You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Sorry guys... I was wrong...
Those of you who have read my few ramblings on the great "this site is rigged" debate, will know that up to now I've been staunchly on the "not" side of the fence.
But sorry guys . . . I was wrong. My good lady and I have played six DYMs this evening, and on the five that we didn't make the first three on every one we were unceromoniously bounced out with a very suspect, long odds draw, river card. The last instance was laughable. Was short stacked and shoved pre-flop all in. Had two over cards. One of the opponent's was a two. So nothing special for either of us. Well we got to the turn with no pairing, and I commented that on the evening's run of cards he'd probably pull a deuce on the river - no prizes for guessing what turned up.
No doubt about it, if this has happened in a live game with strangers in a wild west saloon I would have let Messrs Smith & Wesson settle the arguement.
But sorry guys . . . I was wrong. My good lady and I have played six DYMs this evening, and on the five that we didn't make the first three on every one we were unceromoniously bounced out with a very suspect, long odds draw, river card. The last instance was laughable. Was short stacked and shoved pre-flop all in. Had two over cards. One of the opponent's was a two. So nothing special for either of us. Well we got to the turn with no pairing, and I commented that on the evening's run of cards he'd probably pull a deuce on the river - no prizes for guessing what turned up.
No doubt about it, if this has happened in a live game with strangers in a wild west saloon I would have let Messrs Smith & Wesson settle the arguement.
Comments
Its not as far fetched as ya think ya know , assuming the 3 deuces are still live and it was a six handed table , there are 36 cards left b4 the river is dealt 3 into 36 is only an 11/1 shot , hardly unbelievable yeah ?? xxx
So, a shove pre-flop with two random cards will mean that there is a 6/50 chance of a card hitting the table and making a pair, multiplied by the five opportunities for this to happen: (6/50) x (5/1) = 30/50 or 60% chance of one of us pairing - less than evens. The odds for both of us to hit a pair are therefore 60% x 60% = 36%, or approx 2-1, and in this incidence the advantage of holding the overcards kicks in. All of the other combo possibilities will affect these odds sightly at arriving at a definitive win/loss probability (as seen on the telly). I'm comfortable with the maths and just fancied an "on tilt" rant if you like.
Oh and Doh . . . . many years ago I use to own a model 66, and could group on a cigarette packet at 25 metres. So although you're right in what you say, be warned . . . . . I might just re-apply for my ticket. You can see the headlines now - Poker-rage leaves $#it-lucky player looking like a swiss cheese ! ! !
But the point i was making was when you quoted ' There will be a deuce on the river' this was in fact the odds i quoted could happen xx
Sorry to be a numbers bore (sadly, I do it for a living). What I'd like to work out is the odds of being binned out of a game by a river card appearing after shoving three games in a row - a complicated calculation, as each of the three instances will not have been identical and the conditions different each time. I think the answer will be in the region of 1/80110X. :-)
I dont hate online. Yeah partly I dont trust it, but equally none of my strengths play to me online - translating to I play bad
Plus I just dont play online anymore (in the main). But there a great people on this forum (and great people to argue with
Seriously though, learnt alot about the technical flaws in my game from alot of online regs, so they have to be given credit.
In all seriousness though, if you shove pre-flop with, as in this example, two random cards, the odds remain what they are, regardless of whether a pairing card is first on the board, or appears on the river. In this case, it's odds-on that one of us would have paired, and the odds of neither of us pairing were 40% x 40% = 16% or 5-1, in which case my two overcards would have stood up. As the greatest probability was an equal chance of one of us hitting a pair, it was really a coin flip going in. I just fancied a rant as I'd been binned out of four games in succession in the same way - if you continue the logic of the greatest probability outcome being a coin flip (it's not quite as straightforward as that, but lets run with it), then the chances of losing four on the trot is 1/(2^4) = 1/16 or 15-1. The fact that the winning card in each case hit the river and not the flop or the turn is irrelevent. But I thought I'd have a rant in public anyway :-)
What is a pain is when the chasers are rewarded with their 22-1 draw (2,2 making a set?) after calling the turn. We've all had this, and this certainly accounts for a fair proportion of my losses to date. Of course, what we don't see is all the times, in all the games we're not sitting in on, when they catch a cold.
but of the hands i do see. i see alot of winning hands on rivers by chasers...
even 1 card flush chasers when only 2 hit flop...
there are alot of runner runner wins from bad bets coming from behind..
in my opinion, there are too many bad bets/calls hitting .. they dont match the correct stats..
only in the last few days i have lost on the river from massive leading hands. go all in and got called by a chaser/fisherman/fisherlady too many times...
they dont know how to read the board, the bets or dont know how to play poker...
they seem to get rewarded by bad play. which in turn keeps them coming back...
i could give you someone'e name who i seem to play against alot and he says i am the unluckiest person he has seen in poker. always getting in when good and losing on river.
one tonight.. had my straight all-in he hits fh river...
No doubt about it . . . . with the frequency of instances like this, anyone could be forgiven for belieiving that something was seriously amiss. Say what you like, this is comical.
But for the maths heads . . .
The final kick in the 80ll0x was the last hand; classic AKo all-in pre-flop (whilst short stacked), to be called by a guy with a pair of 7s.
So chances of me hitting an ace or king to pair: 6/50 x 5/1 = 30/50 (or 60%).
Chances of the opponent making a set: 2/50 x 5/1 = 10/50 (or 20%).
Co-incidence of both instances occuring: 30/50 x 10/50 = 300/2500 (3/25 or c7-1, or c12% - 20% x 60%).
So the maths suggest this is a pretty common occurance. Where the cards fall on the board is irrelevent as the commitment is made before a single card falls. It's just having your nose rubbed in it when you pair on the flop, and the opponent's river card makes their set, and you are unceremoniously binned out.
The real nightmare is playing against others who think that calling an all-in with 7,7 is a +EV play. Perhaps he thought it was a bluff? Or understood the odds and was happy to fly a kite as he could afford to lose the chips? More likely though, me thinks, that it was a case of "of course it's a call, it's a pair innit?"
One could make an effort to avoid them, but how do you guarantee to do it? My wife, in an hour of boredom, was watching the Sky Poker Channel (for some inspiration - sad I know), and reported that players throwing £££s (as against pennies) into the pot in the cash game that was shown at the time, were doing just as many silly things as those playing at the lowest levels. In theory, it should be possible to apply sound maths play and walk away with more than you started with on a regular basis.
But, as with most things in life, lot of difference between theory and actual results that occur.
Better to be born lucky than rich or gifted.
Amen.
If you're looking at it from the Sky Poker end, where they deal thousands and thousands of hands every day, then yes - I'm sure the statistical averages in the distribution of the cards dealt pan out. But if you're a recreational player, playing fifty or sixty hands twice a week and being rumped by opponents' 11-1+ draws three hands on the trot every other night, then no - the are certainly not few and far between. And that's the crux of the underlying considerations behind the variance arguement . . . trying to square away others' personal experience by reference to something that none of them will likely ever achieve (enough hands to virtually guarantee a statistically normal distribution of the cards).
As for avoiding the worst of the bingo players, why do it? To save your sanity of course ! ! !