Second nuts in omaha meands crap

On March 20 2009 16:49 killaherni wrote: when I play I tend to cbet a lot, baisically all hands, so im thinking this dude could be making a move on me

that's what i figure.

On March 19 2009 20:46 Fayth wrote: folding turn is fine

yeah his range is polarized between Jxxx and compete air, so pretty easy to let it go on the turn

and what are you doing min-raising pre?

2nd nuts is cra-p

results oriented imo

On March 21 2009 13:42 thewh00sel wrote: 2nd nuts is cra-p

:DDDDDDDDD ahahah epic reminder

this is probably a fold more often than not.

your preflop min raise is so terrible it's beyond words

On March 25 2009 21:25 TalentedTom wrote: your preflop min raise is so terrible it's beyond words

Tom doing what he does best

god nl2 is a variance clusterfuck then add plo to the mix...be prepared to move up in like 3months minimum lol

Simple math to aid you. You let 8 cards see the flop. You hold 4 and the turn is 4. That means there are 8 cards out of 52 accounted for, 44 not.

Just using simple random math, ignoring all actions, one of those players has a 8/44, or an 18.1% chance of having a J. Doesn't seem so implausible that he holds quads now does it?

2nd nuts lost a pot in Omaha? This is The. Worst. Beat. EVER!

On April 16 2009 12:56 Maynard! wrote: Simple math to aid you. You let 8 cards see the flop. You hold 4 and the turn is 4. That means there are 8 cards out of 52 accounted for, 44 not. Just using simple random math, ignoring all actions, one of those players has a 8/44, or an 18.1% chance of having a J. Doesn't seem so implausible that he holds quads now does it?

huh??!?!

On April 17 2009 09:23 Critterer wrote: Show nested quote + On April 16 2009 12:56 Maynard! wrote: Simple math to aid you. You let 8 cards see the flop. You hold 4 and the turn is 4. That means there are 8 cards out of 52 accounted for, 44 not. Just using simple random math, ignoring all actions, one of those players has a 8/44, or an 18.1% chance of having a J. Doesn't seem so implausible that he holds quads now does it? huh??!?!

Is my thinking wrong? could be.

No it's correct but I don't understand how it can be so simple. I went through a very long calculation to get the same answer.

On April 18 2009 10:32 Maynard! wrote: Show nested quote + On April 17 2009 09:23 Critterer wrote:   On April 16 2009 12:56 Maynard! wrote: Simple math to aid you. You let 8 cards see the flop. You hold 4 and the turn is 4. That means there are 8 cards out of 52 accounted for, 44 not. Just using simple random math, ignoring all actions, one of those players has a 8/44, or an 18.1% chance of having a J. Doesn't seem so implausible that he holds quads now does it? huh??!?! Is my thinking wrong? could be.

It's alright, but you can only think like this on the flop. After the other guy folds, we already *know* he didn't have a J.

So rather, you should go: There's 4 cards on the board, 4 cards in my hand, 4 cards in the other guy's hand. None of them is a J. So there's a 4/40 chance the other guy has a J (ignoring all action).

On April 20 2009 04:22 Pulda wrote: Show nested quote + On April 18 2009 10:32 Maynard! wrote:   On April 17 2009 09:23 Critterer wrote:   On April 16 2009 12:56 Maynard! wrote: Simple math to aid you. You let 8 cards see the flop. You hold 4 and the turn is 4. That means there are 8 cards out of 52 accounted for, 44 not. Just using simple random math, ignoring all actions, one of those players has a 8/44, or an 18.1% chance of having a J. Doesn't seem so implausible that he holds quads now does it? huh??!?! Is my thinking wrong? could be. It's alright, but you can only think like this on the flop. After the other guy folds, we already *know* he didn't have a J. So rather, you should go: There's 4 cards on the board, 4 cards in my hand, 4 cards in the other guy's hand. None of them is a J. So there's a 4/40 chance the other guy has a J (ignoring all action).

