ] 1) back up your arguments with some evidence, some data, or just some insightful logic, or 2) if you're so sure you're right, then use whatever mythical magical style you say works, keep it to yourself, make $, and stop being such a prick. [/ QUOTE ] I'm just here for my own personal amusement. As far as the simple logic, it's already been done. Statistics tell us that this guy is a winner. He's almost certainly a 1 BB/100 winner, and quite likely wins at a higher rate. The idea that James can refute those statistics because "he knows" or because of a few anomalous hands is lunacy. Simple logic says James doesn't know what he's talking about. And, it's spelled p-r-O-c-k. - Andrew www.pokerstove.com
|
|
#247
05-10-2005, 09:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DERB
a nice reply. perhaps I misjudged. the only thing I disagree with is
[ QUOTE ] Statistics tell us that this guy is a winner. He's almost certainly a 1 BB/100 winner, and quite likely wins at a higher rate. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#248
05-10-2005, 10:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Update?
[ QUOTE ]
Hey I started reading this thread when it first started and I am now too lazy to read the entire thing. Anyone wanna give me the verdict on this guy? Has there been one? cheater? just an awesome super LAG who knows all the players in the game good enough to get payed? [/ QUOTE ] Anyone care to PM me with the screen name. I don't have the massive db's others have, so he doesn't jump out at me. I call that Occam Razor guy. Simplest explanation is usually the correct one, or something like that. Cheers Magi
|
|
#249
05-10-2005, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DERB
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that James can refute those statistics because "he knows" or because of a few anomalous hands is lunacy. Simple logic says James doesn't know what he's talking about. www.pokerstove.com [/ QUOTE ] A- it's not "a few" hands. B- several posters have stated that this guy is not playing well. What people are saying is "look at the numbers, he must be a winner" But really everybody else is saying "we have numbers over a much longer period of time that tell us that playing like this means you won't win long term". So to paint the position of James and others as going strickly on annecdotal evidence and ignoring hard numbers just isn't correct. The fact is that based on everything the 2+2 community knows and understands about how the stats relate to winning this guy just shouldn't be making money at the rate he is.
|
|
#250
05-10-2005, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DERB
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The idea that James can refute those statistics because "he knows" or because of a few anomalous hands is lunacy. Simple logic says James doesn't know what he's talking about. www.pokerstove.com [/ QUOTE ] A- it's not "a few" hands. B- several posters have stated that this guy is not playing well. What people are saying is "look at the numbers, he must be a winner" But really everybody else is saying "we have numbers over a much longer period of time that tell us that playing like this means you won't win long term". So to paint the position of James and others as going strickly on annecdotal evidence and ignoring hard numbers just isn't correct. The fact is that based on everything the 2+2 community knows and understands about how the stats relate to winning this guy just shouldn't be making money at the rate he is. [/ QUOTE ] They aren't ignoring the hard numbers. The numbers tell you that there is a 95% chance that he is a winner. Lots of people play the 30/60, he seems to be a lottery winner, that 5% one. Even if you put his stats into 99% or 99.99% confidence intervals the argument is still valid.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
