Re:Dunno - newbie pack is formidible
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Suppose you start with the best possible cards - AA.
Newbies around the table hold bullshit-crap
Someone is going to get two pair out of the board. You have to hope for another ace or a pair on the board. If that pair does show up, it likely gives trip-bullshit to one of the 7 implacable newbs.
Your question does not have a short answer.
AA is not as good as you think. If all 9 of your opponents stayed in til the river card, it would only win 30% of the time! Granted, your odds before the flop are better than anyone elses, but this means that there are on average seven people sitting at the table that would beat you if they stayed in.
You shouldn't think of yourself as entitled to win that hand, you should try to maximize your value when you win it.
In a tournament setting, going all in with AA pre flop can be a pretty good move, but it's not always how you should play it. Just make a big raise to try to get some people out, and if you have a big re-raiser, then consider going all in.
Having a few punters call your big bet is not a bad thing. It means that the times you do win the hand, you will win more money on average as a result.
Of course, it's not that simple in a tournament, because you also must take your relative stack size into account. If there are still 2500 people in the tournament, someone has a stack ten times your size at the table, you might want to think twice about pushing your advantage too hard. You should almost never fold AA pre flop (though there are very very very rare situations where it is a good idea), but AA is only an 87% winner against a random hand.
Your goal in a proportional payout (pays out to x place, as opposed to a winner-take-all) tournament is to survive as long as possible, NOT to press every little advantage to the limit. This means that, while you must be aggressive, you don't want to risk all your chips early on if you can help it.
In some tournaments (particularly online), you could probably outlast half the field just by folding every hand. Realize this, and take some risks, but try skate your way to the final table, not bludgeon your way there.
In a winner take all tournament, the gloves are off, and you *should* play every little edge to the maximum. This means that you will lose early a lot, but also that you will win more often than you should.
It's hard for me to sit back and only play the nuts. That's why I lose
Change that!
Think about it this way, would you rather win money or see action? You can't do both consistently.
You might find it boring at first, but over time as you see your bankroll get bigger, you will start to enjoy sitting back and waiting for the hands, because you will know that you are likely to walk away from the table with a pocket of extra cash.
Simple advice from Brett Maverick
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Probably the most important poker advice I've ever gotten came from a book called "Bret Maverick Teaches Poker". It's a little dated and doesn't have Texas hold'em if I recall, but it is a very solid poker book.
This is the advice:
Never enter into a hand if you don't have a fighting hand to start with.
Never continue playing when you are beat showing.
Often you should overplay your weak hands (but this does not change rule one)
Often you should underplay your strong hands.
Some may object that this gives weak players a chance to draw out on you (to beat you against the odds) because you let them stay in. I reply that it is a question of how *much* you win when you win that makes you successful, not how many *times* you win.
Hold'em is a slightly different story if there are ten people at the table, but the basic concept applies.
Yes, bet your premium hands. Just don't necessarily give away your hand strength by doing so. If you can let the other guy do the raising when you have him beat by long odds, you will make more profit more often.
Conversely, if you are sitting in a Hold'em game in late position and you are thinking about limping in (entering the hand for the minimum bet) with an A-10 offsuit, think about raising the pot instead (doubling the amount of money in the pot). The fewer people in that hand, the more likely you are to win it.
This simple advice has helped make me a winning player for a long time now.
PokerSchoolOnline.com is where I play. You pay $15 a month, and you play for (essentially) monopoly money. However, because it is a pay site, you can expect to face very strong copetition.
Also, you can win a buy-in to any physical poker tournament of your choosing if you play well enough (though I have not won any sponsorship points yet, it's pretty difficult).
Plus they have content from poker pros that is very worthwhile. It's worth a one month subscription for the Mike Caro articles alone.
The worst part is that they play SO badly and it seems like you should be able to wipe them up. Thing is, if they never fold, they end up filling in gut-shot straights, or catching a couple runners to make a flush. Grr.
If you cannot beat the newbs consistently, no matter how many of them there are, you've no business playing the game.
Repeat after me: good players get more bad beats because they only tend to enter the game with very premium hands. Good players make more money over time than bad.
