Poker
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I gave it another go because I saw it had new softwear.
Same old story action hands all the time.
One hand will have a set or something like that and will come up agaist drawing hand like a flush.
O.K It happens but when it's all the time one starts to think hang on this cant be.
If you are thinking I must be a bad player I am not
I have won playing in casinos all over, you would not want me on your table.
Just telling you how I see it if you still decide to play good luck.
Same old story action hands all the time.
One hand will have a set or something like that and will come up agaist drawing hand like a flush.
O.K It happens but when it's all the time one starts to think hang on this cant be.
If you are thinking I must be a bad player I am not
I have won playing in casinos all over, you would not want me on your table.
Just telling you how I see it if you still decide to play good luck.
Show More
HMMM and you get no strange hands or bad beats in a casino?
Cos i certainly do.
Cos i certainly do.
imo - Poker in casinos is for players who cannot hack it in the real world of 'virtual' online poker!
I do really get the impression that there is an awful lot of action compared to live games, even taking into account the hands per hour rate.
The other night I saw 3 sets of quads in 5 minutes. And it seems ever so common for the guy with 7% equity after the turn to win on the river. Unfortunately, because you do not know all the hands people are holding, you cannot do the stats properly. Of course the poker companies could, if they wanted to, release the information with the alias' changed. But I have never known any company to do this.
For what it's worth I have looked at comparing win rate vs expected when holding the worse hand as compared to holding the best hand, for all my own hand histories, when HU all-in. It is certainly the case that the worse hand did win more than it should and the best hand won less often than it should, but not by an amount that proves shenanigans at the 95% confidence level. One players' stats do not count for much at the end of the day.
The other night I saw 3 sets of quads in 5 minutes. And it seems ever so common for the guy with 7% equity after the turn to win on the river. Unfortunately, because you do not know all the hands people are holding, you cannot do the stats properly. Of course the poker companies could, if they wanted to, release the information with the alias' changed. But I have never known any company to do this.
For what it's worth I have looked at comparing win rate vs expected when holding the worse hand as compared to holding the best hand, for all my own hand histories, when HU all-in. It is certainly the case that the worse hand did win more than it should and the best hand won less often than it should, but not by an amount that proves shenanigans at the 95% confidence level. One players' stats do not count for much at the end of the day.
If you want some stats: Since playing again recently I have played 177 5 handed SNG's and seen quads 37 times.
anyone with an ounce of brain would have to agree with you ! But same old story , owt to do with money is corrupt !
My one question is , why not give us an honest game of poker , they earn enough through rake an buy ins . they do need bringing to book . Just an opinion
My one question is , why not give us an honest game of poker , they earn enough through rake an buy ins . they do need bringing to book . Just an opinion
wykhamist2
Surely you must know that your sample means nothing. If in the previous 100k hands you had seen no quads would that mean everything is ok because quads are rare or would it mean that its **** because you had not seen enough?
On my HEM i have 41,632 wts hands (i cant find all hands) and see quads 87 times.
Surely you must know that your sample means nothing. If in the previous 100k hands you had seen no quads would that mean everything is ok because quads are rare or would it mean that its **** because you had not seen enough?
On my HEM i have 41,632 wts hands (i cant find all hands) and see quads 87 times.
why give him the time of day Gary? He has been on the bus since he started posting here. Huge chunks of his stats simply look made up.
On my old poker tracker from when I played cash a lot, 21,000 hands went to showdown, quads 49 times. That is 4500 hours of poker and wykhamist has seen near the same in less than 100 hours. Yeah right.
Now I'm giving him the time of day ffs
On my old poker tracker from when I played cash a lot, 21,000 hands went to showdown, quads 49 times. That is 4500 hours of poker and wykhamist has seen near the same in less than 100 hours. Yeah right.
Now I'm giving him the time of day ffs
Doobs, a 5 handed game would last approx 100 hands, therefore 177 games would be about 17,000 hands, that sort of backs up the average stats although nowhere near enough of a sample.
Tell me how to find these stats on HEM and I'll give mine. I've 72,000 hands to sample (not all went to showdown)
Also, has anyone any good websites on getting full use out of HEM. The only stats I seem to use is my P/L graph.
