Re: Why online poker is better for the money player.

Grunty,

Your claims about your own strength -- "I myself range between expert
and world-class ..." -- are wildly inconsistent with your rgb
recommendations here of cube actions and checker plays, which are
sometimes poor recommendations, even in idealised conditions where zero
money is at stake and you have all the time in the world to think.

My recommendations are often complete crap, and this is consistent with
the fact that my gnu/snowie ratings are often complete crap.

I would expect this consistency to apply to players in general, and I
would not expect a player to do better in play than they do in
theoretical discussion.

Paul Epstein


Grunty wrote:
> Derek Ray wrote:
>
> > Grunty wrote:
> >> Sure, we all are doomed to lose many times to weak players, it's the
> >> nature of the game. But not at the rate and in the way I'm talking
> >> about.
>
> > Quantify the rate you think you should lose to weak players compared to
> > the rate you are currently losing at to weak players, please?
>
> No. The loss rate is not the concept I was referring to in this
> discussion.
> I was referring to the frecuency at which this kind of incidents occur.
> In the end, the important point to me is the chunk of money the server
> denies me with this trick (of course letting apart the "expectable"
> portion of $ losses that form my "step back").
>
>
> > I'm asking you to list precisely what conditions and limits you're
> > referring to, and exactly how unbalanced the skills will need to be
> > before this "program" kicks in.
>
> I'd estimate that playing against people ranging from "beginner" to
> "intermediate". Not included "advanced", since I realize these players
> could beat me *badly* in a genuine unlucky session.
> I myself range between "expert" and "world class" consistently, with
> some "advanced" sessions/matches.
>
>
> > So, the servers are somehow fast enough to make full multi-ply analysis
> > of every single game currently in progress on the server,
>
> NO! You're ignoring the basic condition of the scenario: the skill gap
> (or did you read it?)
> The server does not need to monitor *every* table, just those in wich
> detects a large skill gap. This is trivial to do. Just starting up the
> session/match, the server gets from both players' profiles their
> playing levels (ratings). If any of the players were new to the site,
> then it's enough to monitor the few first games to assign them a value
> for the first time, based on the error rate resulting from that sample.
>
> > NO MATTER HOW FAST the players choose to play,
>
> Once flagged the games with a large skill gap, it takes not a huge work
> to focus the real-time analysis engine only on those (relatively few)
> games running simultaneously.
>
> > evaluate the history of the two players
>
> As said above, this is done at session start-up in no time.
>
> > and the length of time the players have been playing, and generate
> > "false" dice rolls with elaborate precision (to avoid being "evident",
> > of course)
>
> Firstly, the manipulation IS EVIDENT, noticeable to my eyes, so they're
> avoiding nothing.
> Secondly, "popping" the proper dice once the current situation was
> assessed, is trivial for the program.
>
> > AS WELL AS handle the games themselves and all the background
> > operations required to just keep the business itself running?
>
> Good architectural point. I would arrange a second server dedicated to
> perform the real-time analysis work, whilst the first server deals with
> the main stream.
>
> > Au contraire; the technical base for what you suggest isn't even
> > remotely available yet, because your assertion requires calculations to
> > be performed at a rate of speed comparable to a supercomputer
> (...)
>
> This might be true in your (wrong) scenario, where *all* the games
> running are to be real-time monitored.
> Hope I made it clear now: only a few games need to be analysed at the
> time, just those that meet the criteria. The whole rest of the games
> runs unmonitored (no extra workload).
>
>
> > In other words, you have absolutely no proof -- not even something as
> > simple as a sample of recorded matches,
> (...)
> > "I'm fully convinced", on the other hand, that you will offer an excuse
> > as to why you can't do this.
>
> I will give you not-one excuse :-)
>
>
> I will ignore the rest of the post, since it seems to refer back to the
> "rate" thing over and over again, and you seem to have lots of time in
> your hands.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is it for real or is it a scam?
    ... I have tried many online sites Paradise, Poker stars, Poker Host, ... Let me first start off by saying that the live tournaments I play in I do very ... occasionally play in cash games although I do prefer the tournament play. ... Is it that the players are just so bad that you continously take the worst of it ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Who is the stupidest RGP poster? Day 4
    ... Pokertracker makes it quite clear to me who the strong winning players ...  None of them play a strategy even remotely resembling Travel's ... I drop out of games whenever VP ...  Raises on the flop are always 2 ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Long Run "GCA"
    ... Playing the lottery would be an example (though a bad ... Players on a bad ... I play for a living and do know what this is about. ... Playing split games let you maintain a greater edge and balance also. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Quitting 3.5
    ... simulationist or a story teller) then the min/max players often run ... You want to play Samwise and Merry, ... We have a Mystic Theurge with a 10 Constitution, and he has made it to 9th ... people who enjoyed the games I just described above. ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: Why online poker is better for the money player.
    ... you're saying you lose more to weak players than you should. ... server denies you wins that, given normally random dice, you would have ... then it's enough to monitor the few first games to assign them a value ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
Loading