Immoral Poker Q: - Page 2

On August 17 2010 18:06 anarki wrote: put it all on red

terrible advice don't listen to this man.

Gotta put it on black.

On August 17 2010 21:39 YoMeR wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2010 18:06 anarki wrote: put it all on red terrible advice don't listen to this man. Gotta put it on black.

conflicting advice like this is why i'll never be confident in my roulette game

On August 17 2010 21:39 YoMeR wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2010 18:06 anarki wrote: put it all on red terrible advice don't listen to this man. Gotta put it on black.

also

racist ban

On August 17 2010 21:39 YoMeR wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2010 18:06 anarki wrote: put it all on red terrible advice don't listen to this man. Gotta put it on black.

that would go against everything vincent chase stands for =)

If I'm understanding OP correctly the question comes down to is it more profitable to clear refer a friend bonus or earn 27% rakeback while clearing the $600 deposit bonus at $25 NL.
I don't really know how it all works though. If you get a refer a friend bonus, would that add on to the current $600 bonus for whatever it's worth? Also you get a bonus on your own account for the referral. While you're clearing bonus you get deducted rakeback anyway. So the amount of rakeback that you earn while clearing a $600 bonus might only be ~$224 (unless it's a lot different for cash games than sngs/tourneys). If you have to play longer to clear the extra though with a refer a friend bonus you have to factor that in when calculating it out. But it pretty much comes down to how much the referral bonus is. If it's over $350 total it's probably worth it.

Cash it out and clear a deposit bonus on another site.

That way, you don't have to do any primary school math, and you don't have to do anything immoral either.

btw op, clearing the bonus is way more profitable than the refer a friend thing. i cant remember what the deposit bonus equivalent is but the bonus is around 53% equivalent rakeback in full ring, something like that.

edit: haha lucifer, semi-serious =)

On August 17 2010 21:42 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2010 21:39 YoMeR wrote:   On August 17 2010 18:06 anarki wrote: put it all on red terrible advice don't listen to this man. Gotta put it on black. conflicting advice like this is why i'll never be confident in my roulette game

it totally depends on the results of the last spins. If its been red 3 times in a row, then its definitely going to be black on the 4th spin.

On August 18 2010 05:31 byrnesam wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2010 21:42 bigredhoss wrote:   On August 17 2010 21:39 YoMeR wrote:   On August 17 2010 18:06 anarki wrote: put it all on red terrible advice don't listen to this man. Gotta put it on black. conflicting advice like this is why i'll never be confident in my roulette game it totally depends on the results of the last spins. If its been red 3 times in a row, then its definitely going to be black on the 4th spin.

This is a common misconception, you probably wouldn't understand the complicated calculations behind this, but ill simplify it: first time = 50% second time = 25% third time = 12.5%, now you can see that even with 3 reds in a row, there is still 6.25% percent chance of yet another red (this is where the casino makes all the money)

yeh but thats only 6.25%

if u did a sample of 100 spins the 4th red would probably only come up once

On August 18 2010 08:44 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 18 2010 05:31 byrnesam wrote:   On August 17 2010 21:42 bigredhoss wrote:   On August 17 2010 21:39 YoMeR wrote:   On August 17 2010 18:06 anarki wrote: put it all on red terrible advice don't listen to this man. Gotta put it on black. conflicting advice like this is why i'll never be confident in my roulette game it totally depends on the results of the last spins. If its been red 3 times in a row, then its definitely going to be black on the 4th spin. This is a common misconception, you probably wouldn't understand the complicated calculations behind this, but ill simplify it: first time = 50% second time = 25% third time = 12.5%, now you can see that even with 3 reds in a row, there is still 6.25% percent chance of yet another red (this is where the casino makes all the money)

it's ~%50 for another red.



edit: I also love how you gave him a "real" answer


edit2: or to clarify.

4 in a row = ~6,5%

the way you said = 50% for first 50% for second 50% for third and 50% for fourth.

On August 18 2010 12:20 lucifer wrote: Show nested quote + On August 18 2010 08:44 Zorglub wrote:   On August 18 2010 05:31 byrnesam wrote:   On August 17 2010 21:42 bigredhoss wrote:   On August 17 2010 21:39 YoMeR wrote:   On August 17 2010 18:06 anarki wrote: put it all on red terrible advice don't listen to this man. Gotta put it on black. conflicting advice like this is why i'll never be confident in my roulette game it totally depends on the results of the last spins. If its been red 3 times in a row, then its definitely going to be black on the 4th spin. This is a common misconception, you probably wouldn't understand the complicated calculations behind this, but ill simplify it: first time = 50% second time = 25% third time = 12.5%, now you can see that even with 3 reds in a row, there is still 6.25% percent chance of yet another red (this is where the casino makes all the money) it's ~%50 for another red. edit: I also love how you gave him a "real" answer edit2: or to clarify. 4 in a row = ~6,5% the way you said = 50% for first 50% for second 50% for third and 50% for fourth.

lolllllllllllll

On August 18 2010 12:20 lucifer wrote: Show nested quote + On August 18 2010 08:44 Zorglub wrote:   On August 18 2010 05:31 byrnesam wrote:   On August 17 2010 21:42 bigredhoss wrote:   On August 17 2010 21:39 YoMeR wrote:   On August 17 2010 18:06 anarki wrote: put it all on red terrible advice don't listen to this man. Gotta put it on black. conflicting advice like this is why i'll never be confident in my roulette game it totally depends on the results of the last spins. If its been red 3 times in a row, then its definitely going to be black on the 4th spin. This is a common misconception, you probably wouldn't understand the complicated calculations behind this, but ill simplify it: first time = 50% second time = 25% third time = 12.5%, now you can see that even with 3 reds in a row, there is still 6.25% percent chance of yet another red (this is where the casino makes all the money) it's ~%50 for another red. edit: I also love how you gave him a "real" answer edit2: or to clarify. 4 in a row = ~6,5% the way you said = 50% for first 50% for second 50% for third and 50% for fourth.

Self ownage!

And what if zero ?

On August 18 2010 15:51 Fudyann wrote: + Show Spoiler +

fyp
god i hated that map

On August 18 2010 13:59 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 18 2010 12:20 lucifer wrote:   On August 18 2010 08:44 Zorglub wrote:   On August 18 2010 05:31 byrnesam wrote:   On August 17 2010 21:42 bigredhoss wrote:   On August 17 2010 21:39 YoMeR wrote:   On August 17 2010 18:06 anarki wrote: put it all on red terrible advice don't listen to this man. Gotta put it on black. conflicting advice like this is why i'll never be confident in my roulette game it totally depends on the results of the last spins. If its been red 3 times in a row, then its definitely going to be black on the 4th spin. This is a common misconception, you probably wouldn't understand the complicated calculations behind this, but ill simplify it: first time = 50% second time = 25% third time = 12.5%, now you can see that even with 3 reds in a row, there is still 6.25% percent chance of yet another red (this is where the casino makes all the money) it's ~%50 for another red. edit: I also love how you gave him a "real" answer edit2: or to clarify. 4 in a row = ~6,5% the way you said = 50% for first 50% for second 50% for third and 50% for fourth. Self ownage!

uhm... no?

edit: or... well yes. ofc 6,25%

edit2: and the same is true for the other 15 possible outcomes.

On August 18 2010 13:58 Night2o1 wrote: lolllllllllllll

?



edit: or you know. kudos for awesome trolling.

This whole thread only consists of trolling

asking this kind of question publicly is not smart.

On August 19 2010 09:09 albonycee wrote: asking this kind of question publicly is not smart.

So you share my worries that FTP will backtrace him and possibly even call the cyberpolice?