| |
Main
Date: 30 Dec 2008 12:12:36
From: MZB
Subject: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
I see some of the icons now show the VIP status (silver or gold or bronze).
Why would you show that? Is there any advantage to that?
I would think it would be a disadvantage.
Mel
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Dec 2008 13:21:18
From: Nico Bartels
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:12:36 -0500, in rec.gambling.poker "MZB"
<moo@noway.prudigy.net > wrote:
>I see some of the icons now show the VIP status (silver or gold or bronze).
>Why would you show that? Is there any advantage to that?
>I would think it would be a disadvantage.
It doesn't tell you much. It tells you how much the player paid to
play. It doesn't tell you how good the player plays.
Nico
--
Disclaimer: the above is the author's personal opinion and is not
the opinion or policy of his employer or of the little green men
that have been following him all day.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Dec 2008 07:32:25
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:21:18 +0100, Nico Bartels
<no.spam.4.me@xs4all.nl > wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:12:36 -0500, in rec.gambling.poker "MZB"
><moo@noway.prudigy.net> wrote:
>>I see some of the icons now show the VIP status (silver or gold or bronze).
>>Why would you show that? Is there any advantage to that?
>>I would think it would be a disadvantage.
>It doesn't tell you much. It tells you how much the player paid to
>play. It doesn't tell you how good the player plays.
There is a strong positive correlation between number of hands played
and EV. I would assume a person who pays more rake is more likely to
be a profitable player than someone who pays little rake.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 01:25:18
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
On Dec 31 2008 7:32 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:21:18 +0100, Nico Bartels
> <no.spam.4.me@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:12:36 -0500, in rec.gambling.poker "MZB"
> ><moo@noway.prudigy.net> wrote:
>
> >>I see some of the icons now show the VIP status (silver or gold or bronze).
> >>Why would you show that? Is there any advantage to that?
> >>I would think it would be a disadvantage.
>
> >It doesn't tell you much. It tells you how much the player paid to
> >play. It doesn't tell you how good the player plays.
>
> There is a strong positive correlation between number of hands played
> and EV. I would assume a person who pays more rake is more likely to
> be a profitable player than someone who pays little rake.
That makes no sense.
Unless you mean hands dealt, playing hands in the sense of being dealt
hands. Even then I'm not sure about it.
Or unless you mean actual win rather than EV.
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 06:59:36
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:25:18 -0800, "garycarson"
<garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu > wrote:
>On Dec 31 2008 7:32 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:21:18 +0100, Nico Bartels
>> <no.spam.4.me@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:12:36 -0500, in rec.gambling.poker "MZB"
>> ><moo@noway.prudigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>I see some of the icons now show the VIP status (silver or gold or bronze).
>> >>Why would you show that? Is there any advantage to that?
>> >>I would think it would be a disadvantage.
>>
>> >It doesn't tell you much. It tells you how much the player paid to
>> >play. It doesn't tell you how good the player plays.
>>
>> There is a strong positive correlation between number of hands played
>> and EV. I would assume a person who pays more rake is more likely to
>> be a profitable player than someone who pays little rake.
>That makes no sense.
>Unless you mean hands dealt, playing hands in the sense of being dealt
>hands. Even then I'm not sure about it.
Hands dealt is probably a better figure. Anything that stands in as a
proxy for "how much played" has a positive correlation. But VIP
status is not directly correlated to hands played. It's a closer fit
for "Total Rake." Since we're talking about VIP statuses, I'm talking
about rake.
>Or unless you mean actual win rather than EV.
By EV I mean the BB/100 figure in PokerTracker. Maybe that's an
incorrect thing to call EV. In any case, the figures called "Total
Hands," "Total Rake," etc. which are connected in some way to how much
a person plays are all positively correlated with "Amount Won,"
"BB/100," and other stats at least loosely connected to whether
someone's a winning player. I think BB/100 is pretty good for EV.
It's what the person can expect to win or lose over 100 hands.
You're right that "Total Hands" is better, but the Stars VIP statuses
aren't based on that. What they're based on is something closer to
"Total Rake." "Total Rake" however is also positively correlated with
"BB/100." Someone with a higher "Total Rake" is more likely to have a
higher "BB/100." If the only thing I know about something is they
have one of the higher Stars statuses, I'm going to treat them until
they show otherwise as someone more likely to be a winning player.
Yes, there are some bigtime fish with this status. They aren't very
common, though. Most people cannot afford to play lots of losing
poker at the levels necessary to get these statuses. (Though I'm sure
there are some slightly fishy players who manage to break even or fool
themselves into thinking they break even due to the VIP program.)
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2008 11:37:03
From: MZB
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
Jacks:
I totally agree and my observations (still a small sample) seem to confirm
it.
I think it has helped me. It gives me useful information.
