SolveForD's avatar

SolveForD

1 points

Post | SolveForD posted in NLHE: Slack Study Group

Hi all,

Discr3tion has been running a discord study group for some time now,
we have moved over to Slack now in order to take advantage of the threads feature.

Always looking for more members, anyone in micro/low/mid stakes that's looking to review
some hands and get feedback on their hands.

Original post:
https://www.runitonce.com/nlhe/study-group-discord/

Here is the new invite link:
https://join.slack.com/t/riostudygroup/shared_invite/enQtNjMxNzYwMjkzMzE5LTE5MjIzNGFmMDZkZjhkODE2Njc3NTcwM2MxNjVjYWVlOTE2NzJlYzVlODhkMjMzNGZjNzJiZWU4Njg1NTVjODQ

Please introduce yourself in the #introductions channel.

Cheers

May 8, 2019 | 6:53 p.m.

Post | SolveForD posted in NLHE: Slack Study Group

Hi all,

Discr3tion has been running a discord study group for some time now,
we have moved over to Slack now in order to take advantage of the threads feature.

Always looking for more members, anyone in micro/low/mid stakes that's looking to review
some hands and get feedback on their hands.

Original post:
https://www.runitonce.com/nlhe/study-group-discord/

Here is the new invite link:
https://join.slack.com/t/riostudygroup/shared_invite/enQtNjMxNzYwMjkzMzE5LTE5MjIzNGFmMDZkZjhkODE2Njc3NTcwM2MxNjVjYWVlOTE2NzJlYzVlODhkMjMzNGZjNzJiZWU4Njg1NTVjODQ

Please introduce yourself in the #introductions channel.

Cheers

May 8, 2019 | 6:51 p.m.

Thanks Darren, that makes sense,
I think I completely confused Gambler's fallacy
with confirmation bias.

If we don't know if a game is fair or not, and we run
really bad, then we might conclude that the game is
rigged - and then every time we get sucked
out, confirm our bias that the game is rigged.

This could lead to some weird paranoid thoughts
about the game being rigged and distract us from
playing well.

Perhaps it's better to quit the game at that point
regardless of whether it is fair or not?

My point about private games is that if we
are playing on a regulated site or at a public casino,
it's probably more of a safe assumption that the game
is fair - and therefore we can withstand more coolers
before we should think that the game is rigged.

In a private game, it would take less coolers to think that
the game is rigged (because we have a weaker
assumption about the fairness of the game).

Do you think the best approach (in general) is to watch out
for actual indications (e.g. mechanic's grip, infrared, etc.) that could
indicate a game is unfair,
or can we also apply some kind of method
like number of coolers in a row (without becoming paranoid with
confirmation bias, like some people who think PokerStars is rigged)?

May 1, 2019 | 6:09 a.m.

Darren Wee
Re: the Gambler's fallacy
If we know that the coin is fair 100% of the time, then the 21st flip is 50/50

However, if we suspect that the coin is fair 99% of the time, and rigged 1% of the time, then seeing 20heads in a row would increase the chance that the coin is rigged & that our 21st flip is also going to be heads.

Extending that example to online poker RNG - we need an estimator of how many sites have been / are rigged (probably sub 0.1%), and then come up with a number of hands that would give us some idea that the RNG isn't fair - this is probably in the millions of hands though.

On the contrary, what about a live private game? I suspect those games have a much higher chance of being rigged, how can we:
A) avoid gambler's fallacy
and
B) make sure that we aren't being cheated?

April 28, 2019 | 9:43 p.m.

Comment | SolveForD commented on Hands I Played OOP

at 35:00 the J96 flop with 44:
what sizing would you choose for river bluffs with 87, T8?

I would think overbet sizings would be best vs a somewhat capped range from V turn check back

(that said I don't have PIO, so not sure)

April 13, 2019 | 9:18 p.m.

Load more
Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy