“I” talk a lot? Bah,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha! 
Go write another Bible of Arrogance, Sheesh! 
Gentlemen, please could we debate the topic rather than name calling each other? Thank you!
4 Likes
This is how you deal with a wild, all-in, and rude player.
Hand #1219161763 · Replay Poker (casino.org)
Hand #1219166420 · Replay Poker (casino.org)
4 Likes
1 Like
Excaliburns, I laughed my but off. Thanks for posting. Hilarious that Villain kept shoving between 150 bb to 300 bb DEEP stacks, all in preflop, on just 1 hand that good enough to do that, but still insane lol. Was that 4 hands in a row? or 4 hands spaced out?
Spaced out.
I didn’t report him.
If you ever do come across a rude and wildly aggressive player, make sure to take all his
chips before reporting him!
It pays to have a thick skin and to not report.
Just my opinion.
You’re welcome Asuronetorius!
Hand #1219166420
This is how you deal with a wild, all-in, and rude player.
…by calling vs. top set with nothing but a couple non-nut draws, and getting there? Hey, different strokes for different folks I guess.
Well, what you don’t take advantage of Luke is all up to you.
We do have different strategies.
The rest of the story which you no doubt disagree, is still not explained totally.
For your amusement only, I’ll continue with it.
The wild player and the player eventually with over 3 million were battling it out.
I sat at the table late and immediately noticed what was happening.
To my surprise, the wild player stated, " I never won a single hand against you "
The player with 3 million replied, " and you never will "
So, I waited until the player with over 3 million left.
Again, to my surprise, he left quicker than I thought.
So naturally, I moved to his seat immediately.
You may think that it doesn’t ever matter but trends are trends.
Gamblers always look to take advantage of trends!
So yes, we do approach it differently.
Yes, I did reach the 3 million mark at the table with a 250k buy-in.
The player that left returned soon and realized he lost his golden seat.
He probably wished that those extra 3 million chips were in his bank.
You’re right, as predicted I still don’t agree with your children’s make-believe stories about “trends.” It’s absolute hogwash, which is not a matter of opinion: it’s a fact. You are lying to yourself and using a bunch of words to justify it. Worse, you continue to try to spread these lies through the forum. And there are people on here gullible/ignorant enough that some of them might just believe you!
If I were the moderator, I would remove all your posts about “trends” because I would draw the line at providing straight up verifiable misinformation.
Excaliburns, its a fact that Younguru is right that there is no such thing as ‘Trends’, in poker, tho Younguru is being HARSH, tho he is right about how if other players here start chasing what flops, ‘trends’, etc.
-
The RNG’s are random, there is no ‘Trends’, and the RNG’s here are CERTIFIED, AWARD WINNING RNG’s
-
If there are extreme ultimate extremely slightest tiniest ‘Trends’, it would not be big enough to make a big enough of a difference to chase after those ‘trends’ as it would be random enough.
-
Just because the flop has come Axx, xAx, xxA the last 100 flops in row, does not mean that there is a trend of a A hitting the flop, and that the next flop will likely have a A in the flop, and that should play A2 off UTG.
-
Flops, boards are random enough. This means that that if a Ace on flop 100 hands in row, that the next card will not either likely be a Ace on flop, or unlikely a A not hit flop, as its RANDOM enough, to the point where bad to either play A2 UTG, or to open fold AK on button, because supposedly, theoretically a A supposedly, theoretically unlikely, not hit flop, which either case not true, because its Random.
-
Things like Ace hitting flop 100 times in row can happen Randomly, because of statistical ANOMALIES, which can, do happen if something is done enough. If you flip a coin a Zillion times, it can, and probably has come up same side 100,000,000 times in row. And when, if, something like that happens, that does not mean that the next coin flip will be either likely or unlikely to be the same side that hit the last 100 million times in row out of 1 zillion coinflips. The next coinflip, there is a 50% chance of either hitting or not hitting the same side again. Poker is the same way, thing.
I used to have a friend who would try to play by whatever hit the flop. If a K started hitting a lot of flops recently, he would start playing any hand with a K, and when he would do that, it made no difference as a K still hit or missed some times, and he still lost over the short, mid, long, terms.
Another player at the casino, if a Q hit flop a lot, he would not play AQ or any Q, because he thought a Q would be unlikely to hit, and a Q still sometimes hit, and sometimes didnt, and so playing like that still caused him to lose over the short, mid, large, terms.
Yes there was some players who got extremely lucky playing that way, but that was just luck, not because there supposedly ‘trends’.
Playing according to ‘Trends’, what does or does not hit flops, boards, is being RESULTS ORIENTED, and is saying I should not have called or folded AK or AQ, even tho my opponent is showing he has AK, AQ, because a K, or a A or a Q was either unlikely or likely to hit the board, and see I was right, that did happen, and I lost, won, etc. Thats what RESULTS ORIENTED, ‘TRENDS’ playing is, and its a WRONG, FLAWED concept.
Good poker play is good, and Bad poker play is bad, regardless of what hits flops, boards, happens, results, etc. The inherent, intrinsic value of a poker play DOES NOT CHANGE BASED ON RESULTS, ‘Trends’.