Tell me how to find these stats on HEM and I'll give mine. I've 72,000 hands to sample (not all went to showdown)
Also, has anyone any good websites on getting full use out of HEM. The only stats I seem to use is my P/L graph.
Not sure if I've got this right but I make it 33 in 9803 hands.
ovalman
21000 hands that went to showdown. The sample size is over 200K hands. And I assume he doesn't hang around waiting to see if anybody else hits quads after he has been knocked out.
Anything that invlolves looking at everybody else's hands is going to always be misleading. You simply can't see their folded hands, so can never see the full sample.
It is clear bolox.
I only ever looked at HEM on trial, so can't help you there.
21000 hands that went to showdown. The sample size is over 200K hands. And I assume he doesn't hang around waiting to see if anybody else hits quads after he has been knocked out.
Anything that invlolves looking at everybody else's hands is going to always be misleading. You simply can't see their folded hands, so can never see the full sample.
It is clear bolox.
I only ever looked at HEM on trial, so can't help you there.
Why are people talking sense ? Its starting to resemble a poker forum ffs. 
Well I resent the idea that I would ever deliberately falsify any stats that I present here. But Dooberama has form in criticising everything I have ever posted here. However I have checked the stats again and admit I did make a typo when I said 37 quads in those games played in the last fortnight. The correct number is 27 from 3661 hands which went to showdown. Here are the extracts from the HH's:
Seat 9: PELASGOS12 (476354), net: +64622, [Kh, Ks] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND KING)
Seat 1: mordaleng (4605), net: +1225, [Ks, Jd] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND JACK)
Seat 2: pas7sas (2275), net: +1175, [9c, Qs] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND NINE)
Seat 10: dacia logan (14870), net: +7060, [8h, 8d] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND EIGHT)
Seat 9: shotts48 (4080), net: +2080, [2s, 2c] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TWO)
Seat 7: xatzi72 (4860), net: +1890, [As, Ac] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 5: ICXC (2590), net: +1250, [Qc, 7c] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND SEVEN)
Seat 8: gvazelosl (3880), net: +1980, [Ad, 7d] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND FOUR)
Seat 5: casadoc980 (3750), net: +725, [9c, 9s] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND NINE)
Seat 1: Diggyily (2615), net: +645, [Ah, Ac] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 4: wykh2 (3110), net: +1330, [As, Ad] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 9: MrSKeZ (10845), net: +5685, [8h, 8d] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND EIGHT)
Seat 8: wykh2 (3280), net: +1665, [Js, Jc] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND JACK)
Seat 2: TiltManTwo (2330), net: +1225, [9h, 9d] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND NINE)
Seat 7: musik82 (1985), net: +255, [4c, 8s] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND EIGHT)
Seat 5: Parisienne7 (1630), net: +130, [Ac, Ah] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 5: Parisienne7 (1950), net: +260, [Ah, 4s] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 3: MrBLEK00 (1810), net: +310, [Th, Qh] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TEN)
Seat 8: ChiliplayaX (3240), net: +1065, [2h, 2s] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TWO)
Seat 7: RammsteinPT (850), net: +500, [Ad, 8c] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND EIGHT)
Seat 2: spda61 (4050), net: +1460, [As, Ac] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 5: wykh2 (1660), net: +800, [4s, Tc] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TEN)
Seat 5: brantla (2720), net: +870, [9d, Tc] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TEN)
Seat 8: Svagres (1155), net: +820, [4d, Ks] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND KING)
Seat 10: leanfl (2835), net: +330, [7d, Qd] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND QUEEN)
Seat 5: Muga_poker (1380), net: +20, [Tc, 8c] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TEN)
Seat 6: wykh2 (3010), net: +605, [6c, 8h] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND EIGHT)
I also have a larger sample (58338 hands of which 19076 went to showdown) from before the upgrade. The stats from that showed 97 sets of quads. If you want the HH's I will post them.
It is impossible to say what the correct proportion is because it depends on players' strategy and how many players are actually left at the table. Also you obviously only see the hands which went to showdown.
If the 'correct' percentage is around 0.5% then the probability of encountering 0.74% for this sample size comes out at 2%.
