POKER MATHS

#1 12th December 2006, 12:42 PM

I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain in PLUS +EV situations for the remainder of my career, whos with me?

#2 12th December 2006, 3:26 PM

Are you Toadly masquerading as another one of our members?

#3 12th December 2006, 3:34 PM

what the hell

#4 12th December 2006, 3:59 PM

An infinately better solution is to start a new ID and only play freerolls....as soon as you win anything you will have an infinate ROI%, which is infinately better than 99.97% of poker players.

#5 12th December 2006, 4:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasondavies

I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain in PLUS +EV situations for the remainder of my career, whos with me?

Im sorry, what language is this?

#6 13th December 2006, 1:03 AM

mmmm, i guess you guys are not up to scratch with your poker math, and welly, extremely good point, thanks for the heads up

#7 13th December 2006, 5:37 AM

Mike Madasow used this reasoning & ended up spending several months in prison. Not sure if he had the nickname Mike the Mouth before he went down.

#8 13th December 2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenzie 96

Mike Madasow used this reasoning & ended up spending several months in prison. Not sure if he had the nickname Mike the Mouth before he went down.

too funny, +rep!

#9 13th December 2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasondavies

I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain in PLUS +EV situations for the remainder of my career, whos with me?

*head explodes*

#10 13th December 2006, 2:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by combuboom

*head explodes*

Yeah its tough when your new to poker to truly get a good firm grip on the maths behind winning poker, you guys are just lucky its christmas time and im sharing possibly the biggest secret in poker, and if your asking yourself, is it really a secret, then ask your self if you had ever heard of PLUS +EV before, if so, then you already know the super sytem, if not, study it and follow it to the letter,

also, if you only play freerolls, as an advanced theory to what welly said you will never have a negative ROI%, wich is great for your rep

stay in school, eat your greens, and dont do drugs

#11 13th December 2006, 4:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasondavies

Yeah its tough when your new to poker to truly get a good firm grip on the maths behind winning poker, you guys are just lucky its christmas time and im sharing possibly the biggest secret in poker, and if your asking yourself, is it really a secret, then ask your self if you had ever heard of PLUS +EV before, if so, then you already know the super sytem, if not, study it and follow it to the letter,

also, if you only play freerolls, as an advanced theory to what welly said you will never have a negative ROI%, wich is great for your rep

stay in school, eat your greens, and dont do drugs

Ohhh - somehow I don't think the guys will take this lying down!

#12 13th December 2006, 5:16 PM

I think Dorkus has new fodder for his sig.

#13 13th December 2006, 7:41 PM

Is this a serious post, btw. Only ask, cause I still can't work out the opening thread, and I read a book once, so I consider myself intelligent(my IQ is in double figures............)

#14 13th December 2006, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasondavies

I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain in PLUS +EV situations for the remainder of my career, whos with me?

Its poker dude, not rocket science and if there's a valid point for all the numbers, is there a way to break it down some so that the novice players( me included) could understand it better?
Greatly appreciated.

#15 13th December 2006, 11:38 PM

i'm with ya

#16 14th December 2006, 12:33 AM

JD checks his watch...hmmm....WTF? Still waiting on a Dorkus response to this thread.

#17 14th December 2006, 12:44 AM

Umm this is like the world's most obvious joke topic ever.

I can't decide whether it's funny or not - but I think as usual with joke topics the funniest thing about it is the people taking it seriously.

#18 14th December 2006, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dorkus Malorkus

Umm this is like the world's most obvious joke topic ever.

I can't decide whether it's funny or not - but I think as usual with joke topics the funniest thing about it is the people taking it seriously.

So does that mean you won't be replying?

#19 14th December 2006, 1:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Daniels

So does that mean you won't be replying?

VERY FUNNY

#20 14th December 2006, 1:26 AM

actually dorkus, I was terribly bored so i thought id make a joke topic about all the maths talk that can dribble out of peoples mouths at times, and teh insiration of this is your 2 remarks from toadly, so i thankyou

#21 14th December 2006, 3:17 AM

Originally Posted by Toadly
When you win 66% of teh time playing with 33% of you bank roll puts you in no danger

actually dorkus, I was terribly bored so i thought id make a joke topic about all the maths talk that can dribble out of peoples mouths at times, and teh insiration of this is your 2 remarks from toadly, so i thankyou

It is toadly or the teh mistake is all a coincidence.

