30 replies to this topic

[mark_999]

200/400 PLO capped at 16KThey've flipped at least 30 times now, with juanda in the lead with 300K

[JaNnN]

erm,wow.Is this the new trend now? Flipping for stacks? You know how much good you can do with that money in stead of throwing it away.On the other hand it brings helluva lot entertainment to the table Jan

[ajs510]

Add flipping to the list of things I don't understand about professional gamblers. If I just woke up one morning and decided I had $300k I didn't necessarily need anymore, you'd better believe I'd head for the Lamborghini dealership or something more fun than just sitting at my computer clicking away and crossing my fingers that my 3-1 horse comes up lucky.To quote Nick Cage: "There are too many self-indulgent WEINERS in this town with too much BLOODY MONEY!!!"

[looshle]

ajs510, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 2:32 AM, said:

Add flipping to the list of things I don't understand about professional gamblers. If I just woke up one morning and decided I had $300k I didn't necessarily need anymore, you'd better believe I'd head for the Lamborghini dealership or something more fun than just sitting at my computer clicking away and crossing my fingers that my 3-1 horse comes up lucky.To quote Nick Cage: "There are too many self-indulgent WEINERS in this town with too much BLOODY MONEY!!!"

They aren't throwing money away. They are gambling with no edge. Playing on tilt is far much worse than this, when everyone expected loss is like 10 cents a hand.

[ajs510]

looshle, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 5:45 AM, said:

They aren't throwing money away. They are gambling with no edge. Playing on tilt is far much worse than this, when everyone expected loss is like 10 cents a hand.

The $300k that Juanda is (or was, I have no idea since I'm not watching) up came from somewhere, because someone decided to mindlessly click it away in a game that neither requires nor rewards skill. I can't really think of a more classic example of throwing money away. I'm sure I'm viewing it all wrong and it totally makes sense somehow, but if I ended a "flipping" session stuck $200k, there would be no convincing a single person in the world that I didn't just throw it away.

[bigcoled]

I laught at the people that are like, what are they doing? why are the going all in every hand? what donks! lend me money! Put me in 1 hand. You are retards!Ever play blackjack? roulette? People playing these games are bigger donks... they are giving the house an edge... flipping is simply gambling while no one is getting the best or worst of it... they stakes someone gambles for completely depends on how much money they have.... understand?

[ajs510]

bigcoled, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 6:18 AM, said:

.... understand?

No, I don't understand taking money you earned in a game in which you had a discernible edge (poker), and losing it in a game in which you don't (flipping). The fact that it's statistically less stupid than pissing it away at the racetrack or the craps table doesn't change the fact that it's still stupid.

[BudBundy]

Before i went to bed , Patrik Antonius and Juanda were flipping for 20k. Then Ziigmund joined and insta agreed on flipping and they started flipping 3 ways.After him Phil Ivey joined. They had to quit flipping then because Ivey couldn't understand what was going on for 10 mins and he kept posting his blind.Finally durrrr joined and said " Let's play real poker" and 4 of them starting playing with 200k stacks.

[Mr. Sparco]

looshle, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

They aren't throwing money away. They are gambling with no edge.

Except for the rake, I guess? Or do Full Tilt pros get 100% rakeback?

[FCP Bob]

I know it's hard for the average person to understand but first and foremost these guys are gamblers.Usually they try and have an edge when they gamble but they sure aren't afraid to gamble when the odds are even like they are when they flip like this and in order for something to get their juices flowing the amount of money has to be up there.

[looshle]

Mr. Sparco, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 3:40 AM, said:

Except for the rake, I guess? Or do Full Tilt pros get 100% rakeback?

FTP pros do get 100% rake back but its only 50 cents a pot.There is no edge. They are pushing money around for excitement.In the long run you will not lose or make a dime doing this. It is strictly entertainment.I'm an extreme nitball with $$ usually but I'll flip for w/e. I mean obv not for money I can't afford to lose but anything within reason. Like when me, hoos, Jc, tom, and tmay would flip, it didnt matter who had the most money at the end bc we all mathematically broke even. i remember paying for Jc's flight to foxwoods after he ft'ed reno on the plane ride itself, but didnt matter bc i made like 3k back in reno,in the long run, it just doesnt matter.

[BudBundy]

Also with this way of gambling , money stays in poker economy.When they go play craps or roulette , they basicly take money from poker economy and give it to casinos.

[Mr. Sparco]

looshle, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 1:31 PM, said:

FTP pros do get 100% rake back but its only 50 cents a pot.

First of all: wow, that post has post number 2727272. :)Anyway, yes, then they obviously have a 0 EV, and I can imagine doing this just for the fun of it or even for image purposes. A small mathematical side note, though:

looshle, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 1:31 PM, said:

In the long run you will not lose or make a dime doing this.