Seat 9: PELASGOS12 (476354), net: +64622, [Kh, Ks] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND KING)
Seat 1: mordaleng (4605), net: +1225, [Ks, Jd] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND JACK)
Seat 2: pas7sas (2275), net: +1175, [9c, Qs] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND NINE)
Seat 10: dacia logan (14870), net: +7060, [8h, 8d] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND EIGHT)
Seat 9: shotts48 (4080), net: +2080, [2s, 2c] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TWO)
Seat 7: xatzi72 (4860), net: +1890, [As, Ac] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 5: ICXC (2590), net: +1250, [Qc, 7c] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND SEVEN)
Seat 8: gvazelosl (3880), net: +1980, [Ad, 7d] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND FOUR)
Seat 5: casadoc980 (3750), net: +725, [9c, 9s] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND NINE)
Seat 1: Diggyily (2615), net: +645, [Ah, Ac] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 4: wykh2 (3110), net: +1330, [As, Ad] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 9: MrSKeZ (10845), net: +5685, [8h, 8d] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND EIGHT)
Seat 8: wykh2 (3280), net: +1665, [Js, Jc] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND JACK)
Seat 2: TiltManTwo (2330), net: +1225, [9h, 9d] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND NINE)
Seat 7: musik82 (1985), net: +255, [4c, 8s] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND EIGHT)
Seat 5: Parisienne7 (1630), net: +130, [Ac, Ah] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 5: Parisienne7 (1950), net: +260, [Ah, 4s] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 3: MrBLEK00 (1810), net: +310, [Th, Qh] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TEN)
Seat 8: ChiliplayaX (3240), net: +1065, [2h, 2s] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TWO)
Seat 7: RammsteinPT (850), net: +500, [Ad, 8c] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND EIGHT)
Seat 2: spda61 (4050), net: +1460, [As, Ac] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND ACE)
Seat 5: wykh2 (1660), net: +800, [4s, Tc] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TEN)
Seat 5: brantla (2720), net: +870, [9d, Tc] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TEN)
Seat 8: Svagres (1155), net: +820, [4d, Ks] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND KING)
Seat 10: leanfl (2835), net: +330, [7d, Qd] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND QUEEN)
Seat 5: Muga_poker (1380), net: +20, [Tc, 8c] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND TEN)
Seat 6: wykh2 (3010), net: +605, [6c, 8h] (FOUR_OF_A_KIND EIGHT)
I also have a larger sample (58338 hands of which 19076 went to showdown) from before the upgrade. The stats from that showed 97 sets of quads. If you want the HH's I will post them.
It is impossible to say what the correct proportion is because it depends on players' strategy and how many players are actually left at the table. Also you obviously only see the hands which went to showdown.
If the 'correct' percentage is around 0.5% then the probability of encountering 0.74% for this sample size comes out at 2%.
Guess so, but that's a bit like a 50/1 winner - which happens?
ovalman
Go to "select report name from list" then select "hand at showdown"
Go to "select report name from list" then select "hand at showdown"
.... "1000 to 1 shots come up 9 times out of 10" - From TerryPratchett's DiscWorld novels. ... [;)]
That's what I done Gary, there were 3 entries for 4 of a kind. With pocket pair, without and on the board. I added all 3 together.
I find HEM very powerful but I'm a STT player so the HUD is of limited use. I'm not sure I've increased my ROI since I've bought it, in fact I hit a bit of serious tilt and am a few $$$ down. Seem to have rectified the situation, I generally only look at PFR and VPiP and then colour code a player (I play mostly on Stars) but I'd like to get full use out of it.
I find HEM very powerful but I'm a STT player so the HUD is of limited use. I'm not sure I've increased my ROI since I've bought it, in fact I hit a bit of serious tilt and am a few $$$ down. Seem to have rectified the situation, I generally only look at PFR and VPiP and then colour code a player (I play mostly on Stars) but I'd like to get full use out of it.
wykhamist2 Date Joined: 09 Jun 10
Add contact | Send message When: 10 Mar 11 11:48 Joined: Date Joined: 09 Jun 10 | Topic/replies: 1,140 | Blogger: wykhamist2's blog
I have shown statistically that KK does not win as often as it should:
Since BF2 started I have shoved preflop HU 115 times with KK. Based on the opponents cards I should have won 0.745, but in fact only won 0.639. This is -2.68 sd's from the mean with a probability of about 1% only.
