Jump to content


revolutionary idea


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

Poll: Agree or disagree with the following idea? (0 member(s) have cast votes)

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 24 February 2005 - 03:54 PM

jayboogie said:

you obviously don't understand the concept that you have to lose to suckouts in order to make money.
No, I don't understand how losing money makes money...care to fill me in?

#42 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 24 February 2005 - 03:56 PM

UglyJimStudly said:

JFarrell20 said:

Protect the quality players so we don't have people like Varkonyi winning the d.amn WSOP.
Quality players don't need protection, they win despite occasionally taking bad beats. The reason the "logic" of your position isn't getting much respect is because disguised bad beat stories aren't a particularly logical basis for rule changes.
First of all, if you are calling this hand a "Bad beat", then you are admitting that, and thus proving my point that it doesn't protect the better players.Yes quality players win despite "bad beats" (which I never called this hand once), but they will win at a greater rate when there's less luck involved. You guys are all just a bunch of gamblers.

#43 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 24 February 2005 - 04:01 PM

You guys are acting like a fish will fold a set of queens when the board reads AKQQ5. A fish will not fold this hand even if he thinks someone had AK pre-flop. Don't worry about that. Fish will get lucky against other fish. Why let them get lucky against you? The only difference here is that good players will be less likely to play on when say, they have Q 3 in the BB and the flop comes 3 J K...because hitting another 3 may not help you, if you put an opponent on KJ. big F-in deal. So you have to lay down a crappy pair. I'd probably lay this down 95% of the time anyway. The good news is, you wont have to worry when playing a limit game when you have AK and the flop comes AK292, and some dude from the big blind flips over 2 4. I just don't get why you guys like that..

#44 AKQJs_2o

AKQJs_2o

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 72 posts

Posted 24 February 2005 - 05:37 PM

JFarrell20 said:

You guys are acting like a fish will fold a set of queens when the board reads AKQQ5. A fish will not fold this hand even if he thinks someone had AK pre-flop.
Two points -1) If a guy with AK pre-flop is dumb enough to let me draw so cheaply that I make QQQxx in the hand above, and if I then put him on AK in the hole (probably because he messes his pants when the Q comes on the turn and I bet at him) then yes, call me a fish, but I'm going to play my QQQxx against his perceived AAKKx. The last time I checked QQQxx beats AAKKx.2) We almost have something in common - your favorite hands are my favorite hole cards.

#45 The Ace of Jades

The Ace of Jades

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • Location:Peoria Heights, Ill

Posted 24 February 2005 - 05:53 PM

You know, ghotti, I think you're on to something. Maybe we can call it hold em, since you are indeed holding the card, and just drop what we call "hold em" now. Who wants to play that anyways?This thread has gone on long enough. You obviously aren't smart enough to understand that this would be a very dumb idea, proven by you calling us dumb for not "understanding".No, we understand. You don't.

#46 UglyJimStudly

UglyJimStudly

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 499 posts

Posted 24 February 2005 - 07:07 PM

JFarrell20 said:

First of all, if you are calling this hand a "Bad beat", then you are admitting that, and thus proving my point that it doesn't protect the better players.
I'm calling it a bad beat story because that's exactly what it is. That you have chosen this form of whining about it was amusing for almost three whole seconds, but then it got old. And you haven't shown that any good player would be protected - only some guy who whines about bad beats.

#47 Guest_XXEddie_*

Guest_XXEddie_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2005 - 07:46 PM

so your saying two pairs should beat trips......

#48 Jtmaroon84

Jtmaroon84

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 186 posts
  • Location:Hyde Park, Chicago
  • Interests:Uhhhh, poker? Economics, Law...Yeah, I know this is all fun stuff :-)

Posted 24 February 2005 - 07:57 PM

I'm happy to see that nobody voted to have 2 pair beat 3 of a kind. This is a funny idea but it probably the worst one I have every heard :-)
"Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser"
-Stu Ungar

#49 jayboogie

jayboogie

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,493 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 24 February 2005 - 09:58 PM

JFarrell20 said:

jayboogie said:

you obviously don't understand the concept that you have to lose to suckouts in order to make money.
No, I don't understand how losing money makes money...care to fill me in?
It's fairly obvious. If your a 80% favorite, you should expect to get sucked out on 1 in 5 hands, which means the other 4 hands you will be winning money when your hand holds up and lose money the 1 time your hand doesn't. Now, tell me this, do you want somebody calling you down with 24 when you have Aces and Kings and it holds up? Well obviously, so you should be able to handle the small percentage of the time they suck out. If you don't get the fish calling you down as a 20% underdog, you will make less profit in the long term. If your rule was instituted, then the fish would fold their hand knowing they can not win, since they can't hit their miracle cards for a set. The only reason fish stay in a hand when they're behind is because they have the possibility of sucking out, if this opportunity was gone, they would no longer chase.

