Online Poker Forum at Full Tilt Poker

cookie778 · High Card Joined: 17 May 2008 Posts: 12

FTP has the most river beats of any.... sorry FTP fans its true . This site's river is the worst... along with the 'SET UP HANDS" .. Never again will I be putting money in this site.
Very Happy

StevieWard · Message Board Junkie Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 1412

StevieWard · Message Board Junkie Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 1412

Ahem. Sorry about that.

Now Mr first poster who we will probably never see again:

1. did you just register just so you could say that?

2. Please provide your studies on these 8 sites?

Yawn.

cookie778 · High Card Joined: 17 May 2008 Posts: 12

i only win or lose a few dollars for the test we do on the sites... Hey I dont care one way or the other the numbers dont lie .. this site is worse than others for the "bad beats ' as you poker players call them.

StevieWard · Message Board Junkie Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 1412

cookie778 · High Card Joined: 17 May 2008 Posts: 12

The tests were done over a 3 month period...
over 100k hands were played...

I will say these were low limit turnys and sit&gos 24 high buy in.

We only counted the 4th and 5th card on a bad possible beat.

For Example

A 7 suited against A 8 suited
we counted how many times when the "flush was not in play" the 8 would hit the river... when the 7 was on the flop.

Another Example
We counted how many outs were avaiable on a show down and the player with 1-2 outs won on the river compared to some who needed a card for a flush.

The results for this site were 65% on low buy in games

This goes down as the buy in goes up.

cookie778 · High Card Joined: 17 May 2008 Posts: 12

and as for the rest of your comments... I played less than 5 turnys here and won 112 dollars..
This was a study not a rant as you call it... like I said before I could care less about online poker.

S.B poker had the best results.

StevieWard · Message Board Junkie Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 1412

Fair enough.

If what you say is true, then this could be the news a lot of people have finally been waiting to here.

Unfortunatly I think you just made all that up off the top of your head.

Care to post your results, as in, put your word/excel docs/Poker tracker analysis online then? For a study as complex as this, it must have cost you a fortune and you must be well educated to conduct such an analysis, so I'm sure you wouldnt mind showing off your findings to the general public, so that you can save people losing money on here?

It would be the moral thing to do.

You shocked me once by reposting, but this time UI'm betting there was no test, no 100k hands etc..............and that this is complete fiction.

Prove me wrong again and post your full findings.

live4freerolls · Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject:

HuJwang · Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject:

you studied them, eh? get published at all?

Starvingwriter · Full House Joined: 03 May 2008 Posts: 174

So, I haven't been on the forums long, but do these posts come up every day? I'm seriously considering just making myself a four paragraph signature explaining statistics, variance, and the law of independent trials.

On the bright side, however, cookie will soon be very rich. With suck outs on the river at 65%, the clear solution is to just shove every time your opponent represents strength on the flop. If he does have you beat, you'll win the hand 65% of the time! You'll be rich!

cookie778 · High Card Joined: 17 May 2008 Posts: 12

Test was conducted by 10 people (9 plus myself) who all attend MIT.

Like i said before... the test prove without a doubt on low limit buy in turneys and sit&go.

The EOQ model assumes that demand is constant, and that inventory( your chips ) is depleted at a fixed rate until it reaches zero. At that point, a specific number of items arrive to return the inventory to its beginning level. Since the model assumes instantaneous replenishment, there are no inventory shortages or associated costs. Therefore, the cost of inventory under the EOQ model involves a tradeoff between inventory holding cost of tying up capital in inventory rather than investing it or using it for other purposes) and order costs( buy in's) Playing a large chip stack at one time will increase a small stack's holding costs, while making more frequent bets of fewer items will reduce holding costs but increase betting costs. The EOQ model finds the quantity that minimizes the sum of these costs.

The basic EOQ formula is as follows:

TC = PD + HQ/2 + SD/Q

where TC is the total cost per turny, PD is the inventory purchase cost per buy in (price P multiplied by demand D in units per year), H is the holding cost, Q is the order quantity, and S is the order cost (in dollars per order). Breaking down the elements of the formula further, the holding cost of inventory( chips) is H multiplied by the average number of units in inventory( your chip stack). Since the model assumes that inventory is depleted at a constant rate, the average number of units is equal to Q/2. The total order cost per turny is S multiplied by the number of orders per bet, which is equal to the annual demand divided by the number of bets, or D/Q. Finally, PD is constant, regardless of the order quantity.

Taking these factors into consideration, solving for the optimal order quantity gives a formula of:

HQ/2 = SD/Q, or Q = the square root of 2DS/H.

did you get that?

cookie778 · High Card Joined: 17 May 2008 Posts: 12

Test was conducted by 10 people (9 plus myself) who all attend MIT.

Like i said before... the test prove without a doubt on low limit buy in turneys and sit&go.

The EOQ model assumes that demand is constant, and that inventory( your chips ) is depleted at a fixed rate until it reaches zero. At that point, a specific number of items arrive to return the inventory to its beginning level. Since the model assumes instantaneous replenishment, there are no inventory shortages or associated costs. Therefore, the cost of inventory under the EOQ model involves a tradeoff between inventory holding cost of tying up capital in inventory rather than investing it or using it for other purposes) and order costs( buy in's) Playing a large chip stack at one time will increase a small stack's holding costs, while making more frequent bets of fewer items will reduce holding costs but increase betting costs. The EOQ model finds the quantity that minimizes the sum of these costs.

The basic EOQ formula is as follows:

TC = PD + HQ/2 + SD/Q

where TC is the total cost per turny, PD is the inventory purchase cost per buy in (price P multiplied by demand D in units per year), H is the holding cost, Q is the order quantity, and S is the order cost (in dollars per order). Breaking down the elements of the formula further, the holding cost of inventory( chips) is H multiplied by the average number of units in inventory( your chip stack). Since the model assumes that inventory is depleted at a constant rate, the average number of units is equal to Q/2. The total order cost per turny is S multiplied by the number of orders per bet, which is equal to the annual demand divided by the number of bets, or D/Q. Finally, PD is constant, regardless of the order quantity.

Taking these factors into consideration, solving for the optimal order quantity gives a formula of:

HQ/2 = SD/Q, or Q = the square root of 2DS/H.

did you get that?

HuJwang · Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:29 am Post subject:

HuJwang · Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:30 am Post subject:

	Full Tilt Poker is licensed by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. © Copyright 2004 - 2005 FullTiltPoker.com., All Rights Reserved