You shouldn't make statements on subjects you know nothing about.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
WOW there is software that is SO SURPRISING. Teaching a computer to play poker is like teaching a computer to love.
sn or gtfo. you think i care about your gay ass little bot that cant even beat halfway decent players? lol
ITT - people talking about simple game theory.
I mean, I'm no poker pro but do we really need a lesson on game theory you learn the first time you play poker? It seems like FM and HaiBai have little real-world practical experience playing poker. Just my observation.
I mean, I'm no poker pro but do we really need a lesson on game theory you learn the first time you play poker? It seems like FM and HaiBai have little real-world practical experience playing poker. Just my observation.
I never said anything of the sort. If you can't read people when they are speaking in plain English I doubt your ability to do it in a game.HaiBai wrote:
"ratio of good:bad hands that you play"Kmarion wrote:
How the hell did you get that from what I said mr rolleyes?HaiBai wrote:
Erm. Are you really suggesting that someone should pick a bad hand every once in a while?
You never play bad hands unless you're forced to because your tournament is coming to a close.
If you really want everyone to think you are loose you have to go the distance so they can see your cards. Otherwise they officially have no reason to believe you are playing tight or loose. FM clearly doesn't understand this dynamic.." you play with people who show their hands at the end? ". I'm starting to think he's never been around a poker table. It's a mind game, "look at what I just owned you with". It may make a weaker player start to second guess. I've seen very good players do it. I personally don't do it or suggest it. Certainly not for money. But it's not unheard of.mkxiii wrote:
i agree with FM that it can be useful to play some junk early on, as it helps create a table image. playing tight is most effective when people think you are loose and vice versa, if you decide to do shit all for the first couple of blinds, you are a lot less likely to get paid off with big hands later on
soooo, You're trying to show how unpredictable you are by playing a shit hand in the beginning. Meanwhile there is seven other hands out there (if you are playing with eight) and chances are high that one of them is actually good. Next thing you know the good hand has milked your admittedly crappy hand to the point of pot commitment, because he saw through your I really can't afford to invest in this so here is my bitch ass limp in gimmick. Now you're sitting there with your dick in one hand and a 2/9 off suit in the other. Enjoy eighth place. Don't forget to tip. I just came back from getting a beer and my odds just went from 1:7 to 1:6. Next time take your advice from a poker player. Not a wannabe sociologist. We'll try to hold our laughter in until you leave the room.
No this^ is not the gospel.. not.at.all... there are so many other elements to consider. Table position and how many people have folded ahead of you is going to mix that^ whole scenario up. This is just how I see most players exit.. right off the top. Despite what FM says real probability does matter. I'd love to see him tell Howard Lederer that poker is all about what other people think. n00b players that don't know shit about reading people have come in and cleaned up because they were dealt great cards. If you're flopping four of a kind every time it's not going to matter what you "think" they are doing. I play with a guy and I can tell you with absolute certainty he never bluffs. Shit, he will tell you he never bluffs. Still, he's taken me to task several times. One night I even had to write him a check..lol. He's a rocket scientist and I sell things for a living. His math trumps my power of persuasion most of the time. Btw, what are the odds of two people getting 3 of a kind in three card poker? Fucker..
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ig read a book? Who is bluffing now?Jenspm wrote:
ig, have you read any poker books that are worth reading?
lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You never show your cards when you win. Showing your cards destroys any notion of trying to be unpredictable. Your example to the contrary is when it is used by supposedly "good players" against admittedly weak players. Who the hell wants a poker strategy that is good against bad players?Kmarion wrote:
If you really want everyone to think you are loose you have to go the distance so they can see your cards. Otherwise they officially have no reason to believe you are playing tight or loose. FM clearly doesn't understand this dynamic.." you play with people who show their hands at the end? ". I'm starting to think he's never been around a poker table. It's a mind game, "look at what I just owned you with". It may make a weaker player start to second guess. I've seen very good players do it. I personally don't do it or suggest it. Certainly not for money. But it's not unheard of.
Statistically everyone is dealt the best hand an absolutely equal amount of time. Dull. Poker is about betting, betting is about people.Kmarion wrote:
No this^ is not the gospel.. not.at.all... there are so many other elements to consider. Table position and how many people have folded ahead of you is going to mix that^ whole scenario up. This is just how I see most players exit.. right off the top. Despite what FM says real probability does matter. I'd love to see him tell Howard Lederer that poker is all about what other people think. n00b players that don't know shit about reading people have come in and cleaned up because they were dealt great cards. If you're flopping four of a kind every time it's not going to matter what you "think" they are doing. I play with a guy and I can tell you with absolute certainty he never bluffs. Shit, he will tell you he never bluffs. Still, he's taken me to task several times. One night I even had to write him a check..lol. He's a rocket scientist and I sell things for a living. His math trumps my power of persuasion most of the time. Btw, what are the odds of two people getting 3 of a kind in three card poker? Fucker..
