Uhm... yeah? Why do you think they're taking so long to launch?
They are bound to interplanetary launch windows. They only occur once every 780 days. It seems that they missed the last window just recently, so it will take some time for the next chance. It is just like that.
Nov. 2, 2018 | 3:12 a.m.
First off, this toygame is completely static since bluffs and value combos don't change over the streets that you call 'flop', 'turn' and 'river'. Also there is no card removal. It hardly describes any real poker game. Perhaps shortdeck omaha (flush beats a full house and you either are bluffing with the nutflushblocker or value betting with the nutflush) comes close - aside from the massive card removal effects in this game and the potential to lose to quads. So keep that in mind.
The math from Janda for 0.93 times pot, and your math for 1.38 is correct. (You worded it incorrectly in your first post.) If you are in this toygame you can bet (almost) your entire range on the flop and realize (almost) the entire pot in EV. You need a stack to pot ratio of over 26 on the flop to make this happen.
You should not prefer to bet any smaller than this in the toygame. But in actual poker, where the conditions are different from the toygame, you can have reasons to bet smaler.
Oct. 2, 2018 | 12:43 a.m.
you mean that if I have a range on Flop with 25% value combos and 75% bluff
I need to bet 138% of Pot here, as amount of bluff from river to flop will be 0.633-0.400-0.253.
What are you talking about? Please show your calculations completely.
Sept. 29, 2018 | 9:15 p.m.
The bluff:value ratio is relative (to the card removal effect) of the typical bluff catcher that you opponent has. The odds that you offer on a call, based on your bet size, should be equal to this bluff:value ratio.
If you define optimal bluffing frequency in an absolute way, you are no longer bound by the card removal effects. Moreso by the value betting frequency.
So the difference (if any) depends on your definition.
Sept. 13, 2018 | 11:02 p.m.
You are a hacker!
Sept. 11, 2018 | 11:12 p.m.
Why shouldn't this action ever happen?
Btw I remember you advocating calling cold 4-bets with KK versus tight ranges. This tight player could have AA, KK, QQ, AKs for sure here.
Aug. 4, 2018 | 12:56 a.m.
Take 15 Red Bulls, and a few packs of Gummi Worms. You'll need no drugs!
July 30, 2018 | 10:27 p.m.
On the turn, does anyone fold?
Don't call if your range is faced up capped AA/AK/AQ/AJ against a range that is so strong that even the very best hand in your range can barely call on most rivers.
On the river, does anyone call?
July 21, 2018 | 12:36 a.m.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how the game is played, but isn't this essentially the same thing as running it twice? Seems to me that it should simply reduce variance which actually means recs lose faster.
No, it's not. It only is when you go all-in preflop.
When you don't go all-in preflop, equity dstributions are affected. Consider you having AK vs me having 99. In regular NL, when I flop a set, my equity vs your range is substantially higher. In Split Holdem I will flop a set about twice as often, but it only will give me high equity vs your range on only one of the boards.
Equities run closer postflop, so your defence frequencies need to be higher. So it would make sense to play tighter preflop and value high cards more.
July 15, 2018 | 10:59 p.m.
Cliffs of the AA vs 98ss on A76ss board discussion:
-Both players accuse the other player of being unbalanced (underbluffing)
-Both players try to exploit this inbalance by way of fast playing (raising)
-As a result, the hand gets played as a PLO hand (set vs combodraw)
-Ben holding his own in the discussion:
June 10, 2018 | 12:27 p.m.
Maybe I'm approaching this wrong
June 8, 2018 | 11:24 a.m.
So why didn't the girl pic-thing work for you Harthor?
June 3, 2018 | 12:19 p.m.
Top 5 Users All Time