ESPN's errant statistical information...

[Barbara Yoon]

ESPN previously has attempted (with only spotty success) to take known
folded cards into account in calculating their '%-chances' statistics that they
display -- but in the very first deal shown in last night's telecast, they show
Sami Farha's Jd-Ad as "65%" over David Grey's 9s-Qh -- which would be
accurate if those were the only known cards -- but in that deal, they also
showed Amir Vahedi folding the 4h and a black queen, and Dan Harrington
folding 4d-8h, which would make it 68.49% (if Vahedi's queen was Qs) or
68.30% (if Vahedi's queen was Qc)...

[Barbara Yoon]

In ESPN's second featured deal, David Singer's Ac-10h against Amir Vahedi's
Ad-6s, after the flop of 2d-6d-Qc, ESPN shows "86%" for Vahedi, which is
accurate for rounded-off 86.36% -- and then the Ah on the turn quite remarkably
DOES NOT CHANGE THOSE CHANCES either way, but ESPN's display
goes from the "86%" up to "87%"...

[AcesLow]

On Aug 13 2003 6:15AM, Barbara Yoon wrote:

> ESPN previously has attempted (with only spotty success) to take known
> folded cards into account in calculating their '%-chances' statistics that
they
> display -- but in the very first deal shown in last night's telecast, they
show
> Sami Farha's Jd-Ad as "65%" over David Grey's 9s-Qh -- which would be
> accurate if those were the only known cards -- but in that deal, they also
> showed Amir Vahedi folding the 4h and a black queen, and Dan Harrington
> folding 4d-8h, which would make it 68.49% (if Vahedi's queen was Qs) or
> 68.30% (if Vahedi's queen was Qc)...

You really need to get a life. No, seriously...get out a bit.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Barbara Yoon]

In ESPN's fifth featured deal, Jason Lester's Ks-Ad against Amir Vahedi's
Jd-Kd, before the flop, ESPN shows "72%" for Lester, which is just slightly
'off' from the actual 71.20% rounding to '71%'...

[AcesLow]

On Aug 13 2003 6:30AM, Barbara Yoon wrote:

> In ESPN's second featured deal, David Singer's Ac-10h against Amir Vahedi's
> Ad-6s, after the flop of 2d-6d-Qc, ESPN shows "86%" for Vahedi, which is
> accurate for rounded-off 86.36% -- and then the Ah on the turn quite
remarkably
> DOES NOT CHANGE THOSE CHANCES either way, but ESPN's display
> goes from the "86%" up to "87%"...


Now you've really gone over the edge. Relax, buy a new dress, put on some
makeup. You'll feel better.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[AcesLow]

On Aug 13 2003 1:51PM, Barbara Yoon wrote:

> In ESPN's fifth featured deal, Jason Lester's Ks-Ad against Amir Vahedi's
> Jd-Kd, before the flop, ESPN shows "72%" for Lester, which is just slightly
> 'off' from the actual 71.20% rounding to '71%'...


You have alot of time on your hands. Do you really think .8% is
significant? Are you actually sitting there, hand by hand, calculating
the odds? Is your life that empty? Why don't you go get a job with
CardPlayer or something...OK?

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Barbara Yoon]

In ESPN's sixth featured deal, Sami Farha came into the pot with 9d-9c,
followed by Dan Harrington with Ks-Ah, at which point ESPN showed "56%"
for Farha, which IS accurate rounded representation of 55.68% -- but then
Chris Moneymaker came in with 9h-10s, after which ESPN showed "45%"
for Harrington, and then Amir Vahedi came in too with 10d-8d, after which
ESPN showed 43% for Harrington -- these latter two numbers actually are
44.19% and 43.60%, and both should be shown as rounded to '44%'...

And then after the flop of 9s-4h-6s, ESPN showed "81%" for Farha's set of 9's,
and then after Harrington folded his Ks-Ah, ESPN changed that to "83%" for
Farha -- but there's just NO WAY that Farha can ever end up 'second-best'
to Harrington there***, and so Harrington's fold CANNOT possibly change
Farha's chances, which are actually 80.37%, rounding to '80%'...


***as the only way Harrington could beat Farha would be with
'runner-runner' spades, which would also make a flush
(or straight flush!) for Chris Moneymaker too...

[Dave L]

There is a 99.8% chance that you have a bit too much free time ;)


"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bhe191$q9r$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In ESPN's sixth featured deal, Sami Farha came into the pot with 9d-9c,
> followed by Dan Harrington with Ks-Ah, at which point ESPN showed "56%"
> for Farha, which IS accurate rounded representation of 55.68% -- but then
> Chris Moneymaker came in with 9h-10s, after which ESPN showed "45%"
> for Harrington, and then Amir Vahedi came in too with 10d-8d, after which
> ESPN showed 43% for Harrington -- these latter two numbers actually are
> 44.19% and 43.60%, and both should be shown as rounded to '44%'...
>
> And then after the flop of 9s-4h-6s, ESPN showed "81%" for Farha's set of
9's,
> and then after Harrington folded his Ks-Ah, ESPN changed that to "83%" for
> Farha -- but there's just NO WAY that Farha can ever end up 'second-best'
> to Harrington there***, and so Harrington's fold CANNOT possibly change
> Farha's chances, which are actually 80.37%, rounding to '80%'...
>
>
> ***as the only way Harrington could beat Farha would be with
> 'runner-runner' spades, which would also make a flush
> (or straight flush!) for Chris Moneymaker too...
>
>
>

[Barbara Yoon]

"AcesLow" <anonymous@yahoo.com>:
> You have alot of time on your hands. Do you really think .8% is significant?
> Are you actually sitting there, hand by hand, calculating the odds? Is your life
> that empty? Why don't you go get a job with CardPlayer or something...OK?
> __________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com



Yep..."AcesLow" just another lame Barry Shulman 'stoogie boy' here...

