Here's a hand that looks fishy (rigged) guys

I must be stupid because I do not see your email address under your comments.  I only see the URL for your blog and a spreadsheet.

I posted my email address under the comments on my page.  Could you go look at it and contact me instead since I am too stupid to find yours?

ok

haha i dont see urs either

just email me

chancepayne100@msn.com

I got a return email saying that email address is no good and it was undeliverable.

oops osrry its chancepayne1002@msn.com

srry dude 1002

but then theres rthese fucking donkeys lol



Full Tilt Poker Game #23245834233: $50 + $2.50 Heads Up Sit & Go (179664669), Table 1 - 25/50 - No Limit Hold'em - 03:05:46 ET - 2010/08/21
Seat 1: Floppy McShove (3,425)
Seat 2: bchslapper (2,575)
bchslapper posts the small blind of 25
Floppy McShove posts the big blind of 50
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Floppy McShove [Ad Ac]
bchslapper calls 25
Floppy McShove raises to 150
bchslapper calls 100
*** FLOP *** [Qh 3d 3c]
Floppy McShove checks
bchslapper bets 200
Floppy McShove calls 200
*** TURN *** [Qh 3d 3c] [8s]
Floppy McShove checks
bchslapper bets 325
Floppy McShove raises to 750
bchslapper raises to 1,175
Floppy McShove raises to 3,075, and is all in
bchslapper has 15 seconds left to act
bchslapper calls 1,050, and is all in
Floppy McShove shows [Ad Ac]
bchslapper shows [Tc 4d]
Uncalled bet of 850 returned to Floppy McShove
*** RIVER *** [Qh 3d 3c 8s] [6s]
Floppy McShove shows two pair, Aces and Threes
bchslapper shows a pair of Threes
Floppy McShove wins the pot (5,150) with two pair, Aces and Threes
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 5,150 | Rake 0
Board: [Qh 3d 3c 8s 6s]
Seat 1: Floppy McShove (big blind) showed [Ad Ac] and won (5,150) with two pair, Aces and Threes
Seat 2: bchslapper (small blind) showed [Tc 4d] and lost with a pair of Threes

Here this is MUCH easier to read



Full Tilt Poker $50 + $2.50 Heads Up No Limit Hold'em Tournament - t25/t50 Blinds - 2 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

Hero (BB): t3425 68.50 BBs
BTN/SB: t2575 51.50 BBs

Pre Flop: (t75) Hero is BB with A A
BTN/SB calls t25, Hero raises to t150, BTN/SB calls t100

Flop: (t300) Q 3 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN/SB bets t200, Hero calls t200

Turn: (t700) 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN/SB bets t325, Hero raises to t750, BTN/SB raises to t1175, Hero raises to t3075 all in, BTN/SB calls t1050 all in

River: (t5150) 6 (2 players - 2 are all in)

didnt turn out like id like but whatever

dudes name was the BCHSLAPPER lol

 

wow lol just blantantly admitting your Chance P .. I like your style

oh i already did long ago lol

Electricladylnd

here's one for the conpiracy theorists...

yesterday i played Omaha Hi on Rush Poker for many hours... played about as well as i've ever played, and had my worst day of gambling ever...

at one point, i have been All-In 8 times after the flop... all 8 times i had the better hand, with anywhere between 60-90% chance of winning... all 8 times i lost the pot on the river... i calculated the odds of that happening to be roughly 6000:1, based on the average odds of winning each hand when i went All-In...

to make it even more ridiculous... i ended up going All-In 12 times total, for the day... all 12 were post-flop (mostly post-turn)... 10 times i had the lead, 2 times i was trailing... in all 12 hands, whoever was in the lead after the All-In lost the hand on the river...

odds of this happening:  500,000:1...

WTF!

earlier I was out and about and got a boner and had to tuck it up in my shorts waistband. Im so versatile

I'm pretty sure you're calculating in the gambler's fallacy.  one hand doesn't remember the last hand.  so you're 6000 to one isn't accurate.  You had a 60% chance to win the first hand.  Then everything is reset, and you have a 60% chance to win the second.  The deck doesn't remember what happened the hand before.  sucks, but you didn't just hit the bad end of a 500,000 to 1.  you just had several occurances of losing 3-1, 4-1, and 5-1's.  just because you lose two 3-1's in a row, your chances of winning the next 3-1 don't change.  it's still 3-1

If the story is even true. Somehow 3-4 always ends up being 10-12 by the time it hits the messageboard

the story is 100% true... i was there!  i wouldn't have posted if it was 3 or 4...

and Gunners... you are completey wrong with your calculations... you are thinking of the odds of the 8th happening after 7 have already happened... i am talking about the odds of all 8 happening... i don't even know what to say about how bad your math is...

if you flip 8 coins, tell me, what are the odds of all 8 coins landing heads up?  according to your statement, you would say 50%...

in your 8 coin flip example, the odds of 8 heads coming up are exactly the same as 4 heads and then 4 tails, or heads/tails/heads/tails/heads/tails/heads/tails.  They are statistically independent.  my point is, that if you have 7 heads in a row, what's the chances that the 8th will be heads?  it will be 50%.  the coin doesn't care what just happened the last 7 times.  That's the gamblers fallacy.  there is no greater chance the next time that it will be tails because it was just heads 7 times in a row.  it's 50/50 every time.  runs happen, runs don't.  it just doesn't matter.  the coin doesn't remember.  neither does the deck.  you are talking about the gamblers fallacy. 

Short sequences of random events are not reflective of what happens in the long run. 

You had a worse run because your hands weren't 50/50 at the start.  however, if you pile in ALL the hands you played (you didn't only play those 8 hands, you played MANY HOURS worth of hands), then i promise you what happened to you wasn't that far from standard.  i'm sure you raised with AQKJ once and everyone folded.  normal occurance that you excluded from your data to make it seem like you were on the bad end of beats.  But i'm sure you won plenty of hands and lost plenty of hands, whether you were ahead or behind.  you're consistent variable of "being all in" isn't worth anything for your odds calculations.  You can also have the consistent variable of having your fingers crossed or rubbing your lucky rabbit's foot during a hand.  if you played 8 hands, and 8 hands only, and what happened to you happened to you, then maybe i can agree with your odds calculations.  otherwise, it's just a specific culling of hands to try to prove your point. 

well, first... i understand that if you get heads 7 times, it doesn't change the probability of getting it the 8th time... but i am talking about the odds of getting heads all 8 times... similar to the odds of losing on the river 8 out of 8 times, when you were better than a coin flip in all 8 instances...

second, i don't raise with shit hands while playing Omaha... i wait until i know i feel strongly that i have the better hand and get the other guy all-in... trust me, i've played this game for a long time... if you isolate those 8 hands (the only 8 hands that i was laying for up to that point), and looked at the odds at the point of going all-in (either post-flop or post-turn), and then calculated the odds that i would lose all 8 of those hands (let alone losing all 8 on the river), you would find that it is ridiculously improbable...

third, i did not just randomly choose 8 hands... those were the 8 hands that i put any considerable money at risk... i understand it is hard to believe this example is true, but it is... even if you pooled in all of the other hands i had played to any extent (up to that point), you would only figure in about 4 other hands, all for small amounts of money... so i use those specific 8 hands because those were the 8 hands i was truly playing... all other hands were fold hands if i was pressed for any serious action...