...the tough thing about poker is we're forced to make decisions on large pots with wide odds. even if you consistently make the right move, you're gonna lose a lot of big hands. even if we give @BitcoinGirl.Club an extra 5-10% chance based on fold equity since he shoved into villain, that's still losing 30-35% of the time...
When this happens consistently, hand after hand, especially when losing with calling stations because of pure luck, they will hit two times 4 on the river and turn when holding 4,2, to win with AK on AQJ board calling all five streets, then I start to think that maybe the good way of playing poker is wrong, but for sure this also happens more often on low stakes where I am now playing. Maybe on higher stakes, people are just playing better and all-ins with pair of 5 happen not so often as on micro stakes? They will call you more often on lower stakes because it cost randomly a buck or two to call all five streets almost a pot high every time. A different strategy is needed as on medium stakes, where I was playing a few years ago. i dunno man, you sound kinda tilted to me. you should be happy people are calling down with such garbage. soft games! it's just a bad beat, maybe a run of bad beats. but if you can't shake those bad beats off, it's going to affect your game. mid stakes is definitely more aggressive, less calling stations. tougher games. |
|
|
|
@Steve C'mon Steve come to my table at least once, I want to take a shot at taking you down  I played all this freerolls and didn't see you even once. Few more weeks and statistic probability will start to get on my side.  in all these games, i had steve at my table once. i even took him down to ~1k chips on a big all-in too, i think it was a flopped set vs TPTK or something. naturally someone else ended up with the KO.  |
|
|
|
Austrian: when a government increases the quantity of paper money, the result is that the purchasing power of the monetary unit begins to drop, and so prices rise. This is called inflation.
Unfortunately, in the United States, as well as in other countries, some people prefer to attribute the cause of inflation not to an increase in the quantity of money but, rather, to the rise in prices. Source: https://mises.org/library/inflationMainstream: In the long run, inflation is caused by growth in the money supply. Inflation, the rate of growth in the average level of prices, can vary over the short run for many reasons. Over the long run, however, the rate at which the central bank (the Federal Reserve System in the United States) causes the stock of money to grow determines what the inflation rate is. Source: Williamson, Macroeconomics 6th ed, Pearson I think Mises' view is more biased, or he wants to emphasize "printing money" in his lecture. The evidence why the mainstream definition of inflation is more accurate is in the short run, for example, on Islamic fasting month (in the Islamic majority country), inflation will be high not because of printing money stuff, but because an increase in demand since people tend to eat more quality/complete foods during that period. https://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/esp/article/view/6576i'm only talking about the long run, and tbh these two quotes say the same thing to me--- basically the monetary theory of inflation. it's pretty well accepted that all else equal increasing the money supply will eventually increase prices. the demand side economic view is that increasing the money supply is fine since we get adequate (if not equivalent) growth and thus stable/low price inflation. the austrian view is that this is only a temporary phenomenon before depressions wipe out all that growth. i wasn't lobbying for one or the other, just distinguishing between the two schools of thought, and remarking that a predictably low and static emission rate may be a third approach. to bring up monero again---over the long term, its emission rate is firmly in between bitcoin's and the fed's target inflation rate. it seems like a good compromise between velocity (hoarding) and unchecked price inflation (increasing the money supply without equivalent growth). the fundamental problem presently is that people are spending less money on goods and services, due to high unemployment and lack of confidence in the future.
we already have a problem of too much productivity. there is no demand for the current level of productivity, which is why there are so many layoffs happening. you can't get people to buy stuff they don't want just by making more of it.
Well, since economics is a social science, there's no such thing as binary yes or no, let's spin it shall we Needs or wants are not equal to demand. Demand is an economic principle referring to a consumer's desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service. Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/demand.aspAs long as people are still alive and healthy, people will always need products and services, but they are unable or unwilling to pay at a particular price level. Hence, the idea is to keep producing because more supply will lower the price, with the hope that people can or willing to pay at the new price level. that necessarily means businesses make less money. those with small margins already may become unprofitable entirely. people with ample savings and continuing income will gladly scoop up discounted prices, but they are the people who haven't changed their spending habits. it's the unemployed/partially employed/failing business owners, who no longer have income to buy even at deflated prices, that are the issue. that's a huge chunk of the economy presently. anyway, i'm just pointing out what i think could happen, not trying to predict doomsday or lobby for the austrian side. i'm both ambivalent and indifferent about deep monetary theory---too many unknowns for me to contemplate all that seriously. i simply don't know what's gonna happen re the current recession and future inflation either. |
|
|
|
There is something in poker that is the "correct move" regardless of the negative outcome and a good example is the OP's hand, in fact the evaluation made by the player who had K3 is correct. +1, just a high variance hand, but should be profitable over the long run. @BitcoinGirl.Club was a 60-40 favorite, and i think his play was solid considering villain's possible range---namely KX, flushes, and flush draws on the flop. the tough thing about poker is we're forced to make decisions on large pots with wide odds. even if you consistently make the right move, you're gonna lose a lot of big hands. even if we give @BitcoinGirl.Club an extra 5-10% chance based on fold equity since he shoved into villain, that's still losing 30-35% of the time. Thanks for the thread I was really surprised that there were no more threads dedicated to Poker and especially to NLH.