No.

if you lose like this once + play a hand gay spewtard style and complain that is really... i mean WTF

On April 20 2009 04:22 Pulda wrote: Show nested quote + On April 18 2009 10:32 Maynard! wrote:   On April 17 2009 09:23 Critterer wrote:   On April 16 2009 12:56 Maynard! wrote: Simple math to aid you. You let 8 cards see the flop. You hold 4 and the turn is 4. That means there are 8 cards out of 52 accounted for, 44 not. Just using simple random math, ignoring all actions, one of those players has a 8/44, or an 18.1% chance of having a J. Doesn't seem so implausible that he holds quads now does it? huh??!?! Is my thinking wrong? could be. It's alright, but you can only think like this on the flop. After the other guy folds, we already *know* he didn't have a J. So rather, you should go: There's 4 cards on the board, 4 cards in my hand, 4 cards in the other guy's hand. None of them is a J. So there's a 4/40 chance the other guy has a J (ignoring all action).

This is true for any given 1 player, how ever we let 2 players see the flop. That's 8 cards from the 44 unknown cards that could be a jack. 8/44 = 2/11 which is 18.1% as mentioned

On April 26 2009 07:51 PokerDoc88 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 20 2009 04:22 Pulda wrote:   On April 18 2009 10:32 Maynard! wrote:   On April 17 2009 09:23 Critterer wrote:   On April 16 2009 12:56 Maynard! wrote: Simple math to aid you. You let 8 cards see the flop. You hold 4 and the turn is 4. That means there are 8 cards out of 52 accounted for, 44 not. Just using simple random math, ignoring all actions, one of those players has a 8/44, or an 18.1% chance of having a J. Doesn't seem so implausible that he holds quads now does it? huh??!?! Is my thinking wrong? could be. It's alright, but you can only think like this on the flop. After the other guy folds, we already *know* he didn't have a J. So rather, you should go: There's 4 cards on the board, 4 cards in my hand, 4 cards in the other guy's hand. None of them is a J. So there's a 4/40 chance the other guy has a J (ignoring all action). This is true for any given 1 player, how ever we let 2 players see the flop. That's 8 cards from the 44 unknown cards that could be a jack. 8/44 = 2/11 which is 18.1% as mentioned

Plus the board so that is why it is 40 (our hand, folding villain's hand, and the board are the "known" cards from this perspective).

Or who is right here? :S I mean we know that these 12 cards contain 3 jacks, so there are 40 cards left, villain has 4 of them and there is one jack left. No?

On April 26 2009 14:28 Repusz wrote: Show nested quote + On April 26 2009 07:51 PokerDoc88 wrote:   On April 20 2009 04:22 Pulda wrote:   On April 18 2009 10:32 Maynard! wrote:   On April 17 2009 09:23 Critterer wrote:   On April 16 2009 12:56 Maynard! wrote: Simple math to aid you. You let 8 cards see the flop. You hold 4 and the turn is 4. That means there are 8 cards out of 52 accounted for, 44 not. Just using simple random math, ignoring all actions, one of those players has a 8/44, or an 18.1% chance of having a J. Doesn't seem so implausible that he holds quads now does it? huh??!?! Is my thinking wrong? could be. It's alright, but you can only think like this on the flop. After the other guy folds, we already *know* he didn't have a J. So rather, you should go: There's 4 cards on the board, 4 cards in my hand, 4 cards in the other guy's hand. None of them is a J. So there's a 4/40 chance the other guy has a J (ignoring all action). This is true for any given 1 player, how ever we let 2 players see the flop. That's 8 cards from the 44 unknown cards that could be a jack. 8/44 = 2/11 which is 18.1% as mentioned Plus the board so that is why it is 40 (our hand, folding villain's hand, and the board are the "known" cards from this perspective). Or who is right here? :S I mean we know that these 12 cards contain 3 jacks, so there are 40 cards left, villain has 4 of them and there is one jack left. No?

Think about it. Imagine 10 people see the flop and 8 of them fold. That's 32 cards we know don't contain a jack + the 4 on the board + the 4 in your hand. That's 40 known cards. Your opponent has 4 of the 12 "unknown" cards. You think he has a 1 in 3 chance that he has a jack? No, that's ridiculous. Look up the "monty hall problem" and you will get a better understanding of this.