Eddie, buy some for me too (and then let know what table you are playing at). Signed another “freeloader”.
2 Likes
It’s a river winning joke site…funny you can’t see that…
“Who do you find more irritating?”
People who are incapable of being happy…about anything…
2 Likes
I am irritated–in any context, on any subject–by people who have chosen their paradigm, selected their guru, and will not consider any rational argument that suggests both guru and paradigm may not be absolute truth. It happens here, it happens there, it happens everywhere. I must learn to breathe through it!
4 Likes
Cutting assumption - I have never bought chips, however I have left a tip, which is another way of supporting the site while leaving one’s bank total to represent winnings only. Also, I expect there are players who contribute to the site in non fungible ways such as bringing cheer, being supportive, teaching or just not being judgemental.
1 Like
Yes, I find Bingo players very annoying! Poker is supposed to be fun but these idiots treat it like WW 3 where they must annalate their rivals in the first hand! Bingo is stupid because there are usually only 2 results: Either everyone drops out right away and the player gets Zilch or their opponent has better cards and bankrupts them! And here’s a tip: AA is never a guarantee of a winning hand, particullarly in Royals where 2 10’s can actually be the stronger opener!
Fyi … If one is playing No Limit Holdem by definition there is no such thing as “Bingo” … An “all in or a large raise” pre flop is a bet made by a player playing their cards as they see fit … Simple as that … Their cards their play … Another player as in any hand played at No Limit stakes can Call the Bet, Raise the Bet or Fold … If this play “irritates” another player then maybe they should pick a limit that they can handle like Pot Limit, Flop Limit or play 7 Card Stud … As I have seen said at tables when players cry “Bingo” … “The Kiddie Table is Down the Hall to the Right … Just After the Safe Space … We are Playing No Limit Here” 
Best of Luck at the Tables … The Goat 
6 Likes
Anybody who complains we all have a choice play or not to play - I choose play
5 Likes
Yes, both equally annoying. Kind of like having a spoiled, petulant child around that is trying to get candy by crying (from the onlooker perspective… I think the individuals at Replay don’t think their complaints will lead to more candy). I’d be interested to know what kind of parents these people had, assuming there was an environmental component to this kind of behavior.
1 Like
“The Kiddie Table is Down the Hall to the Right … Just After the Safe Space … We are Playing No Limit Here”
LOL, I need to remember that.
Are you channeling Mike “The Mouth” Matusow now? Hahaha
Better to quote Monty Python, “Complaints is down the hall, this is getting hit in the head lessons.”
2 Likes
Ok, but let’s be honest here: A player who always BINGOS will in the long run either win very little or lose over and over! It’s like the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over expecting something different to happen! And yes, maybe you can will most of the time with AA in THE, but it’s a different story in Royals with only 20 cards and limited possible hands! I never raise until the flop at the earlist!
I do not find bingo players annoying instead I lick my lips and try to take all their chips lol.
1 Like
Errr… see my “Comparing Simple Strategies” thread, where I played Preflop Hammer (a strategy where I would do nothing except fold or go all in preflop) at 1/2 and several other levels. I did not try this at really high stakes, where I think it would require quite a few upgrades to be successful, but at lower stakes all three 1,000 hand runs finished up money, with two of the three finishing up with impressive win totals.
And, as you said, let’s be honest here. Why would you find something annoying if you are confident you are going to win against it? I see some people going all in pre-flop with no discipline at all, and my reaction is kind of like when you rub your hands together in anticipation of a great meal, with the salivary glands primed. If you feel annoyed, I think it is likely out of frustration that you don’t know what to do in response.
I can’t speak for Royal… I don’t even know the rules (except that the low cards have been removed from the deck).
1 Like
“Bingo” is best described as a game style where luck replaces skill, but this isn’t always the case. In his 2005 book, “Tournament Poker For Advanced Players,” David Sklansky described a shove or fold strategy that he devised for an inexperienced friend who wanted to play the WSOP main event.
The system first calculates a “key number” which then dictates your shove range.
To get the key number, divide your stack by the total of the small and big blinds, multiply this by the number of players left to act, then multiply this by the number of limpers +1.
Key Number = 400 or more: Shove AA and fold everything else.
Key Number = 200 to 400: Shove AA and KK only.
Key Number = 150 to 200: Shove AA, KK, QQ and AK
Key Number = 100 to 150: Shove AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, AQ and KQ
Key Number = 80 to 100: Shove any pair, AK, AQ, KQ, any suited Ace and any suited connector down to 5-4 suited.
Key Number = 60 to 80: Shove any pair, any ace, KQ, any suited king and all one-gap and no-gap suited connectors.
Key Number = 40 to 60: Shove everything above + any king.
Key Number = 20 to 40: Shove everything above + any 2 suited cards
Key Number = <20: Shove any 2-cards.
Although this was designed for tournaments, it would be interesting to see if something like it would work in rings too. Maybe preflop hammer is like it, I dunno, but I am guessing the “key number” part isn’t included in that strategy. If only someone was comparing simple strategies, we might find out!
3 Likes
LOL… Thanks for the inspiration. I think something like that will soon become another test run.
I like how it factors stack depth into the equation, and also the number of opponents. It seems to me that multiplying by limpers +1 at the end, each limper is being weighted exponentially more than the players left to act behind. While a limpers range should, by definition, be narrower than a player that has not yet acted, that range is also weighted against the strongest holdings (even though you’ll certainly have some players that will limp all of their top holdings also).
So I’ll try to come up with my own, Sklansky inspired formula, and give that a test drive before too long.
1 Like
I haven’t worked through the formula yet, at least not in any great detail, but if you don’t add the “+1,” you would end up multiplying by zero when there are no limpers. This would resolve the whole thing to zero, meaning you would be less than 20 and required to shove any 2 cards every time there were no limpers before you.
Also, I don’t think it’s actually an exponential growth. Any limper would be in earlier position and should have a slightly narrower range. I’m not sure if each succesive limper should be stronger because someone from earlier is already in, or if they would be weaker because they are getting better pot odds.
It’s exponential having two potential multiplication operations, so you get exponentially more growth having both limpers and players to act behind than you would with either one without the other. You don’t have the possibilities for a 3rd or 4th multiplication operation, and with a limit of 8 opponents, 4X5 becomes our largest multiplier… so calling 20 exponentially larger than 8 or 9 does seem a bit like an overuse of the word I suppose.
It would get more exponentialishy (patent pending) if you sat at a 100 player table, and there that second multiplication operation would start to really over weight situations where you had a combination of both limpers and players to act behind.
It’s interesting how, with the limited number of people in full ring, it doesn’t make as much difference as I initially thought it would. I suppose that might be part of the reason Sklansky, “The Mathemetician” did it that way. But I still think I prefer to just add every potential caller together (perhaps weighting limpers a bit more), and then using that in a single product against M (the ratio of effective stacks to the total of blinds and antes).
Harrington’s M-ratios (from one of the “Harrington on Holdem” books) is another discussion!
I do want to point out, however, that even if the key number calculations seem exponential-ish, the range chart is not. No matter how you get the key number, the tricky bit is relating that number to a shove range that makes sense.
Edited to add: This is an interesting exchange, but let’s take it to your “simple strategies” thread before we get yelled at for swerving off topic!
1 Like
