8 hands, 20/10
spew?

Actually
*PRE*

*3B*

*POST*
-cc paired F, cf on K+flush T

- was vs me like 3 hands ago

mentioning a 8 hand sample, go fuck yourself. honestly. piss off.

On April 23 2014 14:22 cariadon wrote: mentioning a 8 hand sample, go fuck yourself. honestly. piss off.

Bayesian inference, makes him way more likely to be tag rather than notif if you add fullstack+raise size to it. every little information gives you another piece of the puzzle

what an asshat

write a thesis about this advanced shit and sell it to 100 micro players for $11.27
surely you've amassed quite the audience being the sick poker player and analyst

On April 23 2014 14:45 cariadon wrote: what an asshat write a thesis about this advanced shit and sell it to 100 micro players for $11.27 surely you've amassed quite the audience being the sick poker player and analyst

I'm sorry man for whatever I have done to you, it's my fault. What can I do to make you feel better?
You seem like a cool guy didn't want to offend you :/

Yeah wtf is that hate?

Don't apologize to that guy Lemon, fuck him. I enjoy how you think about the game and strive to do the same

Oh it was you now I remember.

I was tilted/tired one night and spoke harshly towards his well meant advice, you know reactance bias, sorry man sometimes I let my subconscious get the best of me

On April 23 2014 15:03 Trav94 wrote: Don't apologize to that guy Lemon, fuck him. I enjoy how you think about the game and strive to do the same

Thanks!

I was an academic, over thinking shit is half the fun in poker :D

I can relate lemon!! In the heat of battle, when I flatted your 4b bluff with AA and you flopped straight, after the hand, I shook my head, and i mumbled...

"Doc lemon, yeah right"

Then I added

"More like, Cock lemon"

Then i hummered for myself feeling pretty good about myself, shook my head, and opened another table!!

xD

he can't be 20/10 over 8 hands

I'm sure theres a perfectly vague explanation for that. He has an answer for everything, or atleast the ability to use seemingly relevant concepts (in the first few google responses he gets) to make whatever claim he wants.

1. Make a random statement
2. Find proof on internet
3. ???
4. Not enough profit to break out of micros

That's low. But i won't apologise. There are things you are better at that probably are more fulfilling than playing poker. Maybe do that instead? I just don't see it happening for you in poker. Maybe i'm wrong. I hope so.

it's not low it's just wrong and retarded like all of your posts. LP needs an ignore button for cariadon.

On April 23 2014 16:06 bigredhoss wrote: it's not low it's just wrong and retarded like all of your posts. LP needs an ignore button for cariadon.

+1

On April 23 2014 15:55 cariadon wrote: That's low. But i won't apologise. There are things you are better at that probably are more fulfilling than playing poker. Maybe do that instead? I just don't see it happening for you in poker. Maybe i'm wrong. I hope so.

Better at? Hell yeah
More fulfilling?
I mean poker fulfills me already now when I suck at it, thank you very much for hoping I will get even better!

I like how cariadon went into full retard mode, then he goes on with a more submissive comment knowing he did something retarded, but still blames Lemon and implies how to live his life. Dont know about poker, but you fail at being a human being right here.

On April 23 2014 15:51 cariadon wrote: I'm sure theres a perfectly vague explanation for that. He has an answer for everything, or atleast the ability to use seemingly relevant concepts (in the first few google responses he gets) to make whatever claim he wants. 1. Make a random statement 2. Find proof on internet 3. ??? 4. Not enough profit to break out of micros

I looked at the stats when I was copy/pasting at the table - but 2 hands have already passed in the meantime at the table - hence 20/10 after 10 hands but I played just 8 with him at the time of the hand, I'm sorry!
Bayesian inference I learned in Mathematics of Poker ages ago and there's a video on Run It Once now about it too. Biases I actually studied, researched and wrote an undergraduate thesis on and Psychology Today is one of my homepages so technically I didn't go through Google to link that article I read 5 days ago either

But whatever man, this is me trying to defend myself irrationally again - again I'm sorry if I offended you, please just reply with what would you suggest I change about the way I write and I will do my best to accommodate you.

Don't like, worst river card for you imo

On April 23 2014 17:08 Spitfiree wrote: I like how cariadon went into full retard mode, then he goes on with a more submissive comment knowing he did something retarded, but still blames Lemon and implies how to live his life. Dont know about poker, but you fail at being a human being right here.

