Poker Forum

Maniacs!

They don't have what to do and the just play (for millions)

What the hell was Laak doing 3-betting half his stack with AK when he's about 200 BB's deep?

It's Phil Laak, what do you expect? The only thing he's good at, is annoying everyone at the table.

It's Phil Laak, what do you expect? The only thing he's good at, is annoying everyone at the table.

I actually think that he is a little bit better than that, that being said he is more of a cash game player than tourney and it seems he enjoys the tourney probably more for the trip than the tourney itself...

This is cash game.

Sorry, didn t read the full title, I stopped at Aussie million....

on the last run, antonius vs robl, doesn't the 3 give antonius a straight? 3-4-5-6-7?

Yes, but the river gives robl a spade flush.

phil laak imo is a very good player

Antonius's hand is not just a "slight favorite on the flop" — it is more than a 2:1 favourite (562/820 = 0.6854).

The chance of losing all four runs was less than 1%.

I think it was less than that 1% by at least another factor of three. Remember, those four runs are all coming out of the same portion of a deck, so every time Antonius lost, it improved the odds that he'd win the next time given the mix of cards that remained.

hintze wrote

I think it was less than that 1% by at least another factor of three. Remember, those four runs are all coming out of the same portion of a deck, so every time Antonius lost, it improved the odds that he'd win the next time given the mix of cards that remained.

Congrat's - you are the first person, (besides myself) that has tried to explain the true odds of running it twice or more, "because the cards are coming out of the same portion of the deck everytime" - thus changing the math from the way (variance) most of the players compute running it twice or more. I do believe your way of thinking is correct.