In terms of EV, this is of course true. However, with an EV of 0, the only thing that really comes into play is the variance, and the total variance actually grows over time. That is, in the long run, even though the hypothetical "average player" will break even, it is not true that most of the individual players of this game will approximately break even. The generic player will drift away more and more from break even, and after x games will be away an amount proportional to sqrt(x). It's just that half the players will be up, and the other half will be down, so on average, everyone breaks even.

[looshle]

Mr. Sparco, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 5:29 AM, said:

First of all: wow, that post has post number 2727272. :)Anyway, yes, then they obviously have a 0 EV, and I can imagine doing this just for the fun of it or even for image purposes. A small mathematical side note, though:In terms of EV, this is of course true. However, with an EV of 0, the only thing that really comes into play is the variance, and the total variance actually grows over time. That is, in the long run, even though the hypothetical "average player" will break even, it is not true that most of the individual players of this game will approximately break even. The generic player will drift away more and more from break even, and after x games will be away an amount proportional to sqrt(x). It's just that half the players will be up, and the other half will be down, so on average, everyone breaks even.

You obviously know a hell of a lot more math than I do but I can't see how variance will GROW over time. Variance is bigger the smaller the sample size, so if you are making 0 EV bets you are going to mathmatically break even and should even be closer to even the more hands you play amirite?

[davezz5]

Beats flipping burgers.

[HighwayStar]

Mr. Sparco, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 1:29 PM, said:

A small mathematical side note, though:In terms of EV, this is of course true. However, with an EV of 0, the only thing that really comes into play is the variance, and the total variance actually grows over time. That is, in the long run, even though the hypothetical "average player" will break even, it is not true that most of the individual players of this game will approximately break even. The generic player will drift away more and more from break even, and after x games will be away an amount proportional to sqrt(x). It's just that half the players will be up, and the other half will be down, so on average, everyone breaks even.

^^ Something I never really understood about stats

[babylondonks]

davezz5, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

Beats flipping burgers.

Now I really really want a burger

[Mr. Sparco]

looshle, on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 2:36 PM, said:

You obviously know a hell of a lot more math than I do but I can't see how variance will GROW over time. Variance is bigger the smaller the sample size, so if you are making 0 EV bets you are going to mathmatically break even and should even be closer to even the more hands you play amirite?

Yes and no. :)The problem is that if you are playing the same game N times, there are two definitions of variance:1) The variance per game. This variance decreases proportionally with the number N of games.2) The total variance. This increases proportionally with the number N of games.The really important concept, by the way, is the standard deviation, which is the square root of the variance, and which states how much you can expect to be "away from average". To give an example in numbers:Suppose i play a game with a standard deviation of $1. This means that after a single game, I will usualy be between one dollar down and one dollar up from my expected result. Now if I play this game 100 times, I get a standard deviation of $10. (Multiply the original number by the square root of 100.) This means that I will usually be between -$10 and +$10 away from my expected result. Per game this means I will usually be away less then $10/100 = $0.10 from my expected result.Thus, we see that even though the total standard deviation grows (from $1 for one game to $10 for 100 games), my standard deviation per game has decreased (from $1 for one game to $0.10 per game for 100 games).Now the nice thing of having a positive EV is that in the end, EV will outrun standard deviation. Say that for this game, I have an EV of $0.25 per game. Then after playing one game, the standard deviation per game is four times what I expect to win, so very often, I will lose instead of win. On the other hand, after 100 games, the standard deviation per game is smaller than my EV per game, so for the vast majority of the time, I will be up.Thus, after 100 games, my expected "swing" from average will be about $10, but I will expect to have made $25, so no matter the direction of the swing, I will most likely still be up. Thus, the total "swing" increases, it just gets outrun by the EV because that one increases even more. Or vice versa, the total swing per game decreases until it gets below the EV.Now if we have an EV of exactly zero, it will of course never outrun the swing. That is, my swing per game still decreases, but the thing you should really be interested in is your total swing in this case, since there is no EV that will in the end compensate for your swings. Thus, you will drift away from zero more and more - the good news is just that the chance of drifting away upwards is as large as the chance of drifting away downwards. :)Well, those were a lot of words... I'm not sure if they clarified anything, but I hope they did.

[JaNnN]

<(^_*)> OUCH THAT HURT MY HEAD.But yeah, not beeing into numbers as you clearly are. Just applying some rational thought reading the text, it does make sense.

[southsidepoker]

Flipping in poker is the same as flipping coins, if you are that big of a fkn nit that you would be afraid to do this I don't understand how you ever touched a deck of cards to begin with. What if you got a papercut?