Poker vs Bridge Size (2 Viewers)

[JustinInMN]

No one is disputing that U.S. casinos overwhelmingly use bridge-sized cards now. Straw man argument there...

Oh pah-leeeze you sleaze.

You think this is a straw man, but if anything it's an appeal to authority fallacy. (Which would be the case if this was the sole argument here.)

You know what else is an appeal to authority.

Referring to the output of a chat bot designed to regurgitate an answer the user wants after leading prompts as some sort of definitive proof of your point.

When you point one finger, four are pointing back at you.

You are now the poster child for this saying. And you probably don't understand why.

I and many others have determined the level of credibility you deserve and will act accordingly going forward.

 

[upNdown]

I and many others have determined the level of credibility you deserve and will act accordingly going forward.

 

[Old State]

No one is disputing that U.S. casinos overwhelmingly use bridge-sized cards now. Straw man argument there...

The questions are (a) whether there sound reasons why casinos use them now, and (b) whether this relatively new standard is actually optimal, and (c) whether casino standards are necessarily good for home games.

You using the term “straw man argument” to describe what I said is out of context and is it’s self ironically a strawman argument

You are simply a contrarian

55+ years …a relatively new standard WTF???

 

[TheRealTeddyKGB]

 

[Taghkanic]

Oh pah-leeeze you sleaze.

You think this is a straw man, but if anything it's an appeal to authority fallacy. (Which would be the case if this was the sole argument here.)

You know what else is an appeal to authority.

Referring to the output of a chat bot designed to regurgitate an answer the user wants after leading prompts as some sort of definitive proof of your point.

When you point one finger, four are pointing back at you.

You are now the poster child for this saying. And you probably don't understand why.

I and many others have determined the level of credibility you deserve and will act accordingly going forward.

The hysterical level of personal attack here is bizarre, especially coming from someone who has responded thoughtfully and usefully to my posts dozens of times, going back to 2018. It reads like it was dictated to a phone while squealing in falsetto.

Someone seems to be very upset that anyone gets asked to reconsider their predetermined and unquestioned views. I think that’s just a necessary element of intellectual honesty.

As to chatbots... There are many things which they are objectively better at analyzing than your average human without a PhD. For example, the physics of what makes a card flip over when it gets pitched, and how variations in size affect those calcuations.

But do give us your analysis, showing all work, to demonstrate why A.I. is unqualified to perform such tasks. I am fully aware of the limits of A.I., especially for subjective topics. But technical tasks like this are the one area where it can be useful.

 

[Taghkanic]

You using the term “straw man argument” to describe what I said is out of context and is it’s self ironically a strawman argument

That was a direct and fair response to you triumphantly posting multiple photos of completely unnecessary proof that casinos use bridge-sized cards.

Everyone knows that is the case, and it was not what we were debating.

Completely off-point, as no one disputes that bridge is the U.S. casino standard.

That is the very definition of a straw man argument: Attacking something no one was saying, to distract from the actual debate.

 

[Machine]

There are many things which they are objectively better at analyzing than your average human without a PhD. For example, the physics of what makes a card flip over when it gets pitched

AI or any computer program doesn't need to analyze the physics of what makes a card flip; a below-average degenerate can explain it without understanding physics. The card hits the player while it is in motion, and it flips over. The card's size is moot; it happens regardless of size.

This is the majority of the time. Sure, players who don't deal also throw a card too hard, and it will flip over. This is a skill issue, and while there is a slight variance based on card size, it's still not the most significant contributor to the card flipping.

and how variations in size affect those calcuations.

Do we really need to know the difference between two cards that are a standard deviation plus / minus is .01 percent more likely to flip?

showing all work, to prove your point that A.I. is worse at it.

You assert that AI has made correct calculations, you good sir, need to prove AI is correct.

Maybe you can find Russell's Tea Pot for us ...

Hopefully you'll find no ad hominem here

 

[Taghkanic]

Do we really need to know the difference between two cards that are a standard deviation plus / minus is .01 percent more likely to flip?

