POKER MATHS

[jasondavies]

I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain in PLUS +EV situations for the remainder of my career, whos with me?

 

[Jack Daniels]

Are you Toadly masquerading as another one of our members?

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

what the hell

 

[Welly]

An infinately better solution is to start a new ID and only play freerolls....as soon as you win anything you will have an infinate ROI%, which is infinately better than 99.97% of poker players.

 

[KerouacsDog]

I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain in PLUS +EV situations for the remainder of my career, whos with me?

Im sorry, what language is this?

 

[jasondavies]

mmmm, i guess you guys are not up to scratch with your poker math, and welly, extremely good point, thanks for the heads up

 

[Kenzie 96]

Mike Madasow used this reasoning & ended up spending several months in prison. Not sure if he had the nickname Mike the Mouth before he went down. :icon_sant

 

[KerouacsDog]

Mike Madasow used this reasoning & ended up spending several months in prison. Not sure if he had the nickname Mike the Mouth before he went down. :icon_sant

too funny, +rep!

 

[blankoblanco]

I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain in PLUS +EV situations for the remainder of my career, whos with me?

*head explodes*

 

[jasondavies]

*head explodes*

Yeah its tough when your new to poker to truly get a good firm grip on the maths behind winning poker, you guys are just lucky its christmas time and im sharing possibly the biggest secret in poker, and if your asking yourself, is it really a secret, then ask your self if you had ever heard of PLUS +EV before, if so, then you already know the super sytem, if not, study it and follow it to the letter,

also, if you only play freerolls, as an advanced theory to what welly said you will never have a negative ROI%, wich is great for your rep

stay in school, eat your greens, and dont do drugs

 

[Debi]

Yeah its tough when your new to poker to truly get a good firm grip on the maths behind winning poker, you guys are just lucky its christmas time and im sharing possibly the biggest secret in poker, and if your asking yourself, is it really a secret, then ask your self if you had ever heard of PLUS +EV before, if so, then you already know the super sytem, if not, study it and follow it to the letter,

also, if you only play freerolls, as an advanced theory to what welly said you will never have a negative ROI%, wich is great for your rep

stay in school, eat your greens, and dont do drugs

Ohhh - somehow I don't think the guys will take this lying down!

 

[Lo-Dog]

I think Dorkus has new fodder for his sig.

 

[KerouacsDog]

Is this a serious post, btw. Only ask, cause I still can't work out the opening thread, and I read a book once, so I consider myself intelligent(my IQ is in double figures............)

 

[shinedown.45]

I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain in PLUS +EV situations for the remainder of my career, whos with me?

Its poker dude, not rocket science and if there's a valid point for all the numbers, is there a way to break it down some so that the novice players( me included) could understand it better?
Greatly appreciated.

 

[AnnoDomino]

i'm with ya

 

[Jack Daniels]

JD checks his watch...hmmm....WTF? Still waiting on a Dorkus response to this thread.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Umm this is like the world's most obvious joke topic ever.

I can't decide whether it's funny or not - but I think as usual with joke topics the funniest thing about it is the people taking it seriously.

 

[Jack Daniels]

Umm this is like the world's most obvious joke topic ever.

I can't decide whether it's funny or not - but I think as usual with joke topics the funniest thing about it is the people taking it seriously.

So does that mean you won't be replying?

 

[jasondavies]

So does that mean you won't be replying?

VERY FUNNY

 

[jasondavies]

actually dorkus, I was terribly bored so i thought id make a joke topic about all the maths talk that can dribble out of peoples mouths at times, and teh insiration of this is your 2 remarks from toadly, so i thankyou

 

[shinedown.45]

Originally Posted by Toadly
When you win 66% of teh time playing with 33% of you bank roll puts you in no danger

actually dorkus, I was terribly bored so i thought id make a joke topic about all the maths talk that can dribble out of peoples mouths at times, and teh insiration of this is your 2 remarks from toadly, so i thankyou


It is toadly or the teh mistake is all a coincidence.

 

[bubbasbestbabe]

I was doing some math.
If won 100% of the sessions i played, but only played with 33% of my bankroll (BR) during 66% of those sessions and 50% during a further 80% of sessions, my -EV would be negated and therefore turned into PLUS +EV (only top players have PLUS +EV) only if i was to use the 33.6 BB rule as a rule of thumb when buying into 66% of my sessions with over 88.5% of my BR invested in any given pot, on any given table, given that it was a NL ring game and not a tournament that cost a little over 13% of my BR in entry fees, where I would need a further 19.75% equity to continue past the first hour with a rate of 313 BB/hr and a ROI% a little over 23 during weekdays taking into account the fold equity I would get through implied odds from the donks.
Now, as a result to all this, I have decided that from now on, as a rule of thumb, I ill only buy into a tourney if its free to enter, and will only be playing on a cash table for play money, this way my losses are at a minimum and I remain in PLUS +EV situations for the remainder of my career, whos with me?

Very funny. Boy it's pretty bad when a blonde gets this and the rest of you don't

 

[shinedown.45]

I was just completely confused, and I guess if it doesn't make sense its just plain trash.

 

[Jack Daniels]

teh
teh
It is toadly or the teh mistake is all a coincidence.

Busted!!! LOL

 

[jasondavies]

lol, it could seem busted, but assure i am not toadly, HONEST, i am an index finger typer who types to fast for my own good, and as a result i am constantly typein the teh, but if you look at my personal info im sure you will see i am not toadly, but nice pick up anyway, just shows how very easy it could be to be wrongly accused of something and have very little chance of defending yourself, imagine being framed, WOW, that would be nearly as bad as drowning or burnig to death