And "calculating the odds" is certainly a whole lot more worthwhile than
what "AcesLow" is "actually sitting there" doing "by hand"...!!

BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...!!

[AcesLow]

NO! That's 99.87%. Rounded up thats 99.9%. What are you, an idiot?

On Aug 13 2003 8:01AM, Dave L wrote:

> There is a 99.8% chance that you have a bit too much free time ;)
>
>
> "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:bhe191$q9r$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > In ESPN's sixth featured deal, Sami Farha came into the pot with 9d-9c,
> > followed by Dan Harrington with Ks-Ah, at which point ESPN showed "56%"
> > for Farha, which IS accurate rounded representation of 55.68% -- but then
> > Chris Moneymaker came in with 9h-10s, after which ESPN showed "45%"
> > for Harrington, and then Amir Vahedi came in too with 10d-8d, after which
> > ESPN showed 43% for Harrington -- these latter two numbers actually are
> > 44.19% and 43.60%, and both should be shown as rounded to '44%'...
> >
> > And then after the flop of 9s-4h-6s, ESPN showed "81%" for Farha's set of
> 9's,
> > and then after Harrington folded his Ks-Ah, ESPN changed that to "83%" for
> > Farha -- but there's just NO WAY that Farha can ever end up 'second-best'
> > to Harrington there***, and so Harrington's fold CANNOT possibly change
> > Farha's chances, which are actually 80.37%, rounding to '80%'...
> >
> >
> > ***as the only way Harrington could beat Farha would be with
> > 'runner-runner' spades, which would also make a flush
> > (or straight flush!) for Chris Moneymaker too...
> >
> >
> >

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[AcesLow]

On Aug 13 2003 8:01AM, Barbara Yoon wrote:

> "AcesLow" <anonymous@yahoo.com>:
> > You have alot of time on your hands. Do you really think .8% is
significant?
> > Are you actually sitting there, hand by hand, calculating the odds? Is
your
> life
> > that empty? Why don't you go get a job with CardPlayer or something...OK?
> > __________________________________________________
> > Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
>
>
>
> Yep..."AcesLow" just another lame Barry Shulman 'stoogie boy' here...
>
> And "calculating the odds" is certainly a whole lot more worthwhile than
> what "AcesLow" is "actually sitting there" doing "by hand"...!!
>
> BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...!!


I admit it. I'm jacking off to your picture. I just love
transvestites!!!!

Gimmee some she-male lovin', honey! I love it when you calculate odds
while i'm taking up the old hoo-hoo dilly!

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[P]

"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bhdr5l$c9i$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> ESPN previously has attempted (with only spotty success) to take known
> folded cards into account in calculating their '%-chances' statistics that
they
> display -- but in the very first deal shown in last night's telecast, they
show
> Sami Farha's Jd-Ad as "65%" over David Grey's 9s-Qh -- which would be
> accurate if those were the only known cards -- but in that deal, they also
> showed Amir Vahedi folding the 4h and a black queen, and Dan Harrington
> folding 4d-8h, which would make it 68.49% (if Vahedi's queen was Qs) or
> 68.30% (if Vahedi's queen was Qc)...
>

Blah bloody blah blah blah... must you gon on with this boring shite Yoon?

[Perry Friedman]

No. Since that would have Sami a boat, vs trips.

Perry

In article <yt2cnYPW1Zs5EaeiXTWJhg@giganews.com>,
Code Monkee <monkee@monkeebusiness.com> wrote:
>Wouldn't A-A or K-K beat Sami and Chris?
>
>"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:bhe191$q9r$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> In ESPN's sixth featured deal, Sami Farha came into the pot with 9d-9c,
>> followed by Dan Harrington with Ks-Ah, at which point ESPN showed "56%"
>> for Farha, which IS accurate rounded representation of 55.68% -- but then
>> Chris Moneymaker came in with 9h-10s, after which ESPN showed "45%"
>> for Harrington, and then Amir Vahedi came in too with 10d-8d, after which
>> ESPN showed 43% for Harrington -- these latter two numbers actually are
>> 44.19% and 43.60%, and both should be shown as rounded to '44%'...
>>
>> And then after the flop of 9s-4h-6s, ESPN showed "81%" for Farha's set of
>9's,
>> and then after Harrington folded his Ks-Ah, ESPN changed that to "83%" for
>> Farha -- but there's just NO WAY that Farha can ever end up 'second-best'
>> to Harrington there***, and so Harrington's fold CANNOT possibly change
>> Farha's chances, which are actually 80.37%, rounding to '80%'...
>>
>>
>> ***as the only way Harrington could beat Farha would be with
>> 'runner-runner' spades, which would also make a flush
>> (or straight flush!) for Chris Moneymaker too...
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Code Monkee]

D'oh!