#50 The Ace of Jades

The Ace of Jades

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • Location:Peoria Heights, Ill

Posted 24 February 2005 - 11:01 PM

What about three pair? That would be a much better rule. You would have had aces over kings over dueces. A hell of a hand indeed.

#51 JaysonWeber

JaysonWeber

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 3,665 posts
  • Location:Green Bay
  • Interests:Poker, who woulda thought.

Posted 24 February 2005 - 11:15 PM

I think everyone is pretty much on the same side with this one... lol.

#52 KDawgCometh

KDawgCometh

    old skool

  • Members
  • 15,174 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bebop
  • Interests:poker(duh), soccer, football, rugby, music, and film

Posted 25 February 2005 - 12:10 AM

Comic Book guy says....worst idea ever

#53 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 25 February 2005 - 07:10 AM

AKQJs_2o said:

1) If a guy with AK pre-flop is dumb enough to let me draw so cheaply that I make QQQxx .
...which is why I said it would help primarily in a limit game. NL isn't all we play here, buddy. This will come up much less often in no limit as you have the ability to jam the pot more with two high pairs.

#54 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 25 February 2005 - 07:17 AM

jayboogie said:

If you don't get the fish calling you down as a 20% underdog, you will make less profit in the long term. If your rule was instituted, then the fish would fold their hand knowing they can not win, since they can't hit their miracle cards for a set.
Thanks for a civil point Jay. The only reason a fish would fold 9 2 when the board reads Q A 9 9 _ is if he 'put' you on AQ pre-flop. Remember, only two overpairs can beat trips, and only if two of the 3-of-a-kind are on the community. He or she (the fish) will still play trips this way. A good player has a slightly better ability to put somone on a pre-flop hand, and therefore, would be less likely to play trip 9's on this board...Advantage: Players with better reading skillsDisadvantage: Fish (still)

#55 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 25 February 2005 - 07:21 AM

The Ace of Jades said:

What about three pair? That would be a much better rule. You would have had aces over kings over dueces. A hell of a hand indeed.
That is related to this idea, but not where I got it from.When you hold AK and flop comes A K 4 4 8, the 4's are worthless to you. However, they help a guy with 2 4. I just don't see how this protects the better hand? I'm not saying to call this "three pairs". I still want to use only 5 cards, but I want to protect the stronger (in this case) pre-flop hand.EDIT: Maybe I haven't proven yet how this will help the better players (us forum members, hopefully), but you guys have not proven how it will hurt good players. The only pure argument here would be that you guys don't want to "change the game", which I totally understand. I consider myself a purist and I'm not out to "change the game", but I also consider myself a good player, and this is a money game...therefore, if I can devise a way to protect the better players against fish, then why not? What's the problem?? If you guys are truly good this will help you.

#56 rusmac31

rusmac31

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 250 posts
  • Location:DALLAS

Posted 25 February 2005 - 08:32 AM

Just by proposing this silly, silly idea...you've probably lost any and all credibility in this forum as any kind of skilled poker player.Quit trying to make a name for yourself...I believe it's called "Smash envy"Aarrgghh...and I've wasted precious moments of my life reading this ridiculous post...BABY ARM AND NO FUNERAL

#57 dms26

dms26

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 21,900 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2005 - 08:58 AM

I think you should head to Vegas during the WSOP and explain your ideas, it's sure to be in the 2006 rotation. Probably right after the $5000 NL Old Maid Championship

#58 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 25 February 2005 - 09:29 AM

rusmac31 said:

Just by proposing this silly, silly idea...you've probably lost any and all credibility in this forum as any kind of skilled poker player.Quit trying to make a name for yourself...I believe it's called "Smash envy"Aarrgghh...and I've wasted precious moments of my life reading this ridiculous post...BABY ARM AND NO FUNERAL
WTF?! This is the second time you've berated me in here rusmac. First for my NL skills (or lack thereof in your eyes), and now for this?! Smash Envy!? WTF?So now if somone posts any kind of idea on here, it's dubbed "smash envy"? You are a jacka$$.BABY ARM AND NO FUNERAL!? WTF.BTW, I haven't seen you on party poker rusmac, but when I do, we will play eachother. You are on my buddy list, I just don't know why you're scared to go there now. It's not like it's 3pm at the playground. btw, how does posting an idea mean I'm not a skilled player?When your mom gave you the idea of wearing your underwear on the inside of your pants, that didn't make her a bad mom.

#59 jayistheman

jayistheman

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,815 posts
  • Location:philly
  • Interests:billiards, poker, sleep, software development, videogames, fly fishing, hiking, camping

Posted 25 February 2005 - 09:37 AM

i hit agree just cuz it was so one-sided

#60 JFarrell20

JFarrell20

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts
  • Location:Houston

Posted 25 February 2005 - 11:30 AM

jayistheman said:

i hit agree just cuz it was so one-sided
Damn, I thought someone was finally catching on.. you guys will come around after a few more days. Don't be mad just because I came up with the idea before you guys. It's called "JFarrell20 envy", you'll get used to it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users