TAJPROFESSOR: Quick Pot Odds Questions & Board Threats Quiz

>Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:12:43 +0000
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dadattam)
>Subject: [turmel2step] Pot Odds Question
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Hi all, I am guessing this is a common question, but I would 
love it if somebody would point me towards the source of an 
answer.
 
The question is this: Why do we include the money from our 
previous bets as a positive part of pot odds when they 
cannot be part of our *profit* from a given bet.  I am open-
minded but I have never really understood or accepted this 
proposition. It just seems fallacious to me. thanks,
Dave in Seattle

JCT: Once you have put money in the pot, it is no longer 
yours. It's like buying a lottery ticket. Your money went 
into the pot and it isn't yours anymore. 

That's why all the money in the old pot you can win should 
be considered in comparison to your new bet. For your new 
bet, you will receive all the old money in the pot with any 
new money, so whether you put any in yet makes no difference 
at all. It is no longer yours. But you can win it yet. So 
you have to simply count all the money you're going to be 
paid for every bet you make.
====

\a\poker\ques\skiin01
>Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:54:31 +0000
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (skiingprep)
>Subject: Quick Odds Question
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi, I have a quick question regarding odds. When we are 
calculating our number of outs why do we only count the 
"overcard" outs and not the "two pair" outs..
Ex. You hold: Jd 10s
Flop comes: Ah 10d 4s
Shouldn't we also add 3 for our J.. if we hit a 2 pair we 
also beat our opponents A's. Right? Thanks.

JCT: Are you saying that I forgot to count those outs in one 
of my examples? Hitting the second pair is as effective as 
hitting an overcard. I do count those outs in my system too. 

Recently, we've been developing the point count for board 
threats from different features. Looks pretty good so far. 
Students get both the Turmel2step for pot odds and for board 
threats. 

If you want to have an idea of the power of what the 
students in my turmel2stepc tutorial "class" are learning, 
here's their first quiz on our newly-developed board 
threats tool, Turmel Poker Power Tool #9. 

[Better to print in courier font for patterns to emerge:
You have AhAd 
Board:          FL   ST   FH  TR   2P  = Points / Odds

1)[QcJcTc3s2s]       

2)[QcJcTc8s2s]

3)[QcJcTh8s2s]

4)[QcJc8c3s2s]

5)[QcJc8c8s2s]

6)[QcJc7h3s2s]

7)[QcJcTc3s3h]

8)[QcJc7h3s3h]

9)[QcJc7h3s2s]

10)[QcJcTc9c2s]

JCT: Imagine. Most of you won't have a clue how to figure 
out your odds of losing and yet my students just add up 
points for each feature threatening them and use the same 
points-odds array as for the turmel2step pot-odds system to 
know the odds of being beaten. 

Think about doing this in only seconds for each answer. I've 
been using the turmel2step for getting the pot-calling odds 
for 14 years but we're now all learning to use it for the 
board threat odds which is slightly more work under 
development. 

And applying it to more opponents is again learning a few 
number arrays. I'm teaching not only getting the threat 
percent but then applying it to  "n" opponents. Have to do 
it since it can be done. 

http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel2step/files/2stutor.htm 
for instructions on how to register for the tutorial class. 

I've heard experts who doubt the poker systems engineering I 
claim to have accomplished. I can only point out that no one 
in the world has better credentials to claim Professor in 
Poker Systems Engineering. That I was "The Professor" at the 
Taj Mahal only adds to the point.  

>http://www.talkaboutgambling.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/messages/533370.html
>Subt: Re: TajProfessor: Average Turmel2Step system winnings
From: "Jenna Tellya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] PROTECTED] > 
Date: Aug 27, 2003 at 07:50 AM

JT: You dumbass liberal fuck, if you knew so much about 
poker you wouldn't tout these testimonials.
They didn't save $320 by playing correctly (always 
debatable), they gained maybe a few dollars in equity. You 
don't lose much by folding in marginal +EV situations.

JCT: It just so happened that that is exactly what I 
pointed out in my post, that Ron earned about $10 on his $20 
investment. My point was that these earnings on $20 bets 
keep coming up. I never promised the big numbers so I may 
not be as big a "dumbass liberal fuck" as Jenna thinks. 

JT:Your stupid systems also fails to account for many 
important mathmatical premises that go into winning at 
poker.

JCT: My system only promised to determine the razor's edge 
for all overlays and underlays. I'm not sure what "important 
mathematical premises that go into winning poker" I could 
have missed but after 29 years as a professional, I'm always 
certainly willing to learn. 
 
Maybe people think the turmel2step is too good to be true? 
Who knows? But it is true. I've had no one ask for their 
money back because it not only works, it makes sense and 
it's too simple to doubt. Sure the last innovation about 
board danger is more complicated but the original pot-odds 
system is as engineeringly elegant as I've claimed. 

--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm 
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-756-1325 USENET: can.politics