Most absurd poker "thinking" you have heard in a live game?
MGM - Detroit
1/2 (50/300)
I thought this might be a fun thread for the live game players.
I was playing yesterday. A guy comes to our table wearing a skull-cap and sunglasses. He sits down, tells the dealer he will wait until his blind and then demonstratively starts closely watching all of us. When it gets to his blind, he puts his I-Pod earphones in; I swear he was emulating something he saw on T.V. poker.
Anyhow, this guy is bending the ear of the player to his left about strategy when he picks up A♣ A♠. He bets $10 and gets (5) callers. Pot is $65. Flop comes K♠ 3♠ 9♥. Aces bets $15 and gets (3) callers. Pot is $110. Turn is 2♣ Aces bets $20 and gets (2) callers. Pot is $150. River brings 9♠ AA bets $100
(1) player re-raises all in for $80 more and AA calls and loses to a spade flush.
He then begins to tell the table how ludacris it was for the player to call on the two streets while on a flush draw. He says,
"Do you realize you have only (9) outs and need to have at least 9-1 to be calling in that situation. You know they have books on poker odds and strategy... you should pick one up and quit relying on luck!!"
I almost fell off my seat laughing....
We are playing a mystery bounty tournament. If you don't know how it works, it's a bounty tournament, but the bounty part only kicks in once we're in the money. When you bust a player, the dealer calls the floor, and they give you a token. Whenever you want, you can trade this token for a chance to draw an envelope that contains a prize (between $200 and $5,000 for this specific one).
One guy at the table decided he was going to hold his tokens and draw once he wins or once he busts. He already had 3 tokens in front of him. The absurd thinking was coming from a player at the table who was arguing that it was the worst idea ever, because by waiting like that to draw, you might lose your chance to draw the big envelope that contains the $5,000.
-jpp
Not a live game, but I just played a hand online. Board was 88886. I had AK giving me the nuts on the river. I bet the river and got called by an opponent with 33. I don’t normally waste time with chat online, but I really wanted to know why he called a bet when he was playing the board and would be beaten by a 7-high or better. He said, “we both had quad 8s; I thought it was a chop.”
Not a live game, but I just played a hand online. Board was 88886. I had AK giving me the nuts on the river. I bet the river and got called by an opponent with 33. I don’t normally waste time with chat online, but I really wanted to know why he called a bet when he was playing the board and would be beaten by a 7-high or better. He said, “we both had quad 8s; I thought it was a
this is quite common
I once had a game stalled for over 5 minutes and requiring a floor explanation to move on from a hand like that where one player thought it should be a chop.
We are playing a mystery bounty tournament. If you don't know how it works, it's a bounty tournament, but the bounty part only kicks in once we're in the money. When you bust a player, the dealer calls the floor, and they give you a token. Whenever you want, you can trade this token for a chance to draw an envelope that contains a prize (between $200 and $5,000 for this specifi
This logic is not as terrible as it sounds because waiting means there are fewer envelopes and that could mean the good ones are gone already.
Of course it works both ways; if only low-value envelopes are chosen the odds of getting a good result are higher. If nobody picked it and it's the last one left, going last is ideal since you are 100% to pick it!
Ultimately, the odds of picking the $5k envelope get higher until it goes down to zero after it has been picked. Since there's no way of knowing whether the good envelopes will be picked or still left when I finally chose, I would rather pick when I knew for sure that the high-value envelopes were guaranteed to still be there than hope that other people pick poorly before I finally got in line to pick.
This logic is not as terrible as it sounds because waiting means there are fewer envelopes and that could mean the good ones are gone already.Of course it works both ways; if only low-value envelopes are chosen the odds of getting a good result are higher. If nobody picked it and it's the last one left, going last is ideal since you are 100% to pick it!Ultimately, the odds of p
Nope. The “logic” is faulty no matter how you try to rationalize it. The probability of getting the $5000 envelop with a given token is 1/N (where N is the number of envelopes) no matter when you select an envelop. You could do a full probability calculation to prove this, but there’s an easier intuitive way to see it. Instead of giving tokens, the TD just numbers the envelopes 1 through N. Whoever busts the first player gets envelope 1, second bust gets envelope 2 and so on until the winner gets envelopes N-1 and N (his own bounty). The winner gets the last envelope. Is this one any less likely to have the big bounty? Of course not - numbering the envelopes had zero effect on the probability that they contain the big prize. All people are doing by selecting an envelope is “numbering” them; it’s completely equivalent. The first envelope picked is number 1, the second is number 2 and so on.
Another way to look at it - you are suggesting that the optimal time to pick an envelope is right before the big prize gets picked. You don’t want to pick first because there are more envelopes with lower prizes. You don’t want to pick after the big one gets picked, obviously. So your optimum is to pick just before the big one is chosen. Now apply that strategy; specifically which envelope is optimal? The 5th? The 10th? The 20th?
You can’t answer this because you have no idea when the big one will get picked. ANY pick is equivalent because ANY position is as likely as any other to be the one before the big one is picked. Therefore when you pick is irrelevant; any position is equally likely to give you the big prize.
One final way to see it - your probability of picking the big one is the product of two probabilities, the probability that it’s still available and the probability that you will pick it assuming it is still available. If you pick early, it’s more likely to still be there, but it’s less likely that you’ll actually pick it since there are more envelopes to choose from. If you pick later it’s less likely to still be there, but if it is you’re more likely to pick it. As extreme cases the first pick is guaranteed that it’s there. The last pick is guaranteed to get it if it still is there. The math works out such that the product of these probabilities is the same no matter when you pick
It is true that the more envelopes picked that don't have the $5k prize the greater your odds are when you pick. But, at the beginning you don't know what the results will be.