On April 23 2014 06:04 Spitfiree wrote: hands that make sense here : 44,22,42s,Q4o,Q4s,Q2o,Q2s and since you didnt really give anything about his agression postflop he either has like Q8+ or doesnt either way I d fold cuz he seems to be on the passive side I wouldnt be suprised if u called and he showed T7o tho I feel like this type of fish doesnt really overbet shove unless he has at least 2p

You are one of the guys who makes all these awesome breakdowns and then falls flat on your face nearly every time. So either the hand makes sense for you or it doesn't. What shitty advice and flawed rationality. Thanks for nothing. That's what your advice amounts to - nothing.

On April 23 2014 17:14 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On April 23 2014 15:51 cariadon wrote: I'm sure theres a perfectly vague explanation for that. He has an answer for everything, or atleast the ability to use seemingly relevant concepts (in the first few google responses he gets) to make whatever claim he wants. 1. Make a random statement 2. Find proof on internet 3. ??? 4. Not enough profit to break out of micros I looked at the stats when I was copy/pasting at the table - but 2 hands have already passed in the meantime at the table - hence 20/10 after 10 hands but I played just 8 with him at the time of the hand, I'm sorry! Bayesian inference I learned in Mathematics of Poker ages ago and there's a video on Run It Once now about it too. Biases I actually studied, researched and wrote an undergraduate thesis on and Psychology Today is one of my homepages so technically I didn't go through Google to link that article I read 5 days ago either But whatever man, this is me trying to defend myself irrationally again - again I'm sorry if I offended you, please just reply with what would you suggest I change about the way I write and I will do my best to accommodate you.

You play a lot and think alot about the hands. You are familiar with all these advanced concepts and poker-related wisdom. I'd imagine you were among the hardest working and dedicated players for your stake. Yet something is missing, something we aren't seeing. Either that or you are impaired in a way that it is nearly impossible for you to connect the dots. One could argue that it is increasingly more difficult to "become enlightened" after putting in an ever growing number of hands with the same kind of quality.

I suggest checking your closet for a tiltmonkey or other villainous animal.

I'm not even talking about poker, I don't pretend to be a good player. You still try to change the subject of how you're weak minded and have many issues so you post dumb shit on the internet.
Trying to cling to something so dumb and irrelevant and present it as some kind of weakness in my character only shows how sad & most likely pathetic you are.
But hey I'm not the one to judge you, I'll just prepare pop corn if you got any more of those replies.


P.S. Can't even be arsed commenting about pokerz at this point

FWIW let me post how a normal human being should interact in your position :

"Oh man, Lemon, stop posting random stats with 8 hands sample size.That s worthless and no one can make any educated guess based on it. And no you cant lean towards any category about the guy since real "randomness" is really wide and a normal fish that plays 100/80 could be 10/5 in 8 hands. You would actually save us and yourself time if you dont post such information at all. Anyway here are my thoughts on this hand: blablablabla im the forever200nl god that rocks poker and stomps on dem micro playaz perhaps if i stay another 5-6 years there and start disrespecting people that play higher than me rather than only micro playas they d understand how my dick is HUGEEEEE "

I think thats pretty much how it should be

It would most likely be more of the same foul yet shamelessly entertaining shit you conjure in the cauldron that is your poker brain.

"he likely has this that and the other Q7o 77 AA or a set, he can also have K3o 82s and a turned gutshot, but i'm always running into the nuts with my 3rd nuts so i'd fold for 1bb in a 941bb pot because i never do myself and always feel like i should have." Kind of like being afraid of and sleeping in the dark advising others to fall asleep with the lights on answer to a question about potatoes. Dr. Oz would diagnose you with tightos passivosis which in laymans terms means being tight and bleeding away blinds which usually goes in hand with inability to realise that a 10% favourite will win every tenth time. I had fun writing this, hope you had as much fun reading Spitfiree. As for commenting on poker, Lem0n (or anyone for that matter) has nothing to learn from what you have to say. Sorry. Still good fun so please do carry on.