Your flat out, factually wrong Excaliburns. But that said, you have the right to be factually wrong, and believe your right, and to wrongly tell others your right, when your wrong.
But I have cited the facts, used examples, showed, illustrated proof, and used SPOCKIAN LOGIC.
But you can do whatever you want.
And because of that. Younguru shouldnt be so harsh, on about this.
But that said I do agree with Younguru, as he is right, and you are wrong Excaliburns.
That said its all good whatever.
I have a pretty low tolerance for that kind of talk too, but haven’t engaged with @Excaliburns much over it before because every example hand I’ve seen that’s supposed to show some kind of trend has been totally standard. They’re either trolling or just attributing what’s likely to happen to “trends” rather than odds. If they’ve built up their understanding of odds through experience rather than study, then “trends” and intuition, although technically incorrect, are not entirely unsuitable labels.
This is a good example. They are in a hot seat, because every seat is a hot seat when you have someone shoving every single hand. More than that though, they’re on the maniac’s direct right, which means they always get to be last to act, so there is actually a pretty big advantage to that seat.
The elaboration they provide around choosing that seat is just not at all what actually happened though, so I suspect you’re not supposed to take this too seriously. I wouldn’t be worried about anyone else taking it seriously either, because you can’t actually do anything with this information even if you believe it. At worst, it’s an excuse for people not to take the game seriously and do some actual study, but those players likely weren’t going to anyway.
2 Likes
He responded to a thread called “Dealing with agg players” and included a hand where he overcalls a pot-sized all-in with no nut draw and no made hand.
This is a bad play in a vacuum, so why does he think it was good here?
Because he had taken the “hot seat.”
He doesn’t think it is advantageous to have the wild player on his right. He thinks it is advantageous to occupy the seat that is “trending” i.e. he believes in things like gambler’s fallacy.
I’d agree, except that’s not what happened. The $3M dollar player was sat to his right before the maniac joined, and no-one switches seats.
Basically, they’re gambling against someone whose been extremely loose but just happens to have it this time. If they actually believe the hot seat story, it will be because of this hand, not prior to it, and they’re just misremembering what actually happened.
You’re point about it being a bad play still stands though, no matter the actual reason they made it, and trying to justify it as some sort of skill is a problem if they’re actually buying what their selling.
Nitpick, but it’s actually to their left. You normally want the bad players on your right, but when they’re going all-in every hand preflop, it’s better to have them on your left. (They don’t go all-in pre in the hand in question, but do every single hand after losing that one).
2 Likes
“You’re right, as predicted I still don’t agree with your children’s make-believe stories about “trends.” It’s absolute hogwash, which is not a matter of opinion: it’s a fact.” - Younguru
When a player goes all in every hand, can that alone be considered a trend?
Yes, when a player goes all-in every hand, it can be considered a trend in their playing behavior. This repetitive action suggests a pattern that can be analyzed and potentially exploited by other players. However, trends in poker can encompass more subtle behaviors and strategies over a larger number of hands. The key is to look for consistency in actions and decision-making to identify a genuine trend.
Thanks, ChatGPT!
The hand right before I switched seats > Hand #1219128283 · Replay Poker (casino.org)
Notice I took over the eventual $3 million player’s seat > Hand #1219128849 · Replay Poker (casino.org)
That’s ages before the maniac joins, and you both leave and rejoin in between. You rejoin in the same seat, but it’s the only one available. The $3M chip player only has 2.5 when the leave the supposed hot seat, and they win another million in their new seat.
I’m more inclined to believe that you think there’s something to this hot seat and trend nonsense, but I’ve yet to see you make massive deviations based on this, so I’m still skeptical you’re putting as much stock into it as you proclaim. The hand under discussion is a bit of a punt, but it seems to be an over adjustment against a particular player, and no-one is denying there are clear trends with how people play that can and should be exploited. (FWIW, it was definitely amusing watching that player repeatedly tilt off stack after stack after that hand)
There’s obviously little harm in looking for trends in the cards or switching seats if you’re not making big deviations based on that though, so best of luck if that’s what you want to concentrate on. Using that as a justification for otherwise questionable plays is just not going to gain any traction with me, or most others by the looks of it.
1 Like
Hot seat ring game scan -
6 seats
Anchors away - seat one 7m with 6m buy-in max
Desert Island - seat one 3.1m with buy-in max 1.5m
Ok now I know seat one is the hot seat.
I looked for seat one opening -
500k buy-in
4 consecutive hands - results speak for themselves
Hot seats exist on multiple tables
It’s that easy!
^ Notice the snap call with confidence with this information.
Results may vary - LoL
You join a table where two players have 1.7M (over 2x max buy-in) neither of which can obviously be in seat one.
Snap call with two pair, the nut flush draw, and a lo draw? If you were that confident, the play would be to raise before the flush comes in and possibly dries up your action. I don’t play any Omaha, so others can correct me if I’m wrong, but call here seems like the standard play.
1 Like
The only point I’m trying to make is hot seats exist on multiple tables.
Nothing more and nothing less.