#22 14th December 2006, 3:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasondavies

I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain in PLUS +EV situations for the remainder of my career, whos with me?

Very funny. Boy it's pretty bad when a blonde gets this and the rest of you don't

#23 14th December 2006, 3:20 AM

I was just completely confused, and I guess if it doesn't make sense its just plain trash.

#24 14th December 2006, 3:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinedown.45

teh
teh
It is toadly or the teh mistake is all a coincidence.

Busted!!! LOL

#25 14th December 2006, 6:19 AM

lol, it could seem busted, but assure i am not toadly, HONEST, i am an index finger typer who types to fast for my own good, and as a result i am constantly typein the teh, but if you look at my personal info im sure you will see i am not toadly, but nice pick up anyway, just shows how very easy it could be to be wrongly accused of something and have very little chance of defending yourself, imagine being framed, WOW, that would be nearly as bad as drowning or burnig to death

#26 14th December 2006, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasondavies

lol, it could seem busted, but assure i am not toadly, HONEST, i am an index finger typer who types to fast for my own good, and as a result i am constantly typein the teh, but if you look at my personal info im sure you will see i am not toadly, but nice pick up anyway, just shows how very easy it could be to be wrongly accused of something and have very little chance of defending yourself, imagine being framed, WOW, that would be nearly as bad as drowning or burnig to death

So, if you were to say put percentages to those various things, would you drowning or buring to death be +EV at least 90% of the time while say being framed is -EV 100% of the time? Curious for your insight....

#27 15th December 2006, 1:11 AM

well, as usual jack, you raise only good points

now to the best of my knowledge, drowning is indeed +EV at or above 67.35% lung capacity in 3 inches of water or more in temperatures of no less then 3 degrees Celsius, not taking into account the buoyancy coefficients of the clothes you have on at the time
The EV behind burning is nothing short of a myth, people say its +EV but its actually a 9.6-2 underdog to any drive by shooting or prison stabbing

being framed is 100% -EV if sent to maximum security, if you escape with just a stint in the local cell it is neither + or - EV, it is what they call infinite EV squared,

#28 15th December 2006, 1:52 AM

LMAO, have you ever considered looking for a job as a political speech writer, like say for the President

#29 15th December 2006, 7:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasondavies

well, as usual jack, you raise only good points

I'm pretty sure this is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasondavies

being framed is 100% -EV if sent to maximum security

So really, if you suck out and wind up in a minimum security country club, with a work release program kicker...EV increases by a factor of at least 10, I would think. Throw in the likelihood of conjigal visits with those you actually want conjigal visits from (opposed to bubba in max lock up - well unless you're into that sort of thing), and nearly 100% of the time you will be all in with the best of it.

Just some additional food for thought.

#30 15th December 2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Daniels

I'm pretty sure this is true.

So really, if you suck out and wind up in a minimum security country club, with a work release program kicker...EV increases by a factor of at least 10, I would think. Throw in the likelihood of conjigal visits with those you actually want conjigal visits from (opposed to bubba in max lock up - well unless you're into that sort of thing), and nearly 100% of the time you will be all in with the best of it.

Just some additional food for thought.

this is why your a better player than I, conjigal visits, thats deep man, very advanced, i plumb forgot about the conjigal factor

#31 16th December 2006, 3:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasondavies

conjigal visits, thats deep man,

If you do it right.

Similar Threads for: Texas Hold'em Poker > POKER MATHS
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Time to quit playing poker and start taking it for real	TPC	Learning Poker	47	24th March 2010 9:50 PM
My Poker Library (updated)	aliengenius	General Poker	106	5th November 2009 12:30 PM
My Poker Library	aliengenius	General Poker	45	22nd January 2009 4:19 AM
Question for new online players please.	robwhufc	Learning Poker	21	1st June 2008 11:22 PM

Play Texas Hold'em Online Poker \| POKER MATHS
BetOnline Poker is a top online poker site accepting all US players with an INSTANT cash bonus of up to $900 FREE. It also has a casino and sports betting available.	PokerStars is one of the best places to play poker online that accepts US players. Use PokerStars marketing code CCHAT for a $600 bonus. Note: No US Players Accepted.