You simply have to alter your strategy to deal with loose players and they are your bread and butter. You should be very friendly and encouraging to loose callers because they're like little trees of money.
No, you face a much worse threat from a tight aggressive player.
There are a couple of different stereo 3d shutter glasses that work for games on your computer which are already 3d, like quake3 or unreal.
They work by cutting the effective frame rate in half, and rendering each frame twice from a different perspective, and flashing the image into each eye on alternate frames.
Not sure if I explained that very well, but I've seen the "Revelator" (now defunct) in action, and I must say the results, while not perfect, are very impressive.
My key point, however, is the claim that super-intelligent AI systems will be the inevitable result of faster computers was wrong when it was first made in the 1960's, was wrong when it was made again in the late 1970's in all manner of popular books, was wrong when Kurzweil made it in the 1990's, and it's still wrong now.
But you're ascribing a position to me that I didn't take. My position is better stated thus: advances in hardware *and* advances in AI research will lead to the first super intelligent computer. We've made some progress since the 60s. For instance, for a long time, neural net models did not take the time to propogate a connection as a factor in the equations. Adding that factor has improved voice recognition tremendously.
Furthermore, even if Penrose was right about the nature of consciousness, it doesn't necessarily need to conscious to be smart.
Are you familiar with the Church-Turing thesis? Basically, every alternative computing formulation we've been able to come up with computes exactly the same set of functions as conventional computers.
Okay. Full disclosure: IAACS (I am a computer scientist).
I'm not sure I grok your argument. Are you implying that the church-turing hypopthesis somehow precludes an intelligent machine?
Note that I did NOT say that the only thing that we need is large-fast-holographic storage. Clearly we will need an advance in AI as well.
Basically what I'm getting at is that we will get to the point someday soon when we can model the entire human brain electronically. We might not even need to understand how it works to have a smart computer. If we just treat it like a black box, that may be enough.
If your argument is that we have the technology now to implement an intelligent computer, well, you may be right. I'm just thinking it will be easier when we have the power to model the entire brain.
If your argument is that we won't be able to do it because we haven't done it already, I don't see how that conclusion follows from your premise.
Fusion@Home would probably have enough power now. Writing the software to design it though - thats the challenge.
The tech doesn't quite exist for what I'm talking about. I don't just mean a brute force attack solution, I mean an engineer AI.
The next step in AI has been just around the corner for a long time too. In many ways it's the equivalent of cold fusion for computers. I see evidence that we're getting there. We've taught leeches to do math, and we've made some giant leaps in neural net research. I think that once we have fast, large holographic storage, it will only be a short time before we have a strong general purpose AI, and after that the sky is the absolute limit. The world 100 years from today will be either missing, or completely unrecognizable.:)
I think there is a lot of work being done in various scientific disciplines that will need to come together to give us our first "sentient" computer. I think we will need to invent a new natural language that the computer will speak. English doesn't cut it, too vague, subtle and filled with ambiguities, and the same goes for pretty much every natural language (including esperanto). Your language really limits the thoughts you can have (learn a couple more languages and you'll see what I mean). We'll need a linguistics genius and a computer genius to formulate the language. Once we have the language, the computer will have to be given an education, just like a human would, starting out just by talking to it, leading up to a formal instruction in mathmatics, physics, and so on. We could even teach it English later on when it gets "smarter", but I have a strong feeling that trying to start out with a classical natural language will not work.
Yes, I know about the encyclopedia project. It doesn't work and it won't work. They will never have a machine that "thinks", but they may have a machine that is good with analogies, and could carry on a simple conversation someday (though from what I've read, even that is dubious). I think their first mistake is that they tried to teach it english.
Anyway, that's my rant. I'm excited for what the future holds.
So 50 or 60 years before we have an electricity producing fusion plant.
Careful predicting, you never know with technology. 50-60 years is a LONG time. Before then we may have a computer that could design such a plant in its spare time, leaving us monkeys just the job of implementing it.
The destruction and damage of buildings at much greater ranges than this which occurred was due to the effects of atmospheric focusing, an unpredictable but unavoidable phenomenon
Errr.... I think it could be avoided if you didn't go around TESTING 100 MEGATON BOMBS!
