Yeah, I’m with you on that. Chasing cheap flops sounds fun, but it usually ends up costing more than it’s worth. I’ve found that playing fewer hands early and focusing on position and solid hands just works better. You save chips, stay out of trouble, and when you do make a move later, it means more. Trying to hit something with weak hands usually just digs a hole you have to climb out of. Picking your spots and playing smart gives you way more control.
1 Like
If you mean that the chances of a 5 hitting the river go down if there is already a 5 on the flop or turn, well duh! But that has nothing to do with randomly shuffled decks, and certainly nothing to do with your adamant stance that there is something flawed in the random deals here, unless you believe that Replay has decks with more than four 5s in them, and if that were the case in the jillions of hands that this site has dealt over the years, someone would have noticed that.
I haven’t missed anything.
Whoa!
I know that I’m not the greatest poker player, far from it, and I am on record around here stating that. I’m just talking some math here. Indeed, math is only one part of poker.
If you still think that this warrants trying to insult me as a player and taking a shot at me personally (communication skills) then perhaps you ought to review your own communication skills. It pains me to say this because we are friends and we have never had an issue between us. I hope that we can continue as friends.
The difference with my post and yours is that mine takes issue with your STANCE while yours takes issue with ME personally. This is also a common fallacy argument in debates, attack the messenger, not the message. I hope that you can realize that and separate posters here from their words, as I do with you.
When i see something that is awww stupid-i just have 2 speak up:)—Promise, this is the last time i respond as i just lol when i read your awwww advice and complaining…P.S.S. Played with a player who plays like you in a small cash game yesterday----made some money of course:)…ok, bye n good luck my friend at the tables as you will NEED a lot of luck i am sure:).
It’s not that you’re thinking linearly rather than laterally. It’s that you’re taking, consciously or not, an absolutist position. You seem to intimate that if an RNG isn’t perfectly random, it isn’t worth the time when an RNG is actually far, far closer to random than it is to being patterned. It’s a similar attitude to the one certain people have toward EVs (cars, not poker math); they don’t completely eliminate one’s carbon footprint so, despite leaving fewer tracks than a combustion engine vehicle, they are bad. No, they are better from an environmental perspective and an RNG is only infinitesimally poorer than a random human shuffle, with the complaints about that negligible difference being utterly ridiculous.
(and yes, the chances of any card being dealt to you or on the flop are the same in every hand, regardless of the one(s) preceding)
Agree, just some hands you got 2 limp–small pairs for example—you will only win (usually ) if u hit a set on the flop (about 1in 8 times) and then it is a well-hidden nice hand that can make u some money ( or chips )…High pocket pair, not limping of course, u get chased by everyone…Other hands not limping (example ( k-q suited etc. )…
Oh, it’s certainly far more random than a human shuffle.
It’s actually better just to fold them. You can get away with limping them if everyone still to act is super passive and is going to let you in without squeezing. That’s relying on your opponents’ mistakes to make them profitable though, so it’s a good exploit, but not an ideal baseline strategy.
ie If you have a strategic reason to limp, it’s good, but if your just putting in chips because you’d like to see a cheap flop, then not so much.
I think Bill with all the eights was using the term ‘got to’ in the Marlene Dietrich context.
LOL!! Yeah, I think you have since I have no idea which post you’re replying to.
Are you sure about this being the last time? She likes to post what she is thinking all the time.
I believe that.
As fate would have it, went down with pocket 5’s tonight.
Hand #1269403697 · Replay Poker (casino.org)
Pre-Flop: Pocket fives (55) are a stronger starting hand than 10-6 in most cases. 55 is a medium-strength pair, meaning it has a reasonable chance to hold up if higher pairs don’t appear on the board. On the other hand, 10-6 is an unconventional starting hand—it’s rarely considered strong unless suited.
Odds Breakdown: If it’s a pre-flop all-in scenario:
- 55 has about 65-70% chance of winning against 10-6 offsuit.
- 10-6 offsuit only wins around 30-35% of the time. If 10-6 is suited, the odds shift slightly because of the possibility of a flush.
This is all AI generated drivel right? For a start 5’s is only a 54% favorite against T6o. The point about higher pairs also makes zero sense to me.
I’m not sure it really matters for that hand anyway, given you basically have to shove just about everything and they should be calling with any 2 given the pot odds.
1 Like
Good point.
Most players come up with a ballpark figure quickly, and it seems AI has the same tendency.
Nothing wrong with that in my mind.
“About” is a common word used by just about everyone on here.
So, calling an AI post using “about” drivel will equate unkindly to our own posts.
Fascinating!
Using “about” and then giving a range isn’t great, and yes it’s the kind of thing I do a lot, and it’s rubbish when I do it too.
I don’t think the AI really got in the ballpark though. Most people would approximate a pocket pair vs two overcards as a flip - 50/50, which is reasonable. The AI has the pair being a 2 : 1 favorite.
That’s not why I think it’s drivel though. It’s more that it just adds nothing to the conversation because I doubt it really representative of how you think about the game - all the hard information being wildly incorrect is really just the kicker.
1 Like
So you are saying that having someone’s feelings spared at all costs is more important than the truth?
AI spreads massive amounts of misinformation and in general isn’t a very good source. Better for entertainment purposes.
Don’t kid yourself, AI adds something to the conversation.
Every player leans on something to be successful at the tables.
So, how one approaches the game or thinks about the game varies widely.
There’s plenty of successful poker players out there that do not lean heavily on math.
Meaning, getting the numbers exactly right.
In your perception, wildly incorrect, but from many others, your statement is perceived
as somewhat extreme.
Certainly, optimal performance and the ability to instantly crunch the numbers has a place
at any poker table.
A player’s mathematical ability can be seen as an engine’s horsepower.
If every player here had a rating based solely on that next to their name, I’d say, in the long run,
we would have a very accurate ratings system.
I don’t believe this is correct. When you ask the A.I. a question, you have to have your own opinion on the topic. If the A.I.'s answer conflicts with yours then delve deeper until you understand the answers better. I’ve had the A.I. change its answers with my follow-up questions.
It’s probably only massive amounts of misinformation and not a good source of info to you because you don’t have something to compare it to and when that happens search other sources for confirmation.