this is in memory of

meybee stars ain't rigged after all
maybee i juss don't like look at avatards
treat them like toilet paper betta

yesh

marine theme for da win

cuz they all fishes LOL

2 votes

Comments (3)

the artist known as Feist + Pokar = endless amounts of fucking win

like, fucking, cup runneth over amounts of win

try it i fucking endorse it very fucking highly

if u don't like it u r ghey

1 votes

Comments (10)

i understand why phil ivey plays craps

this poker shit is so over for all of u LOL

it's over

yknow the mental image

that guy Xing his hands

then spreading them

it's over

1 votes

Comments (15)

so i used to think that i didn't have a b or c game

i do

it's called intoxication

1 votes

Comments (2)

take it however the fuck you wanna take it

1 votes

Comments (3)

no not dead
this pokar shit is 2 ez now
gl

1 votes

Comments (3)

I played 2057 hands of MTT sng format today with buyins less than or equal to $ 4.4 with the $ 78 that I had left on the site, in order to attempt to make my nut, seeing no recourse, since there was no way that I'd be able to make my month-end target (covering the nut) continuing to play cash because there are not enough hours in the day because I have to do things like sleep and eat and write. I'd recorded an EV bb/100 of 44 over a tiny sample of penny NL but it doesn't mean shit when that winrate amounts to $ 3.50/hour cash in hand and, besides, this level of winrate is clearly unsustainable. I figure it's good for 2/hr, maybe barely 3. Throw up some error bars and it's not unreasonable to think that I would not have even managed to get to 25nl by the end of the month, nevermind make the nut, and even in that case I'm just making my nut and starting all over, and this further requires that I assume that I run not terribly at any point, which is really a fool's wager.

And so today I played micro 180s with a buyin of equal or less than $ 4.4 and I lost an average of 27.71 chips per hand.

Assume an average bb size of 100, mean median mode all pretty much agree with this.

My cEV for the 2057 hands was 5122.07. In turn, my expected result per hand can cautiously be interpreted to be 2.49 chips per hand. Sample size is an issue here, of course.

My actual EV bb/100 for 2057 hands was 12.36, clustered around the lower bb levels of course. This serves to imply that my true EV bb/100 is somewhere in between the two figures.

My realized bb/100 for 2057 hands was -0.48.

At an average bb size of 100, my linear count expectation of 2.49 chips per hand, a fairly strong though mildly sensitive figure, this constitutes an average expected gain gain of 249 chips per 100 hands, or 2.49 bb/100.

Start playing around with the numbers between 2.49 and 12.36 and we see an average maximal loss in bet count in the range of 430-520 , assuming that we are bounded by a Z-Score of 3 in trials. I have no reason to go below the expected figure of 2.49 bb/100 for this sample of 2057 hands because I have access to the remainder of my tournament data as it relates to tournament hand performance over a reasonably large sample.

And so at a true bb of 2.49-8 we see an expected maximal loss in the range of 500 with reasonable error bars over a sample size of 2057 hands.

Given that I am more present, more focused, and more skilled (or better able to make use of my skill) in my present condition than for the majority of my poker playing history, as evidenced by my ability to make this post, let's give me a true winrate in tourney chips of 3.8 bb/100, which I do not consider to be at all unreasonable given my historical per hand performance and ROI in all MTT formats over the course of my lifetime, which of course includes the past year. Even accounting for the past year, my lifetime ROI in MTT formats is comfortably in excess of 100. The SD of around 40 sounds pretty much spot on, I don't even need to check it. I plug it into the Z-Score of 3 bounded simulator which can be found here and instruct it to run it 1000x and I do it over and over and over.

At an average bb size of 100, I lost 57000 tournament chips for loss of 570 bets. Assume that there is no drop off in the quality of my play as the blind levels increase. In fact, I have traditionally excelled in late tournament situations, basically winning the tournament whenever I get ahold of any sizable number of chips. A performance far in excess of ICM interpretation, and in these games, I can take it as a given that I will outperform my opponents to a massive degree at every stage of play.

Give me a true winrate of 3 and I'm still in excess of a Z-Score of 3 by any reasonable statistical measure. OK, let's start to tinker with the average bb size. Still > 3, or at most spot on 3. Give me a true winrate in the range of 6 and the same applies. In order for me to exceed that Z-Score, my true bb/100 in MTT formats must be well in excess of 8.