Moore has been doing movies for more than a decade now. Do I think that assume that in a movie industry of creators and distributors that millions for creation equal millions for distribution because he "thought" so. Come on now - Moore isn't that incompetant to go on a hunch.
Well, a contract to do so, plus 6 million dollars is one hell of a hunch.
On the other hand, to play devil's advocate for a moment, as soon as I found out Miramax was doing Moore's next film, I said to myself "Self, that will never work out.":)
Yeah, but take your argument clearly - are you saying that Disney have an obligation to distribute it.
Apparently they don't have a contractual obligation to do so, or Moore would be taking the legal route.
No, I'm not saying they have an "obligation" but they actually tried originally to bury the film, and disallow Moore from getting anyone else to distribute it either. That's clearly censorship and I was responding to the ridiculous idea that only the government can be a censor.
The only wrath that Disney was going to encounter had it distributed the movie would have been legions of angry people voluntarily refusing to do business with Disney or any of its affiliates
Ummm.... actually their stated reason for not distributing the film is political fallout in florida, given that Jeb Bush is governor there and that's where the big theme park is. Boycotters were probably not even a factor. Did you read the fine article?
And then liberals wonder why no one takes them seriously...
Again, I'm going to ask what planet you live on.
Which liberals are wondering that no one takes them seriously? A lot of people take them very seriously. Obviously, Disney is taking Moore seriously, or they wouldn't refuse to distribute the film.
In your fantasy world, I suppose that liberals just go around saying stuff that no one takes seriously, and everybody really knows that it's the stand up guys like Bush who have the facts on their side.
Last time I checked, Disney was not a governmental agency...
Last time I checked, censorship was not confined to governmental agencies. Lessee here, dictionary.com says:
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
5. Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.
Okay, where is the requirement that it be a government agency to be defined as censorship?
Now, did they bury the product altogether, so that noone can see the movie? No, because it can still be seen, and obviously winning awards.
Actually, originally they announced they would block distribution of the movie altogether. They have since backed off of that position.
Even Moore himself admitted that he knew for over a year Disney wasn't going to distribute his film
I love out of context quotations.
Yes, Michael Moore knew that Eisner had a problem with the movie.
However, they continued to give him money, to the tune of 6 million dollars after Eisner had already voiced his displeasure. Your article ignores that fact and instead publishes only the disney friendly propaganda.
Don't you think that contributing 6 million dollars is sort of, well, showing support for the movie? Is it really that insane that MM thought the movie would go ahead as planned after he got 6 million more dollars for it?
Disney choosing to not distribute Moore's work is not censorship.
OMFG, ROTGLMFAO.
What is it then? Syrup? Oooh, yes! It's syrup!
Of course it's censorship. It just isn't (exactly) government censorship (although it comes close, given that Disney says the reason for not distributing the film was a political consideration).
What galaxy do you live in, and in what cluster. Apparently the drugs are good there.
Definition of irony: Michael Moore bringing light to acts of brutaility by US soldiers and then railing against the Second Amendment in the same brath.
First of all, how is that ironic? Why are those ideas mutually exclusive?
Secondly, when exactly did he "rail against the second amendment"?
He's a gun owner. He doesn't believe the government should take all the guns away. Sounds to me like you're taking a very simplistic approach to his work rather than deal with it on the merits. It's pretty easy to build up that strawman and tear it down. Real criticism is difficult.
I actually consider myself conservative in most ways, but I find myself diametrically opposed to those in power who call themselves conservative, and I agree strongly with many (but certainly not all!) of the ideas espoused by those tarred with the epithet "liberal."
I've been waiting to hear this for a long time. I'm a liberal, through and through, but I can quite understand many of the conservative ideals. It's just that the people in power not only don't live up to their supposed conservative ideals, they often do the exact opposite!
Given the right circumstances, I could definitely vote for a true conservative.
There just seems to not be any. Don't get me wrong, there are jerks on the left too, but it seems to me that as a group, the lefties actually adhere to their own principles, and even follow some of the good conservative principles that the conservatives only pay lip service to (when was the last time a so-called "fiscal responsibility conservative" had a balanced budget, or even *close* to a balanced budget?)