another thread for you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214582.0we also have a forum NLHE league. check it out: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5245365.0 |
|
|
|
Yes, I know the math, but after my latest losing strikes by the tables, I tend to agree with this statement. ...There are alot of variance in gamble therefore I would just simply brush away all those kind of math...
...selective memory is in full effect! ... Maybe, I never thought about this before, but taking into consideration bad luck and shitty cards dealt, many times I ended up with weaker flush on the river. On the other hand, hard to talk about "selective memory", when I count hands and the ratio is 100 to 1. Only one time, I got decent cards dealt from the 5% starting range in a hundred hands. That is why sometimes the math just won't work without a bit of pure luck, as quoted above  . luck is just another way of describing variance. i love this quote.Variance is what knowledgeable players expect to happen. Bad luck is what weaker players hope to avoid. The physical manifestation is the same, but the mental states are different. Belief in "bad luck" has destroyed a lot of poker players. we all have good runs and bad runs. we tend to focus on the bad runs because they are traumatic. at least this is my personal experience. 100 hands is a crazy small sample. 50k is a good sample. if something is very wrong then you'll probably see deviation within 20k hands. over just several hundred or few thousand hands you should always expect some bad luck. it always hits sometime. i guess there is also the possibility that you are just statistically unlucky.  |
|
|
|
However, when we decide to have 1 final table after 2 months I would like to increase the pricepool. Either we´re paying 1500 or 2000 instead of 1000, or what Ivan suggested, that we create an additional Price pool for the guys with the most points (maybe 200 extra and places 1-3 are paid?!).
I know, the idea is having fun, spending a good time with people from this Forum, but it´s also a competition.
are you saying you wanna add an additional buy-in on top? so instead of 1000+200 per game as now, it would be 1000+200+200, where 200 goes to the championship prize pool and 200 goes towards a separate prize pool for the top 3 in league points? i kinda like it. it adds some additional incentive to play every game. what does everyone else think? |
|
|
|
|
i managed to get a healthy stack early in today's forum game. somewhere mid-game i called a big preflop shove holding AKs vs TT and didn't hit. it was all downhill from there.
i ended up taking a shot and check-raising all-in with an open-ended straight draw on the flop against an aggressive villain. he was betting in position, i figured there was a good chance he had nothing or a weak pair. he called with top pair and i missed. i got knocked out a few hands later. that's it for me, out in 47th.
i'd share the hands but i was late to screenshot them and you literally can't access hand history on sportsbet.io. y'all should fix that!
@Trofo still in the game with a huge stack. i'm rooting for you dude! everyone else i know is busted.
|
|
|
|
It's quite clear that Donald Trump is going to get re-elected for a second term.
Biden is being slandered to hell and there's practically no other front-runners. trump was slandered to hell before winning in 2016. remember "grab 'em by the pussy"? or the ~25 women who accused trump of sexual misconduct/assault? it didn't stop him from winning. Donald Trump pledged to pay off the entire national debt within his next term if re-elected. That's quite an incredible pledge that might just be enough to secure him the victory later this year. lol. hell will freeze over before that happens. the national debt increased from $20 trillion to $25 trillion under trump. |
|
|
|
Where do you play longer hours online casinos or casinos?