I actually already posted this exact point, so we are not in disagreement.

The difference in poker vs. bridge width is small for pitching, though probably not as low as .01%.

More importantly, and as already posted:

ChatGPT found that (1) dealer technique followed by (2) the cupping of a card is likely to contribute to misdeals more than card width, within reason... Obviously, if you had a card that was 1/2" wide by 9" long, even the best dealer would have issues pitching it.

You assert that AI has made correct calculations, you good sir, need to prove AI is correct.

I am not a physicist or engineer (high school physics and intro to calculus is as far as I got in school). But the bot’s analysis seemed sound to me.

If you want to review that analysis, and have the tools to do so, just ask for the full chat. FWIW here are the main considerations it took into account re. flipping:

• Release-torque sensitivity (dealer biomechanics, friction asymmetry)
• Rotational inertia (how much a given release torque produces angular velocity)
• Aerodynamic torque and flutter (how air loads amplify small attitude errors)
• Proprioceptive indexing (how reliably the hand repeats a release)

It also took into account :

• Bending stiffness of the stock (thickness, fiber orientation, coating)
• Corner radius (reduces corner-catch and flutter initiation)
• Surface friction vs felt/layout (affects launch and early flight)
• Release geometry (thumb path and wrist angle)
• Humidity / static (affects cling and release asymmetry)

It’s unlikely there are more than 2-3 PCFers who could run such calculations, but hats off to anyone who can.

In any case: The issues raised about size differences are not limited to pitching, but also shuffling ease/difficulty, hand strain, ability to hold cards and view indices in multiple-card games, amount of room needed place cards on the board, etc.

 

[Machine]

In any case: The issues raised about size differences are not limited to pitching, but also shuffling ease/difficulty, hand strain, ability to hold cards and view indices in multiple-card games, amount of room needed place cards on the board, etc.

I think all the small things ... add up, at the end of the day I think if you have a deticaded dealer, they should make the decicions as to what they want.

otherwise I think its host prerogative.

 

[Taghkanic]

I think all the small things ... add up, at the end of the day I think if you have a deticaded dealer, they should make the decicions as to what they want.

otherwise I think its host prerogative.

It certainly makes sense to defer to what your dealer wants on such matters... unless a high-percentage of your regs have a strong preference. Whether that preference is rational or not! (A lot of players probably don’t even notice the width difference.)

 

[JustinInMN]

The hysterical level of personal attack here is bizarre, especially coming from someone who has responded thoughtfully and usefully to my posts dozens of times, going back to 2018. It reads like it was dictated to a phone while squealing in falsetto.

Someone seems to be very upset that anyone gets asked to reconsider their predetermined and unquestioned views. I think that’s just a necessary element of intellectual honesty.

As to chatbots... There are many things which they are objectively better at analyzing than your average human without a PhD. For example, the physics of what makes a card flip over when it gets pitched, and how variations in size affect those calcuations.

But do give us your analysis, showing all work, to demonstrate why A.I. is unqualified to perform such tasks. I am fully aware of the limits of A.I., especially for subjective topics. But technical tasks like this are the one area where it can be useful.

You have gone way past bad faith in this one. No matter what anyone presents, professionals with experience, you are dismissing this for no good reason other than you have appointed yourself the anti-groupthink cop, and accept no possible explanation because you are some engineer that doesn't want to be open to the possiblity that people that do this for a living hundreds of times a day, several hundred thousand times a year would notice the size difference.

The original poll is close, which also shows bridge size is hardly a universal preference, it has a narrow lead. And in self delt games where players might deal 6-8 times a night you are right it probably makes no difference.

But you need to be confronted on how weak your dismissal of industry professionals is.

 

[Taghkanic]

You have gone way past bad faith in this one. No matter what anyone presents, professionals with experience, you are dismissing this for no good reason other than you have appointed yourself the anti-groupthink cop, and accept no possible explanation because you are some engineer that doesn't want to be open to the possiblity that people that do this for a living hundreds of times a day, several hundred thousand times a year would notice the size difference.

