>be me
>raise kq pre
>tell myself im going to flop a straight, but there's going to be a pair on the flop, and my villian won't let his trips go no matter what i do, and that he's going to boat the river
>exactly that happens
>tell myself i should become cleo's assistant considering how often this happens
first 1st place in a 'big' tourney, money will be squandered pretty fast tho... probably for gf related stuff, as usual i should say... shit costs so much.
Deleted original post because it was too much of a whine.
Basically, what are your happiness life hacks? Everyone has their own things they do that makes them happy. Share yours. (even if what makes you happy may not make someone else happy.)
Main event coming up again and I'm definitely going to play. Hopefully can make a slightly deeper run than last year (196). I'm looking to sell about half my action. You guys let me know what you think is a reasonable markup. I'll take the best offer.
I'm purchasing a license for CREV soon and want to use it to work on my blind game a ton. I'm a little bit of a boob when it comes to figuring out ideal blind defense ranges (even away from the table) so I was hoping to get some criticism / insight from you guys on how you'd do it.
For the sake of this hypothetical let's imagine both players ONLY check postflop.
Assumptions:
- SB opens 55%.
- SB opens to 2x.
- SB folds to 3bet 70%
- SB calls 3bet 22%
- SB 4bets 8%
- Hero's 3B size is 6BB when he 3bets.
Immediate considerations:
- SB needs to succeed 60% of the time for his steal to break even.
- Hero's 3bet needs to succeed 63% of the time to show a tiny profit.
- Hero is getting 3:1 on a call and only needs 25% equity to break even.
So things start getting pretty fuzzy for me straight away.
On the one hand, I only need 25% equity against a loose range to call, so in theory I could profitably call with a ton of complete junk hands, while simply 3betting all hands that have an edge on his 3bet calling range for value (removing some of the bottom of that value range and adding in some bluffs to account for his 4bets).
On the other hand, if I defend the top 40% of his range (22% of hands) then I will show profit.
So, where do you start? How do you determine bluff frequency and based on what stats? What do you call with? What do you 3b for value? When is your range linear v polarized?
Improved Solution to Secretary Problem?by Daut, May 26
Posting this here for 2 reasons. First as a brag, thought it was pretty cool that I came across a problem with some real world applications and was able to improve on the solution for the simplest case. And second cause there are some really smart mathematicians here (catyoul for instance and others) who may want to run with my algorithm and apply it to the more general cases or come up with even better algorithms than I have.
Was doing my normal web surfing last week and came across the secretary problem, something I had never heard of before.
" imagine an administrator willing to hire the best secretary out of n rankable applicants for a position. The applicants are interviewed one-by-one in random order. A decision about each particular applicant is to be made immediately after the interview. Once rejected, an applicant cannot be recalled. During the interview, the administrator can rank the applicant among all applicants interviewed so far, but is unaware of the quality of yet unseen applicants. The question is about the optimal strategy (stopping rule) to maximize the probability of selecting the best applicant. If the decision can be deferred to the end, this can be solved by the simple maximum selection algorithm of tracking the running maximum (and who achieved it), and selecting the overall maximum at the end. The difficulty is that the decision must be made immediately."
When I read the solution I was at first impressed by it's mathematical beauty: Reject the first n/e applicants, choose the next best applicant after that or choose the last one. this gives a probability of 1/e of delivering the best applicant.
But on second thought it seemed rather risky. When the best applicant occurs in the first n/e spots, the last applicant is always the one chosen. Which means ~36.8% of the time you get a random choice between the worst and 2nd best applicant. It's likely that the applicants are normally distributed about an average number, and while the best applicant may be a standard deviation above the 2nd best or next group of best applicants, the worst applicant might be just as far on the other side of the spectrum or worse. This could be really disastrous.
For example, the most likely real world application of this problem is in dating. Sure you dont know exactly what N will be, but you date a certain number of girls and then eventually you choose one to settle down with. If you wait a while and refuse to settle for someone worse than your first set of applicants, you may end up getting stuck with a real shitty girl at an older age.
I thought I could immediately improve the solution to this problem. My solution was fairly simple: iterate this same process. Go through first n/e applicants, write down max, reject those. now there are n - n/e applicants. look through next (n-n/e)/e applicants, if you find a better one in there you choose it, if not you write down the max from that group, etc. iterated on to the end where you just go 1 at a time.
