Most absurd poker "thinking" you have heard in a live game?

lol no it's horrible logic and you provided the reasons why it's horrible logic in your own post. namely with cash envelopes the values are hidden and with donut selection the type of donut is not hidden.

your original argument was "better" in the sense that you were only trying to talk about the emotional appeal of choosing right away, but now that you are trying to argue that there is some analogy to this donut situation I think you've lost the plot.

It's emotional because you want the feeling that you have a better chance at the prize, even though you in actuality (logic/data) do not, the EV is exactly the same whether you pick first or last. It wasn't meant to be impugning, people make emotion-based or feel-based decisions all the time, you just can't defeat those with facts or data or logic, try though you might.

The donut is an insanely poor analogy for the reason you gave. A better analogy is that the donuts are randomly assigned as you walked into the breakroom. Then, same, first person in has same chance for cake or jelly or glazed as the last person does.

Wrong.

If that's what you think my point is, then you haven't been paying attention.

That’s literally what you have said. You want the feeling that the top prize is there when you draw. You don’t change the actual chance of getting it based on when you draw, you only guarantee the feeling that you might get it.

NYCNative is either not well versed in maths/probabilities or is a troll. I cannot decide which one yet.

There are several reasons why this is true and important.

The first is emotional as people have said before. If not knowing whether you will get the big prize or not affects your feelings in the moment then don't let that happen. You could go on tilt. Like if somebody else got the big prize and you could have.

But for me the biggest reason is that it changes the total of the outstanding bounties. If the biggest prize goes away it reduces the chances others will try to knock you out and it means you will be dealing with actual odds much more than adding on the chances of winning a huge bounty.

Now if other players are doing crazy things in order to try to win a huge bounty then it might be worth it to keep the big bounty around in order to be able to double up.

The one thing that is very important for me though is that under no circumstances will I miss a hand or two while picking the envelope. Since I have never been in this situation I don't know if I would have to wait for the next break or not but since it wouldn't affect me emotionally I would wait for the break if otherwise I would miss a hand

Or you haven't paid attention to anything I said.

Maybe brush up on your reading comprehension before you throw stones, chum.

Nope.

You just know this guy was trying way too hard to look like a pro. And then to lecture everyone about odds after losing to a flush? Priceless. It’s funny how some players get so caught up in strategy talk but completely miss the bigger picture, like reading the table and knowing when to fold. Classic poker moments like this remind me why the game is as much about people as it is about cards. Thanks for sharing, made me smile!

Once heard a guy fold pocket kings pre because, and I quote, ‘the other dude had just ordered a Red Bull, so I knew he was ready for action.’ 🤯 Live poker never disappoints.

Thanks chum, you just gave me the piece of info I needed to make my choice.

For sure, a hallmark of a position based on cold steely logic and not emotion is to insult the reading comprehension of others when literally everyone reading your posts comes to the same conclusion.

There are only two possible reasons to prefer drawing first:
1) you like the way it makes you feel
2) it is +EV to draw at that time

So if you want to insist that it's not door #1, and instead that you, as a poker player and dealer, simply don't understand entry-level probability and math, I mean, that's a choice you're free to make.

Like I said, people make decisions solely based on feel/emotion all the time. People who berate a player at a blackjack table or change tables because 3rd base is playing in a negative EV way for themselves are solely acting on emotion, because whether 3rd base stands or hits doesn't impact your EV at all.

To my defense, I might have been a little passive aggressive (my bad), but I didn't do any personal attack nor did I mention reading abilities.

Missed opportunity to hit him with a Reading Rainbow meme, IMO.

Take a look, it's in a book.

You've been wrong about everything about this topic, and you're either too dense or too ego-driven to realize it.

When people say things like "oh the 9s have been coming out a lot tonight" Then another 9 or two 9s comes out again and they go oooohh.

Yea, well it could be the deck hasn't been shuffled or it's just the way it goes.