The Feds sent a message to Greenpeace, clean up your trespassing act.
Boloney. The message that was sent was "We don't care about the people violating environmental protections, but we're willing to bend the law to go after you".
But two crimes were being committed in the very close vicinity of the boat.
My point was that a small crime committed at the same time as a large crime shouldn't be overlooked.
Well, sure, and if the justice department had just gone the traditional route of arresting and charging the two activists, that would be one thing. I would still complain about arresting the peaceful protesters and doing nothing about the illegal logging (!), but you would have a point. However, wasting tax dollars to enforce a law that didn't apply to the situation to try to indict the whole organization of Greenpeace just goes beyond the pale.
Also, when you said the protesters should be prosecuted, you didn't say the illegal loggers should be prosecuted as well (they weren't).
It's like a cop seeing that someone is going 90mph in a residential zone, so the cop arrests a jaywalker and lets the speeder go. The justice department then indicts the company that the jaywalker works for using a 100 year old bootlegging law. What kind of sense does that make? It is almost comical it is so ridiculous, but I can't laugh because it's real.
Slashdot Mirror
Newbies around the table hold bullshit-crap
Someone is going to get two pair out of the board. You have to hope for another ace or a pair on the board. If that pair does show up, it likely gives trip-bullshit to one of the 7 implacable newbs.
Your question does not have a short answer. AA is not as good as you think. If all 9 of your opponents stayed in til the river card, it would only win 30% of the time! Granted, your odds before the flop are better than anyone elses, but this means that there are on average seven people sitting at the table that would beat you if they stayed in.
You shouldn't think of yourself as entitled to win that hand, you should try to maximize your value when you win it.
In a tournament setting, going all in with AA pre flop can be a pretty good move, but it's not always how you should play it. Just make a big raise to try to get some people out, and if you have a big re-raiser, then consider going all in.
Having a few punters call your big bet is not a bad thing. It means that the times you do win the hand, you will win more money on average as a result.
Of course, it's not that simple in a tournament, because you also must take your relative stack size into account. If there are still 2500 people in the tournament, someone has a stack ten times your size at the table, you might want to think twice about pushing your advantage too hard. You should almost never fold AA pre flop (though there are very very very rare situations where it is a good idea), but AA is only an 87% winner against a random hand.
Your goal in a proportional payout (pays out to x place, as opposed to a winner-take-all) tournament is to survive as long as possible, NOT to press every little advantage to the limit. This means that, while you must be aggressive, you don't want to risk all your chips early on if you can help it.
In some tournaments (particularly online), you could probably outlast half the field just by folding every hand. Realize this, and take some risks, but try skate your way to the final table, not bludgeon your way there.
In a winner take all tournament, the gloves are off, and you *should* play every little edge to the maximum. This means that you will lose early a lot, but also that you will win more often than you should.
Change that!
Think about it this way, would you rather win money or see action? You can't do both consistently.
You might find it boring at first, but over time as you see your bankroll get bigger, you will start to enjoy sitting back and waiting for the hands, because you will know that you are likely to walk away from the table with a pocket of extra cash.
This is the advice:
Some may object that this gives weak players a chance to draw out on you (to beat you against the odds) because you let them stay in. I reply that it is a question of how *much* you win when you win that makes you successful, not how many *times* you win.
Hold'em is a slightly different story if there are ten people at the table, but the basic concept applies.
Yes, bet your premium hands. Just don't necessarily give away your hand strength by doing so. If you can let the other guy do the raising when you have him beat by long odds, you will make more profit more often.
Conversely, if you are sitting in a Hold'em game in late position and you are thinking about limping in (entering the hand for the minimum bet) with an A-10 offsuit, think about raising the pot instead (doubling the amount of money in the pot). The fewer people in that hand, the more likely you are to win it.
This simple advice has helped make me a winning player for a long time now.
Also, you can win a buy-in to any physical poker tournament of your choosing if you play well enough (though I have not won any sponsorship points yet, it's pretty difficult).
Plus they have content from poker pros that is very worthwhile. It's worth a one month subscription for the Mike Caro articles alone.