Mel
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:vgpml4tsmv46q51qvfpukak45ra168736l@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:21:18 +0100, Nico Bartels
> <no.spam.4.me@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:12:36 -0500, in rec.gambling.poker "MZB"
>><moo@noway.prudigy.net> wrote:
>
>>>I see some of the icons now show the VIP status (silver or gold or
>>>bronze).
>>>Why would you show that? Is there any advantage to that?
>>>I would think it would be a disadvantage.
>
>>It doesn't tell you much. It tells you how much the player paid to
>>play. It doesn't tell you how good the player plays.
>
> There is a strong positive correlation between number of hands played
> and EV. I would assume a person who pays more rake is more likely to
> be a profitable player than someone who pays little rake.
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2008 12:08:58
From: Lute
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
On Dec 30, 12:12=A0pm, "MZB" <m...@noway.prudigy.net > wrote:
> I see some of the icons now show the VIP status (silver or gold or bronze=
).
>
> Why would you show that? Is there any advantage to that?
>
> I would think it would be a disadvantage.
>
> Mel
You just gave me a great idea.
Why not award medals and badges (and so forth) to people who post on
RGP?
It would be pointless and retarded.
That alone is justification enough.
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2008 17:53:20
From: Patti Beadles
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
In article <8Es6l.64072$496.28570@newsfe13.iad >,
MZB <moo@noway.prudigy.net > wrote:
>I would think it would be a disadvantage.
I pretty much agree. It's like showing hands... it gives away
information. I can see it possibly having an intimidation
factor against newer players, though. For the experienced
players I play with regularly, it doesn't make much difference.
We see so much of each other that knowing that someone is SN
vs SNE vs not-quite-SN-yet isn't terribly interesting.
I turned on supernova stars briefly just to screw with someone,
but in general I leave the stars off.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA
|
| | |
Date: 30 Dec 2008 17:42:15
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
On Dec 30 2008 12:53 PM, Patti Beadles wrote:
> In article <8Es6l.64072$496.28570@newsfe13.iad>,
> MZB <moo@noway.prudigy.net> wrote:
>
> >I would think it would be a disadvantage.
>
> I pretty much agree. It's like showing hands... it gives away
> information.
If you play well then what you do in a given hand doesn' treally have all
that much to do with the two cards in your hand and in that c ase showing
hands tends to misdirect.
Showing your players points accumulations is more akin to showing off chip
tricks.
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 30 Dec 2008 11:41:48
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
> >I would think it would be a disadvantage.
>
> I pretty much agree. It's like showing hands... it gives away
> information. I can see it possibly having an intimidation
> factor against newer players, though. For the experienced
> players I play with regularly, it doesn't make much difference.
> We see so much of each other that knowing that someone is SN
> vs SNE vs not-quite-SN-yet isn't terribly interesting.
>
> I turned on supernova stars briefly just to screw with someone,
> but in general I leave the stars off.
>
> -Patti
I pretty much agree with this, but I am in an argumentative mood today. :)
Does it REALLY make a difference? I mean could they not just be REALLY
bad, REALLY rich people with nothing better to do. Supernova does not
necessarily mean they are a good player.
Kind of like the debate we had about if the Avatar means anything. I
argued that you could gleam something from what kind of pic the person put
up and was damned for it.
I was mostly in an argumentative mood then as well, but there is truth in
both argument on both subjects I guess. You just have to look deep enough.
You never really talk about this Patty, but what limits do you play on
Stars?
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2008 21:13:55
From: Patti Beadles
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
In article <s4aq26x5ap.ln2@recgroups.com >,
John_Brian_K <a7ecb57@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
>Does it REALLY make a difference? I mean could they not just be REALLY
>bad, REALLY rich people with nothing better to do. Supernova does not
>necessarily mean they are a good player.
It's true. Supernova does not mean P=1.0 that the person is
a good player. However, there's a strong correlation between
being supernova and being a strong player. I'd say that for
most games, supernova puts P=.9 or greater.
When I see someone sporting silver or gold stars, I usually
start off assuming that they play a reasonable amount for
nontrivial stakes, but that they're not in the general league
of professional.
Since poker is all about probabilities, it seems reasonable to
factor this one into the equation when contemplating an otherwise-
unknown player.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2008 06:53:49
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
> Since poker is all about probabilities, it seems reasonable to
> factor this one into the equation when contemplating an otherwise-
> unknown player.
>
> -Patti
Yeah I guess 'most' of the time is better than knowing nothing. I have a
bronze star on mine and show it proudly!
lol
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2008 12:15:55
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Showing Stars VIP status?
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:12:36 -0500, "MZB" <moo@noway.prudigy.net >
wrote:
>I see some of the icons now show the VIP status (silver or gold or bronze).
>Why would you show that? Is there any advantage to that?
>I would think it would be a disadvantage.
Sounds retarded. I'd rather put a picture of a fish next to my name
or something.
|
|
