my father tells me i got conned out of $250,000 - Page 14

metallicafan · #**131** 02-09-2007, 08:36 AM

u tell ur father about losing 200k total gamble. I guess he s some kind of a shock and making some irrational comments on -ev and stuff

Lori · #**132** 02-09-2007, 08:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
u tell ur father about losing 200k total gamble. I guess he s some kind of a shock and making some irrational comments on -ev and stuff

[/ QUOTE ]

baronzeus · #**133** 02-09-2007, 09:22 AM

If I offered you a coinflip for half your bankroll right now, would you take it? What if it meant you had to move down in stakes if you lost? And if the money was a considerable amount, more than you had won/lost in a single day, ever?

Sure, if Grimmstarr has unlimited money, and he loves gambling or something, then by all means have some fun. But a 600K bankroll at high stakes >>> 300K bankroll by a lot. I'm sure he'll rebound, but he seems stupid for doing this.

jalexand42 · #**134** 02-09-2007, 12:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, you're being 100% results oriented. You aren't objecting to increasing variance with no EV, you're objecting to the fact that he lost a lot of money. Would you say the same thing if he decided to sit on his couch and watch a movie? "Why are you watching a movie? You could have been grinding out some cash online!"

STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

STFU? Are you kidding? _LIFE_ is results oriented.

Did he lose $200k+ doing something that is pointless or not? BZ's point is that it's stupid because he could play games that are +EV. Go get your degeneracy off on something that doesn't cost you money that matters to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you don't play poker because you obviously have no understanding of expectation and variance. Just like BZ. Yes, he lost 200K+ doing something pointless. No, doing the thing that was pointless did not cost him 200K. It cost him nothing. The fact that he lost the money was due to being very unlucky. It could have happened playing poker, too, instead of flipping coins. There is nothing wrong with flipping coins if you can stand the variance. It's neutral EV. It costs you nothing. It's exactly the same as sitting on your couch and watching TV. It just has more variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you sit down and play a game with half your bankroll? That's a theoretical +EV situation right? Why the hell don't you do that? THAT WOULD BE SMARTER THAN WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

Your argument is retarded. Flipping for meaningful money is retarded.

BTW: Bet the flop.

jalexand42 · #**135** 02-09-2007, 12:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you that out of touch with reality? Doing flips did not cost him 200k? Before flipping BR=600k after flipping BR=400k if flipping didn’t cause this then what did? I don’t think he has ever lost half his bankroll as a result of watching television, so to say they are the same is simply ridiculous. You can live in some theoretical “what if” world but the rest of us live in the real world, maybe someday you will join us.

[/ QUOTE ]

omg, you're retarded. he obviously didn't lose half his bankroll watching tv. but what if in that time that he was watching tv he could have been playing in a game where his ev was ~200k? isn't that technically the same as losing 200k?

TWP's thinking is much more real world than yours since he obviously understands how things work. and i'm guessing it's gotten him a lot further in life than the "real world" thinking you use.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Go ask anyone who isn't a degenerate what they think of this and see if they think it's neutral EV. This has a MATERIAL impact on Grim's bankroll and therefore potentially on his career.

Why don't you run a little formula on how much that $300k would be worth if he had invested it for twenty years instead and see if that doesn't get real world for you in a hurry.

dollerAday · #**136** 02-09-2007, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

omg, you're retarded. he obviously didn't lose half his bankroll watching tv. but what if in that time that he was watching tv he could have been playing in a game where his ev was ~200k? isn't that technically the same as losing 200k?

[/ QUOTE ]
No there is a difference, do you see why?
[ QUOTE ]

TWP's thinking is much more real world than yours since he obviously understands how things work. and i'm guessing it's gotten him a lot further in life than the "real world" thinking you use.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in the real world you can’t put an “EV” decision on everything. The consequences of losing 200k for most people reach further then just the monetary loss. Also making baseless assumptions about how far someone is in life is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Mrage · #**137** 02-09-2007, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one of them leaves the table after seeing that he has a bad hand, we've lost a good amount in EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now who would be scummy enough to agree to a flipament and fold when they got a bad hand?

Oh, wait...

Karma, she is the bitch.

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]BURRNNNNNNNN

lolustd · #**138** 02-09-2007, 05:44 PM

tell your Dad I will show him my bewbies for $250k.. (or one each for $120k, obv)

React1oN · #**139** 02-09-2007, 05:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

he then told me to check myself into GA

[/ QUOTE ]
"nigga tried to do flipaments but he just crapped out " -Eazy E

[/ QUOTE ]

Vex · #**140** 02-09-2007, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Abdul Jalib (sp?) wrote a piece on RGP about combined outs of fish calling you down in limit and how it was like collusion. He didn't call it that, though. Would be cool if someone could find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you mean Steve Badger's article titled "Schooling", wherein he demonstrates that when a bunch of crappy loose-passive fish all limp in to a pot, -EV moves in early positions become +EV simply because the pot odds grow unexpectedly favorable. Linky.

[ QUOTE ]

It's kind of relevant here

[/ QUOTE ]

I've gathered this game was basically just racing off for stacks. The money is in before the cards are dealt and there's no action. This means each individual player has the same EV for the game. So, the Schooling Effect isn't relevant.