The original poll is close, which also shows bridge size is hardly a universal preference, it has a narrow lead. And in self delt games where players might deal 6-8 times a night you are right it probably makes no difference.

But you need to be confronted on how weak your dismissal of industry professionals is.

Viciously attacking someone’s character over a difference of opinion (a) is against this site’s rules and (b) says more about the attacker’s ability to argue cogently than anything else.

 

[RocAFella1]

It reads like it was dictated to a phone while squealing in falsetto.

Viciously attack much?

 

[Old State]

Viciously attacking someone’s character over a difference of opinion (a) is against this site’s rules and (b) says more about the attacker’s ability to argue cogently than anything else.

This is amazing! You attack people all the time! Even accused me of lying. You challenge people’s experience because you yourself haven’t experienced it.

And yes, you claimed casinos don’t use bridge cards because the preference of the dealers that deal and handle cards all day…but rather because you imagined they are cheaper to buy…and that, even if true, would be a motivation of a casino. An absurd position

You don’t listen to people…you spin your own opinions and preferences as objective truths….and when you realize your position if difficult to support you imagine a position for others that you feel you can argue against …and do that. You are the king of the straw man argument.

It’s one thing to pontificate in the political forums, but you have decided to be the knee jerk contrarian in even the most mundane topics

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

As to chatbots... There are many things which they are objectively better at analyzing than your average humanwithout a PhD.

Ooooh this is a fun one, I haven't played this card on here in a while!

I am not a physicist or engineer (high school physics and intro to calculus is as far as I got in school). But the bot’s analysis seemed sound to me.

We can run these types of analyses, but much like most AI bullshit, its just quantity over quality. I'm the asshole with a PhD in Engineering that has been telling you the analysis is bullshit. I am not going to spend an hour doing these analyses because the PhD has taught me that time is a currency and that's stupid. I am instead going to try and explain why I don't hunt down every reported metric.

First it told you what you didn't want to hear. Then you "convinced it", and now you're using its output as proof of something. Autocorrelation out the ass. Its reporting metrics and bolding things and telling you you're great, while those tests are not helpful. Boil down its arguments:

-It reports that how the dealer throws it matters: duh.

-It reports the playing surface matters: duh.

- It reports that the cards cupping/bowing is the main culprit in whether a card flips? No shit, I have been railing against KEMs for years and I did that before I finished Calc 4. Lived experience trumps an AI's report of something it has never done, and any engineer worth their salt will tell you the same.

If something is preferred there is a reason more than just gossip. Its not my job to make sure my measured values match a model, it is instead my job to find the cavitation causing the difference and attempt to model the real world experience. Yes, we can calculate angular velocity, viscosity of the air around the card, the humidity and friction coefficients, but the point is its not helpful to the discussion; you dismiss n=X card dealers because you say they must not be analyzing why they prefer a card, when in reality that preference is built up from hours pitching cards. The source you're citing does not know how a card feels.

ChatGPT outputs in this thread are like a freshman research report, they found a function they like but can't explain the graph. I would be much nicer about this on Page 1 but by Page 8 I'm pretty sick of this. This is what I have to deal with, undergraduates arguing with my grading because ChatGPT told them they're a special boy and they should consider -insert fluid mechanics theory that has too many assumptions here-.

 

[JustinInMN]

- It reports that the cards cupping/bowing is the main culprit in whether a card flips? No shit, I have been railing against KEMs for years and I did that before I finished Calc 4. Lived experience trumps an AI's report of something it has never done, and any engineer worth their salt will tell you the same

I am going to search this up.

I haven't been big on KEM myself, but I couldn't figure out why.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I am going to search this up.

I haven't been big on KEM myself, but I couldn't figure out why.