(Assuming hold 'em, because apparently if you play 5 card stud these days you have leprosy)Kmarion wrote:
soooo, You're trying to show how unpredictable you are by playing a shit hand in the beginning. Meanwhile there is seven other hands out there (if you are playing with eight) and chances are high that one of them is actually good. Next thing you know the good hand has milked your admittedly crappy hand to the point of pot commitment, because he saw through your I really can't afford to invest in this so here is my bitch ass limp in gimmick. Now you're sitting there with your dick in one hand and a 2/9 off suit in the other. Enjoy eighth place. Don't forget to tip. I just came back from getting a beer and my odds just went from 1:7 to 1:6. Next time take your advice from a poker player. Not a wannabe sociologist. We'll try to hold our laughter in until you leave the room.
That's why you pretend you're not an idiot when figuring out strategy. If you have some 2-7 shit you don't play just because it's been 8 hands and you haven't played a bad one yet or some idiocy. But if you check into the flop and see an inside straight possibility if you have x card or if there is a nice pair, well who's to say you don't have those cards? Maybe you haven't played in a few hands, and people think you fold garbage? Now even if you are playing with garbage you have a solid chance to win. The cards are meaningless, it's the threat that is important.
That all seems pretty friggin obvious doesn't it? That is all that was meant by my original statement about how "only play good hands when there are a lot of people at the table" is flawed. Simple statistics and simple probability are some of the most straightforward subjects out there, but easily the most often misunderstood.
Probability and statistics are good bases, as are simple game theory and the ability to read opponents. You can't just pick and choose which strategies to implement though. And sometimes people have no understanding of any of those and still win. Sometimes you do play throwaway hands strictly to change up your style of play. Sometimes you do strictly play tight. It depends on the circumstances. To try to prescribe any one set of playing rules to go by is absolutely retarded in poker.
And sometimes you have to show your cards when you win. It's called a 'showdown' - the best hand wins.
Are you trolling, FM?
And sometimes you have to show your cards when you win. It's called a 'showdown' - the best hand wins.
Are you trolling, FM?
ive read several. theyre all pretty outdated nowadays, though. elements of poker is a really good one to get yourself in the right poker mindsetKmarion wrote:
ig read a book? Who is bluffing now?Jenspm wrote:
ig, have you read any poker books that are worth reading?
lol
Showing does not "destroy any notion of trying to be unpredictable". Showing doesn't guarantee any future actions. At all.
"Statistically everyone is dealt the best hand an absolutely equal amount of time. Dull. Poker is about betting, betting is about people."
Think of your opponent as one entity with 7 chances against you. I'm not saying never play a hand. Just play smart when the odds are stacked against you.
If that's not simple enough for you I don't know what else to tell you.
"Statistically everyone is dealt the best hand an absolutely equal amount of time. Dull. Poker is about betting, betting is about people."
Think of your opponent as one entity with 7 chances against you. I'm not saying never play a hand. Just play smart when the odds are stacked against you.
If that's not simple enough for you I don't know what else to tell you.
It depends on a number of things. If you are constantly paying for a flop (they aren't free) trying to "figure out" your strategy then you're gonna be forced to play when you don't want to. That's why antes usually go up during the game, to keep up the pace.Flacid_Maniac wrote:
some other junk
Xbone Stormsurgezz
and can you guys please shut the fuck up already? there is no one way to play poker. every time you start a game, there are several dynamics that should dictate your playing style
Thats twice now. How about you just find you're way out of thread that says poker skills? You're right, there is not one way to play poker.. that's why I recommend actually playing over bullshit book advice.whaaaaaaaaaat wrote:
and can you guys please shut the fuck up already? there is no one way to play poker. every time you start a game, there are several dynamics that should dictate your playing style
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
ucmetrooln
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Tu Stultus Es
Strategy is about winning the war not the battle. People winning a hand off of luck is irrelevant.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Probability and statistics are good bases, as are simple game theory and the ability to read opponents. You can't just pick and choose which strategies to implement though. And sometimes people have no understanding of any of those and still win. Sometimes you do play throwaway hands strictly to change up your style of play. Sometimes you do strictly play tight. It depends on the circumstances. To try to prescribe any one set of playing rules to go by is absolutely retarded in poker.
Everything else you said all falls under the category of not being predictable. The one rule to play by is not to be predictable. Everything else follows.
hurr durrKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And sometimes you have to show your cards when you win. It's called a 'showdown' - the best hand wins.
FM should really pull up a chair. He's got it all figured out with his "one rule". Might as well make some money.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Humans are by definition not random. So yeah, past actions are a very good indicator if you are really that good at reading people.Kmarion wrote:
Showing does not "destroy any notion of trying to be unpredictable". Showing doesn't guarantee any future actions. At all.