between the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that this is a crypto forum, answers are definitely gonna skew towards online gambling. i have a local card room but the games aren't nearly as juicy as a real casino, which is a significant distance away from me. so even ignoring the coronavirus, i lean towards online vs live. i also like online poker since i can multi-table or multi-task while playing. live poker games can be pretty slow. |
|
|
|
@figmentofmyass
You are right to say "these are not normal times" for the presidential elections in America. Trump has made many mistakes and Biden can beat him. yes, which is why i said earlier that biden wins the 2020 election 8 or 9 times out of 20 IMO. this is most definitely not a shoo-in for trump. trump does have several advantages though, one of which is the "wartime" mentality of the coronavirus crisis, which causes people to rally behind leaders in power. we have seen this across the world over the past few months. despite his administrations repeated blunders, trump's popularity has still increased from pre-pandemic levels, although i will admit his numbers have slid significantly since peaking in april. so much hinges on economic performance in the coming months. much of trump's base is working class. if the economy drops off a cliff as some are predicting, their suffering will become a political crisis for him. that will tip the scales towards joe biden. tbh i'm baffled by the trump administration's strong pushback against demand side stimulus spending right now considering how close we are to the election. this is part of the reason his numbers are sliding. i think he and his advisers (and mitch mcconnell too) are taking huge political gambles by becoming the figureheads for austerity during the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes. if they play their cards wrong, they may become the most hated politicians in the country, and people will be begging for anyone but trump and the republicans come november. to put this another way: the possible outcomes are extremely polarized, but 5-6 months out, the odds are still relatively close to 50-50 IMO. one other important factor to consider is that low voter turnout (reinforced by coronavirus and republican cockblocking of any vote-by-mail schemes) is a strong advantage for republicans. if there is a second wave of coronavirus in the fall, this may play a huge factor. |
|
|
|
Here's a solution I'd like to propose. Since we decided earlier to accept anyone, even a just registered newbie, this password thing doesn't have much sense.
So, what we can do is:
1. Get rid off passwords completely; it will become 1/2 populated by SwC tourney regs. maybe that's okay---on average, i would say our players are tougher to beat anyway. this is something to consider though, as it will definitely not feel as much like a "bitcointalk" tourney anymore. a password obviously doesn't keep out a determined outsider (and i don't care enough to stop them anyway) but having one (which forces you to come to bitcointalk to at least get the password) ensures that it's mostly people from our community who stick around. 2. Keep everything as it was, but I will be doing what @efialtis was doing before: a player transfers 200 chips to my account on SwC; asks me for a password via PM on this forum; I check my Transfer history on SwC, and send him/her a password if the transfer was done. I don't mind doing this. In fact, I will be more than happy to make a modest contribution to the organizational process of our series. I mean, since it's an extra hassle, we can do it in shifts. Thanks, @efialtis for doing it previously! The next two series are on me. (if there are no objections) i'm fine with that. i can also run it for a future series. i actually really like the idea of an upfront "league entry fee" instead of per-game, and retaining 1000 chip buy-ins. it means we don't have to worry about dealing with such small amounts for dozens of people, dozens of PMs all the time. if SwC keeps putting up 0.05+ BTC for the championships (i don't know whether that will happen but fingers crossed) then that value more than pays for any missed games. if we stop doing this "200 chips per game" thing in our heads, the league entry fee starts to make a lot of sense IMO. |
|
|
|
i suppose a 3rd idea would reinforce the notion that it isn't inflation per se that's the problem, but rather unpredictable and high inflation. i've heard convincing arguments that a 0.5% or 1% perpetual, but unquestionably stable/predictable inflation (like monero's tail emission) is superior to bitcoin's fixed supply dynamic.
Inflation != Increase money supply mate there are two types of inflation---monetary inflation and price inflation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_inflationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationthey are directly related: Monetary inflation is a sustained increase in the money supply of a country (or currency area). Depending on many factors, especially public expectations, the fundamental state and development of the economy, and the transmission mechanism, it is likely to result in price inflation, which is usually just called "inflation", which is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services. this is exactly why people fear that money printing policies will result in high inflation or hyperinflation. increasing the money supply devalues each unit of money, increasing prices. Perhaps the focus should be to increase productivity (more goods and services), not to tweak the emission rates. the fundamental problem presently is that people are spending less money on goods and services, due to high unemployment and lack of confidence in the future. we already have a problem of too much productivity. there is no demand for the current level of productivity, which is why there are so many layoffs happening. you can't get people to buy stuff they don't want just by making more of it. |
|
|
|
...not all semi-bluffs are created equally. if i have a flush draw + open-ended straight draw with two cards to fall, i can be quite aggressive (check-raising) or keen to get chips in a huge multi-way pot...