Cause they're awful, flawed products that people apologize for like they're in a bad relationship.
"Gee, you're right to question that! User states they don't like KEMs:

Flat cards spin when pitched but face down bowing means they won't go as far or they'll catch and flip, while face up bowing will be more likely to glide but flip due to the boundary layers created as it moves through the air. Air is a fluid, any object moving through it is affected by the no-slip condition and edges break that down. Like an airplanes wing, the bowed edges of the card coming in contact with the air as it flies can cause lift and reveal the card prematurely. Oopsie! Many players prefer KEMs, but they shouldn't because you're right! Dealers oftentimes do not consider whether their table is made of cadmium, or whether their table has been properly lubricated. Great question!
"

See? I can ChatGPT too and write a paragraph, look at me go.

 

[Taghkanic]

First it told you what you didn't want to hear. Then you "convinced it", and now you're using its output as proof of something.

Actually, that’s not how it went down at all. I asked it what drove the change from bridge to poker sized. It gave me some standard “let me scan a few popular websites” answer. I then proceeded not to “convince” it, but asked it to list the factors which went into this decision, and to analyze them one by one. Pretty quickly it arrived at a pretty nuanced answer.

Anyone who uses A.I. for anything but rote questions should know that you get better results if you probe, and choose prompts and queries which challenge the bot to look deeper, to reconsider assumptions, etc.

This is a standard piece of advice you get from professionals with expertise in A.I.

BTW many of the first-pass answers were pretty much cut-and-pastes from posts on this site, LOL.

Autocorrelation out the ass. It's reporting metrics and bolding things and telling you you're great, while those tests are not helpful. Boil down its arguments:

-It reports that how the dealer throws it matters: duh.

-It reports the playing surface matters: duh.

- It reports that the cards cupping/bowing is the main culprit in whether a card flips? No shit, I have been railing against KEMs for years and I did that before I finished Calc 4. Lived experience trumps an AI's report of something it has never done, and any engineer worth their salt will tell you the same.

So you agree with its main findings: That the size is less important than other factors.

If something is preferred there is a reason more than just gossip.

Do you believe this is true in all things?

Burger King is more popular than the nearest restaurant with organic, home-cooked meals in my town. Ergo, I should always eat at Burger King. Right?

Likewise, without bringing any particular politics into this, it is sometimes the case that the winning candidate in any election is not in fact the best candidate. Sometimes the winner is just the incumbent, or the person who spent more on ads, or the person with the more catchy rhetoric. Again, not taking sides... Everyone can pick their favorite example based on their own ideology.

P.S. The bot did not “tell me I’m great.” It didn't even know what my beliefs were on this. BTW there are recommended prompts to specifically instruct an LLM to not sugarcoat their responses. Sometimes you can choose this a preference across all chats.

It's not my job to make sure my measured values match a model, it is instead my job to find the cavitation causing the difference and attempt to model the real world experience. Yes, we can calculate angular velocity, viscosity of the air around the card, the humidity and friction coefficients, but the point is its not helpful to the discussion; you dismiss n=X card dealers because you say they must not be analyzing why they prefer a card, when in reality that preference is built up from hours pitching cards. The source you're citing does not know how a card feels.

Once again, we are discussing what is best for home games, not casinos, which are unlikely to ever go back for reasons unrelated to actual ergonomics or usability. And no, I have not polled professional dealers on the topic, and have only heard very anecdotal evidence about their general preferences. My guess is that 99.5% of dealers could shuffle and pitch either size for hours just fine.

Anyway, is there some claim that the shift from poker to bridge size in casino poker rooms was due to an uprising among poker room dealers? Cite sources. I doubt any exist, but I’m all ears.

Back on topic:

Many if not most home games do not have professional dealers. I do know the guy who deals my games prefers poker-sized decks, and uses them in his own game. But if I insisted on bridge size he would not care, despite being a rather tall guy with bigger than average hands.

ChatGPT outputs in this thread are like a freshman research report, they found a function they like but can't explain the graph. I would be much nicer about this on Page 1, but by Page 8 I'm pretty sick of this. This is what I have to deal with, undergraduates arguing with my grading because ChatGPT told them they're a special boy and they should consider -insert fluid mechanics theory that has too many assumptions here-.

