Life is Loco...

Loco is right, that clown has no idea what bad luck is and bitching about it is really pathetic.

Baal you and Loco clearly share a similar bias. You both believe a player who is winning cannot also be running bad. So tell me Baal who's running worse?

A) Player A loses 50k but should have won 200k.

B) Player B wins 50k but should have won 1M.

The obvious answer is that player B is running considerably worse. You and Loco apparently feel that player B should never complain. You are attempting to crucify Newblish for complaining because you find it offensive that a winning player would ever complain about running bad. That's your failure of logic. You have zero evidence to support whether he actually runs bad or not.

so would you ask him to post his equity graph, i want him to be running at least 50buy-ins below ev.

This is where you say "oh but EV is not the only way to run bad" LOL...

Yes Baal I think the posting of an equity graph would be acceptable.

The problem with EV is that it doesn't account for situations where you put in a big percentage of your stack whilst ahead only to be caught on a later street by a call-station fish who shoves the last 10-20% of his stack in after he sucks out.

The EV calculators that exist so far don't do it street by street do they? Last I checked they don't. They just take your equity at the point of all-in.

this is retarded

The only way to accurately calculate whether a person is running good or bad would be to look at their entire database and analyze every hand where they put in over 50bb's. There are far too many flaws in random EV graph generators to take them that seriously.

you only look like a dumbass defending your friend Benjamin its clear he is a clown with no gasp of what a real bad run is, just stop

hi guys

-.-

O_o omahaments

On July 25 2010 18:16 Baal wrote: you only look like a dumbass defending your friend Benjamin its clear he is a clown with no gasp of what a real bad run is, just stop

Baal you're really good at hurling insults without addressing any of my points. Go ahead Baal I'm waiting for you to say something relevant.

If a player has won 40k but should have won 110k is that player not running bad? What is your justification for saying otherwise?

mipwnya wins

On July 25 2010 18:27 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 18:16 Baal wrote: you only look like a dumbass defending your friend Benjamin its clear he is a clown with no gasp of what a real bad run is, just stop Baal you're really good at hurling insults without addressing any of my points. Go ahead Baal I'm waiting for you to say something relevant. If a player has won 40k but should have won 110k is that player not running bad? What is your justification for saying otherwise?

On the contrary, it is you who isnt getting the point but whatever, keep defending his pathetic behavior and lose the respect of the actual poker players on this forum.

Being upset when you run bad is just a retarded behavior, feeling great when you run good also is something one has to get rid of if one wants to make a living off poker without constantly riding an emotional rollercoaster. The question is not even to know whether Newblish runs bad or not, hes just whining in a pretty childish manner, thats just a very immature/retarded approach for a game like poker where you cant predict when youre gonna get rewarded for playing well.

Your main premise is a false assumption to begin with. I first and foremost believe there isn't such a thing as running bad. Nothing should be surprising out of life. Everything that happens to a person has been a possibility. It's been nature doing its own thing, in other words it is equity (sounds familiar?), and it's only ever bizarre to be surprised or upset about it. But I know this isn't exactly commonly accepted, and we can't really run away from the concepts of luck, no matter how little logical sense they actually really make if the world is deterministic (which I maintain). Nature is indifferent, so should you be.

So, using our interpretation that there is such a thing as running bad (again, I think there is only 'running' in actuality...), it doesn't justify complaining about it, because it accomplishes nothing. It's illogical to be upset with something you have no control over. If I lose electricity in my house today because of a big thunderstorm, is it logical for me to cry out loud and scream about how unfair this all is? It makes no sense at all, it was a possibility to begin with, now I have to deal with it as best as I can. The same is true for any situation, the same is true for poker.

If Newblish is angry, let him be angry at himself, for he has nothing else to be angry about. In this way he can learn something. Once you blame external events, you lose your chance at growth. NOTHING easy ever has much new substance or growth. He can curse at the world all he wants, the world doesn't care, and he's not doing himself or anybody a favor.

A player "should" never win a certain amount, since there was always the possibility of him not winning it if he didn't have a 100% chance of winning. Equity stabilizes itself, life wouldn't exist otherwise. We choose to interpret that he "should" or "deserved" to have had that sum. And when we believe this ourselves (delude ourselves) we cause ourselves much unneeded grief.