Agree and now I want to ask, what will you do on the river (fifth street) if you were aggressive betting all 4 streets and get called? assuming the draws missed? this is villain dependent. does he have missed draws in his range? can you get him to fold a weak made hand like top pair/rag kicker or 2nd pair? there are cases where you can still have decent fold equity while bluffing the river. if not, then consider shutting down on the river and controlling the pot size. if the draw hit, i guess it's also villain dependent. into an aggressive player who may try to resteal the river, i may check-raise or minbet-raise here. into a more passive player i'm value betting and hoping for the rare opportunity to 4bet. if stack sizes are appropriate (no overbets) then i like to get my stack all in on the flop, especially multi-way. a good example is @Trofo in this 3-way pot: Of course, the last card turns out to be a total disaster, 90% of the time, even with flush draw + open-ended straight draw, I end up with nothing majority of the times. selective memory is in full effect! OESD + flush draw = 15 outs. that means you have a 54.1% chance of hitting on turn or river, and 32.6% chance of hitting on the river. http://www.pokerology.com/lessons/drawing-odds/ |
|
|
|
1) All players send their extra chips after the 8 tournaments have finished according to their number of participations. Problem: You will have players that forget or have gone awol and efialtis will have to run after that money.
2) All players send their chips upfront and get refunded for tournaments they didn't join. If someone joins only at tournament #3 f.e., he would have to send 6x200 = 1200 for remaining ones. Problem: Will turn off newbies, that want to try first and people that just join from time to time for whatever reason.
3) Entry fee gets increased to 1200 chips and SwC puts 200 of those aside and adds them to Grand Final automatically. Problem: Is SwC willing and able to do that on a technical level ?
i'm sure it could technically be done, but it would create some legwork for SwC. i'm not sure they are willing or whether we should ask it of them. as it is, i dunno how much ROI they are getting from sponsoring our little league. #1 is always gonna be a problem. nobody wants to chase after people for like 0.0006 BTC. that leaves #2. the buy-ins themselves are already 0.001 BTC each. i don't think asking for 0.0016 BTC more for league entry up front seems like a big deal at all. it almost seems like an opportunity to round it up to 0.002 BTC. 400 chips is just a single buy-in at the low stakes 2/4 tables. requiring upfront payment for the entire series also creates incentive for players to keep coming back. it's also possible it could deter people who are on the fence from entering at all. anyone who isn't in on day 1 probably won't join later. always so many angles...... |
|
|
|
there's essentially 2 schools of thought on this. the austrians and other austerity supporters think perpetual growth is a fairy tale and that the market should be left to its own devices even if that means a depression wiping out much of the economy.
the keynesians and other demand side economists see a depression as the ultimate evil, much worse than money printing and bailouts.
And which one you prefer? Or you have your own "theory?" i don't pretend to know what the ideal is. krugman and powell et al would say a depression in many ways is exponentially worse than slow devaluation by inflation. i wouldn't know but the idea is persuasive on some levels. i suppose a 3rd idea would reinforce the notion that it isn't inflation per se that's the problem, but rather unpredictable and high inflation. i've heard convincing arguments that a 0.5% or 1% perpetual, but unquestionably stable/predictable inflation (like monero's tail emission) is superior to bitcoin's fixed supply dynamic. i'm not nearly as offended by keynesians as many in the bitcoin realm are. i see the interest rates banks are paying. i'm capable of finding more reasonable places to park my money for better returns. |
|
|
|
biden won't win 99% of the remaining delegates. even though bernie sanders dropped out in early april, he's still been getting ~30% of the delegates in the subsequent primaries.
at this rate, it still won't be enough to prevent biden from clinching it before the DNC. sanders needs to start picking up more delegates. in terms of game theory, if sentiment among democrats turns strongly against biden with big primaries like pennsylvania, new york, and new jersey still to be decided, then that creates incentives to vote sanders, to keep biden from winning the nomination outright.
