CAKE IS SO TYPICAL

[LatinBandit]

BAD AS BEATS ON THE RIVER AT Cake IT IS SO TYPICAL

FLUSH DRAWS AND STR8 COME ALL THE TIME AT Cake
AND ALSO THE SHHT CARDS 2
43 72 53 67 U PLAY THESE CARDS U WILL WIN PISS ME OFF THATS BS

your 100% corect to this fact

[6wolfin9]

i've had a problem with strength of there software. i've downloaded it on my cheap windows 2000 pro and my girlfriends xp and the resuts were the same sluggish action on the grafics which sucks because i like to play the site.are there others having same problem?
6wolfin9 :(

[rrickir]

well rivered,,,,my friend here at the forum,,pjr54,,,,says this all the time about Cake too, and doesnt like to play it.....i cant play it,, guess im not missin much,,,doesnt fir right on my laptop screen lol :-D

[brimstone]

I keep statistics on all the hands I get dealt that see/would have seen the 5 community cards. Cake is almost exactly the same as most other sites. Those being Microgaming, iPoker, Chartwell, PokerDream, Tribeca, DGN, Cake, UltimateBet, Tropical, Mansion, DGS, Poker4Ever, and Pacific. There is a small variance of about +-5% and sites seem to swing from one side of the variance to the other over time.

So if all sites are statictically similar and Cake seems to suck out more often what does this mean?

By the way, almost everyone complains of the same thing at every site. I haven't found any site that anyone will recommend as one that does not suck out. If you know of one, please tell us.

Back to "what does this mean?"...I think there are only two possible explanations:

1. All sites have code in their software that ensures even distribution of cards dealt over time but also selects to complete suck outs more frequently than you would normally expect. Not possible you say...well, it is possible. However, do the poker houses do it? That is to say you would expect a flush or str8 to complete approximately 1 in 15 (I know this is not exactly right but it is in the ball park and is a number for illustration purposes) times given pocket cards that faciliate either a str8 or flush. However, if we tracked the completetion of flushes/str8s and the distribution of each card dealt, we might (I stress might, because I have no proof yet that they do) see that most of the online poker rooms actually achieve a ratio of about 1:11 for flush and str8 completion given two amenable pocket cards. Yet, distribution of cards dealt could still be statistically correct within an exceptable variance.

Or, perhaps...

2. Many online players, being pretty much oblivious to actual odds, will play longshots more often, knowing that they will get paid off big by those holding big pocket pairs and those hitting sets on the flop. True unbridled gamblers, gambling more often will result in more suck outs than you would normally experience. However, even so, in the long run statistics will run down these gamblers and the truly skilled poker players will come out ahead in the long run. It's like a casino model where the skilled poker player is equivalent to the house and will eventually take all the gamblers' money. We have to remember that poker is one long session of hands strung together over time. It's the bottom line profit or loss over all the hands considered together and mitigated by expected variance. The gamblers think it's luck but the skilled players KNOW it is a predictable variance guaranteed by making the correct decisions all the time.

A fact to consider is that some actuarially inclined people have calculated...t after 17 cards have been dealt a flush has 100% chance of being possible. That is 5 cards of the same suit could be in play somewhere in the cards dealt for the hand. For a str8, 44 cards must be dealt before a str8 has 100% chance of being possible. This would mean that even if all poker rooms are exactly true, we might see more flush suck outs than str8 suck outs given the same number of str8 and flush donkeys gambling in the same poker house. Do you see more flush suck outs than str8 suck outs?

Of course these two hypothesis cannot exist together. If "1" is true then "2" is an illusion that skilled players cling to when playing in online games and gradually losing their bank rolls. If "2" is true then "1" is a crutch that gamblers use to justify long term losses. If "2" is true then we should also see many fewer suck outs at higher stakes games. Has anyone seen any evidence of this?

Perhaps one day there will be a pokerhouse that proves they are legit and statistically true. They all have access to every statistic possible now, they just don't make them public. They could do this by posting not only the incidence of each card dealt but also:
A. the actual odds of completing a flush or str8 by the river given two amenable cards pre-flop
B. the actual odds of completing a set given a pocket pair pre-flop
C. the actual odds of completing a flush or str8 given a flop of 4 to the str8 and/or 4 to the flush

So, if poker houses could do this why don't they? And, the related question, what do they have to gain by facilitating a situation where suck outs are more common than one would statistically expect. Again there are sides to consider and situations that would favour profitability of the poker rooms:

AA. If there is a bias towards suck outs no one would want to tell the skilled players as they would avoid any of those sites like the plague.

BB. If there is a bias towards suck outs more "gamblers" would feel they had a fighting chance and play. Have you ever noticed that pots are usually quite big when these sorts of maniacs are playing in a ring game. Big pots mean big rakes.

CC. If the poker rooms were statistically correct and there was proof many of the "gamblers" would probably learn to play skill. Then there are those who would continue to "gamble" because they hit a big score once in a while. In general though pots would tend to be smaller on average and the poker room's rake would be less.