I programmed a simple version of both in python. I ranked secretaries 0-99, randomized their order and used each method to test the % choosing best applicant, the median applicant chosen and the average applicant chosen.
#Original secretary problem solution based on 100 secretaries and just on the ranking of secretaries from 1-100
#want to figure out both average ranking chosen and how often the best candidate is chosen
#function which sorts a list
def sortedRankings(sec):
x=0
while x <99:
import random
from random import randint
a = random.randint(x,99)
temp = sec[x]
sec[x] = sec[a]
sec[a] = temp
x = x+1
return sec
#function which returns a secretary based on original algorithm
def chooseSecretary(sec):
max=sec[0]
x=1
while x<36:
if (sec[x] > max):
max = sec[x]
x=x+1
while x<99:
if (sec[x] > max):
return sec[x]
x=x+1
#sort winners
a=0
while a<1000:
b=a
min=100
minLocation=-1
while b<1000:
if(min > winners[b]):
min = winners[b]
minLocation=b
b=b+1
temp=winners[a]
winners[a]=winners[minLocation]
winners[minLocation]=temp
a=a+1
print winners
print winners[499]
results: Ran the simulation 1000 times. The best secretary was chosen 375 times. The median secretary chosen was the 2nd best. The average choice was the 18th best. And roughly 3.5% of the time a bottom 10 secretary was chosen.
#function which sorts a list
def sortedRankings(sec):
x=0
while x <99:
import random
from random import randint
a = random.randint(x,99)
temp = sec[x]
sec[x] = sec[a]
sec[a] = temp
x = x+1
return sec
#function which returns a secretary based on original algorithm
def chooseSecretary(sec):
max=sec[0]
max2=0
max3=0
max4=0
max5=0
max6=0
max7=0
max8=0
max9=0
max10=0
x=1
while x<36:
if (sec[x] > max):
max = sec[x]
x=x+1
while x<60:
if (sec[x] > max):
return sec[x]
if (sec[x] > max2):
max2 = sec[x]
x=x+1
while x<74:
if (sec[x] > max2):
return sec[x]
if (sec[x] > max3):
max3 = sec[x]
x=x+1
while x<84:
if (sec[x] > max3):
return sec[x]
if (sec[x] > max4):
max4 = sec[x]
x=x+1
while x<90:
if (sec[x] > max4):
return sec[x]
if (sec[x] > max5):
max5 = sec[x]
x=x+1
while x<93:
if (sec[x] > max5):
return sec[x]
if (sec[x] > max6):
max6 = sec[x]
x=x+1
while x<95:
if (sec[x] > max6):
return sec[x]
if (sec[x] > max7):
max7 = sec[x]
x=x+1
while x<97:
if (sec[x] > max7):
return sec[x]
if (sec[x] > max8):
max8 = sec[x]
x=x+1
while x<98:
if (sec[x] > max8):
return sec[x]
if (sec[x] > max9):
max9 = sec[x]
x=x+1
while x<99:
if (sec[x] > max9):
return sec[x]
if (sec[x] > max10):
max10 = sec[x]
x=x+1
#sort winners
a=0
while a<1000:
b=a
min=100
minLocation=-1
while b<1000:
if(min > winners[b]):
min = winners[b]
minLocation=b
b=b+1
temp=winners[a]
winners[a]=winners[minLocation]
winners[minLocation]=temp
a=a+1
print winners
print winners[499]
Results: ran 1000 times. best chosen 263. 3rd best was median choice. average: 4th best. worst chosen: 50th best.
this seems much much better. of course i didnt program it for random values in a normal distribution, nor did i program it for the more likely real world scenario of an unknown N. but this clearly seems like a much better solution despite the fact that the original solution chooses the best secretary ~10% more often.
So, if you guys would like, run with this in the more general forms or try and come up with an even better solution.
I've just started playing a bit of poker again for the first time in a while. I used to play a lot and be very active on this site around 2006-2009 so I don't know how many people from then still post, maybe no one remembers me but I used to play NL50-NL200 6 max on Pokerstars.
