Joe Cada doco - looks good.

[JMACK007]

Direct from pokerstove:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 45.016% 44.84% 00.18% 55276056 222444.00 { AKo }
Hand 1: 54.984% 54.80% 00.18% 67564944 222444.00 { 77 }


equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 47.351% 47.04% 00.31% 57996648 380250.00 { AKo }
Hand 1: 52.649% 52.34% 00.31% 64528740 380250.00 { 22 }

And pretty much the same if you include AKs

REALLY? I must be missing something here....

Are those results of all hands ACTUALLY played?? If so, then it makes sense because 77 gets played alot more than 22, but otherwise there are alot more cards the 22 can hit to beat the AK if the AK hits the A, because it can still make a straight.....

[bennymacca]

they are pokerstove Jmack

it basically simulates lots of times running the board out.


the reason why 22 is less than 77 is because of counterfeiting. this happens a lot more than a 4 card straight.

[AceLosesKing]

Direct from pokerstove:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 45.016% 44.84% 00.18% 55276056 222444.00 { AKo }
Hand 1: 54.984% 54.80% 00.18% 67564944 222444.00 { 77 }


equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 47.351% 47.04% 00.31% 57996648 380250.00 { AKo }
Hand 1: 52.649% 52.34% 00.31% 64528740 380250.00 { 22 }

And pretty much the same if you include AKs

REALLY? I must be missing something here....

Are those results of all hands ACTUALLY played?? If so, then it makes sense because 77 gets played alot more than 22, but otherwise there are alot more cards the 22 can hit to beat the AK if the AK hits the A, because it can still make a straight.....

lol Jmac

Its a simulation program, PokerStove. It randomly runs millions of boards to decide the outcome of the hand. Does not matter if 77 is "played more" by poker players or not. I see what you're getting at with the 22, and I'd agree, but 7s have less chance of being counterfeit, that's why their % is higher.

edit: fu benny the cunt.

[JMACK007]

ok, yeah that makes sense thanks benny the cunt.

I got stuck on the fact that if AK hits the A, the sevens only have 2 outs, but the 2s can suck out the straight on top of the 2 x 2's.....

*EDIT - yeah, thanks AK as well...

[JMACK007]

But hang on.......22 and 77 both have the SAME chance of getting "counterfeited" against AK don't they????

i.e. heads up, the AK needs to hit the A or K, or running straight / flush cards to win. We are talking HU aren't we???

EDIT.......I'm an idiot!!!

[bennymacca]

But hang on.......22 and 77 both have the SAME chance of getting "counterfeited" against AK don't they????

i.e. heads up, the AK needs to hit the A or K, or running straight / flush cards to win. We are talking HU aren't we???

no, because the board can run 3344X, and 7s would still win.

basically any double paired board with one of the pairs lower than a 7, the 7s aren't counterfeited.

all of that would add up to a 2% chance of occuring

[JMACK007]

But hang on.......22 and 77 both have the SAME chance of getting "counterfeited" against AK don't they????

i.e. heads up, the AK needs to hit the A or K, or running straight / flush cards to win. We are talking HU aren't we???

no, because the board can run 3344X, and 7s would still win.

basically any double paired board with one of the pairs lower than a 7, the 7s aren't counterfeited.

all of that would add up to a 2% chance of occuring

You are too quick mate, it is 1am and I jst realised that, went to delete my stupid post and the damn Murrin system (those damn Murrins!) wouldn't let me because you had already replied!!!!
I'm going back in my corner now......

[bennymacca]

no need to do that jmack

i know you are quite adept at poker in general

[JMACK007]

...

[AJG]

i am serious AJG, i have just reread the whole thread, and not once does anyone even mention cada, except for you, and me at the start when i said i dont like him. i didn't even say why

somehow you assume we are all cada bashing.

its really weird.

Ok, fair enough, I got that impression when you answered "You'll see'" when I asked benny the cunt why he hated him...

once again, you have assumed that i "hate" him

why do you feel the need to polarise everyone's views on it, and defend something to the death?

i just thought he was a bit boring. nothing to do with his poker at all. he is probably a great guy, but from the WSOP and now the above footage that i have seen, i just dont think he comes across as being that engaging

as far as documentaries go, something like 2m2mm was heaps better.


seriously, go take a cold shower or something

Seriously, why do you need to be so pedantic? So i used the word hate in the last post, when you actually did say "I dont really like Cada" - a far cry from "I just think he's boring"... I hate him/i dont like him- little dif.
I asked you why that was, and got no response... ALK says "You'll see" when I asked if it was something to do with the FT (Actually I was thinking more he might have acted like a dick, at the time or something), then I watched it.
You two being friends IRL, yes I assumed perhaps he knew why you didnt like Cada, a not unlikely assumption i think...
And given only 2 such small posts (u and ALK), it is not an unreasonable interpretation that you both don't like Cada... Not an assumption at all. ALK only said well after "I never said I didn't like Cada" or whatever, "You'll see" does give the impression he agrees with you.
And yes, rereading it again now myself, I did (wrongly) think there was another comment along the same line as yours...
After watching the FT, the only reason i could think of for this point of view was he made some of the funkiest plays at a very funky FT. Again, not unreasonabe in the abscense of any other reasoning.

And then I simply posted the FT was played leaving me scratching my head, so why mention only Cada (if indeed it was based on the play), is that really so horribly wrong as to require this response from you?
Wouldnt a simple "You took me wrong, it wasnt about his play" be much easier and nicer than all that 'polarization' and 'take a cold shower' rant? Especially if you just reread then you know I did ask you why...
No need to get personally derisive at all.

But understand this: I AM NOT DEFENDING ANYTHING!
If we disagree so be it, but I am entitled to clarify why I have said something or clear up a misinterpretation of something I say, surely?

I polarize everyone's views? Come off it... if I misunderstood you here then IT JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING!
To say I polarize everyone's views is way over the top.... As is 'and defend something to the death'... defensiveness is the emotion one feels when writing the post, the reason for writing it, which you cant possibly know, and therefore are making a big assumption yourself.

Defensiveness is not something i ever feel, as (in general) i dont place any importance on other's views of me or my thoughts or opinions... Of course if i am trying to learn something etc, then I do, but that has nothing to do with ego like defensiveness does.