Ironically, while typing this I was dealt KK and ended up all-in vs KT. Flop comes TT and I am out of the tournament.
The numbers back it up - KK is the hand of death!
Over a big sample on four different sites kk is my second biggest winner with
86.9% 87.5% 86.0% 88.7% The same goes for every winning player in the world with a big enough sample.
Its insane the ammount of people that posted on the curse of kk thread that really believe that the software is r1gged to stop them winning with kings.
Add contact | Send message When: 10 Mar 11 11:48 Joined: Date Joined: 09 Jun 10 | Topic/replies: 1,140 | Blogger: wykhamist2's blog
I have shown statistically that KK does not win as often as it should:
Since BF2 started I have shoved preflop HU 115 times with KK. Based on the opponents cards I should have won 0.745, but in fact only won 0.639. This is -2.68 sd's from the mean with a probability of about 1% only.
Ironically, while typing this I was dealt KK and ended up all-in vs KT. Flop comes TT and I am out of the tournament.
The numbers back it up - KK is the hand of death!
Over a big sample on four different sites kk is my second biggest winner with
86.9% 87.5% 86.0% 88.7% The same goes for every winning player in the world with a big enough sample.
Its insane the ammount of people that posted on the curse of kk thread that really believe that the software is r1gged to stop them winning with kings.
not really insane gary, actually pretty understandable.
KK is a monster pre-flop, and especially when there are 'shove' sort of situations. Essentially, it is hard to lose psychologically after holding a 'monster' hand.
KK is a monster pre-flop, and especially when there are 'shove' sort of situations. Essentially, it is hard to lose psychologically after holding a 'monster' hand.
have to agree with seaside, way too much action to be real. im thinking its a software glitch, surely not ****. good players cant win on betfair, donks win too often. people go all in with poor hands knowing they have a great chance to win cos the worst hand wins too many showdowns.
****? eCorga dont think so apparently: http://www.ecogra.org/certificates/poker.aspx?cid=229&without=true
When I went on my first 1000 game downswing I felt it couldn't be possible for someone to run so bad for so long, and that it must be down to the software.
It can be a totally demoralising game at times, and you have to be mentally strong to survive it.I look at my stats for this year and wonder why I bother, the money I'm making is minimal and well below minimum wage. Its even more depressing when you go through your hand histories and find you are doing very little wrong.
It can be a totally demoralising game at times, and you have to be mentally strong to survive it.I look at my stats for this year and wonder why I bother, the money I'm making is minimal and well below minimum wage. Its even more depressing when you go through your hand histories and find you are doing very little wrong.
Yesterday on Stars, i had that period again when nothing i did or how massive a favourite i was when the chips were in, i was destined to lose. I took an unbelievably sickening amount of bad beats, in fact virtually every hand my chips went in, i was favourite and came out losing every time with my opponent rivering the miracle card constantly. Ive said this before in another post, i know about 'varience' and 'downswings', i should do ive been playing the game an awful long time but these 'periods' in which this happens cant be right surely. There is nothing more demoralising than to build up ur br for days/weeks/months only for a day to come when nothing u do is right and it takes a massive swipe off ur roll. Im seriously begginning to lose my interest in online poker because it seems to me i spend a lot of my leisure time playing a game that i love, only to be shafted constantly when the 'program' decides to shaft me. Thats how i feel about online poker software, the 'randomness' of the RNG just doesnt add up.
People seem to forget that poker is gambling and a very small percentage of that is based on skill. IMO the skill factor comes into force when you are playing fish, but when you are playing regular good players, then the luck factor will win or lose you the pot and also maybe your mental state at the time of playing!
When I first started playing I used to try and build up a monster pot, but now im just content to control the pot size, so I can get out of a hand if possible. Too many fish are calling with 2 outs to hit a miracle card.
I make most of my money by people bluffing on the river, after I have checked/called to the river. What im trying to say is that too many players are reluctant to let go of hands.
I'm not so fond of tournaments and prefer cash games
When I first started playing I used to try and build up a monster pot, but now im just content to control the pot size, so I can get out of a hand if possible. Too many fish are calling with 2 outs to hit a miracle card.
