Shannon Shorr thinking of quitting ...

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if they are not around for the long term (which is the lifetime of poker, not the player) how can you know if they would be a long term winner. Also, in order to be a long term winner you would need to consider every hand of poker that has ever been played which is in the trillions (probably more but I'm not sure what comes after trillions). What hands a player plays in their lifetime is still only a short term sample and therefore you can't say that someone is a long term winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

This (particularly the bolded part) is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not incorrect until somebody proves why it's incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]


Partially because you're the only one who thinks that's what "long term" means, and partially because you're the only one who is unwilling to accept that anything with probability <1 can be called "true." If you want to redefine language usage, fine, but don't expect anyone to think you're making any sense.

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if they are not around for the long term (which is the lifetime of poker, not the player) how can you know if they would be a long term winner. Also, in order to be a long term winner you would need to consider every hand of poker that has ever been played which is in the trillions (probably more but I'm not sure what comes after trillions). What hands a player plays in their lifetime is still only a short term sample and therefore you can't say that someone is a long term winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

This (particularly the bolded part) is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not incorrect until somebody proves why it's incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]


Partially because you're the only one who thinks that's what "long term" means, and partially because you're the only one who is unwilling to accept that anything with probability <1 can be called "true." If you want to redefine language usage, fine, but don't expect anyone to think you're making any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

But my whole idea of "the long run" is because in a person's lifetime they may get the short end of the stick in situations where they are favorites to win. Ex. AK vs. J10, obviously we all know percentage wise that the AK is a slight favorite and in "the long run" AK will win more times than the J10, but the J10 will still win also. But a certain person may witness the J10 win more in their lifetime than the AK due to bad luck. That's my whole point in saying that no one will be alive long enough to see the long run. Because the percentages will play out over every hand that is ever dealt, not a person's lifetime.

[sqwisssssss]

"long term" should be desribed as "are you capable of winning in a decent sample size".

if you play cash consistently for a year and you are a winner, then you are capable of winning in the long run.

i have no idea what constitutes the long run for donkaments but i'm sure it falls under similar lines as cash games.

now, if someone is capable of winning consistently and all of a sudden snaps and loses his mind and bankroll after a few years is another story. i guess technically, he is not a long term winner.........but i would still consider this person a "capable winner in the long run"

[Jazzy3113]

I think Shannon Shorr should consider changing his name so people dont read about him and think he is a lesbian.

[sqwisssssss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if they are not around for the long term (which is the lifetime of poker, not the player) how can you know if they would be a long term winner. Also, in order to be a long term winner you would need to consider every hand of poker that has ever been played which is in the trillions (probably more but I'm not sure what comes after trillions). What hands a player plays in their lifetime is still only a short term sample and therefore you can't say that someone is a long term winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

This (particularly the bolded part) is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not incorrect until somebody proves why it's incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]


Partially because you're the only one who thinks that's what "long term" means, and partially because you're the only one who is unwilling to accept that anything with probability <1 can be called "true." If you want to redefine language usage, fine, but don't expect anyone to think you're making any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

But my whole idea of "the long run" is because in a person's lifetime they may get the short end of the stick in situations where they are favorites to win. Ex. AK vs. J10, obviously we all know percentage wise that the AK is a slight favorite and in "the long run" AK will win more times than the J10, but the J10 will still win also. But a certain person may witness the J10 win more in their lifetime than the AK due to bad luck. That's my whole point in saying that no one will be alive long enough to see the long run. Because the percentages will play out over every hand that is ever dealt, not a person's lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, first of all, ak is a huge favorite over j10........espeacially over the long run. it would take some astronomical bad luck to see ak get screwed to j10 in a life time of poker.

budblown, i know what your saying but it seems to me that you are trying to make a point about something that is not realisticly too likely.........but is possible.

what did robert deniro say to the slots manager in the movie "casino"?:

"cant you see you were getting scammed after the second jackpot? the odds of two people hitting the jackpot at the same time is in the millions, the odds of it happeneing 3 times in a row is in the billions!!!! ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN........ IT "CANT" HAPPEN!!!!!!!!