I only gave a few short summaries, but invited anyone to request the full chat if they want to see the far more elaborate and science-based answers provided. You prefer to skim the very short bullet lists before drawing a conclusion. That’s on you not on the LLM.

 

[Taghkanic]

This is amazing! You attack people all the time! Even accused me of lying.

I asked you politely, many times, to provide even one detailed example of your experience deploying your 80BB/hour strategy.

You refused, over and over again.

So I said I doubted it, due to a lack of evidence.

You still have the opportunity to show how you do it.

 

[upNdown]

Cause they're awful, flawed products that people apologize for like they're in a bad relationship.

Are cigars an awful, flawed product because you have to keep them in a humidor?
Is milk an awful, flawed product because to have to keep it in the fridge?
Are matches an awful, flawed product because to have to keep them dry?
Boom roasted!

 

[JustinInMN]

The original poll is close, which also shows bridge size is hardly a universal preference, it has a narrow lead.

Just realized this is an amazing accidental choice of words. #Narrow

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Actually, that’s not how it went down at all. I asked it what drove the change from bridge to poker sized. It gave me some standard “let me scan a few popular websites” answer. I then proceeded not to “convince” it, but asked it to list the factors which went into this decision, and to analyze them one by one. Pretty quickly it arrived at a pretty nuanced answer.

Nuanced does not mean good. AI wastes time and energy and will spit out crap.

So you agree with its main findings: That the size is less important than other factors.

Yes, and I did so without the "nuance" from AI, starting to get it?

Do you believe this is true in all things?

Burger King is more popular than the nearest restaurant with organic, home-cooked meals in my town. Ergo, I should always eat at Burger King. Right?

Your argument is weak, it can barely be called a straw-man because the birds wouldn't be scared of it. I say "there must be a reason why something is popular" and you answer with "I should always eat it. Right?"

Do you see why that is weak and misses the point? Ask ChatGPT why your answer was weak and missed the point, I am hoping it can get you back on track. I did not say it was always the best choice or the right choice, I said there was a reason more than gossip behind the choice. I never made, nor would I support, the claim that you should prefer bridge cards because others do, or that they're the best choice.

I then offered some simple questions about and critiques of its reasons from my experience writing about industrial design, and judging design contests for various publications. Here was the response—long, but illuminating:

-------- CHAT GPT --------

Your skepticism is well-placed. Many of the commonly repeated justifications for bridge-sized cards are, at best, post-hoc rationalizations rather than rigorously demonstrated ergonomic truths.

When you interrogate them from an industrial-design and human-factors perspective—as you are doing—several of the claims collapse or at least weaken substantially.

Below is a point-by-point analysis, separating what does not really hold up from what actually drove adoption.

So it didn't know your beliefs and you weren't convincing it, but you got an answer then critiqued it and questioned it and gave your background, then got a different answer. I guess "My skepticism is well-placed", too! This is the issue: you don't even see the biases occuring. You get an answer you don't like from the all-knowing AI, then you prompt and prod with questions and critiques, and suddenly it agrees with your point. THEN the answer, which you admit you don't have the background to parse through, is taken as helpful and illuminating.


I DID make the claim that it was stupid to prefer an AI's opinion on card pitching over the preference of actual humans. I am disappointed in myself that I wasted a half hour on this but its two of my favorite things: playing cards and attempting to educate someone with a horribly entrenched position.

 

[extreme517]

Actually, that’s not how it went down at all. I asked it what drove the change from bridge to poker sized. It gave me some standard “let me scan a few popular websites” answer. I then proceeded not to “convince” it, but asked it to list the factors which went into this decision, and to analyze them one by one. Pretty quickly it arrived at a pretty nuanced answer.

Anyone who uses A.I. for anything but rote questions should know that you get better results if you probe, and choose prompts and queries which challenge the bot to look deeper, to reconsider assumptions, etc.