I don't know why you tell me I'm biased, it's obvious that there was something personal. You're biased yourself, so why use it against me? You are his friend. He's probably very upset right now and you're stepping up for him, so no matter how spot-on I might be, being his friend you are most likely going to refuse to really hear what I have to say. My goal was to upset him, and anybody who has that mentality, a mentality that I once had myself and I sure wish someone would've slapped me in the face back then, too. Understandably, when you've been spoon-fed all your life, you don't grow up as fast as you should.

I don't know who you're trying to convince by telling us you've seen him play and everything and we have no idea. His graphs show exactly what they show. Let the people be judges... I for one think he has nothing to complain about.

Someone who loses are more likely to run bad then someone who wins since people who runs bad on average wins less then those of equal skill who runs good. Thus it's pretty damn unlikely that some retard who happens to win pretty good at NL100 is running super bad.

When you've played poker for a while you'll probably run like 40-50bi under ev over some periods of time and when someone who hasn't played for that long starts to claim stuff it's easy to get annoyed.

On July 25 2010 17:46 Bejamin1 wrote: Baal you and Loco clearly share a similar bias. You both believe a player who is winning cannot also be running bad. So tell me Baal who's running worse? A) Player A loses 50k but should have won 200k. B) Player B wins 50k but should have won 1M. The obvious answer is that player B is running considerably worse. You and Loco apparently feel that player B should never complain. You are attempting to crucify Newblish for complaining because you find it offensive that a winning player would ever complain about running bad. That's your failure of logic. You have zero evidence to support whether he actually runs bad or not.

You are clearly taking Loco's post in a different approach. He is not talking about numbers you know? Sure mathematically Player B is running worse but nobody is referring to that. Loco is saying that Newblish is complaining and not seeing the whole picture because he has no idea what Life really is. From what I understood in the post (not saying is truth or that I take Loco's post as a fact), Newblish has won a huge amount of money by playing poker. Could he be able to win that amount by having a real job and working for more hours? $50k in the real world is a lot you know and people would kill to win 1/100th of that money.

I made a blog post in spanish about how bad I was running, not poker related, in life. My wife and my son got sick from different stuff and they needed special medical threatments and I obviously had to pay for all of that with money I didn't have. I got into a huge debt with the hospital and my parents because I was not able to handle that hit on my own. I'm just 22 and I have to support a family and I use my poker winnings to do that. I did the math and I only need like $600 a month to survive (without paying my parents the money i owe) in which I have basic services covered such as food, electricity, etc plus medicines. I by no means try to complaint here or anything I'm just saying "hey I need $600 a month to live ok but without luxuries" and he is complaining about winning $40k etc when he not realizes that I could live with my family for 5.5 years with that and yet he says "holy shit I must be the unluckiest person in the world". And no, I'm far from being unlucky at anything.

I may not have expressed myself correctly but I tried to make my point as clear as possible.

The question is how fast do you grow up when youre spoon-fed your whole life with raw food loco

On July 25 2010 18:32 MiPwnYa wrote: Being upset when you run bad is just a retarded behavior, feeling great when you run good also is something one has to get rid of if one wants to make a living off poker without constantly riding an emotional rollercoaster. The question is not even to know whether Newblish runs bad or not, hes just whining in a pretty childish manner, thats just a very immature/retarded approach for a game like poker where you cant predict when youre gonna get rewarded for playing well.

Except that being upset is an emotion not a behavior. I think most everyone has some degree of negative feelings when they run bad. Anyone who says they don't is just lying. Nobody is immune to feeling lousy when things aren't going the way they're supposed to for long stretches of time.

When the guys from 2 months 2 million invented the tilt room and had fun smashing fruit and crap everyone on LP was saying "OMG AMAZING I WISH I HAD ONE"

Some people go to the gym and work out to relieve stress from their job etc. Poker is a stressful job period and it wears people down.

If releasing his anger in hand histories and blogs helps him come back with a refreshed state of mind then more power to him. This whole thing is nothing more than a bunch of people ganging up and making fun of someone for posting whiny comments. I would also add that although with much less frequency you yourself have made similar comments on hands. We all have.