On April 23 2014 18:01 Spitfiree wrote: FWIW let me post how a normal human being should interact in your position : "Oh man, Lemon, stop posting random stats with 8 hands sample size.That s worthless and no one can make any educated guess based on it. And no you cant lean towards any category about the guy since real "randomness" is really wide and a normal fish that plays 100/80 could be 10/5 in 8 hands. You would actually save us and yourself time if you dont post such information at all. Anyway here are my thoughts on this hand: blablablabla im the forever200nl god that rocks poker and stomps on dem micro playaz perhaps if i stay another 5-6 years there and start disrespecting people that play higher than me rather than only micro playas they d understand how my dick is HUGEEEEE " I think thats pretty much how it should be

I haven't played a single hand of poker for over a year now but some things are timeless and apply even now. One of them being rational thinking. I don't give a shit about your poker and you wouldn't recognise good advice even if Ivey whispered it in your ear. Your advice may have the adverse effect, think about that for a second. At first i was confused to Mariouslol being a sickass troll but now i have grown to like his posts, he's fun. When i come to read the UFC thread i almost always see Lem0ns hands top right of the page and i check them if i have the time. I don't often comment as they are not welcome. Posting stats for a 10 hand sample is so fucking stupid i am at a loss of words. Odd. I did interact in a mannered way at the start but his persistance and knowitall attitude has lead to some weird dynamic where i'm sure none of us really gives a shit but the boyscout in me can't refrain from pointing out the attrocities. Somehow quitting poker is status quo tabu. Using harsh words and going to the extreme example perhaps shakes him enough to make him think twice before posting irrelevant incomprehensible shit of zero value.

turn call seems terrible w/o reads. if you call turn you cant fold the nut river tho

also ban baal

Altho everyone is on the hate-cariadon train, I agree with a lot of what he says.

Lemon is definitely a crazy hard worker, and thinks about (probably) more theory than your typical nl200 player.

That being said, I think he thinks far too much for the stakes he plays. If he 'dumbed it down' a bit, he'd be far more profitable IMO.

It's like you're using a nl400 mindset vs nl16 people man. It just isn't gonna mesh. Well, except your normal nl400 person would realise within a couple hours that he's gotta 'dumb it down'.

I've said this countless times though, don't know wtf I bother posting it anymore heh.

And of course this isn't a bash on lemon, I really enjoy what he brings to the forums.

move up already lemon. 25nl to 100nl at least. i think you'll get better results there with your style of play.

what ?

holy crap.. was really expecting an awesome hand discussion.. but popcorn.gif

Cock Lemon was definitely the highlight

lol yea Cock.LemOn

Cock.LemOn play some mtts on the side of your tables just a few adjustments to make like smaller sizings maybe wider range some lineups but yea.

On April 23 2014 19:32 whamm! wrote: move up already lemon. 25nl to 100nl at least. i think you'll get better results there with your style of play.

AKA move up where they respect your raises. This isn't true what is also not true is that there is much difference at 25nl even at 100nl except more regs which is different but I feel like people get intimidated by the stake level but not much changed until you get to where almost everyone is a reg.

from my experience, his time doing all those advanced things won't be wasted
I was going through something similar, I was in a badrun and I thought I couldnt even beat fishes anymore, I had so much advanced knowledge from all those years playing poker but I think I was misapplying everything
I probably knew 10x more than 2 years ago but I was doing much worse

I had ONE coach session a few weeks ago, the coach didnt taught me much to be honest, and he plays up to nl2k vs regs daily
but he fixed a few things in my thought process and suddenly everything clicked and now I feel fucking super saiyan ( while im running good at least lol )

just keep working and your time will come
I do remember a few years ago you did a lot of stupid comments in my hands, so I feel like you deserve to get bitch slapped by life and get stuck at micros reading comments like the ones caridon did

http://www.liquidpoker.net/h/800309
http://www.liquidpoker.net/h/855562

On April 23 2014 22:18 drone666 wrote: from my experience, his time doing all those advanced things won't be wasted

I hope you're right. I want Lemon to CRUSHHHHH.

tbh, I do get slightly irritated when I read his hand histories/analysis... on villains with no fucking hands. Or whatever.

But whatever, he loves it. He's getting better at theory (I guess?), I'm sure he'll do fine.

Vote for Lemon in 2017, gogogo

Try sngs. If you know Bayesian, you'll quickly pick up on optimal push/fold ranges. I went from being an awful cash game player to a winning mid stake(avg $75)sng player.

Cariadon why are you so mad. Try to understand, he does want you as a fan

On April 23 2014 18:51 PoorUser wrote: also ban baal

lol thx, missed that

On April 23 2014 22:53 kantoiki wrote: Cariadon why are you so mad. Try to understand, he does want you as a fan

died.