This is a standard piece of advice you get from professionals with expertise in A.I.

BTW many of the first-pass answers were pretty much cut-and-pastes from posts on this site, LOL.



So you agree with its main findings: That the size is less important than other factors.



Do you believe this is true in all things?

Burger King is more popular than the nearest restaurant with organic, home-cooked meals in my town. Ergo, I should always eat at Burger King. Right?

Likewise, without bringing any particular politics into this, it is sometimes the case that the winning candidate in any election is not in fact the best candidate. Sometimes the winner is just the incumbent, or the person who spent more on ads, or the person with the more catchy rhetoric. Again, not taking sides... Everyone can pick their favorite example based on their own ideology.

P.S. The bot did not “tell me I’m great.” It didn't even know what my beliefs were on this. BTW there are recommended prompts to specifically instruct an LLM to not sugarcoat their responses. Sometimes you can choose this a preference across all chats.



Once again, we are discussing what is best for home games, not casinos, which are unlikely to ever go back for reasons unrelated to actual ergonomics or usability. And no, I have not polled professional dealers on the topic, and have only heard very anecdotal evidence about their general preferences. My guess is that 99.5% of dealers could shuffle and pitch either size for hours just fine.

Anyway, is there some claim that the shift from poker to bridge size in casino poker rooms was due to an uprising among poker room dealers? Cite sources. I doubt any exist, but I’m all ears.

Back on topic:

Many if not most home games do not have professional dealers. I do know the guy who deals my games prefers poker-sized decks, and uses them in his own game. But if I insisted on bridge size he would not care, despite being a rather tall guy with bigger than average hands.



I only gave a few short summaries, but invited anyone to request the full chat if they want to see the far more elaborate and science-based answers provided. You prefer to skim the very short bullet lists before drawing a conclusion. That’s on you not on the LLM.

You're so full of BS, but don't even know it. Please study LLMs; you are assuming way too much about ChatGPT/LLMs.

You have to be smart enough/knowledgeable enough to fact check ChatGPT every step of the way. I just asked it for very basic info on three related companies and it spat out bullet points and had the locations wrong on two of them...not even close. I questioned and corrected it and it went out verified and agreed with the correction. When I asked why it got the locations wrong it simply replied:

"You're right - that is a basic fact, and I got it wrong.

What happened: I answered from my internal memory/assumptions instead of verifying the locations first."

 

[Old State]

I asked you politely, many times, to provide even one detailed example of your experience deploying your 80BB/hour strategy.

You refused, over and over again.

So I said I doubted it, due to a lack of evidence.

You still have the opportunity to show how you do it.

I use Poker Bankroll tracker. But you don’t get to say jump and I ask how high. You want me to go through hands to prove it to you, otherwise I’m lying…as you said. You can go F yourself with that jackass comment…hard.

First I commented I use the exact strategies numerous poker vlogers that post about $100/hr low limit holdem do and you simply claim that can’t possibly work…..because you play in rinky dink casinos in the middle of nowhere where all the all the players evidently know each other like a home game. I play in large casino and average between $60-80 at $1/3. SO DO MANY OTHERS. The games are incredibly easy to beat.


Another example of your contrarian obsession and taking your personal unique experience and assuming it applied to every one and every situation.

Buffoonery

PS….I don’t read past the first sentence when you post several paragraphs. Wasted my time with that before. Its all your usual nonsense

 

[Old State]

AI must be where you got the absurd talking point of bridge cards being cheaper. I just did the ask AI thing. You can quickly see AI doesn’t understand some nuance. The “cost effectiveness” is actually related to the use of plastic cards…but AI can’t differentiate. This explains a lot of your dopey comments. It appears you rely on AI for your opinions

We almost fired a younger guy I hired for my sales team. The training team alerted me his messaging seemed to incorporate talking points different than he was being given to study (Fairly complex cancer screening messaging around guideline driven testing). He seemed to be free styling and had talking points made up on his own. He even, without asking me for help, responded to a laboratory customer about a question he couldn’t possible know how to answer. The answer seemed professional sounding but made no real sense. Turns out he was running everything through AI!. Never in my life have I encountered anyone doing this. We put a stop to it quickly before he could do any more damage. We will see if he lasts.

