interesting tidbit.

How come in low limit it always seems the all-in player wins the pot but when you get to 50/100 it's the complete opposite, the player who flops the best hand loses on the river. I'm starting to actually realize that absolute more than likely is fixed at the lower limit rake levels and rigged for the big boy high limit players.

No one can prove it but I've seen enough and am going over to full tilt. I've said my peace good day.

Do you have any evidence ? Do you use Poker Tracker ? Can you show us some statistics ?

Forget the stats I just want to know what absolute gains by rigging the games in the way you say they do, I still havent found anyone to convince me of that before they convince me it actually is rigged.

least interesting tidbit ever?

Which was my point. I feel confident that OP has no evidence beyond a fevered imagination.

I find this tidbit most uninteresting.

for something at least funny, Khan and Mentos...mmm..mentos...

I don't think it is rigged it may feel like it sometimes. The game is all about luck and skill.

there is no such thing as luck.

Er. I think you'll find there is, and lots of it about too. What did you mean by that? Is it that you are more believing in Karmic reasons or other such explanations? You baffled me with that response.

While it might be a bit extreme to say there is no such thing as "luck" (variance is a better word), perhaps this article might be of interest: the claim is that winning poker is simply a matter of degrees of player skill, stating with "no skill at all".

I'm sure you would actually be amazed at the lengths that some of the most succesful individuals in the world, be they in sports or business or entertainment, will go to to try and improve, maintain or gain their luck. Annie Duke uses an example of baseball as a game of skill (an over-rated one from a Euro perspective but never mind that) but there is, and all the participants also believe this, a huge element of luck in their sports regardless of the skill factor involved and their ability level. Life is far more complex than that.

Sorry, not buying the article. If you pit a horrible player (but at least knows the rules and some basic theory) against a top pro, they can simply push all-in every hand, or better yet Ax (which is more realistic to poker today). So even when the pro calls with KK, the worse player will win 30% of the time. You bit the Yankees against a decent high school or college team (equivalent to the not horrible poker player but still significantly worse than the pro) and the Yankees most likely don't give up a single run and win by 20 or more. I couldn't hit off of Roger Clemens, but I could tilt the odds against someone like Phil Ivey or Daniel Ngreanu (probably spelled that wrong) so that I win 20-30% of the time. I'll certainly take the 70-80% over the 20-30%, but against someone like Roger Clemens, I probably get a hit off him about as often as I win the lottery. the 20-30% may be my odds of making CONTACT the entire game.

One big hand of NLHE and you lose all your money, one bad pitch or play in baseball and the worst that happens is a few runs score. Sure the pros win theoretically in the short run, but the theoretical part is governed by luck. If I get Ax vs. KK I could spike an A and get lucky. If I stick my bat out against Clemens and I make contact and it happens to land in fair territory somewhere for a hit, that's luck as well. Luck is a factor in baseball, that's why they discuss batting average. But when the pitcher allows a hit, it's not over. When a poker player is busted out of a tournament on luck, that's it he's gone. When a poker player loses a million dollar pot on HSP, the other guy can get up and leave, breathing a sigh of relief that they just won half a million when they would have 30% of the time over the long run.

Imagine a table with 9 (countem) cloned copies of Phil Hellmouth. Identical in ever single possible way before the cards are dealt.

Who is gonna win this Halloween Absurdity?

It will be the Phil who gets lucky, thats who! Phil knows enough to put himself in the position to get lucky, something Doyle touted a lot in SS 1 and 2. Phil also knows enough to avoid chasing too far.

are you serious? Luck is a factor in baseball? There is absolutely positively ZERO luck in baseball. The ball doesnt take a bad hop because "luck" decided it, it hit off that rock on the ground or that hole right there.

And for your amazing claim that they discuss batting average to see the "luck" factor in baseball? No, they discuss batting average to see who the best hitters are, I know, amazing theory isnt it?

You getting a hit off Roger Clemens has nothing to do with luck, its a little thing called physics. In lamens terms for you, you put stick where ball is, stick make ball go depending on where ball hit stick. Its all science and physics, baseball has nothing to do with luck (a case can be made for a bad ump call being lucky for the team that benefits but thats it.)

Sorry, your argument there has no truth to it at all. And if you really wanna get technical, once the cards are dealt there is no luck because the cards are already pre-determined (only talking live play here) and they dont change based on anything, the deuce of clubs really was the 16th card from the top or however you want to say it.

But luck in baseball? Come on, get a real argument.