If you cannot beat the newbs consistently, no matter how many of them there are, you've no business playing the game.
Repeat after me: good players get more bad beats because they only tend to enter the game with very premium hands. Good players make more money over time than bad.
You simply have to alter your strategy to deal with loose players and they are your bread and butter. You should be very friendly and encouraging to loose callers because they're like little trees of money.
No, you face a much worse threat from a tight aggressive player.
"Windows has detected new hardware. Please insert the Windows installation disk."
There are a couple of different stereo 3d shutter glasses that work for games on your computer which are already 3d, like quake3 or unreal.
They work by cutting the effective frame rate in half, and rendering each frame twice from a different perspective, and flashing the image into each eye on alternate frames.
Not sure if I explained that very well, but I've seen the "Revelator" (now defunct) in action, and I must say the results, while not perfect, are very impressive.
But you're ascribing a position to me that I didn't take. My position is better stated thus: advances in hardware *and* advances in AI research will lead to the first super intelligent computer. We've made some progress since the 60s. For instance, for a long time, neural net models did not take the time to propogate a connection as a factor in the equations. Adding that factor has improved voice recognition tremendously.
Furthermore, even if Penrose was right about the nature of consciousness, it doesn't necessarily need to conscious to be smart.
Okay. Full disclosure: IAACS (I am a computer scientist).
I'm not sure I grok your argument. Are you implying that the church-turing hypopthesis somehow precludes an intelligent machine?
Note that I did NOT say that the only thing that we need is large-fast-holographic storage. Clearly we will need an advance in AI as well.
Basically what I'm getting at is that we will get to the point someday soon when we can model the entire human brain electronically. We might not even need to understand how it works to have a smart computer. If we just treat it like a black box, that may be enough.
If your argument is that we have the technology now to implement an intelligent computer, well, you may be right. I'm just thinking it will be easier when we have the power to model the entire brain.
If your argument is that we won't be able to do it because we haven't done it already, I don't see how that conclusion follows from your premise.
To deal what to the creature? Cards? Drugs?
The tech doesn't quite exist for what I'm talking about. I don't just mean a brute force attack solution, I mean an engineer AI.
The next step in AI has been just around the corner for a long time too. In many ways it's the equivalent of cold fusion for computers. I see evidence that we're getting there. We've taught leeches to do math, and we've made some giant leaps in neural net research. I think that once we have fast, large holographic storage, it will only be a short time before we have a strong general purpose AI, and after that the sky is the absolute limit. The world 100 years from today will be either missing, or completely unrecognizable. :)
I think there is a lot of work being done in various scientific disciplines that will need to come together to give us our first "sentient" computer. I think we will need to invent a new natural language that the computer will speak. English doesn't cut it, too vague, subtle and filled with ambiguities, and the same goes for pretty much every natural language (including esperanto). Your language really limits the thoughts you can have (learn a couple more languages and you'll see what I mean). We'll need a linguistics genius and a computer genius to formulate the language. Once we have the language, the computer will have to be given an education, just like a human would, starting out just by talking to it, leading up to a formal instruction in mathmatics, physics, and so on. We could even teach it English later on when it gets "smarter", but I have a strong feeling that trying to start out with a classical natural language will not work.
Yes, I know about the encyclopedia project. It doesn't work and it won't work. They will never have a machine that "thinks", but they may have a machine that is good with analogies, and could carry on a simple conversation someday (though from what I've read, even that is dubious). I think their first mistake is that they tried to teach it english.
Anyway, that's my rant. I'm excited for what the future holds.
Careful predicting, you never know with technology. 50-60 years is a LONG time. Before then we may have a computer that could design such a plant in its spare time, leaving us monkeys just the job of implementing it.
The destruction and damage of buildings at much greater ranges than this which occurred was due to the effects of atmospheric focusing, an unpredictable but unavoidable phenomenon
Errr.... I think it could be avoided if you didn't go around TESTING 100 MEGATON BOMBS!
Actually, yes.
In a large corporation, sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Seems to be the case here.
Well, a contract to do so, plus 6 million dollars is one hell of a hunch.