IMO this phenomenon is simply a case of selective memory combined with a misunderstanding of probability and randomness. Given no other information, if you flip 5 random cards from a standard deck, there is just under a 35% chance that one of them will be one a nine (or any other rank). There is about a 4% chance that three boards in a row will have a nine. Someone notices and says “wow nines are hot”. Then everyone is paying attention, so they notice when the board has a nine when that would have otherwise been unremarkable. Maybe the sequence is YNYYNNNYY or something completely unremarkable, but since someone pointed it out, they notice all the hands that do have a nine and just kind of ignore the fact that there were a reasonable number of hands that did not.

Realize that this phenomenon is not specific to nines and equally well will cause the same remarks for any other rank, and you realize that this should indeed be something seen fairly often and really is nothing more than actual randomness

it's true but sometimes the deck has not quite been shuffled well enough. Same suits coming out and all that. Usually time to give it a wash when that happens.

But they say it all the time when there is an auto-shuffler 😉 "I'm never folding a 3, they are hot!"

Exactly how does that work?

I have often heard that mathematically, 7 riffles are required to randomize the deck.

But when a shuffler goes down, or if there is a misdeal or a chop and the dealer does a quick hand shuffle, I have never seen them do more than 3-4 riffles (at most) and maybe a strip. It would not surprise me to find clumps in the deck at that point. I don't have the vocabulary to describe the level of non-randomness accurately though.

I would be more annoyed by this if they were starting from an ordered deck rather than a muck pile, which will be somewhat disordered to begin with.

A wash is commonly thought to be the best way to thoroughly randomize the deck (if done fully, or long enough), so doing (a full) wash would certainly be a way to randomize it, but I don't think it's any better or worse than a normal full 7 riffle shuffle.

Well if they are perfect riffs, which for mechanic or even just experienced dealer (assuming can cut 26 cards) isn't hard, the number needed is....undefined. This is because a perfect riff is deterministic. If all riff are perfect out shuffles, after 8 cards return to starting positions. (IN shuffles take 52.)

The study coming up with 7 riffs assumed imperfect riffs.

This is why a strip should always be included. A strip in the middle moves things around in a non-deterministic way (assuming a true strip is down. This is why a mechanic setting the deck will seldom if ever actually do a strip.)

With a strip in the middle of the process, the deck gets randomized much quicker. That is why 4 riffs (3 then stirp then 1 then cut) IIRC is the most common casino procedure.

Ofc a wash, even a quick one, does a good job of breaking up blocks of cards and means a 'random' initial starting order.

This all presumes we are not using a Deckmate 2 where the starting order doesn't matter since a specific pseudo random final order is "specified" by the software. No matter what the starting order is, the cards are coming out in whatever the RNG/Algo determined. Ofc, the cut 'randomizes' the starting point.

The "normal"3/1/1/cut procedure was determined by casinos to be 'random enough' to prevent cheating. And as long as there is a strip in there, I am fine. Never seen a hand shuffle w/o a strip, but if I did that is a game I am likely avoiding.

I never said perfect riffles anywhere. I agree with you that they need to be imperfect (i.e. normal, i.e. non-magician/mechanic riffles). I agree that a strip helps ensure there are no perfect riffles involved.

All the 7 riffle sources I read are for imperfect riffles, and they say that... 7 riffles are needed to create a random deck. Obviously if you're doing perfect riffles no number of riffles will be sufficient because the deck order is always perfectly known and cyclical after 8.

I do not think I agree that only 4 riffles are required if you do a strip for perfect randomness, but if you have a source for that I'd be happy to read it.

I am not sure if casino procedure is for 3-4 riffles with a strip, or whether dealers just do that on their own. In both cases I assume it's because they get more hands out that way, and they can claim a certain amount of ignorance or indifference to it not being a perfect shuffle. But maybe I am wrong - again I am open to evidence to the contrary.