|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofvTTqNaRQQ I feel like it's a shorter FailArmy than usual, but there are some gems in here.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Rough Lobster posted:Goddamn gambling sounds stupid. yeah it really is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
The only kind of poker where a normal person stands to gain money is tournament style. Professional poker has become somewhat ubiquitous in casinos as its popularity rose dramatically over the past 15 years or so and it has made casual players suffer. There was a time when I considered myself good at poker amongst friends and even when I went to Las Vegas in 2007 I did really well at poker. Unfortunately professional players have a very different play style than casuals. There is a casino I went to so I could check out their new poker room where I wanted to buy in at the $1-2 table. Unfortunately I needed to buy in at a minimum of $300. So I did. And when I was sat at the table I was against 7 people who had stacks of several thousand dollars each. And I was seen as easy pickings after playing for like 3 hands I was busted out. The hand where I finally lost I had pocket aces while the guy who put me all in had some mismatch offsuit and got a lucky flush or some stupid poo poo on the river card. Tournament style is much better because everyone buys in for the same amount so you don't get a situation where everyone decides to target the guy with the short stack right from the beginning. It was my worst gambling loss because I understand that technically the house always wins. It just seems like for a while poker was good because you were playing against people who didn't have an inherent advantage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
im pooping! posted:The only kind of poker where a normal person stands to gain money is tournament style. Professional poker has become somewhat ubiquitous in casinos as its popularity rose dramatically over the past 15 years or so and it has made casual players suffer. There was a time when I considered myself good at poker amongst friends and even when I went to Las Vegas in 2007 I did really well at poker. Unfortunately professional players have a very different play style than casuals. There is a casino I went to so I could check out their new poker room where I wanted to buy in at the $1-2 table. Unfortunately I needed to buy in at a minimum of $300. So I did. And when I was sat at the table I was against 7 people who had stacks of several thousand dollars each. And I was seen as easy pickings after playing for like 3 hands I was busted out. The hand where I finally lost I had pocket aces while the guy who put me all in had some mismatch offsuit and got a lucky flush or some stupid poo poo on the river card. Tournament style is much better because everyone buys in for the same amount so you don't get a situation where everyone decides to target the guy with the short stack right from the beginning. It was my worst gambling loss because I understand that technically the house always wins. It just seems like for a while poker was good because you were playing against people who didn't have an inherent advantage. Rough Lobster posted:Goddamn gambling sounds stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
"I want to play a competitive game of skill, but I need it to carry the possibility of financial ruin!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Rough Lobster posted:Goddamn competitive sports sound stupid. FTFY.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:"I want to play a competitive game of skill, but I need it to carry the possibility of financial ruin!" Poker is a risk management game. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
So is promiscuity but it's a hell of a lot more fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:20
|
|
Sagebrush posted:"I want to play a competitive game of skill, but I need it to carry the possibility of financial ruin!" That reminds me of that guy who bet his life savings on some annual WWE show-match where the Undertaker customarily wins... The one time something went wrong and the Undertaker had to forfeit due to an injury.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:That reminds me of that guy who bet his life savings on some annual WWE show-match where the Undertaker customarily wins... The one time something went wrong and the Undertaker had to forfeit due to an injury. People bet on exhibition wrestling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:People bet on exhibition wrestling? People are stupid?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
im pooping! posted:The only kind of poker where a normal person stands to gain money is tournament style. Professional poker has become somewhat ubiquitous in casinos as its popularity rose dramatically over the past 15 years or so and it has made casual players suffer. There was a time when I considered myself good at poker amongst friends and even when I went to Las Vegas in 2007 I did really well at poker. Unfortunately professional players have a very different play style than casuals. There is a casino I went to so I could check out their new poker room where I wanted to buy in at the $1-2 table. Unfortunately I needed to buy in at a minimum of $300. So I did. And when I was sat at the table I was against 7 people who had stacks of several thousand dollars each. And I was seen as easy pickings after playing for like 3 hands I was busted out. The hand where I finally lost I had pocket aces while the guy who put me all in had some mismatch offsuit and got a lucky flush or some stupid poo poo on the river card. Tournament style is much better because everyone buys in for the same amount so you don't get a situation where everyone decides to target the guy with the short stack right from the beginning. It was my worst gambling loss because I understand that technically the house always wins. It just seems like for a while poker was good because you were playing against people who didn't have an inherent advantage. So many things in this post tell me that you probably have never really understood poker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:People bet on exhibition wrestling? A very poor idiot posted:In what was, at least according to him, a 'sure thing', he bet his entire life savings - a sum of more than £35,000 - on the Undertaker winning. He stood to win little more than £500 but, hey, it was free money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Gross Dude posted:He doubled on 11 when the dealer had a six up. This is actually a really good situation to be in. The most common card in the deck is worth ten, so you're ideally looking to turn your 11 into a perfect 21. And, since the dealer has a six up, you assume the dealer's other card is a ten, giving them 16. You double on 11 versus anything but an ace because it maximizes your winnings, not because you assume the dealer's hole card is a 10. The plurality of cards are worth ten, but the majority of cards are not worth ten. If you assume the dealer's hole card is a ten and play accordingly you will lose a lot of money (as opposed to playing basic strategy, in which case you will lose a little money.) Outrail posted:Not trying to start a derail or anything but isn't blackjack a straight up numbers game with everything riding on your maths and stats abilities? Aside from card counting (illegal) and bluffing etc (pointless against the dealer)? There's no bluffing in blackjack, you're