On April 23 2014 22:38 Seobombisgay wrote: Try sngs. If you know Bayesian, you'll quickly pick up on optimal push/fold ranges. I went from being an awful cash game player to a winning mid stake(avg $75)sng player.

+1

44th

On April 23 2014 19:32 devon06atX wrote: Altho everyone is on the hate-cariadon train, I agree with a lot of what he says.

no one argues about that, the way he does it however is ....

more like CARIADONK LOLOLOL

that said lol wtf this hand thread is hilarious. keep going!

results plz

So lemon, do you know what bayesian inference means? In this case, how is your reasoning different from frequentist estimation, and why are results different? Why would you prefer bayesian over frequentist here? And most importantly, how does bayesian approach help with the problem of having a sample of 8 hands? Oh also, which prior-distribution did you use here?

I don't think you know an answer to any of those questions. Not that this would be very important, I just find it annoying that you support a silly decision (using 8 hands as a sample) by using some fancy word.

I mean sure, the information that he has VPIP of 20 makes it more likely that he is a tag. Also, if you play one single hand with him and he folds pre, it's more likely that he is a tag. The interesting question is whether that's so much of a difference that you would want to base your decisions of it.

"One tendency among players is to delay characterizing and adjusting to a player's play until gaining a little more information, by observing some hands or the like. But this view is overly passive in our view; maximizing EV means taking advantage of all the information we have at our disposal and not necessarily waiting for confirmation that the information is reliable before trying to take advantage of it. The error that these players are making is that they do not realize the power of information they have gained." -MoP

They used an example of just one hand where a player was in our judgement 10% a maniac or 90% a nit and simply by him raising CO on the first hand made him more 46% likely to be a maniac

Basically a 8 hand sample where he played 2 of them, raised one will make it less likely he's a high vpip fish or 80 vpip maniac . It doesn't confirm it by any means, but increases the probability as do the other factors I mentioned. I always saw hand reading this way since I read it, there seems to be nothing fancy about it really I never went deep into the math just trusted MoP and it's examples There's a 2hour video on this on RiO maybe it's time to look at it, re-read MoP and look at the math in more detail, might put it on my list.

And I do think it does change my decision - if he raised 8/8 those hands I'm more likely to call the shove or cc flop, if he played 0/0 it'd slightly alter my decision too - yes you can't take small samples seriously but you can't ignore them either, they just increase the probability of him being one type of player slightly and you can change the edges of your ranges a bit. I've been doing it "by the eye", is it worth my time looking at the math of this in more detail again?

On April 24 2014 01:49 GoTuNk wrote: results plz

here you go:

+ Show Spoiler +

Still don't think T cc is good, felt dirty to cf tho with the Qc vs his sizing. Guess flop cc isn't bad either range wise with the Qc, meh hand's not easy to play

On April 23 2014 23:54 player999 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 23 2014 22:38 Seobombisgay wrote: Try sngs. If you know Bayesian, you'll quickly pick up on optimal push/fold ranges. I went from being an awful cash game player to a winning mid stake(avg $75)sng player. +1

I get tilted when I can't play the guy longer. In that ps tourney we played BO5 and BO7 that was lots of fun though

On April 24 2014 03:07 auffenpuffer wrote: So lemon, do you know what bayesian inference means? In this case, how is your reasoning different from frequentist estimation, and why are results different? Why would you prefer bayesian over frequentist here? And most importantly, how does bayesian approach help with the problem of having a sample of 8 hands? Oh also, which prior-distribution did you use here? I don't think you know an answer to any of those questions. Not that this would be very important, I just find it annoying that you support a silly decision (using 8 hands as a sample) by using some fancy word. I mean sure, the information that he has VPIP of 20 makes it more likely that he is a tag. Also, if you play one single hand with him and he folds pre, it's more likely that he is a tag. The interesting question is whether that's so much of a difference that you would want to base your decisions of it.

thanks. More appropriate answer than Cariadon's ones but both are about the same thing. Poker players really enjoy speaking about statistics without understanding it.

fucking super saiyan

oj, super saiyan!!

On April 23 2014 23:41 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On April 23 2014 18:51 PoorUser wrote: also ban baal lol thx, missed that

Not sure if it helps, but I thought that after the first few comments, then I mumbled, it'd be good if someone wrote a post saying "Ban baal, right about now".

But felt, that honor shouldn't be mine!!

