News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Full Tilt Ponzi. Parent comment

Re:Full Tilt Ponzi by ssharp on Tuesday September 20, 2011 @10:18PM (#3020453)
You lose some competitive advantage with the rush style, mainly in reading your opponents tendencies in betting patterns, hands played, etc., so win-rates don't scale entirely with hands/hour.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Full Tilt Ponzi by dustingetz on Tuesday September 20, 2011 @10:30PM (#3020488)
House revenue and rake, not player winrates.

Edit as an ex midstakes amateur, frankly I speculate rush is unbeaatable after rake bc the nash equilibrium style is ez and widely known, good players have no edge, bot wet dream. Sent from mobile

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Full Tilt Ponzi by ssharp on Wednesday September 21, 2011 @08:58AM (#3021791)
That makes sense then - I completely misread what you were saying.

I only tried rush poker in passing once. By the time it came around, I had already been out of the online poker game (I pretty much gave it up after PartyPoker withdrew from the market), but if the tracking programs w/ heads-up displays still worked and you could get enough data on the people you were paired with, you could figure out people's pre-flop tendencies enough to probably squeak out an edge. Losing post-flop data hurts though, unless that data was still tracked even though you moved on after folding.

[ Parent | on HN ]