There is a real chance that the remaining primary contests may be called off. In that case, Biden with 1566 out of the 2704 (58%) of the delegates declared so far will be confirmed as the Democrat nominee. if the remaining primaries are cancelled, biden won't legally receive the required delegate count and i believe the chances of a brokered convention would increase. in fact, the sanders campaign made very clear when he dropped out that he wanted to remain on all primary ballots to gather delegates for the DNC, to put pressure on the democratic party platform. I don't think that any of the other candidates are going to challenge this decision, especially as Bernie has endorsed Biden a few months back. If there is no unforeseen emergency, such as health issues, then Biden will be the Democrat candidate.
biden is still by far the most likely democratic candidate. still, these are not normal times. the cancellation of primaries and threat of a second wave during presidential elections in november are creating a lot of uncertainty. there is speculation about an electoral college vote even if popular elections are cancelled, or otherwise that constitutional rules for succession (which have never been used before) will come into play. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/what-if-coronavirus-cancels-election-answer-will-make-you-want-ncna1195791 |
|
|
|
For the governments, it means that hyperinflation could be a thing of the past with an endless supply of potential cryptocurrencies---which themselves can have high/unlimited supplies---maybe that's not true. some people believe bitcoin's code-enforced scarcity is artificial and could be (or already is) diluted by expanding supplies in the larger crypto market. bitcoin would of course be deflationary over the long run, but it's hard to say what the larger "crypto"-only economy would look like. However, the story could be different for those living in less developed countries; Lack of internet access/ stable electrical power would make it hard for them to transact. yeah i think stable access to electricity and internet is a prerequisite for mass adoption. less developed countries will probably lag behind in this respect and cling to physical cash. I guess it can lead to an increase of the poor people. A lot of persons don't understand what is bitcoin...
poor people are already poor. their circumstances wouldn't change just because of crypto adoption. they had little to no savings before, and would have little to no savings afterwards. the only difference is they'd be getting paid their daily wages in cryptocurrency rather than fiat, so that's what they'd be spending as well. |
|
|
|
* What do you think? It seems like the US is moving closer to central planning since the government decides to interfere with the free-market. the FED buying corporate debt does put a new face on things. they are now openly choosing economic winners and losers, pumping funds into failing businesses at their choosing when the free market would have let them go bankrupt. unlike treasury stimulus, there is no semblance of accountability or transparency. they are really fucking with the investment landscape. in all fairness, the USA has never been a free market in the sense of laissez-faire economics. it's a "mixed economy" rife with regulations, subsidies, and welfare entitlements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy#Mix_of_free_markets_and_state_interventionthis takes it to a new level though. * At the time of this pandemic, should the government let the market regulate itself? there's essentially 2 schools of thought on this. the austrians and other austerity supporters think perpetual growth is a fairy tale and that the market should be left to its own devices even if that means a depression wiping out much of the economy. the keynesians and other demand side economists see a depression as the ultimate evil, much worse than money printing and bailouts. |
|
|
|
During all these years of playing poker, I was able to play many hands in a different way, but TBH still wonder how correctly draws should be played?
I personally think that to be good in poker one has to perfect the bluff play and of course test it on tables with at least medium stakes because on the lower once there are just too many fishes, semi-bluffing a calling station can be very costly on drawing tables. not all semi-bluffs are created equally. if i have a flush draw + open-ended straight draw with two cards to fall, i can be quite aggressive (check-raising) or keen to get chips in a huge multi-way pot. look at the odds vs top pair/top kicker:  a gutshot straight draw doesn't play quite the same:  And, when you slow play and hit finally the draw on the river, then there is no value and if you bet too high they will just fold.
i find that aggressively betting draws often represents weaker made hands (that villains are more likely to call on the river) whereas passively calling draws seems to have the opposite effect when eg the 3rd flush card hits. sometimes shoving the nuts on the river can yield some calls from villains who think you are stealing. sometimes. |
|
|
|
I tried to wait a few days, changed the room, played fewer tables, more, nothing helps. Yesterday, I started to count and I got one decent hand in 88, which was this unlucky AA where I lost with KK, when the third K hit the board, of course on the river. That was the only good hand from the starting 5% range and I see that happens every day.
I keep sitting and folding all the time and even if I have something, then nobody will play with me when I raise even slightly or everybody folds when I am on BB with a strong hand. It is just insane and makes me mad lately. I know that when I start to play too many shitty hands, I will lose my bankroll finally, but if you get only these types of hands, finally you will start to defend blinds or just play because everybody is checking/folding before you and lose in the end with a higher second card, pair or flush.
I wonder what you are doing when such a time comes, that it is obvious that the luck is not on your site?
you're not alone. you've basically just described my last 3 weeks---card dead, turn/river suckouts when i do actually have it, and some coolers like set over set for good measure. i generally just play through it, knowing that it's just the nasty side of variance and will even out over the long run. if it starts tilting me at the tables, i take a few days off. there is not much else you can do....... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