"Perry Friedman" <friedman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:bhe4sr$3ae$1@Xenon.Stanford.EDU...
> No. Since that would have Sami a boat, vs trips.
>
> Perry
>
> In article <yt2cnYPW1Zs5EaeiXTWJhg@giganews.com>,
> Code Monkee <monkee@monkeebusiness.com> wrote:
> >Wouldn't A-A or K-K beat Sami and Chris?
> >
> >"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message
> >news:bhe191$q9r$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >> In ESPN's sixth featured deal, Sami Farha came into the pot with 9d-9c,
> >> followed by Dan Harrington with Ks-Ah, at which point ESPN showed "56%"
> >> for Farha, which IS accurate rounded representation of 55.68% -- but
then
> >> Chris Moneymaker came in with 9h-10s, after which ESPN showed "45%"
> >> for Harrington, and then Amir Vahedi came in too with 10d-8d, after
which
> >> ESPN showed 43% for Harrington -- these latter two numbers actually are
> >> 44.19% and 43.60%, and both should be shown as rounded to '44%'...
> >>
> >> And then after the flop of 9s-4h-6s, ESPN showed "81%" for Farha's set
of
> >9's,
> >> and then after Harrington folded his Ks-Ah, ESPN changed that to "83%"
for
> >> Farha -- but there's just NO WAY that Farha can ever end up
'second-best'
> >> to Harrington there***, and so Harrington's fold CANNOT possibly change
> >> Farha's chances, which are actually 80.37%, rounding to '80%'...
> >>
> >>
> >> ***as the only way Harrington could beat Farha would be with
> >> 'runner-runner' spades, which would also make a flush
> >> (or straight flush!) for Chris Moneymaker too...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bhds77$eqm$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In ESPN's second featured deal, David Singer's Ac-10h against Amir
Vahedi's
> Ad-6s, after the flop of 2d-6d-Qc, ESPN shows "86%" for Vahedi, which is
> accurate for rounded-off 86.36% -- and then the Ah on the turn quite
remarkably
> DOES NOT CHANGE THOSE CHANCES either way, but ESPN's display
> goes from the "86%" up to "87%"...
>

Barb, your math skills are obviously far superior to mine but shouldn't his
chances have gone down on the turn???

Three outs with two cards to come is different than three outs with one card
to come, after all. By more than simply 1 % too.
>
>
>

[WannaBe]

also if the queen matches now Vahedi doesn't win.

so, the change from 2 opportunities for the winning 10 and the chance for a
chop is why Vahedi's chances didn't change significantly.

I'm prety new and don't have software to figure this all out so if someone
would be kind enough to send some links for freeware /cheapware for
calculating odds on hands and doing simulations I'd appreciate it greatly.

Thanks


"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:PCx_a.12946$BC2.9499@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:bhds77$eqm$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > In ESPN's second featured deal, David Singer's Ac-10h against Amir
> Vahedi's
> > Ad-6s, after the flop of 2d-6d-Qc, ESPN shows "86%" for Vahedi, which is
> > accurate for rounded-off 86.36% -- and then the Ah on the turn quite
> remarkably
> > DOES NOT CHANGE THOSE CHANCES either way, but ESPN's display
> > goes from the "86%" up to "87%"...
> >
>
> Barb, your math skills are obviously far superior to mine but shouldn't
his
> chances have gone down on the turn???
>
> Three outs with two cards to come is different than three outs with one
card
> to come, after all. By more than simply 1 % too.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Perry Friedman]

It turns out to be EXACTLY the same, as she said. The turn actually increases
the outs, because now Singer now has 3 more outs since any Q gives him
A's and Q's with a T kicker.

Looking at www.twodimes.net/poker you go from 855:135 to 38:6
855:135 simplifies to 19:3 as does 38:6.

Perry

In article <PCx_a.12946$BC2.9499@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Beldin the Sorcerer <beldin@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:bhds77$eqm$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> In ESPN's second featured deal, David Singer's Ac-10h against Amir
>Vahedi's
>> Ad-6s, after the flop of 2d-6d-Qc, ESPN shows "86%" for Vahedi, which is
>> accurate for rounded-off 86.36% -- and then the Ah on the turn quite
>remarkably
>> DOES NOT CHANGE THOSE CHANCES either way, but ESPN's display
>> goes from the "86%" up to "87%"...
>>
>
>Barb, your math skills are obviously far superior to mine but shouldn't his
>chances have gone down on the turn???
>
>Three outs with two cards to come is different than three outs with one card
>to come, after all. By more than simply 1 % too.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Barbara Yoon]

me:
>> In ESPN's second featured deal, David Singer's Ac-10h against
>> Amir Vahedi's Ad-6s, after the flop of 2d-6d-Qc, ESPN shows "86%"
>> for Vahedi, which is accurate for rounded-off 86.36% -- and then the Ah
>> on the turn quite remarkably DOES NOT CHANGE THOSE CHANCES
>> either way, but ESPN's display goes from the "86%" up to "87%"...

"Beldin the Sorcerer":
> Barb, your math skills are obviously far superior to mine but shouldn't his
> chances have gone down on the turn??? Three outs with two cards to come
> is different than three outs with one card to come, after all. By more than
> simply 1 % too.

"WannaBe":
> also if the queen matches now Vahedi doesn't win. so, the change from 2
> opportunities for the winning 10 and the chance for a chop is why Vahedi's
> chances didn't change significantly.



"Beldin"...Vahedi 'gains' with the turn card, Ah, by getting one card closer to
taking the pot, but Singer 'gains' three more 'outs' with queens, and Vahedi
'loses' his 'runner-runner' diamond flush chances -- and quite remarkably,
it all balances out to EXACTLY the same overall chances...!!

WannaBe"...but there is NO "chance for a chop" there...OK?!

[stacy_friedman]

"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote:
> In ESPN's sixth featured deal, Sami Farha came into the pot with 9d-9c,
> followed by Dan Harrington with Ks-Ah, at which point ESPN showed "56%"
> for Farha, which IS accurate rounded representation of 55.68% -- but then
> Chris Moneymaker came in with 9h-10s, after which ESPN showed "45%"
> for Harrington, and then Amir Vahedi came in too with 10d-8d, after which
> ESPN showed 43% for Harrington -- these latter two numbers actually are
> 44.19% and 43.60%, and both should be shown as rounded to '44%'...
>
> And then after the flop of 9s-4h-6s, ESPN showed "81%" for Farha's set of 9's,
> and then after Harrington folded his Ks-Ah, ESPN changed that to "83%" for
> Farha -- but there's just NO WAY that Farha can ever end up 'second-best'
> to Harrington there***, and so Harrington's fold CANNOT possibly change
> Farha's chances, which are actually 80.37%, rounding to '80%'...
>

Perhaps your analytical abilities could be more profitably used by
contacting ESPN directly. There is a non-zero chance that they will
care about the accuracy of the statistics they display.

