View Full Version : Re: GCA "Action Flops" Theory
Newgca
05-01-2005, 06:31 PM
>He could be a .01/.02 fish but that wouldn't change the fact that analyzing
>a random set of 500 hands would be enough to effectively prove or disprove
>your theory.
No one seems able to analyze a simple 53 card lowball hand, so how in the world
could they analyze anything more complex?
On 27 Aug 2003 07:04:06 GMT, newgca@aol.com (Newgca) wrote:
>No one seems able to analyze a simple 53 card lowball hand, so how in the world
>could they analyze anything more complex?
Wrong again, thief. We can analyze much more complex problems than
that. You see, here's the thing. Nobody gives a rat's ass what you
think about anything save a few newbies whom you spoon feed with your
crap.
What I want to know is when are you going to start making restitution?
Michael Langford
05-01-2005, 06:31 PM
newgca@aol.com (Newgca) wrote in message news:<20030827030406.10856.00000632@mb-m14.aol.com>...
> >He could be a .01/.02 fish but that wouldn't change the fact that analyzing
> >a random set of 500 hands would be enough to effectively prove or disprove
> >your theory.
>
> No one seems able to analyze a simple 53 card lowball hand, so how in the world
> could they analyze anything more complex?
I'll bite on this one. What's supposedly unteneble about analysis of
53 card lowball?