A few friends of mine just started playing online after we went to the casino together for a donkament, and it gave me the itch to start playing a bit again. I've decided to try grind up from the beginning again without depositing and found my FTP account still had enough FPPs in to buy 20x$1 SnG tickets and used what I won from those to start playing my preferred form of poker again - ring games. I tried Rush Poker but didn't like it, broke even after a couple thousand hands so went back to the 'traditional' games with better success. I won't be playing loads, since I used to play I have a real job now so don't have time for grinding away, but poker is undeniably good fun when things go well so hopefully I can make a bit of money while enjoying it. Here's my first 2 days back playing ring games (NL2 then NL5) -
BW to poker - difference and how to make money?by DragOn_, May 23
Hello all, this is my first post on PS. Ive played BW off and on for about 10 years and achieved a high level of play within the game. I love BW and I could play it all day, I think the strategic depth and perfection of balance is beautiful, and I was very addicted - but I cant afford to invest any more time in it atm and Im looking for ways to make money and move ahead in life as well. Enter poker
I started out playing micro limits heads up, and then moved to NL2 and NL5 9player zoom games. Both of which I had very limited success with. Im having difficulty believing in a solid strategy to win online poker, although I know there are people that do succeed at it, many of whom also played bw first. I think to myself "If they can do it, so can I, I just need to find out what they know that I dont". Ive become frustrated though. The way I played bw seems to be dissimilar to the way people win at poker.
I played a defensive macro style in bw, aiming to cut corners wherever possible but always remain safe to any aggression through careful scouting. In poker though, "scouting" seems impossible without some kind of tracking software, and wins seem to be based more off prediction and feeling than any real knowledge of what is the correct move. You guess what skill level your opponent is, and what thought process he therefore will be using to beat you, and then level him. I dont see how that is a reliable strategy though, especially considering that most regs play many tables at once. I cant imagine being able to get inside the heads of any opponents when you have only a second or two to spend at each table to make the correct move, so the decision must come down to some predetermined formula, or gut feeling in the moment.
Maybe I just dont know enough about it to understand its depth, but poker strategy seems too simple to be a consistent money maker in a field of players who all know the same basic rules. Yet there are people who do consistently make money off of it lol..so what is the difference between winners and losers/break-even players? The way I see poker now I would compare it to rock-paper-scissors. Lets say for example in a 9player games, player1 3bets from mid position, and player2 in late position reraises him (4bets? still getting used to poker terminology..). So by reraising, player2 is representing that he has a strong hand like AA or KK. Player1 should probably fold unless he also has AA or KK. But given that thought process of player1, player2 could reraise with much less than AA or KK, assuming that player1 would fold in that situation most of the time. Player1, knowing that player2 could be thinking to reraise with anything and expect a fold, could call or even go all-in after the re-raise to represent AA or KK and force a fold...etc. Which of these are the correct play? Is there a correct play? Theres no play that cant be beaten some of the time, so the objective is to go for the play that will win more than 50% of the time, but the way to determine that is unclear and very unreliable as far as I can see.
I have some questions for those more experienced than me:
-is there a certain amount you should expect to win per hour/per something on average compared to the limited you play at, that indicates you are doing well? for example at a NL5 table maybe you could expect to win on average 2dollars per hour...also what is a good time period to base these averages off? 10hours? a week? a month?
-are tracking devices and playing the opponent what makes a winning player, or is it possible to win without having to pay for shit like that (I assume u have to pay for HUD or whatever else people use)
-how long does it take to grow from a noob to someone who can make 10hour..15/hour..20/hour..30/hour etc
and most importantly, what is the difference between people like me who arent making money, and those who are. would someone be interested in coaching me?
TLDR just read the bulleted parts
thanks for any feedback!
Hey LPer's
For the past few months I have been working with a personal development coach, working on my business and interpersonal/employee relations.
Coupled with the reading I have been doing I feel like I am rapidly transforming my life. Using some of these principles applied to poker I give you this video.
Depending on the viewer response I may go further with the abstract self development aspects or revert back to helping people grasp the math and logic of the game.
When I was younger I remember always feeling passionate about something, whether it was starcraft, or poker.. I would always be on the lookout for something to invest most of my energy in. Whatever it was, there was always a sense of wonder about it. Now that i'm older, things feel more plain, and I find it difficult to feel excited and diligent like before.
I miss that feeling more than anything, and I despise growing old. I recently moved to Montreal to start doing mma, hoping to spark my passion . I'm also getting back into poker, because my funds are getting low!
Do you guys still feel passionate about things in your lives?
Also,
I know it's old, and quite of few of you prob already watched it
but I think it's a must watch for those of you who haven't
Contact Users: 2530 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 21:25
,
,
,
,