Basically a 8 hand sample where he played 2 of them, raised one will make it less likely he's a high vpip fish or 80 vpip maniac

I agree that it "makes it less likely", but that is a trivial conclusion. What we are interested in is how much less, and what kind of insecurity is involved in our estimate of how much? If our best guess for the size of the effect is, say, 0.00001 %, you are still correct to say it makes it less likely, it's just that the difference is too small to be interesting. Also if our best guess is 27 %, that's a big thing, but if this best guess is effectively as good of a guess of 0.00001%, we wouldn't want to be base our action on that guess.

Now, should you start to think about these things seriously and spend 1 - 3 years learning math? (btw, bayesian inference is pretty non-trivial, as of course is frequentist too). I think not. You will do better by disabling hud for 15 hands.

Sure you can use information obtained by observing 8 hands but using a hud will only serve to give you a false impression of meaningful statistics while none are available. You should also be much more aware of the uncertainty involved. Now it sounds like you label him a TAG and act as if you were certain of it, and then come up with this "bayesian" reasoning to justify it. Instead you ought to consider it marginally more likely that he is a tag, and not draw any strong conclusions from such meaningless evidence.

For example if I flip a coin 10 times and get 4 tails and 6 heads (Or if you flip just once and get a heads, for that matter), it's now more likely that the coin is biased for heads than that it is not (if we make a bayesian assumption of uniform prior distribution!). Now, what you are doing here is the equivalent of thinking: "I'm pretty sure its a biased coin so I'll start betting heavy of the heads". That would be silly.

They used an example of just one hand where a player was in our judgement 10% a maniac or 90% a nit and simply by him raising CO on the first hand made him more 46% likely to be a maniac

yah when you make enough assumption (there are two kinds of players, they play with exactly these and these pfrs, the prior distribution is this and this and so forth) you get cool results

in computer science we say garbage in garbage out

On April 24 2014 04:16 LemOn[5thF] wrote: "One tendency among players is to delay characterizing and adjusting to a player's play until gaining a little more information, by observing some hands or the like. But this view is overly passive in our view; maximizing EV means taking advantage of all the information we have at our disposal and not necessarily waiting for confirmation that the information is reliable before trying to take advantage of it. The error that these players are making is that they do not realize the power of information they have gained." -MoP And I do think it does change my decision - if he raised 8/8 those hands I'm more likely to call the shove or cc flop, if he played 0/0 it'd slightly alter my decision too - yes you can't take small samples seriously but you can't ignore them either, they just increase the probability of him being one type of player slightly and you can change the edges of your ranges a bit. I've been doing it "by the eye", is it worth my time looking at the math of this in more detail again?

This is the root of evil right here.Can't own up to his mistake, always needs to bring in new randomness to keep the argument going until it ain't even funny no more. You were wrong, you are wrong and you will be wrong in this matter. 16nl and varying plays because of a 10 hand sample do not even belong in the same universe. It is retarded, stop arguing. No, it was not 8/8 and it surely wasnt 0/0 (he couldn't be in the hand, minor logic flaw for an academic), it wasn't even 20/10, it was fuck all. Nothing there. Accept it. The axe has dropped yet the rolling head still talks.

This isn't even a discussion about when a hand sample becomes relevant. Stubborness and unwillingness to improve. It is not a matter of the degree of how wrong you were but a case of 1 and 0, yes and no. A sane person wouldn't argue against lps statistics wizards. But i guess admitting defeat in an argument in any shape or form is too much for a person let alone a yellow citrus fruit with profound knowledge of psychology.

My salty comments brought out quite the crowd. Perhaps if there were enough fingers pointing at Lem0ns shit it would eventually make a forearm that has the power to stick his nose in it, stick it in good.

I am not a mathematician so of course I have no clue - I just pointed out my uneducated understanding of it and how I've been applying it
Again sorry man, I was wrong - will you forgive me?