[WannaBe]

"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bhecn7$s7n$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "WannaBe":
> > also if the queen matches now Vahedi doesn't win. so, the change from 2
> > opportunities for the winning 10 and the chance for a chop is why
Vahedi's
> > chances didn't change significantly.
>
>
> "Beldin"...Vahedi 'gains' with the turn card, Ah, by getting one card
closer to
> taking the pot, but Singer 'gains' three more 'outs' with queens, and
Vahedi
> 'loses' his 'runner-runner' diamond flush chances -- and quite remarkably,
> it all balances out to EXACTLY the same overall chances...!!
>
> WannaBe"...but there is NO "chance for a chop" there...OK?!

Got it. The Q gives Singer the hand with the 10

[Barbara Yoon]

"stacy_friedman":
> Perhaps your analytical abilities could be more profitably used by
> contacting ESPN directly. There is a non-zero chance that they
> will care about the accuracy of the statistics they display.



Stacy...I do appreciate the sincerity of your thoughts here -- and I surely
do agree about the importance of "the accuracy of the statistics they display"
-- but in view of the liberties that ESPN evidently feels that they are free to
take with the actual cards themselves, I really suspect that the "chance that
they will care" is unfortunately only very slightly "non-zero"...OK?!

[Barbara Yoon]

In ESPN's eighth featured deal, Sami Farha raised the pot on the button
with Ad-5c, called by Jason Lester in the small blind with Qd-Kh, and by
Dan Harrington in the big blind with Jc-Ah, and then when the flop came up
10s-10c-Ks, ESPN showed "79%" for Lester, just slightly 'off' from the
actual 79.84% rounding to '80%' -- but then after Harrington folded there,
ESPN changed it to "87%" when it's actually 90.48% -- and then after the 9c
came on the turn, ESPN showed "88%" when Farha then could win only with
one of the two remaining ACES coming up on the river, leaving 40 of the 42
'unknown' cards -- that's 95.24% of them -- winning for Lester -- and yet
ESPN mysteriously somehow counted 40/42 as only "88%"...?! Jeeez...!!

[Peg Smith]

In article <bhdtsd$j2l$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
writes:

>In ESPN's fifth featured deal, Jason Lester's Ks-Ad against Amir Vahedi's
>Jd-Kd, before the flop, ESPN shows "72%" for Lester, which is just slightly
>'off' from the actual 71.20% rounding to '71%'...

Good grief. You really are whacko, Lawrence.

Peg

[Barbara Yoon]

>> ESPN's eighth featured deal, Sami Farha...Ad-5c...Jason Lester...Qd-Kh...
>> ...Dan Harrington...Jc-Ah...flop...10s-10c-Ks...Harrington folded...9c came
>> on the turn, ESPN showed "88%" when Farha then could win only with
>> one of the two remaining ACES coming up on the river, leaving 40 of the 42
>> 'unknown' cards -- that's 95.24% of them -- winning for Lester -- and yet
>> ESPN mysteriously somehow counted 40/42 as only "88%"...?! Jeeez...!!



In other words, ESPN would have us believe here that Farha's chances on
the river, rounded to nearest whole 1%, were 100% - "88%" = 12%, which
translates to *FIVE* 'outs' for him, while in truth, Farha actually had only
*TWO* 'outs' (the two remaining aces) for 100% - 95.24% = 5% chances...

[Shutup and go Away]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:15:43 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
wrote:

>In ESPN's eighth featured deal, Sami Farha raised the pot on the button
>with Ad-5c, called by Jason Lester in the small blind with Qd-Kh, and by
>Dan Harrington in the big blind with Jc-Ah, and then when the flop came up
>10s-10c-Ks, ESPN showed "79%" for Lester, just slightly 'off' from the
>actual 79.84% rounding to '80%' --

Nobody gives a shit you moronic, stupid, fucking BITCH!

[AcesLow]

On Aug 14 2003 3:45PM, Shutup and go Away wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:15:43 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In ESPN's eighth featured deal, Sami Farha raised the pot on the button
> >with Ad-5c, called by Jason Lester in the small blind with Qd-Kh, and by
> >Dan Harrington in the big blind with Jc-Ah, and then when the flop came up
> >10s-10c-Ks, ESPN showed "79%" for Lester, just slightly 'off' from the
> >actual 79.84% rounding to '80%' --
>
> Nobody gives a shit you moronic, stupid, fucking BITCH!

How dare you call "Barbara" a bitch!!!! Bitches are female. "Barbara" is
a cross-dressing male named Lawrence Hill...OK!?!

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Barbara Yoon]

>> ESPN's eighth featured deal, Sami Farha...Ad-5c...Jason Lester...Qd-Kh...
>> ...Dan Harrington...Jc-Ah...flop...10s-10c-Ks...Harrington folded...9c came
>> on the turn, ESPN showed "88%" when Farha then could win only with
>> one of the two remaining ACES coming up on the river, leaving 40 of the 42
>> 'unknown' cards -- that's 95.24% of them -- winning for Lester -- and yet
>> ESPN mysteriously somehow counted 40/42 as only "88%"...?! Jeeez...!!

>> In other words, ESPN would have us believe here that Farha's chances on
>> the river, rounded to nearest whole 1%, were 100% - "88%" = 12%, which
>> translates to *FIVE* 'outs' for him, while in truth, Farha actually had only
>> *TWO* 'outs' (the two remaining aces) for 100% - 95.24% = 5% chances...