not betting against or playing against the other players. You're solely trying to beat the dealer who has to follow specific rules and has no freedom in his play whatsoever. Card counting is not illegal. You're using entirely public information, card counting is literally just keeping track of what cards have been revealed already. Casinos can choose to not let you keep playing blackjack or even kick you out if they think you're counting, but it's not illegal. Casinos in Atlantic City can't even kick you out, the only thing they can do is to do things to negate your advantage like shifting the shoe after every hand. quote:And if so why does anyone give a poo poo about regular casino blackjack? Well, it's the game at the casino that has the narrowest house edge if you play perfectly; the house had about a .5% edge which means that for every hundred dollars you wager you will lose 50 cents. So barring unfortunate swings you can play for a long time and not be out a lot of money. It's also comparatively easy to master, basic strategy is a pretty simple table to memorize and even basic counting strategies aren't very hard, probably the only easier game to perfect-play is baccarat and that's both much more boring to play and typically has much higher minimum bets. If you mean why does anyone care about watching other people play it, I have no idea. Aerdan posted:Don't even need to count cards, you just need to memorize the odds table and have a friend who also has; playing alone, the house has a slight advantage that is negated by having a friend play alongside. If all each of you are doing is playing basic strategy, there is nothing that two different players can do at the table to hurt or help each other. Any given card draw by one player is as likely to help or hurt another player. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 22:49 on Oct 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:That reminds me of that guy who bet his life savings on some annual WWE show-match where the Undertaker customarily wins... The one time something went wrong and the Undertaker had to forfeit due to an injury. To be fair, the Undertaker did win 21 YEARS IN A ROW. On the other hand, wrestlin's fake.  Also, $35,000 bet with a return of $500. lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Got some drat good millennial schadenfreude from work. We recently started a weekend over night shift where all you have to duo is answer one call and watch Netflix. First millennial they put on the job kept calling off every Saturday and loudly bragging "they're not gonna fire me!" She got fired. Second millennial they put on the job got fired two days later when she uploaded snapchat after snapchat of the 8 people she invited in the office to party during the overnight shift.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:To be fair, the Undertaker did win 21 YEARS IN A ROW. On the other hand, wrestlin's fake. 1:22 >> 500:35000. Now what odds could you have gotten on the other side?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Ride The Gravitron posted:Got some drat good millennial schadenfreude from work. We recently started a weekend over night shift where all you have to duo is answer one call and watch Netflix. oh, those lazy rear end in a top hat millennials, choosing to not work on weekends and enjoying time with their friends they should have just put somebody like you on it, somebody with no social life beyond the company picnic and nothing to do on saturday but work!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:oh, those lazy rear end in a top hat millennials, choosing to not work on weekends and enjoying time with their friends Just because you don't like his dumb emphasis on them being millennials that doesn't mean you have to defend idiots who don't do their job properly
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:oh, those lazy rear end in a top hat millennials, choosing to not work on weekends and enjoying time with their friends Are you being serious?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Gambling 'freude: a coworker of mine bet $3,000 on the outcome of a football game a couple of weeks bag, knowing beforehand that if he won he stood to profit $400 total. He didn't win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
God Hole posted:Gambling 'freude: a coworker of mine bet $3,000 on the outcome of a football game a couple of weeks bag, knowing beforehand that if he won he stood to profit $400 total. He didn't win. Was it the Patriots-Bills game? What kind of matchup has that severe odds?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:1:22 >> 500:35000. 66:1 apparently
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:oh, those lazy rear end in a top hat millennials, choosing to not work on weekends and enjoying time with their friends Gotta stick it to those millennials because they're all lazy and shiftless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
^^of course they're shiftless, they got fired.Sagebrush posted:oh, those lazy rear end in a top hat millennials, choosing to not work on weekends and enjoying time with their friends Anyone who fucks up a job that easy deserves to be soundly mocked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
unless kicker was stretch legstrong, poo poo's fake, yo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:06
|
|
Elohssa Gib posted:^^of course they're shiftless, they got fired. Or at least anyone dumb enough to gently caress up that blatantly. I mean really, posting online that you're having a party in your office?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
I want to say I'm surprised goons are defending this but I can totally see a bunch of man-childs defending childish things like calling off from work to hang out with your friends instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Throwing parties at work is dumb, but so is ageism. vv
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Ride The Gravitron posted:I want to say I'm surprised goons are defending this but I can totally see a bunch of man-childs defending childish things like calling off from work to hang out with your friends instead. Must be millennials in this thread, am I right brother?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
I'm technically millennial too and I worked two weekends straight while also doing 12 hours on weekdays so the joke's on me I guess. #notallmillennials
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Ride The Gravitron posted:I want to say I'm surprised goons are defending this but I can totally see a bunch of man-childs defending childish things like calling off from work to hang out with your friends instead. Are you being dense on purpose? They're complaining about the blanket statements about an entire generation of people where the earliest of those people are in their 30's now. The millennial generation starts at 1985.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Ride The Gravitron posted:I want to say I'm surprised goons are defending this but I can totally see a bunch of man-childs defending childish things like calling off from work to hang out with your friends instead. I think the emphasis on millennials is loving dumb, as were the fired workers
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
I love this gif so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
The way he almost floats with anger on the follow-through is so goddamn satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:04
|
|