In way of a final wrap up we must consider what it was like in the early days of Texas Holdem. It's difficult to know for sure as we didn't have as many players involved and stakes were quite different. However, I suspect that in the beginning there were a lot of gamblers involved. Because the stakes were much higher than is the average in online action today, I suspect the realization that skill wins out in the long run came quite quickly. This shake out lead to what we saw before the online revolution...many of the same faces at the final tables of all the big tournaments. I suspect that as the realization sinks in that skilled players always win, and gamblers always end up broke in the long run, the same will happen in online play at most levels. When the number of skilled players exceeds the number of gamblers this truism will eventually put an end to the majority of gamblers we see today in online play especially at lower levels.

Right now the number of gamblers greatly exceeds the number of skilled players. If we consider that at any low limit soft table there are 5 or 6 callers in almost every hand. If we further consider that 4 or 5 of those callers pre-flop are drawing to different flush or a str8. Then the approximately 15:1 odds of completing a str8 or a flush over those 4 or 5 players drops to a much more playable 3:1. Given this, a player coming into a hand pre-flop with AA is very likely to be cracked. In addition, the player coming in with AA has a 22:1 odds of making the full house needed to beat a str8 or a flush. Further consider that the odds of being dealt a big pocket pair of JJ or better are about 56:1. Compare this to odds of being dealt suited cards pre-flop of about 4:1. These numbers mean that of the 5 or 6 preflop callers, on average, only 1 has a chance of holding a big pair. So you can begin to see how long shot flush and str8 suck outs can seem to happen way too often even though the poker room is statistically true.

So, how do we begin to even up the odds for those big pocket pairs? Well, it's the age old approach of cutting down the competition and isolating on only one opponent.

How do we do that? Bet bigger, it's not enough anymore to make 3x the BB opening pre-flop raise. This is especially true when the blinds are tiny relative to the players' stacks. Have you ever noticed in a tournament how things change once the big blind hits 10% of the starting chipstack? Now do you understand why in ring games you must open the betting at close to 10% of the maximum buy-in for your game whenever you have that big pocket pair? Sure you will still get cracked, but it will happen much less than 50% of the time and in the long run you will be a big winner.

Yeah, I know, you want to get paid off for your big pair...well, that's greed...just like in the stock market, in poker the pigs get slaughtered. We should go to the old pros' saying about big pocket pairs and AA in particular..."with a big pocket pair you will either win a small pot or lose a big one". I don't know about you, but after trying it all possible ways including slow play, I'm thinking the preceeding quote is pretty much true.

I know, you're saying I don't want to invest that much in the pot pre-flop. Well, if that's the case, perhaps you are playing at stakes that are too big and should move down to get used to the concept. Same holds true for not buying in with the maximum for the table you are playing.

Now you are telling me about the morons who have no respect for money. Well there are a couple of reasons these morons can do all right. Note that some of these morons are actually maniacs who are to be feared, and then there are morons who feed our bankrolls... on the surface they seem the same. The first and biggest reason they are successful is that they know they are playing scared money. The second is that they get their big hands just as often as the rest of us and most of the time they are only up against 1 opponent with drawing pocket cards, just the way they want it when they get a big hand. Even more so, that one opponent much of the time is on tilt from being abused pre-flop and playing a weak drawing hand. The third reason is they have a method behind their pre-flop aggression, the loose aggressive squared approach to playing poker. These are the maniacs to be feared. They know what they are doing and they choose their tables and seat position carefully.

I don't know as much about the game as I would like to, but I do know there are real reasons why there are "so many suck outs" complained about by players.

[mckenna0310]

I enjoy Cake but I do agree with the others it allows for the river to decide too many hands and almost always its the weakest hand that improves. I dont think its normal.

[cobrapr]

DITTO***DITTO***DITTO.Yes ever site has its bad beats and suck outs, but Cake is by far THE RIVER KING of all poker rooms. Play a weak inferior hand to the river and you are likely to take the pot down. It turns the stomach of a decent player. My last experience at Cake this past Sunday had me being sucked out by a 72s against my HOOKS. ALLin preflop and this jerk calls my all-in because he had suited cards and as it's the norm at Cake, the TURN and RIVER made his flush. I either have a glass of vodka or pepto by my side when i play at Cake.

[mckenna0310]

I have learned one thing, if your chasing a flush its always best to see the river, it seems to be Cake's fav hand to reward on the river.,

[brimstone]

I disagree.

Edit...I wrote another big note supporting this position and asking pointy questions, but the simple statement is much more appropriate to the discussion.

[BoilerUp]

I agree with the generator is the same. I stayed off of Cake for a couple weeks. Just played SP events and took way less sick beats. All the times u look at what u would have had if u stayed with the bs hands they win anywhere and everywhere quite frequently. Cake is just filled with alot of sportsbook donks that are gamblers and bring these hands out.