<Shutup and go Away>:
> Nobody gives a shit you moronic, stupid, fucking BITCH!



Hah.....any bets on, between ME and this 'new' pink-cheeked 'stoogie boy'
here, who'll be first to "Shutup and Go Away"...?!

[Barbara Yoon]

<Shutup and go Away>:
>> Nobody gives a shit you moronic, stupid, fucking BITCH!

"AcesLow" <anonymous@yahoo.com>:
> How dare you call "Barbara" a bitch!!!! Bitches are female.
> "Barbara" is a cross-dressing male named Lawrence Hill...OK!?!
> __________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com



Hah.....two 'new' anonymous pink-cheeked 'stoogie boys' here...and that's just
the way Barry likes 'em -- all nice and "pink-cheeked" -- and Barry sure does
know how to make 'em sooo "pink-cheeked" too*****...just like "Happy"...!!

*****YYOOWW--WWEEEE...!!

[Barbara Yoon]

<Shutup and go Away>:
>> Nobody gives a shit you moronic, stupid, fucking BITCH!

"AcesLow" <anonymous@yahoo.com>:
> How dare you call "Barbara" a bitch!!!! Bitches are female.
> "Barbara" is a cross-dressing male named Lawrence Hill...OK!?!
> __________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com



This goofy "AcesLow" f*gg*t character has obviously had ol' "dave keiser"
"dickweeding" away up his flabby a** a few too many times...!!

[AcesLow]

"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message
> This goofy "AcesLow" f*gg*t character has obviously had ol' "dave keiser"
> "dickweeding" away up his flabby a** a few too many times...!!

That isn't very ladylike of you, "Barbara."

[AcesLow]

"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in message news:<bhhk45$rhc$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> <Shutup and go Away>:
> >> Nobody gives a shit you moronic, stupid, fucking BITCH!
>
> "AcesLow" <anonymous@yahoo.com>:
> > How dare you call "Barbara" a bitch!!!! Bitches are female.
> > "Barbara" is a cross-dressing male named Lawrence Hill...OK!?!
> > __________________________________________________
> > Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
>
>
>
> Hah.....two 'new' anonymous pink-cheeked 'stoogie boys' here...and that's just
> the way Barry likes 'em -- all nice and "pink-cheeked" -- and Barry sure does
> know how to make 'em sooo "pink-cheeked" too*****...just like "Happy"...!!
>
> *****YYOOWW--WWEEEE...!!

Wow. You've really lost it, haven't you? I have no affiliation with
Barry Shulman, Cardplayer, Peg Smith, or any of the other Hundreds of
people who see you as a joke. I'm just someone who thinks you need to
get up and get a life, stop pretending to be someone you are not, stop
hiding behind false names, stop cross-dressing, and stop wasting his
life analyzing ESPN videotape and pretending that a fraction of a
percent means any-thing to the casual viewer.

It may shock you to find out, but I don't really believe there is a
conspiracy against you. Why? Well, many reasons:

1) You aren't worth the time.
2) You give yourself far to much credit, conspiracies are reserved for
those who actually matter. Most people laugh at you behind your back.
I do it to your face.
3) You aren't even man enough (pun intended) to post as yourself, even
though 99% of RGP knows who you are. (Yes, I realize this figure is
actually 99.42%, but I rounded down…OK?)
4) You spend your time researching useless information nobody cares
about. This is not conspiracy-worthy, merely flame-worthy by posters
who find you pedantic and trite.

Hope this clears things up. I am simply a poster who finds you
hypocritical, moronic, cowardly, and unintentionally funny. I admit I
enjoy your posts, because they provide me amusement as to how lame you
really are. It is worth my time to respond to your posts, because I
enjoy your reaction. The moment it stops giving me pleasure, I will
stop inflating your ego by acknowledging your existence (well, the
existence of Lawrence Hill at least, I still don't believe in "Barbara
Yoon" , "Bigfoot", or that Elvis is still alive.

Hope you have a wonderful morning. Keep reviewing those tapes, and
don't stop to think about how much of your life you are wasting, it
will only depress you… OK?!?!

[Barbara Yoon]

In ESPN's ninth featured deal, Sami Farha raised with Qs-Ac, called by
eventual champion Chris Moneymaker with 8c-6c in the big blind, and
after the flop of Kd-As-7c, ESPN showed "89%" for Farha, just slightly
'off' from the actual 90.30% rounding to '90%'...

[Peg Smith]

In article <bhj3tm$hpe$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
writes:

>In ESPN's ninth featured deal, Sami Farha raised with Qs-Ac, called by
>eventual champion Chris Moneymaker with 8c-6c in the big blind, and
>after the flop of Kd-As-7c, ESPN showed "89%" for Farha, just slightly
>'off' from the actual 90.30% rounding to '90%'...

Yep. Crackers.

Peg

[Gary Carson]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:17:13 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
>
>
>Randy -- this is MATH, and in math, such a number of measure is
either
>RIGHT, or it's WRONG --

Actually it's a probability calculation and the difference between
their calculation and yours is either meaningful or it's not.

The modern method is to report p-values, not to accept/reject (unless
your some kind of Baysian in which case the modern method is to get
those windmills)

Hey, maybe that's it. Maybe they're doing Baysian estimates and you
just don't know their priors?