On April 24 2014 06:41 auffenpuffer wrote: Show nested quote + Basically a 8 hand sample where he played 2 of them, raised one will make it less likely he's a high vpip fish or 80 vpip maniac I agree that it "makes it less likely", but that is a trivial conclusion. What we are interested in is how much less, and what kind of insecurity is involved in our estimate of how much? If our best guess for the size of the effect is, say, 0.00001 %, you are still correct to say it makes it less likely, it's just that the difference is too small to be interesting. Also if our best guess is 27 %, that's a big thing, but if this best guess is effectively as good of a guess of 0.00001%, we wouldn't want to be base our action on that guess. Now, should you start to think about these things seriously and spend 1 - 3 years learning math? (btw, bayesian inference is pretty non-trivial, as of course is frequentist too). I think not. You will do better by disabling hud for 15 hands. Sure you can use information obtained by observing 8 hands but using a hud will only serve to give you a false impression of meaningful statistics while none are available. You should also be much more aware of the uncertainty involved. Now it sounds like you label him a TAG and act as if you were certain of it, and then come up with this "bayesian" reasoning to justify it. Instead you ought to consider it marginally more likely that he is a tag, and not draw any strong conclusions from such meaningless evidence. For example if I flip a coin 10 times and get 4 tails and 6 heads (Or if you flip just once and get a heads, for that matter), it's now more likely that the coin is biased for heads than that it is not (if we make a bayesian assumption of uniform prior distribution!). Now, what you are doing here is the equivalent of thinking: "I'm pretty sure its a biased coin so I'll start betting heavy of the heads". That would be silly.   They used an example of just one hand where a player was in our judgement 10% a maniac or 90% a nit and simply by him raising CO on the first hand made him more 46% likely to be a maniac yah when you make enough assumption (there are two kinds of players, they play with exactly these and these pfrs, the prior distribution is this and this and so forth) you get cool results in computer science we say garbage in garbage out

Cool post thanks
It's funny with the coinflip didn't realize it but it would be the case lol

41 posts left.
(some nice posts btw )

On April 24 2014 10:15 cariadon wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2014 04:16 LemOn[5thF] wrote: "One tendency among players is to delay characterizing and adjusting to a player's play until gaining a little more information, by observing some hands or the like. But this view is overly passive in our view; maximizing EV means taking advantage of all the information we have at our disposal and not necessarily waiting for confirmation that the information is reliable before trying to take advantage of it. The error that these players are making is that they do not realize the power of information they have gained." -MoP And I do think it does change my decision - if he raised 8/8 those hands I'm more likely to call the shove or cc flop, if he played 0/0 it'd slightly alter my decision too - yes you can't take small samples seriously but you can't ignore them either, they just increase the probability of him being one type of player slightly and you can change the edges of your ranges a bit. I've been doing it "by the eye", is it worth my time looking at the math of this in more detail again? This is the root of evil right here.Can't own up to his mistake, always needs to bring in new randomness to keep the argument going until it ain't even funny no more. You were wrong, you are wrong and you will be wrong in this matter. 16nl and varying plays because of a 10 hand sample do not even belong in the same universe. It is retarded, stop arguing. No, it was not 8/8 and it surely wasnt 0/0 (he couldn't be in the hand, minor logic flaw for an academic), it wasn't even 20/10, it was fuck all. Nothing there. Accept it. The axe has dropped yet the rolling head still talks. This isn't even a discussion about when a hand sample becomes relevant. Stubborness and unwillingness to improve. It is not a matter of the degree of how wrong you were but a case of 1 and 0, yes and no. A sane person wouldn't argue against lps statistics wizards. But i guess admitting defeat in an argument in any shape or form is too much for a person let alone a yellow citrus fruit with profound knowledge of psychology. My salty comments brought out quite the crowd. Perhaps if there were enough fingers pointing at Lem0ns shit it would eventually make a forearm that has the power to stick his nose in it, stick it in good.

next time try adding even more hyperbole and logical fallacies that should help, you still sound like a rambling delusional idiot.

Wow a 60 comment HH on LP in 2014!!!!!!

HAND MUST BE CRAZY!!!!





Standard shitstorm.