I believe that as I played today and given the relative quality of my opponents' play, I exceeded the level of quality of play required to achieve that winrate.

Incidentally a loss of 570 adjusted bets, a very highly reasonable and robust figure in my view, amounts to a Z-Score comfortably in excess of 3 standard deviations given 1000 trials with a SD of 39.58. I ran the trials over and over and returned a similar result every time. In order for my loss to not be in excess of a Z-Score of 3 as evaluated in terms of basic statistics, I must be both the worst latestage MTT player in the world, and also the best early stage MTT player in the world. This fails the laugh test.

Now let's look at longest breakeven probability. Again, this tends to cap out at around 2000 hands, and given how latestage MTT goes (basically well or, uh, not) it's not really worth much over 2057 hands. Even so, again, I'm right around a Z-Score of 3 and even slightly in excess of it. Given that I'm going to be winning chips early, winning chips midstage, and winning chips late, and winning tournaments, I tend to believe the Z-Score on this too. Tell me how I'm wrong please if you are reading this and are of the inclination to disagree.

Additionaly consider that I didn't actually get to the endgame, which is where the real money is made. Adjust for that, and my cEV performance and my lack of opportunity to even have an opportunity to take in 30% of the prizepool and the actuality of my losing 570 adjusted bets becomes ... frankly startling to me.

All of this happened exactly today, which is also the day on which I have realized all of myself, and on the day that I consider myself to have played the best tournament poker that I have ever played in my life. Any way that you want to twist the data, it still comes out with the same Z-Score, or even larger, and this manifests itself in multiple terms.

Give me an ROI of >180%, for instance as accounted for by the impossible softness of the games and any reasonable cEV winrate and consistent form throughout, and then play 37 games, and return an ROI of -88%.

Give me an ITM of ~14 and then take me 25 games before my first cash, which was a mincash, and then give me another mincash at game 35.

-35 buyins for the day.

4.52 in the roll.

And so I'm going to see about getting my old job back tomorrow, a job that I must admit to find rather boring (but do really enjoy enough to not feel that it's a waste of my time), because when I work there I'm helping to keep people safe and teaching and helping others, and as I write this I must further admit that I am very seriously considering never playing on stars again. Except for the freerolls and the quarterly millions. I may have developed major negative feelings towards the site as a result of my experience today but I'm not stupid.

0 votes

Comments (14)

i like this book alot and i think that you'd like it too and so, bam, here it is.

it's about a guy who lives in the future. he's a master of games, in all forms. board games, card games, games of both complete and incomplete information. he lives an idyllic life, in which he socializes and fucks and is adored and respected by millions. he wants for nothing.

and then he hears about a game that is so big, so strong, and so challenging so as to defy all reasonable efforts at convenient categorization. he travels out across the stars, just to play it in the place where it is played.

stuff happens.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Player-of-G...&s=digital-text&qid=1284306706&sr=8-5

kindle

http://www.amazon.com/Player-Games-Ia...ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284306706&sr=8-1

paperback

if you like it i got more that i think that you'll like seeing and hearing and reading and so let me know if you enjoyed it via pm. the feedback will let me know if this is or isn't a waste of my time. i suspect that it may be a minor waste of time, but if i actually notice a sizable number in my affiliate account at some point i may continue.

0 votes

Comments (15)

15 little steps are all that I need to take. From this starting point, all that I have to do is take 15 steps. I have to take them on my own, to fight for and win every inch of ground that I take and to place my flag upon it. My starting point is secure; I am no longer in any form of danger at my starting stake. My mind is clear, and my play is strong, and that which drives my play is singularly unique and vibrant and there is nothing else quite like it on this earth. I fear nothing, yet can be impeccably technical in craft, and I can reach out and possess the mind of the other, no matter what form it takes, and so I can manipulate him in all forms, as I maintain no shape for him to grasp and hold no pattern for him to identify, all the while as I take sheer delight in the moment as I vanquish him remorselessly. And so all that I need to do is to take 15 Steps. And this time I'll do it without the shear drop.

0 votes

Comments (2)

imma win this fucking 30k retard shippament

1 votes

Comments (0)