"Statistically everyone is dealt the best hand an absolutely equal amount of time. Dull. Poker is about betting, betting is about people."
Think of your opponent as one entity with 7 chances against you. I'm not saying never play a hand. Just play smart when the odds are stacked against you.
If that's not simple enough for you I don't know what else to tell you.It depends on a number of things. If you are constantly paying for a flop (they aren't free) trying to "figure out" your strategy then you're gonna be forced to play when you don't want to. That's why antes usually go up during the game, to keep up the pace.Flacid_Maniac wrote:
some other junk
See that bolded part is the stupid part. You always play smart. You never intended to "play dumb" but demonstrating the difference at all is the issue. You shouldn't play any differently at all depending on how many people are in, you just have to take those variables into account. If you know only one person at the table can spot your bluff for instance, then you only care if he is still playing. There could be 100 other hands, but if you can bluff them all then their cards are meaningless.
Again this is all assuming you aren't retarded. Paying for the flop on the first hand when you have shit cards is stupid. Bluffing on the fifth hand because you folded the last four on the other hand, despite shit cards, may be perfectly viable. The point is you have to be unpredictable. An astoundingly simple point in the face of the "when lots of players are in, only bet with pocket 10s or up" logic.
It's more likely that you will throw someone off of their game than that they will figure you out. I don't know anyone who can deduce every other hand based on showing what you won with one time. Nobody flips them over everytime. Like I said, I don't do it. But it's not omg..lol.. thats laughable dumb.
I'm talking about the beginning of the game. This is based on tournament play, without knowing much about who you are playing against. Everyone is unpredictable at that point. Until you are at least one hand in all you have is odds. If you're prepping for later in the game, by trying to bluff 7 other players right away, chances are you're going to get caught with your pants down. An astoundingly simple point.
Playing smart is code for playing the odds, not loose. Pick up a basic guide to poker and maybe we can avoid the confusion. Do you really think playing against 8 people is the same strategy as heads up? I have a hard to believing you're really that dumb.
You're making my point in the last paragraph.
I'm talking about the beginning of the game. This is based on tournament play, without knowing much about who you are playing against. Everyone is unpredictable at that point. Until you are at least one hand in all you have is odds. If you're prepping for later in the game, by trying to bluff 7 other players right away, chances are you're going to get caught with your pants down. An astoundingly simple point.
Playing smart is code for playing the odds, not loose. Pick up a basic guide to poker and maybe we can avoid the confusion. Do you really think playing against 8 people is the same strategy as heads up? I have a hard to believing you're really that dumb.
You're making my point in the last paragraph.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
For a shit player maybe. Otherwise it's just that much more information about your play that you gave away for free.Kmarion wrote:
It's more likely that you will throw someone off of their game than that they will figure you out. I don't know anyone who can deduce every other hand based on showing what you won with one time. Nobody flips them over everytime. Like I said, I don't do it. But it's not omg..lol.. thats laughable dumb.
Yeah, it is simple. So much so that I never said anything to the contrary.Kmarion wrote:
I'm talking about the beginning of the game. This is based on tournament play, without knowing much about who you are playing against. Everyone is unpredictable at that point. Until you are at least one hand in all you have is odds. If you're prepping for later in the game, by trying to bluff 7 other players right away, chances are you're going to get caught with your pants down. An astoundingly simple point.
Playing smart means playing close to the strat, not making instinctual decisions kthx. Playing the odds is not a strat.Kmarion wrote:
Playing smart is code for playing the odds, not loose. Pick up a basic guide to poker and maybe we can avoid the confusion. Do you really think playing against 8 people is the same strategy as heads up? I have a hard to believing you're really that dumb.
Again, when the strategy is broadly to be unpredictable, yes. All else follows. All other strategy is a derivative.
"despite shit cards, may be perfectly viable" is not your point, it is the opposite of your point, that is the issue.Kmarion wrote:
You're making my point in the last paragraph.
fm's graph
Most players cant deduce it from one hand. They try though. I understand why people do it, usually against over thinking players (prolly like you). It's neither absurd nor funny.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
For a shit player maybe. Otherwise it's just that much more information about your play that you gave away for free.
Well that has been my main contention. It looks like you're having trouble with it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yeah, it is simple. So much so that I never said anything to the contrary.
Playing the odds is PART of a strategy. Playing the odds and playing the person (despite the odds) are both two things to consider. No strategy is complete without considering everything. How much is this bluff worth? Is it even possible steal the pot? Am I drawing dead?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Playing smart means playing close to the strat, not making instinctual decisions kthx. Playing the odds is not a strat.
Again, when the strategy is broadly to be unpredictable, yes. All else follows. All other strategy is a derivative.