edit - fuck it. I quit

On April 24 2014 12:35 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2014 10:15 cariadon wrote:   On April 24 2014 04:16 LemOn[5thF] wrote: "One tendency among players is to delay characterizing and adjusting to a player's play until gaining a little more information, by observing some hands or the like. But this view is overly passive in our view; maximizing EV means taking advantage of all the information we have at our disposal and not necessarily waiting for confirmation that the information is reliable before trying to take advantage of it. The error that these players are making is that they do not realize the power of information they have gained." -MoP And I do think it does change my decision - if he raised 8/8 those hands I'm more likely to call the shove or cc flop, if he played 0/0 it'd slightly alter my decision too - yes you can't take small samples seriously but you can't ignore them either, they just increase the probability of him being one type of player slightly and you can change the edges of your ranges a bit. I've been doing it "by the eye", is it worth my time looking at the math of this in more detail again? This is the root of evil right here.Can't own up to his mistake, always needs to bring in new randomness to keep the argument going until it ain't even funny no more. You were wrong, you are wrong and you will be wrong in this matter. 16nl and varying plays because of a 10 hand sample do not even belong in the same universe. It is retarded, stop arguing. No, it was not 8/8 and it surely wasnt 0/0 (he couldn't be in the hand, minor logic flaw for an academic), it wasn't even 20/10, it was fuck all. Nothing there. Accept it. The axe has dropped yet the rolling head still talks. This isn't even a discussion about when a hand sample becomes relevant. Stubborness and unwillingness to improve. It is not a matter of the degree of how wrong you were but a case of 1 and 0, yes and no. A sane person wouldn't argue against lps statistics wizards. But i guess admitting defeat in an argument in any shape or form is too much for a person let alone a yellow citrus fruit with profound knowledge of psychology. My salty comments brought out quite the crowd. Perhaps if there were enough fingers pointing at Lem0ns shit it would eventually make a forearm that has the power to stick his nose in it, stick it in good. next time try adding even more hyperbole and logical fallacies that should help, you still sound like a rambling delusional idiot.

Nice to see you are percistent with your witch-hunt. This sort of goofy writing style i attribute to Mariuslol. It got people interested and ended up becoming something more than your "go Martingale" comments. I don't know what your relationship with Lem0n is but you appear to ba a bandwagoning mouthrunning turd with nothing of any value, comedy or otherwise, to add.

These Estonian guys, getting out of line and shit.

65 posts?;O

Who said LP is dead?

On April 24 2014 12:50 cariadon wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2014 12:35 bigredhoss wrote:   On April 24 2014 10:15 cariadon wrote:   On April 24 2014 04:16 LemOn[5thF] wrote: "One tendency among players is to delay characterizing and adjusting to a player's play until gaining a little more information, by observing some hands or the like. But this view is overly passive in our view; maximizing EV means taking advantage of all the information we have at our disposal and not necessarily waiting for confirmation that the information is reliable before trying to take advantage of it. The error that these players are making is that they do not realize the power of information they have gained." -MoP And I do think it does change my decision - if he raised 8/8 those hands I'm more likely to call the shove or cc flop, if he played 0/0 it'd slightly alter my decision too - yes you can't take small samples seriously but you can't ignore them either, they just increase the probability of him being one type of player slightly and you can change the edges of your ranges a bit. I've been doing it "by the eye", is it worth my time looking at the math of this in more detail again? This is the root of evil right here.Can't own up to his mistake, always needs to bring in new randomness to keep the argument going until it ain't even funny no more. You were wrong, you are wrong and you will be wrong in this matter. 16nl and varying plays because of a 10 hand sample do not even belong in the same universe. It is retarded, stop arguing. No, it was not 8/8 and it surely wasnt 0/0 (he couldn't be in the hand, minor logic flaw for an academic), it wasn't even 20/10, it was fuck all. Nothing there. Accept it. The axe has dropped yet the rolling head still talks. This isn't even a discussion about when a hand sample becomes relevant. Stubborness and unwillingness to improve. It is not a matter of the degree of how wrong you were but a case of 1 and 0, yes and no. A sane person wouldn't argue against lps statistics wizards. But i guess admitting defeat in an argument in any shape or form is too much for a person let alone a yellow citrus fruit with profound knowledge of psychology. My salty comments brought out quite the crowd. Perhaps if there were enough fingers pointing at Lem0ns shit it would eventually make a forearm that has the power to stick his nose in it, stick it in good. next time try adding even more hyperbole and logical fallacies that should help, you still sound like a rambling delusional idiot. Nice to see you are percistent with your witch-hunt. This sort of goofy writing style i attribute to Mariuslol. It got people interested and ended up becoming something more than your "go Martingale" comments. I don't know what your relationship with Lem0n is but you appear to ba a bandwagoning mouthrunning turd with nothing of any value, comedy or otherwise, to add.

some of the stuff you write is so random and irrelavent i don't even know how to respond. yes i have adopted the heavily influential stylings of Mariuslol into my posts, great and relevant observation you mongoloid.

i've said a couple of times that i think lemon would be better off doing something else with his life, or at least keep poker playing as a hobby. however i can't actually know what his life is like or where his satisfaction comes from, so maybe he is indeed happier grinding the micros than he would be doing something else.

none of that really has anything to do with how dumb your posts are though.