 

[JustinInMN]

AI must be where you got the absurd talking point of bridge cards being cheaper. I just did the ask AI thing. You can quickly see AI doesn’t understand some nuance. The “cost effectiveness” is actually related to the use of plastic cards…but AI can’t differentiate. This explains a lot of your dopey comments. It appears you rely on AI for your opinions

We almost fired a younger guy I hired for my sales team. The training team alerted me his messaging seemed to incorporate talking points different than he was being given to study (Fairly complex cancer screening messaging around guideline driven testing). He seemed to be free styling and had talking points made up on his own. He even, without asking me for help, responded to a laboratory customer about a question he couldn’t possible know how to answer. The answer seems professional sounding but made no real sense. Turns out he was running everything through AI!. Never in my life have I encountered anyone doing. We put a stop to it quickly before he could do any more damage. We will see if he lasts.

View attachment 1613525View attachment 1613526

This is what really worries me about AI. People that won't look critically at the output.

You can't accept AI answers any more than a google search without understanding the context.

Sounds like your colleague is just throwing caution to the wind on that. So sorry about that.

 

[Taghkanic]

I use Poker Bankroll tracker. But you don’t get to say jump and I ask how high. You want me to go through hands to prove it to you, otherwise I’m lying…as you said. You can go F yourself with that jackass comment…hard.

You claim to have a method guaranteeing 80BB/hour, a boast no poker coach in the world or even the very best cash player would claim to be able to achieve for themselves, or for students. You cited one vlog that you follow; that coach would never guarantee such results even for himself, and I strongly suspect he’s a better player than you.

You can claim you have your results in an app, but you haven't posted them, and in fact no one is asking you to post screenshots (which anyone can falsify, or omit bad sessions from, of course).

Instead, you could demonstrate the validity of your method by actually showing how it works. With even one hand, though it would take dozens to truly illustrate it.

Can you explicate one hand which shows how you exploit the players at 1/3 at a place like Borgata? Oddly, you just keep dodging that simple task. You’ve typed hundred and hundreds of words here, but won’t take a minute to jot down even a short hand history.

Color me dubious of any claim that anyone refuses to back up.

First I commented I use the exact strategies numerous poker vlogers that post about $100/hr low limit holdem do and you simply claim that can’t possibly work…..because you play in rinky dink casinos in the middle of nowhere where all the all the players evidently know each other like a home game. I play in large casino and average between $60-80 at $1/3. SO DO MANY OTHERS. The games are incredibly easy to beat.

And yet you can't show how it’s done. Not even one hand.

And again, the size of the casino doesn’t determine the size of winnings. I could mention that I won $3,450 recently in a private 1/3 game on a $400 buyin. One table. 9 players. Smaller than any casino room lol. Didn't have to drive four hours to Borgata to do it. So? It had to do with the composition of that one table. You could go to Borgata and get a bad table draw with nowhere to move. What then? Can you adjust without the perfect mix of unthinking, unobservant players which apparently is crucial to your strategy?

We’ll never know, because you won’t actually reveal it.

PS….I don’t read past the first sentence when you post several paragraphs. Wasted my time with that before. Its all your usual nonsense

You need to protect yourself from having to confront the result of making unproven boasts on the interwebz ... by not reading anything that might expose those claims. Got it.

 

[RocAFella1]

You can’t spell Taghkanic without AI !

 

[Josh Kifer]

Hahahaha. What the fuck am I even reading....

Glad I only venture in chips and not cards...

 

[Isorg]

One thing i have learned over my years...

if the answer to "why do we do X." = "because we always have"

This is a horrible answer and is deserving of a really good hard look into.