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[quote
But my whole idea of "the long run" is because in a person's lifetime they may get the short end of the stick in situations where they are favorites to win. Ex. AK vs. J10, obviously we all know percentage wise that the AK is a slight favorite and in "the long run" AK will win more times than the J10, but the J10 will still win also. But a certain person may witness the J10 win more in their lifetime than the AK due to bad luck. That's my whole point in saying that no one will be alive long enough to see the long run. Because the percentages will play out over every hand that is ever dealt, not a person's lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, first of all, ak is a huge favorite over j10........espeacially over the long run. it would take some astronomical bad luck to see ak get screwed to j10 in a life time of poker.

budblown, i know what your saying but it seems to me that you are trying to make a point about something that is not realisticly too likely.........but is possible.

what did robert deniro say to the slots manager in the movie "casino"?:

"cant you see you were getting scammed after the second jackpot? the odds of two people hitting the jackpot at the same time is in the millions, the odds of it happeneing 3 times in a row is in the billions!!!! ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN........ IT "CANT" HAPPEN!!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]


That is my point. Someone could play great poker, get their money in with the favorite hand, and still be a losing player due to the luck factor. The typical response to that usually is, well in the long run you'll be a winner. then my response to that is - But, if nobody sees the long run, how can you say that someone would be a winner in the long run.

Best quote from Casino - "Running a casino is like robbing a bank with no cops around. For guys like me, Las Vegas washes away your sins. It's like a morality car wash"

[good2cu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[quote
But my whole idea of "the long run" is because in a person's lifetime they may get the short end of the stick in situations where they are favorites to win. Ex. AK vs. J10, obviously we all know percentage wise that the AK is a slight favorite and in "the long run" AK will win more times than the J10, but the J10 will still win also. But a certain person may witness the J10 win more in their lifetime than the AK due to bad luck. That's my whole point in saying that no one will be alive long enough to see the long run. Because the percentages will play out over every hand that is ever dealt, not a person's lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, first of all, ak is a huge favorite over j10........espeacially over the long run. it would take some astronomical bad luck to see ak get screwed to j10 in a life time of poker.

budblown, i know what your saying but it seems to me that you are trying to make a point about something that is not realisticly too likely.........but is possible.

what did robert deniro say to the slots manager in the movie "casino"?:

"cant you see you were getting scammed after the second jackpot? the odds of two people hitting the jackpot at the same time is in the millions, the odds of it happeneing 3 times in a row is in the billions!!!! ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN........ IT "CANT" HAPPEN!!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]


That is my point. Someone could play great poker, get their money in with the favorite hand, and still be a losing player due to the luck factor. The typical response to that usually is, well in the long run you'll be a winner. then my response to that is - But, if nobody sees the long run, how can you say that someone would be a winner in the long run.

Best quote from Casino - "Running a casino is like robbing a bank with no cops around. For guys like me, Las Vegas washes away your sins. It's like a morality car wash"

[/ QUOTE ]

Online poker players see the long run in 2 months.

[Feltin Licter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Btw in the spirit of honesty: I was down in poker in 2007 until Aprilish.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was down until June and now up several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Poker is crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Down for 6 months ???? OMFG LOL !!!!!!!

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[quote
But my whole idea of "the long run" is because in a person's lifetime they may get the short end of the stick in situations where they are favorites to win. Ex. AK vs. J10, obviously we all know percentage wise that the AK is a slight favorite and in "the long run" AK will win more times than the J10, but the J10 will still win also. But a certain person may witness the J10 win more in their lifetime than the AK due to bad luck. That's my whole point in saying that no one will be alive long enough to see the long run. Because the percentages will play out over every hand that is ever dealt, not a person's lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, first of all, ak is a huge favorite over j10........espeacially over the long run. it would take some astronomical bad luck to see ak get screwed to j10 in a life time of poker.

budblown, i know what your saying but it seems to me that you are trying to make a point about something that is not realisticly too likely.........but is possible.

what did robert deniro say to the slots manager in the movie "casino"?:

"cant you see you were getting scammed after the second jackpot? the odds of two people hitting the jackpot at the same time is in the millions, the odds of it happeneing 3 times in a row is in the billions!!!! ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN........ IT "CANT" HAPPEN!!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]


That is my point. Someone could play great poker, get their money in with the favorite hand, and still be a losing player due to the luck factor. The typical response to that usually is, well in the long run you'll be a winner. then my response to that is - But, if nobody sees the long run, how can you say that someone would be a winner in the long run.

Best quote from Casino - "Running a casino is like robbing a bank with no cops around. For guys like me, Las Vegas washes away your sins. It's like a morality car wash"

[/ QUOTE ]

Online poker players see the long run in 2 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your opinion how many hands would you have to play to see the long run? Actually, a better question is, how many times would you have to see the exact same situation before it constitutes the long run, in your opinion?

[ItSucksBro]

Wow, you are dead wrong, Shannon is very accomplished, go back to your lyf which you suck at bro.