Sklansky Hand Rankings Destroyed! >=)

[Y0UNGDR0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This theory is very close to the "Get Smart" theory about life. In that TV series the good organization was "Control" and the bad guys were "Chaos". Control always won - but they always did things the wrong way and just kind of lucked into their victories. The star of that show, Don Adams, never was able to parlay his one TV series success into stardom just as I am afraid that you will never be able to win with your fantasy theory anywhere outside of that heads up $1 game with your brother. I think you have a shot against your brother because, my guess is that he shares some of your genes.

[/ QUOTE ]He will have to wear his brothers jeans if he plays poker like this, he wont have any money for his own. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, I played a freeroll today in a field of 200 players, came out in 6th place (intentionally again, as one player was continually disconnected for 2-3 mins every single hand at the final table, so i went out with a bang and took the $5). I was the chip leader (my stack was three times the size of the 2nd place stack) the entire time of the tournament until I got to the final table.

Proof of these statements can be verified if you want. I can simply request a hand history, load the data from pokeroffice, or show screenshots if the truth of my claim is challenged.

So... I must be doing something right in order to be such a superior and dominant player.

To quote one of my opponents: "You should be out of this tournament by now. You are so lucky."

I knocked out 40-50 of the players in the tournament in situations where I was significantly dominated (by Sklansky's system that is).

The underlying philosophy of my post is what guided me so successfully in this tournament. True, I make clever bluffs, intuitive reads, and testicle-requiring calls - so skill and experience definitely gives me an advantage over most players. However, I repeat... my fundamental theory is what makes my poker game what it is. (and that is a winning game)

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
I knocked out 40-50 of the players in the tournament in situations where I was significantly dominated (by Sklansky's system that is).

The underlying philosophy of my post is what guided me so successfully in this tournament. True, I make clever bluffs, intuitive reads, and testicle-requiring calls - so skill and experience definitely gives me an advantage over most players. However, I repeat... my fundamental theory is what makes my poker game what it is. (and that is a winning game)


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, even if your hand values worked, you've yet to explain how you'll ever be able to use it. Perhaps you can get your opponents to play with their hands exposed. Then no doubt you will have an advantage.

And I can see where your fundamental theory is what makes your poker game what it is--a winning game, as you say. What you're winning I don't know. The rest of us are winning money and don't have to beg for dollars and cry about a $100 loss desrtoying our credit. Of course the rest of us would have never have given out personal data to a stranger with a hustle. But who am I to argue with success? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[KipBond]

I think your theory is a good start, in that you give higher cards a higher value. That's good, because the rules say higher cards beat lower cards. You definitely need to add in something to deal with suits, though, for flush possibilities. Also, pairs should be given some sort of "bonus" since they don't even need to hit any outs to win the hand (because pairs beat high-cards).

I'm not sure multiplying the values together is the best thing... maybe adding them would be better? But, then, give them values that aren't sequential, but more exponential or logarithmic. Not sure which way would be best.

Then you can give them another bonus for how "connected" they are; >4 apart would not get a bonus, though, since that doesn't help you get a straight.

In the end, you should end up with a list of all possible starting hands, ranked by value in an order that closely resembles the true odds that hand will win when calculated using a simulator over many-thousands of hands.

[latefordinner]

Hey, Phil H has a new 2+2 account!

[shymijo2love4]

whos phil h?

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
It is only useful for helping to calculate your luck odds

[/ QUOTE ]

"luck odds" = best pokah term EVAH

[drunkencowboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey youngdro. im going to trace your ip address and come over. by tomorrow you and your brothers bodies will be at the bottom of a river..

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was jk bro. youve put some thought into your playing system and I respect that.

[jackaaron]

YD,

I think in refining your system that possibly using logarithmics will help.

Also, I think there should be bonus. You know how you're saying the closer the cards, the more luck? Well, when you have 99, you can't get any closer than that, right? That should get extra points. For example, anything that is as close together as being a pair should get 50 extra points.

So, obviously, AA would get 246 while 22 would get 54, yet 32 would get 6 points. 72 would get 14 points, however, I think one gappers should get a bonus of 5, so 32 would get 11 points, and cards more than 3 gaps should have 5 points taken away (unless they're a suited King) so 72 would be 9 points, and 62 would be 7 points. But, this doesn't take into account using logarithms, and...

You'd have to get pokertracker or someone to write a program using all of your math, and your luck odds, and just combine them and use an overlay because at one point it might be difficult figuring out all the math involved for each of your hands.

Plus, you could also take this further, and attach points to the flop PLUS your hand, and on and on. If anyone is taking this seriously, I apologize in advance.

Well, great post, and keep up the good work. Someday, someone will understand I'm sure. You're probably going to win Stars Sunday Million at one point, and outside of few of the recent winners, I think that most on here would agree that you could win it.

[JimBerry]

I see why your broke and need donations!

[Dima2000123]

It takes ingenuity to come up with something as retarded as this.