I make most of my money by people bluffing on the river, after I have checked/called to the river. What im trying to say is that too many players are reluctant to let go of hands.
I'm not so fond of tournaments and prefer cash games
Hey, Seaside. You are exactly right! There is no doubt whatever that a "balancing counter" is applied to all situations, especially in a betting environment that is based on a defined number of possibilities. eg poker, roulette, etc.etc. THEY WILL OF COURSE DENY IT BUT SO WHAT!
This means that as soon as a possible winner is identified a "balancer" is applied to the bet to the tune of 55 or 60 percent AGAINST the BPH (best PROBABLE hand) why?
Because the operator needs to rake more in the alleged "heads up" nature of betfair. It happens on all platforms, 888, empire poker, etc.etc. And it gives a consistent loser a chance on the ONE time that you think you have a dead cert. That keeps him on the table, but he WILL lose shortly after.
I have been playing all kinds of poker for nearly 50 years, and realized this situation soon after registering with betfair. I am a "mathematical" player and as a result I find it quite easy to apply a "correction factor" to my calculations of [chance of improvement] [chance of winning] [cards in play], you know what I am saying.
I am not afraid of betfair, I do quite well, in profit most of the time and a new car to show for it.
I would direct you to the basic rules in my book.
amongst other things-------
Hold (perhaps bet/raise) a hand that you CANNOT lose
Fold a hand that you CANNOT win
In between there is no guarantee. Hope is not an option!!
You have now cracked it and I will see you on a Really Big table in the near future
I believe that I can make you a winner.
I will play alongside you if you wish, most pros are too afraid to do this.
$50 dollars and you stand to win all or part of $200. come back to me when you are ready
F C D
{Pokermaster) 2011
This means that as soon as a possible winner is identified a "balancer" is applied to the bet to the tune of 55 or 60 percent AGAINST the BPH (best PROBABLE hand) why?
Because the operator needs to rake more in the alleged "heads up" nature of betfair. It happens on all platforms, 888, empire poker, etc.etc. And it gives a consistent loser a chance on the ONE time that you think you have a dead cert. That keeps him on the table, but he WILL lose shortly after.
I have been playing all kinds of poker for nearly 50 years, and realized this situation soon after registering with betfair. I am a "mathematical" player and as a result I find it quite easy to apply a "correction factor" to my calculations of [chance of improvement] [chance of winning] [cards in play], you know what I am saying.
I am not afraid of betfair, I do quite well, in profit most of the time and a new car to show for it.
I would direct you to the basic rules in my book.
amongst other things-------
Hold (perhaps bet/raise) a hand that you CANNOT lose
Fold a hand that you CANNOT win
In between there is no guarantee. Hope is not an option!!
You have now cracked it and I will see you on a Really Big table in the near future
I believe that I can make you a winner.
I will play alongside you if you wish, most pros are too afraid to do this.
$50 dollars and you stand to win all or part of $200. come back to me when you are ready
F C D
{Pokermaster) 2011
Hey, Seaside. You are exactly right! There is no doubt whatever that a "balancing counter" is applied to all situations, especially in a betting environment that is based on a defined number of possibilities. eg poker, roulette, etc.etc. THEY WILL OF COURSE DENY IT BUT SO WHAT!
This means that as soon as a possible winner is identified a "balancer" is applied to the bet to the tune of 55 or 60 percent AGAINST the BPH (best PROBABLE hand) why?
Because the operator needs to rake more in the alleged "heads up" nature of betfair. It happens on all platforms, 888, empire poker, etc.etc. And it gives a consistent loser a chance on the ONE time that you think you have a dead cert. That keeps him on the table, but he WILL lose shortly after.
I have been playing all kinds of poker for nearly 50 years, and realized this situation soon after registering with betfair. I am a "mathematical" player and as a result I find it quite easy to apply a "correction factor" to my calculations of [chance of improvement] [chance of winning] [cards in play], you know what I am saying.
I am not afraid of betfair, I do quite well, in profit most of the time and a new car to show for it.
I would direct you to the basic rules in my book.
amongst other things-------
Hold (perhaps bet/raise) a hand that you CANNOT lose
Fold a hand that you CANNOT win
In between there is no guarantee. Hope is not an option!!
You have now cracked it and I will see you on a Really Big table in the near future
I believe that I can make you a winner.