[Scott Seidman]

"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in
news:bhjf64$9nd$1@bob.news.rcn.net:

>>> In ESPN's ninth featured deal, Sami Farha raised with Qs-Ac, called
>>> by eventual champion Chris Moneymaker with 8c-6c in the big blind,
>>> and after the flop of Kd-As-7c, ESPN showed "89%" for Farha, just
>>> slightly 'off' from the actual 90.30% rounding to '90%'...
>
> "RMITCHCOLL" (Randy Collack):
>> come on Barbara....is this really that bad. do you really think this
>> is noteworthy?
>>
>> I am not a new poster or anonymous...but I think you are being silly.
>
>
>
> Randy -- this is MATH, and in math, such a number of measure is either
> RIGHT, or it's WRONG -- and so if ESPN shows "89%" (rounded)
> where the RIGHT number is 90.30%, then ESPN is simply WRONG
> -- it's really just that simple... And ESPN's WRONG numbers are
> especially inexcusable because of the fact that the RIGHT numbers are
> so readily attainable... As you can tell, I'm an old-fashioned
> believer that 'if something is worth doing, then it's worth doing
> RIGHT'.....OK?!
>
>
>
>

Here's a question. When ESPN posts the odds, should they post the odds as
the player sees them, or should it post the odds calculating in the values
of the all the hole cards ESPN sees?

[Perry Friedman]

In article <Xns93D8A96F871FAscottseidmanmindspri@130.133.1.4>,
Scott Seidman <namdiesttocs@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in
>news:bhjf64$9nd$1@bob.news.rcn.net:
>
>>>> In ESPN's ninth featured deal, Sami Farha raised with Qs-Ac, called
>>>> by eventual champion Chris Moneymaker with 8c-6c in the big blind,
>>>> and after the flop of Kd-As-7c, ESPN showed "89%" for Farha, just
>>>> slightly 'off' from the actual 90.30% rounding to '90%'...
>>
>> "RMITCHCOLL" (Randy Collack):
>>> come on Barbara....is this really that bad. do you really think this
>>> is noteworthy?
>>>
>>> I am not a new poster or anonymous...but I think you are being silly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Randy -- this is MATH, and in math, such a number of measure is either
>> RIGHT, or it's WRONG -- and so if ESPN shows "89%" (rounded)
>> where the RIGHT number is 90.30%, then ESPN is simply WRONG
>> -- it's really just that simple... And ESPN's WRONG numbers are
>> especially inexcusable because of the fact that the RIGHT numbers are
>> so readily attainable... As you can tell, I'm an old-fashioned
>> believer that 'if something is worth doing, then it's worth doing
>> RIGHT'.....OK?!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Here's a question. When ESPN posts the odds, should they post the odds as
>the player sees them, or should it post the odds calculating in the values
>of the all the hole cards ESPN sees?

Well, except when people are all in, how can you post the odds "as
the player sees them"? The player only sees his own cards!

Perry

[Scott Seidman]

friedman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Perry Friedman) wrote in
news:bhjhjv$c6o$1@Xenon.Stanford.EDU:

> In article <Xns93D8A96F871FAscottseidmanmindspri@130.133.1.4>,
> Scott Seidman <namdiesttocs@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in
>>news:bhjf64$9nd$1@bob.news.rcn.net:
>>
>>>>> In ESPN's ninth featured deal, Sami Farha raised with Qs-Ac,
>>>>> called by eventual champion Chris Moneymaker with 8c-6c in the big
>>>>> blind, and after the flop of Kd-As-7c, ESPN showed "89%" for
>>>>> Farha, just slightly 'off' from the actual 90.30% rounding to
>>>>> '90%'...
>>>
>>> "RMITCHCOLL" (Randy Collack):
>>>> come on Barbara....is this really that bad. do you really think
>>>> this is noteworthy?
>>>>
>>>> I am not a new poster or anonymous...but I think you are being
>>>> silly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Randy -- this is MATH, and in math, such a number of measure is
>>> either RIGHT, or it's WRONG -- and so if ESPN shows "89%" (rounded)
>>> where the RIGHT number is 90.30%, then ESPN is simply WRONG
>>> -- it's really just that simple... And ESPN's WRONG numbers are
>>> especially inexcusable because of the fact that the RIGHT numbers
>>> are so readily attainable... As you can tell, I'm an old-fashioned
>>> believer that 'if something is worth doing, then it's worth doing
>>> RIGHT'.....OK?!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Here's a question. When ESPN posts the odds, should they post the
>>odds as the player sees them, or should it post the odds calculating
>>in the values of the all the hole cards ESPN sees?
>
> Well, except when people are all in, how can you post the odds "as
> the player sees them"? The player only sees his own cards!
>
> Perry
>

That's just it-- I suppose I should have said "as the player doesn't see
them", but that wouldn't sound right

Scott

[Perry Friedman]

Actually, I think (or thought) what you were asking was whether they
should take into account all hole cards that they know, or just the ones
for the hands involved in the pot. I don't mind them taking into account
hands that were folded, but if they do, they should at least show the
hands that they are using to calculate their odds. Sometimes, they don't
show all the folded cards, so if they are using them to calculate odds,
they should at least show those cards, so we can see where they are getting
their numbers fomr. Of course, the average Joe at home probably doesn't
care.