Let's do a simple toy game. Two envelopes - one with $5k and the other with $0. It is your choice, do you pick first or second? If you pick first, your chances are 1 out of 2 to get the $5k. If you pick second and the first player picked the $0 envelope, your chances are 1 out of 1, yay! But, the first player had a 50% chance to pick the $5k envelope. So if you choose 2nd, your chances are reduced to 1 out of 2. Surprise! It's the same as picking first.
This logic is not as terrible as it sounds because waiting means there are fewer envelopes and that could mean the good ones are gone already.Of course it works both ways; if only low-value envelopes are chosen the odds of getting a good result are higher. If nobody picked it and it's the last one left, going last is ideal since you are 100% to pick it!Ultimately, the odds of p
“Pick poorly”
Didn’t realize drawing envelopes was a skill game.
It is true that the more envelopes picked that don't have the $5k prize the greater your odds are when you pick. But, at the beginning you don't know what the results will be.Let's do a simple toy game. Two envelopes - one with $5k and the other with $0. It is your choice, do you pick first or second? If you pick first, your chances are 1 out of 2 to get the $5k. If you pick se
Generalizing this (and proving the result mathematically):
Suppose there are N envelopes and X people pick before you do. Then is should be obvious that if the big prize is still there when you pick, the probability that you pick it is 1/(N-X) since there are N-X envelopes left. All that remains is calculating the probability that the big prize will be left after X people pick. The big prize is left if and only if nobody ahead of you picks it. After 1 persin that probability would be (N-1)/N (since there are N-1 envelopes that contain lower prizes). For 2 people, both have to not pick it. If it’s still there for person 2, then he fails to pick it with probability (N-2)/(N-1). Overall the probability of it still being there after 2 is (N-1)/N * (N-2)/(N-1) = (N-2)/N. Assuming the first two fail, the third person fails with probability (N-3)/(N-2), so the probability it’s still around after 3 picks is
(N-3)/(N-2) * (N-2)/N = (N-3)/N.
The pattern should be clear - after X people pick, the probability that the big prize is still available is (N-X)/N. Since the probability we get the prize if we pick after X people given that it’s still there is 1/(N-X), our probability of winning it assigning X people pick ahead of us is (N-X)/N * 1/(X-N) which is 1/N and the value of X makes no difference.
But I'm allowed to purposefully wait until the big prize is selected, because they need the money more than me, right?
I can't believe we are "proving it out". Don't take the bait.
It's a bounty tournament, and it's a 3-way all-in: small stack, medium stack, and big stack.
The small stack makes the best hand and triples up.
The big stack wins the side pot and the bounty from the medium stack. It should be crystal clear for everyone, but no. The small stack argues that he's the one who deserves the bounty because he had the best hand. The player and dealer try to explain to him... and eventually the floor manager. Obviously, he's never going to win the argument, and at the end, he tells the manager: "It's not fair, and you know it!!!
-jpp
How about one I've encountered multiple times.
You go all in and someone calls with a hand that you crush.
You turn over your hand and they respond, "I knew you had that," as the chips are pushed your way.
One of my childhood friends always says:
"Before the flop, everyone has an equal chance of winning the pot!"
(Whether you have AA or 72o is irrelevant. 😃)
I've used that one as a tongue-in-cheek joke. Especially if two players start arguing about whether one hand has 30 or 35% equity or something. I've got a serious look and I'll just look at them dead serious and say, it's 50-50.
It usually shuts the stupid argument right down. Haha.
That's why short-handed is so great. You go from having a 9:1 chance each hand to (say) 5:1.
in the 1st minute of the video, there is the most perfect explanation possible
When someone suffers a bad beat and asks "What's the percent chance of that happening?"
I always answer "100%"
One of my childhood friends always says:
"Before the flop, everyone has an equal chance of winning the pot!"
(Whether you have AA or 72o is irrelevant. 😃)
One session had an old guy insist on this multiple times at a live table. No one bothered to argue. Have not seen him since. "everything is equal until the flop" I think is what he said. I may have encouraged him to play every hand, but he pretty much was anyway.
30-ish guy sat at our 2/5 table at Best Bet a few years back. Was doing really well; had maybe $2,000 in front at a $500 max buy in game at the time. Every time he won a pot, he would color up as much as he could; also used every Rounders catch phrase there was.
Any way, regarding absurd thinking, someone asks him something at one point about strategy and he responds "For me it comes easy. I always know the ratio of the cards." That's it; no other explanation. Someone asked him what he meant and he never really responded. Ended up busting out about an hour later.
Nope. The “logic” is faulty no matter how you try to rationalize it. The probability of getting the $5000 envelop with a given token is 1/N (where N is the number of envelopes) no matter when you select an envelop. You could do a full probability calculation to prove this, but there’s an easier intuitive way to see it. Instead of giving tokens, the TD just numbers the envelopes
What are the odds of picking the $5,000 envelope after it has been picked?
What are the odds of picking the $5,000 envelope if there is only one left and it hasn't been picked yet?
What are the odds of picking the $5,000 envelope if there is only one left and it hasn't been picked yet?
I already conceded that every time a non-$5,000 envelope is not chosen the odds subsequently improve on picking it.
I would prefer to pick when I know for a fact that I have *any* chance to pick the $5,000 envelope than no chance at all.
