| Posted by: Jack Daniels at December 16, 2006, 2:37 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by jasondavies
conjigal isits, thats deep man,
If you do it right.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: jasondavies at December 15, 2006, 10:15 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Jack Daniels
I'm pretty sure this is true.
So really, if you suck out and wind up in a minimum security country club, with a work release program kicker...EV increases by a factor of at least 10, I would think. Throw in the likelihood of conjigal isits with those you actually want conjigal isits from (opposed to bubba in max lock up - well unless you're into that sort of thing), and nearly 100% of the time you will be all in with the best of it.
Just some additional food for thought.
this is why your a better player than I, conjigal isits, thats deep man, ery advanced, i plumb forgot about the conjigal factor
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Jack Daniels at December 15, 2006, 6:04 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by jasondavies
well, as usual jack, you raise only good points
I'm pretty sure this is true.
Quote: Originally Posted by jasondavies
being framed is 100% -EV if sent to maximum security
So really, if you suck out and wind up in a minimum security country club, with a work release program kicker...EV increases by a factor of at least 10, I would think. Throw in the likelihood of conjigal isits with those you actually want conjigal isits from (opposed to bubba in max lock up - well unless you're into that sort of thing), and nearly 100% of the time you will be all in with the best of it.
Just some additional food for thought.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Alon Ipser at December 15, 2006, 12:52 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
LMAO, have you ever considered looking for a job as a political speech writer, like say for the President
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: jasondavies at December 15, 2006, 12:11 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
well, as usual jack, you raise only good points
now to the best of my knowledge, drowning is indeed +EV at or above 67.35% lung capacity in 3 inches of water or more in temperatures of no less then 3 degrees Celsius, not taking into account the buoyancy coefficients of the clothes you have on at the time
The EV behind burning is nothing short of a myth, people say its +EV but its actually a 9.6-2 underdog to any drive by shooting or prison stabbing
being framed is 100% -EV if sent to maximum security, if you escape with just a stint in the local cell it is neither + or - EV, it is what they call infinite EV squared,
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Jack Daniels at December 14, 2006, 9:56 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by jasondavies
lol, it could seem busted, but assure i am not toadly, HONEST, i am an index finger typer who types to fast for my own good, and as a result i am constantly typein the teh, but if you look at my personal info im sure you will see i am not toadly, but nice pick up anyway, just shows how ery easy it could be to be wrongly accused of something and have ery little chance of defending yourself, imagine being framed, WOW, that would be nearly as bad as drowning or burnig to death
So, if you were to say put percentages to those arious things, would you drowning or buring to death be +EV at least 90% of the time while say being framed is -EV 100% of the time? Curious for your insight....
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: jasondavies at December 14, 2006, 5:19 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
lol, it could seem busted, but assure i am not toadly, HONEST, i am an index finger typer who types to fast for my own good, and as a result i am constantly typein the teh, but if you look at my personal info im sure you will see i am not toadly, but nice pick up anyway, just shows how ery easy it could be to be wrongly accused of something and have ery little chance of defending yourself, imagine being framed, WOW, that would be nearly as bad as drowning or burnig to death
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Jack Daniels at December 14, 2006, 2:22 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by shinedown.45
teh
teh
It is toadly or the teh mistake is all a coincidence.
Busted!!! LOL
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: shinedown.45 at December 14, 2006, 2:20 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
I was just completely confused, and I guess if it doesn't make sense its just plain trash.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: shinedown.45 at December 14, 2006, 2:17 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Originally Posted by Toadly
When you win 66% of teh time playing with 33% of you bank roll puts you in no danger
actually dorkus, I was terribly bored so i thought id make a joke topic about all the maths talk that can dribble out of peoples mouths at times, and teh insiration of this is your 2 remarks from toadly, so i thankyou
It is toadly or the teh mistake is all a coincidence.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: bubbasbestbabe at December 14, 2006, 2:17 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by jasondavies
I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: jasondavies at December 14, 2006, 12:26 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
actually dorkus, I was terribly bored so i thought id make a joke topic about all the maths talk that can dribble out of peoples mouths at times, and teh insiration of this is your 2 remarks from toadly, so i thankyou
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: jasondavies at December 14, 2006, 12:23 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Jack Daniels
So does that mean you won't be replying?
VERY FUNNY
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Jack Daniels at December 13, 2006, 11:51 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Dorkus Malorkus
Umm this is like the world's most obvious joke topic ever.
I can't decide whether it's funny or not - but I think as usual with joke topics the funniest thing about it is the people taking it seriously.
So does that mean you won't be replying?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Dorkus Malorkus at December 13, 2006, 11:44 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Umm this is like the world's most obvious joke topic ever.
I can't decide whether it's funny or not - but I think as usual with joke topics the funniest thing about it is the people taking it seriously.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Jack Daniels at December 13, 2006, 11:33 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
JD checks his watch...hmmm....WTF? Still waiting on a Dorkus response to this thread.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: shinedown.45 at December 13, 2006, 10:27 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by jasondavies
I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: KerouacsDog at December 13, 2006, 6:41 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Is this a serious post, btw. Only ask, cause I still can't work out the opening thread, and I read a book once, so I consider myself intelligent(my IQ is in double figures............)
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: dakota-xx at December 13, 2006, 3:52 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by jasondavies
Yeah its tough when your new to poker to truly get a good firm grip on the maths behind winning poker, you guys are just lucky its christmas time and im sharing possibly the biggest secret in poker, and if your asking yourself, is it really a secret, then ask your self if you had ever heard of PLUS +EV before, if so, then you already know the super sytem, if not, study it and follow it to the letter,
also, if you only play freerolls, as an advanced theory to what welly said you will never have a negative ROI%, wich is great for your rep
stay in school, eat your greens, and dont do drugs
Ohhh - somehow I don't think the guys will take this lying down!
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: jasondavies at December 13, 2006, 1:53 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by combuboom
*head explodes*
Yeah its tough when your new to poker to truly get a good firm grip on the maths behind winning poker, you guys are just lucky its christmas time and im sharing possibly the biggest secret in poker, and if your asking yourself, is it really a secret, then ask your self if you had ever heard of PLUS +EV before, if so, then you already know the super sytem, if not, study it and follow it to the letter,
also, if you only play freerolls, as an advanced theory to what welly said you will never have a negative ROI%, wich is great for your rep
stay in school, eat your greens, and dont do drugs
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: combuboom at December 13, 2006, 11:42 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by jasondavies
I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: KerouacsDog at December 13, 2006, 10:14 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Kenzie 96
Mike Madasow used this reasoning & ended up spending several months in prison. Not sure if he had the nickname Mike the Mouth before he went down.
too funny, +rep!
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Kenzie 96 at December 13, 2006, 4:37 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Mike Madasow used this reasoning & ended up spending several months in prison. Not sure if he had the nickname Mike the Mouth before he went down.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: jasondavies at December 13, 2006, 12:03 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
mmmm, i guess you guys are not up to scratch with your poker math, and welly, extremely good point, thanks for the heads up
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KerouacsDog at December 12, 2006, 3:16 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by jasondavies
I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Welly at December 12, 2006, 2:59 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
An infinately better solution is to start a new ID and only play freerolls....as soon as you win anything you will have an infinate ROI%, which is infinately better than 99.97% of poker players.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Jack Daniels at December 12, 2006, 2:26 pm | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
Are you Toadly masquerading as another one of our members?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: jasondavies at December 12, 2006, 11:42 am | | Topic: POKER MATHS Forum: Card Chat |
I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain... | | Read Entire Entry |
|