Perry

In article <Xns93D8B1049DB5Ascottseidmanmindspri@130.133.1.4>,
Scott Seidman <namdiesttocs@mindspring.com> wrote:
>friedman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Perry Friedman) wrote in
>news:bhjhjv$c6o$1@Xenon.Stanford.EDU:
>
>> In article <Xns93D8A96F871FAscottseidmanmindspri@130.133.1.4>,
>> Scott Seidman <namdiesttocs@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>"Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com> wrote in
>>>news:bhjf64$9nd$1@bob.news.rcn.net:
>>>
>>>>>> In ESPN's ninth featured deal, Sami Farha raised with Qs-Ac,
>>>>>> called by eventual champion Chris Moneymaker with 8c-6c in the big
>>>>>> blind, and after the flop of Kd-As-7c, ESPN showed "89%" for
>>>>>> Farha, just slightly 'off' from the actual 90.30% rounding to
>>>>>> '90%'...
>>>>
>>>> "RMITCHCOLL" (Randy Collack):
>>>>> come on Barbara....is this really that bad. do you really think
>>>>> this is noteworthy?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not a new poster or anonymous...but I think you are being
>>>>> silly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Randy -- this is MATH, and in math, such a number of measure is
>>>> either RIGHT, or it's WRONG -- and so if ESPN shows "89%" (rounded)
>>>> where the RIGHT number is 90.30%, then ESPN is simply WRONG
>>>> -- it's really just that simple... And ESPN's WRONG numbers are
>>>> especially inexcusable because of the fact that the RIGHT numbers
>>>> are so readily attainable... As you can tell, I'm an old-fashioned
>>>> believer that 'if something is worth doing, then it's worth doing
>>>> RIGHT'.....OK?!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Here's a question. When ESPN posts the odds, should they post the
>>>odds as the player sees them, or should it post the odds calculating
>>>in the values of the all the hole cards ESPN sees?
>>
>> Well, except when people are all in, how can you post the odds "as
>> the player sees them"? The player only sees his own cards!
>>
>> Perry
>>
>
>That's just it-- I suppose I should have said "as the player doesn't see
>them", but that wouldn't sound right
>
>Scott

[Shutup and go Away]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:04:55 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
wrote:

>In ESPN's ninth featured deal, Sami Farha raised with Qs-Ac, called by
>eventual champion Chris Moneymaker with 8c-6c in the big blind, and
>after the flop of Kd-As-7c, ESPN showed "89%" for Farha, just slightly
>'off' from the actual 90.30% rounding to '90%'...

Yea, so? You stuipd, fucking bitch.

[Barbara Yoon]

Michael Joyce:
> ...the "right" number is not 90.30%, but rather some more complicated number
> (a rational number though, so the decimal expansion will repeat...eventually).
> I don't doubt that 90.30% is the correct approximation to two decimal points...

Michael...a very fine point there...to a non-math person, '90.30%' and '90.3%'
would mean 'the same thing,' while not so to a math person...

Michael Joyce:
> Of course, it would be nice if ESPN took the time to get the right (approximate)
> value of the odds in the hand. And I do think viewers should be critical of the
> overall sloppiness in their coverage of the WSOP. But the fact that occassionally
> the odds they give are slightly off is, by itself, irrelevant. (And good poker
> players, who know the odds relating to various situations that arise at the table,
> never bother to know the exact odds, because their strategy wouldn't differ if
> they knew they were, for example, a 3.1-1 dog and not a 3-1 dog.)

OK...fair enough there...but then tell us about this other situation below...

>>>> ESPN's eighth featured deal, Sami Farha...Ad-5c...Jason Lester...Qd-Kh...
>>>> ...Dan Harrington...Jc-Ah...flop...10s-10c-Ks...Harrington folded...9c came
>>>> on the turn, ESPN showed "88%" when Farha then could win only with
>>>> one of the two remaining ACES coming up on the river, leaving 40 of the 42
>>>> 'unknown' cards -- that's 95.24% of them -- winning for Lester -- and yet
>>>> ESPN mysteriously somehow counted 40/42 as only "88%"...?! Jeeez...!!
>>>
>> In other words, ESPN would have us believe here that Farha's chances on
>> the river, rounded to nearest whole 1%, were 100% - "88%" = 12%, which
>> translates to *FIVE* 'outs' for him, while in truth, Farha actually had only
>> *TWO* 'outs' (the two remaining aces) for 100% - 95.24% = 5% chances...

So might 'a good poker player's strategy differ if he knew he was a 40-to-2 dog
(that is, 20.00-to-1) and not a 37-to-5 dog' (that is, 7.40-to-1)...?!

[Gary Carson]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:34:11 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
wrote:

>Michael Joyce:
>> ...the "right" number is not 90.30%, but rather some more
complicated number
>> (a rational number though, so the decimal expansion will
repeat...eventually).
>> I don't doubt that 90.30% is the correct approximation to two
decimal points...
>
>Michael...a very fine point there...to a non-math person, '90.30%'
and '90.3%'
>would mean 'the same thing,' while not so to a math person...

Actually, I think it's mostly engineers who make that distinction, not
really math people. A lot of math people don't care much about
computation.

[Barbara Yoon]

In ESPN's tenth featured deal, eventual champion Chris Moneymaker
opened the pot with a raise from the small blind with 4s-4d, and then
folded after being re-raised by Amir Vahedi in the big blind with As-Qc
-- before his fold, ESPN showed "53%" for Moneymaker, only just
slightly 'off' from the actual 53.68% rounding up to '54%'...

[Michael Joyce]