I will play alongside you if you wish, most pros are too afraid to do this.
$50 dollars and you stand to win all or part of $200. come back to me when you are ready
F C D
{Pokermaster) 2011
This means that as soon as a possible winner is identified a "balancer" is applied to the bet to the tune of 55 or 60 percent AGAINST the BPH (best PROBABLE hand) why?
Because the operator needs to rake more in the alleged "heads up" nature of betfair. It happens on all platforms, 888, empire poker, etc.etc. And it gives a consistent loser a chance on the ONE time that you think you have a dead cert. That keeps him on the table, but he WILL lose shortly after.
I have been playing all kinds of poker for nearly 50 years, and realized this situation soon after registering with betfair. I am a "mathematical" player and as a result I find it quite easy to apply a "correction factor" to my calculations of [chance of improvement] [chance of winning] [cards in play], you know what I am saying.
I am not afraid of betfair, I do quite well, in profit most of the time and a new car to show for it.
I would direct you to the basic rules in my book.
amongst other things-------
Hold (perhaps bet/raise) a hand that you CANNOT lose
Fold a hand that you CANNOT win
In between there is no guarantee. Hope is not an option!!
You have now cracked it and I will see you on a Really Big table in the near future
I believe that I can make you a winner.
I will play alongside you if you wish, most pros are too afraid to do this.
$50 dollars and you stand to win all or part of $200. come back to me when you are ready
F C D
{Pokermaster) 2011
Hey, Seaside. You are exactly right! There is no doubt whatever that a "balancing counter" is applied to all situations, especially in a betting environment that is based on a defined number of possibilities. eg poker, roulette, etc.etc. THEY WILL OF COURSE DENY IT BUT SO WHAT!
This means that as soon as a possible winner is identified a "balancer" is applied to the bet to the tune of 55 or 60 percent AGAINST the BPH (best PROBABLE hand) why?
Because the operator needs to rake more in the alleged "heads up" nature of betfair. It happens on all platforms, 888, empire poker, etc.etc. And it gives a consistent loser a chance on the ONE time that you think you have a dead cert. That keeps him on the table, but he WILL lose shortly after.
I have been playing all kinds of poker for nearly 50 years, and realized this situation soon after registering with betfair. I am a "mathematical" player and as a result I find it quite easy to apply a "correction factor" to my calculations of [chance of improvement] [chance of winning] [cards in play], you know what I am saying.
I am not afraid of betfair, I do quite well, in profit most of the time and a new car to show for it.
I would direct you to the basic rules in my book.
amongst other things-------
Hold (perhaps bet/raise) a hand that you CANNOT lose
Fold a hand that you CANNOT win
In between there is no guarantee. Hope is not an option!!
You have now cracked it and I will see you on a Really Big table in the near future
I believe that I can make you a winner.
I will play alongside you if you wish, most pros are too afraid to do this.
$50 dollars and you stand to win all or part of $200. come back to me when you are ready
F C D
{Pokermaster) 2011
This means that as soon as a possible winner is identified a "balancer" is applied to the bet to the tune of 55 or 60 percent AGAINST the BPH (best PROBABLE hand) why?
Because the operator needs to rake more in the alleged "heads up" nature of betfair. It happens on all platforms, 888, empire poker, etc.etc. And it gives a consistent loser a chance on the ONE time that you think you have a dead cert. That keeps him on the table, but he WILL lose shortly after.
I have been playing all kinds of poker for nearly 50 years, and realized this situation soon after registering with betfair. I am a "mathematical" player and as a result I find it quite easy to apply a "correction factor" to my calculations of [chance of improvement] [chance of winning] [cards in play], you know what I am saying.
I am not afraid of betfair, I do quite well, in profit most of the time and a new car to show for it.
I would direct you to the basic rules in my book.
amongst other things-------
Hold (perhaps bet/raise) a hand that you CANNOT lose
Fold a hand that you CANNOT win
In between there is no guarantee. Hope is not an option!!
You have now cracked it and I will see you on a Really Big table in the near future
I believe that I can make you a winner.
I will play alongside you if you wish, most pros are too afraid to do this.
$50 dollars and you stand to win all or part of $200. come back to me when you are ready
F C D
{Pokermaster) 2011
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539