On the other hand, to play devil's advocate for a moment, as soon as I found out Miramax was doing Moore's next film, I said to myself "Self, that will never work out." :)
Apparently they don't have a contractual obligation to do so, or Moore would be taking the legal route.
No, I'm not saying they have an "obligation" but they actually tried originally to bury the film, and disallow Moore from getting anyone else to distribute it either. That's clearly censorship and I was responding to the ridiculous idea that only the government can be a censor.
Ummm.... actually their stated reason for not distributing the film is political fallout in florida, given that Jeb Bush is governor there and that's where the big theme park is. Boycotters were probably not even a factor. Did you read the fine article?
And then liberals wonder why no one takes them seriously...
Again, I'm going to ask what planet you live on.
Which liberals are wondering that no one takes them seriously? A lot of people take them very seriously. Obviously, Disney is taking Moore seriously, or they wouldn't refuse to distribute the film.
In your fantasy world, I suppose that liberals just go around saying stuff that no one takes seriously, and everybody really knows that it's the stand up guys like Bush who have the facts on their side.
Ha! Try again.
Last time I checked, censorship was not confined to governmental agencies. Lessee here, dictionary.com says:
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
5. Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.
Okay, where is the requirement that it be a government agency to be defined as censorship?
Now, did they bury the product altogether, so that noone can see the movie? No, because it can still be seen, and obviously winning awards.
Actually, originally they announced they would block distribution of the movie altogether. They have since backed off of that position.
I love out of context quotations.
Yes, Michael Moore knew that Eisner had a problem with the movie.
However, they continued to give him money, to the tune of 6 million dollars after Eisner had already voiced his displeasure. Your article ignores that fact and instead publishes only the disney friendly propaganda.
Don't you think that contributing 6 million dollars is sort of, well, showing support for the movie? Is it really that insane that MM thought the movie would go ahead as planned after he got 6 million more dollars for it?
OMFG, ROTGLMFAO.
What is it then? Syrup? Oooh, yes! It's syrup!
Of course it's censorship. It just isn't (exactly) government censorship (although it comes close, given that Disney says the reason for not distributing the film was a political consideration).
What galaxy do you live in, and in what cluster. Apparently the drugs are good there.
First of all, how is that ironic? Why are those ideas mutually exclusive?
Secondly, when exactly did he "rail against the second amendment"?
He's a gun owner. He doesn't believe the government should take all the guns away. Sounds to me like you're taking a very simplistic approach to his work rather than deal with it on the merits. It's pretty easy to build up that strawman and tear it down. Real criticism is difficult.
I've been waiting to hear this for a long time. I'm a liberal, through and through, but I can quite understand many of the conservative ideals. It's just that the people in power not only don't live up to their supposed conservative ideals, they often do the exact opposite!
Given the right circumstances, I could definitely vote for a true conservative.
There just seems to not be any. Don't get me wrong, there are jerks on the left too, but it seems to me that as a group, the lefties actually adhere to their own principles, and even follow some of the good conservative principles that the conservatives only pay lip service to (when was the last time a so-called "fiscal responsibility conservative" had a balanced budget, or even *close* to a balanced budget?)
Finally! A sensible solution! You, sir, are a genius! Can you get me an action plan on this by the end of the day? Don't forget the cover sheet!
Boloney. The message that was sent was "We don't care about the people violating environmental protections, but we're willing to bend the law to go after you".
My point was that a small crime committed at the same time as a large crime shouldn't be overlooked.
Well, sure, and if the justice department had just gone the traditional route of arresting and charging the two activists, that would be one thing. I would still complain about arresting the peaceful protesters and doing nothing about the illegal logging (!), but you would have a point. However, wasting tax dollars to enforce a law that didn't apply to the situation to try to indict the whole organization of Greenpeace just goes beyond the pale.
Also, when you said the protesters should be prosecuted, you didn't say the illegal loggers should be prosecuted as well (they weren't).
It's like a cop seeing that someone is going 90mph in a residential zone, so the cop arrests a jaywalker and lets the speeder go. The justice department then indicts the company that the jaywalker works for using a 100 year old bootlegging law. What kind of sense does that make? It is almost comical it is so ridiculous, but I can't laugh because it's real.