Barbara Yoon wrote:
> Michael Joyce:
>
>>...the "right" number is not 90.30%, but rather some more complicated number
>>(a rational number though, so the decimal expansion will repeat...eventually).
>>I don't doubt that 90.30% is the correct approximation to two decimal points...
>
>
> Michael...a very fine point there...to a non-math person, '90.30%' and '90.3%'
> would mean 'the same thing,' while not so to a math person...
>
> Michael Joyce:
>
>>Of course, it would be nice if ESPN took the time to get the right (approximate)
>>value of the odds in the hand. And I do think viewers should be critical of the
>>overall sloppiness in their coverage of the WSOP. But the fact that occassionally
>>the odds they give are slightly off is, by itself, irrelevant. (And good poker
>>players, who know the odds relating to various situations that arise at the table,
>>never bother to know the exact odds, because their strategy wouldn't differ if
>>they knew they were, for example, a 3.1-1 dog and not a 3-1 dog.)
>
>
> OK...fair enough there...but then tell us about this other situation below...
>
>
>>>>>ESPN's eighth featured deal, Sami Farha...Ad-5c...Jason Lester...Qd-Kh...
>>>>>...Dan Harrington...Jc-Ah...flop...10s-10c-Ks...Harrington folded...9c came
>>>>>on the turn, ESPN showed "88%" when Farha then could win only with
>>>>>one of the two remaining ACES coming up on the river, leaving 40 of the 42
>>>>>'unknown' cards -- that's 95.24% of them -- winning for Lester -- and yet
>>>>>ESPN mysteriously somehow counted 40/42 as only "88%"...?! Jeeez...!!
>>>>
>>>In other words, ESPN would have us believe here that Farha's chances on
>>>the river, rounded to nearest whole 1%, were 100% - "88%" = 12%, which
>>>translates to *FIVE* 'outs' for him, while in truth, Farha actually had only
>>>*TWO* 'outs' (the two remaining aces) for 100% - 95.24% = 5% chances...
>>
>
> So might 'a good poker player's strategy differ if he knew he was a 40-to-2 dog
> (that is, 20.00-to-1) and not a 37-to-5 dog' (that is, 7.40-to-1)...?!

This last example *is* a serious error on ESPN's part. Here's it clear
that they missed the boat. It seems clear that they included the three
remaining fives as outs for Farha, and of course they weren't. This
seems to me to be a serious error, but one that was not repeatedly made
(whether making this mistake once is one time too many is a judgment call).

The fact that they were often off by 1% on many other hands is
completely independent of this error, because those 1% deviations are
not due to mistaking which cards are actually outs. The small
deviations from the correct computation are attributable to some other
cause, possibly that ESPN is using the knowledge of what the mucked hole
cards were in the hand or possibly because they are rounding their
numbers in the middle of the computation a bit too loosely.

I still don't see their systematic minor errors in the computation of
the odds being nearly as serious as their deliberate fictionalizing of
the hole cards or their complete miscalculation of the odds on the one
hand you cited. It does, as I said earlier, indicate a general
sloppiness in their coverage of the WSOP, which is also evident in many
other regards (not giving information about the blinds and antes, not
showing the hole cards that are mucked during a hand, etc.).

Best,
Mike

[Shutup and go Away]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:29:53 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
wrote:

>In ESPN's tenth featured deal, eventual champion Chris Moneymaker
>opened the pot with a raise from the small blind with 4s-4d, and then
>folded after being re-raised by Amir Vahedi in the big blind with As-Qc
>-- before his fold, ESPN showed "53%" for Moneymaker, only just
>slightly 'off' from the actual 53.68% rounding up to '54%'...

Please die soon.

[Barbara Yoon]

Michael Joyce:
>>> ...the fact that occassionally the odds they [ESPN] give are slightly off is,
>>> by itself, irrelevant. (And good poker players, who know the odds relating
>>> to various situations that arise at the table, never bother to know the exact
>>> odds, because their strategy wouldn't differ if they knew they were, for
>>> example, a 3.1-1 dog and not a 3-1 dog.)

me:
>> OK...fair enough there...but then tell us about this other situation below...
>>
>> ESPN's eighth featured deal, Sami Farha...Ad-5c...Jason Lester...Qd-Kh...
>> ...Dan Harrington...Jc-Ah...flop...10s-10c-Ks...Harrington folded...9c came
>> on the turn, ESPN showed "88%" when Farha then could win only with
>> one of the two remaining ACES coming up on the river, leaving 40 of the 42
>> 'unknown' cards -- that's 95.24% of them -- winning for Lester -- and yet
>> ESPN mysteriously somehow counted 40/42 as only "88%"...?! Jeeez...!!
>>
>> In other words, ESPN would have us believe here that Farha's chances on
>> the river, rounded to nearest whole 1%, were 100% - "88%" = 12%, which
>> translates to *FIVE* 'outs' for him, while in truth, Farha actually had only
>> *TWO* 'outs' (the two remaining aces) for 100% - 95.24% = 5% chances...
>> So might 'a good poker player's strategy differ if he knew he was a 40-to-2 dog
>> (that is, 20.00-to-1) and not a 37-to-5 dog' (that is, 7.40-to-1)...?!

Michael Joyce:
> This last example *is* a serious error on ESPN's part. Here's it clear that
> they missed the boat. It seems clear that they included the three remaining
> fives as outs for Farha, and of course they weren't. ...a serious error...



Michael.....yes...always interesting, as a sort of 'puzzle,' to try to figure out
exactly how somebody else went wrong...and your theory is that ESPN
might've mistakenly "included the three remaining fives as outs for Farha."
My own theory is that ESPN might've mistakenly 'swapped' Farha's hand
with Harrington's folded Jc-Ah, which also would've made for five 'outs'
(the two aces, plus three queens for a straight)... What do you think of
that possibility?!

[Michael Joyce]

>>This last example *is* a serious error on ESPN's part. Here's it clear that
>>they missed the boat. It seems clear that they included the three remaining
>>fives as outs for Farha, and of course they weren't. ...a serious error...
>
>
> Michael.....yes...always interesting, as a sort of 'puzzle,' to try to figure out
> exactly how somebody else went wrong...and your theory is that ESPN
> might've mistakenly "included the three remaining fives as outs for Farha."
> My own theory is that ESPN might've mistakenly 'swapped' Farha's hand
> with Harrington's folded Jc-Ah, which also would've made for five 'outs'
> (the two aces, plus three queens for a straight)... What do you think of
> that possibility?!

I'd buy that possibility too. I actually like that better than my
speculation, though it's all a guess as to what was in their heads to
have them include those 3 mystery outs.