Why isn't it my point? My point was coming in and sitting down. Playing shit cards, bluffing, is absolutely viable at times. It's not smart to do uniformed. I fully understand selling a hand. How much it's worth to you in any particular hand changes varying on several other factors. More factors than I could list here.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
"despite shit cards, may be perfectly viable" is not your point, it is the opposite of your point, that is the issue.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lol, are you serious? Not everyone mucks their winning hands everytime - hell even the top professional poker players sometimes show their cards when they've bluffed themselves to a winning pot. Like Kmarion said, it's all a mind game.FM wrote:
You never show your cards when you win.
And fuck sake cut the "this is how to play poker" attitude. You even stated earlier that you don't even play the game. As said multiple times in this thread, there is no decided way to play poker. You can win a tournament playing tightly or loosely, there is no 'right' way. Furthermore, good luck limping in on every hand "to see the flop"
It's not about the hand. It's about posturing. Showing your hand at best means nothing and at worst gives away state of mind and tells. Showing your hand outside of casual games is a joke.Kmarion wrote:
Most players cant deduce it from one hand. They try though. I understand why people do it, usually against over thinking players (prolly like you). It's neither absurd nor funny.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
For a shit player maybe. Otherwise it's just that much more information about your play that you gave away for free.
Then you have been erroneously trying to explain something I take no issue with.Kmarion wrote:
Well that has been my main contention. It looks like you're having trouble with it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yeah, it is simple. So much so that I never said anything to the contrary.
You're not telling me anything I don't know. You are the one who said "Just play smart when the odds are stacked against you." and then later defined playing smart as "playing the odds". You said it yourself, no strategy is complete without considering everything.Kmarion wrote:
Playing the odds is PART of a strategy. Playing the odds and playing the person (despite the odds) are both two things to consider. No strategy is complete without considering everything. How much is this bluff worth? Is it even possible steal the pot? Am I drawing dead?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Playing smart means playing close to the strat, not making instinctual decisions kthx. Playing the odds is not a strat.
Again, when the strategy is broadly to be unpredictable, yes. All else follows. All other strategy is a derivative.
"Just [play the odds] when the odds are stacked against you"
"No strategy is complete without considering everything"
This has nothing to do with poker, you logically directly contradicted yourself.
Because the absolute first thing you said, what made me post here at all was "If I'm at a table with 8 people I'll fold anything that isn't great."Kmarion wrote:
Why isn't it my point? My point was coming in and sitting down. Playing shit cards, bluffing, is absolutely viable at times. It's not smart to do uniformed. I fully understand selling a hand. How much it's worth to you in any particular hand changes varying on several other factors. More factors than I could list here.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
"despite shit cards, may be perfectly viable" is not your point, it is the opposite of your point, that is the issue.
You are also learning something by how the other person reacts to you showing your hands. You may even be affecting them.. and yes, sometimes it is about the hand.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's not about the hand. It's about posturing. Showing your hand at best means nothing and at worst gives away state of mind and tells. Showing your hand outside of casual games is a joke.
Now you realize this. But yea, in general you are a big waste of time.wrote:
Then you have been erroneously trying to explain something I take no issue with.
when the odds are stacked against you, and you have no other relevant information. Once again you leave out major parts of what I just said. Do you not understand that playing style develops as the game progresses? In the beginning however the best knowledge you have is the odds. Stop pulling what I said apart. You're just going to admit you never said anything to the contrary after I clean up your selective reading.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You're not telling me anything I don't know. You are the one who said "Just play smart when the odds are stacked against you." and then later defined playing smart as "playing the odds". You said it yourself, no strategy is complete without considering everything.
"Just [play the odds] when the odds are stacked against you"
"No strategy is complete without considering everything"
This has nothing to do with poker, you logically directly contradicted yourself.
Again, I was talking about at the beginning (in case you didn't know that's usually when the table is full). I've explained it 1, 2 times since. If the table doesn't budge after awhile (and it almost always does) then I might make some loose moves, maybe I don't. I might pick off the first guy if I've got a good hand right away. That doesn't mean I feel compelled to do all the heavy lifting with a bluff. There is no one way to play. I might start predictable, by watching a hand or two.. but I sure as hell don't end up that way.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because the absolute first thing you said, what made me post here at all was "If I'm at a table with 8 people I'll fold anything that isn't great."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Good overexaggeration chief, and by chief i mean complete spastic and by "," i mean fuck off and dieHaiBai wrote:
no. o wait letz reraise with 72o against this mouse after he reraised me. then after that everyone will think im stupid and give me there moneyz!mkxiii wrote:
i agree with FM that it can be useful to play some junk early on, as it helps create a table image. playing tight is most effective when people think you are loose and vice versa, if you decide to do shit all for the first couple of blinds, you are a lot less likely to get paid off with big hands later on