Sunday, August 28, 2005

Why Does he Bother?

Can some explain why Paul Samuel bothers?

He spends about five hours explaining in complex mathmatical terms why AKo has 6.55% chance of beating AA.

All very impressive. Except if you go here you will find out he's wrong.

So, why does Paul bother? Pokerpages must be paying him a fortune to justify all this work. Perhaps I should ask the Hendon Mob and Cardplayer for a pay rise...


Anonymous GM said...


11:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to Pokerstove, if the K is one of the AA's suits, then it comes out at roughly what he said - 6.53%

Example:- AdAc - 93.470%
AhKd - 6.530%

So maybe this is what he's on about (its far too long-winded and boring to actually properly read what he's on about).

8:43 AM  
Blogger themule said...

You are quite right to slag off this mathematical fool; if only i had the courage of the camel and spent lots of time reading this idiots articles and criticising him. Well done camel - keep u the good work someone has to do it !

6:13 PM  
Blogger themule said...

Furthermore, inspired by the noble and honourable Camel I too join in this war against samuel the pretender; All disciples should bow down to the Camel and denounce this spawn of Satan who calls himself a poker player. From now on we should all adopt the hump and bad breath of our hero and his namesake and spit as does our hairy mentor upon the pokerpages pretender !

6:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I think you will find that Paul (the bastard) Samuel is right but you are righter because he is a desert rat and you are a camel and camesl are bigger and fatter and smellier than rats and crush them easily ! Congratulations on your never ending devotion to this cause; you are the Che Guevara if the poker world !

8:39 AM  
Blogger Andy_Ward said...


10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All I can say is thank god for the camel; he is the voice of reason and virtue in a melee of blaggers and pretenders.
His tirades against Andy Ward (whoever he is) and Paul Samuel (thanks to the 'C' we know who he is) are rightfully famous and fully justifiable. His courage in speaking out for and on behalf of the moral and downtrodden poker playing minority makes him a peoples champion ranking along side Mahatma Ghandi and Lady Di !
Camel I salute you and if we are ever heads up will dump on you (my chips) without hesitation.
I was honoured recently to meet someone who had had the privilege of being within striking distance of your butt when you let one go (after you had partaken of a particularly dodgy vindaloo). He (the gasee) had fortunately not brushed his teeth and I relished the waft of his breath now blessed with your holy pump gas.
I can only pray that one day I am as fortunate as he.
PS: Unfortunately in this case, Samuel was right in his article but as you can see I have not belaboured that point.
PPS. The 'C' stands for Camel not the other word.

2:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you will find, (see previous comment) that the maths is correct. Whether or not the article is interesting or not is another matter but clearly it is of interest to you people and I thank you for that.

- Paul Samuel

6:47 AM  
Blogger Gary Carson said...

Let's see. Samuels writes an article based on the assertion that exact computation is preferable to monte carlo calculation and then uses a monte carlo simulation to verify the exact computation?

Did I get that right?

But, of course, neither his exact computation nor the monte carlo simulation that verified it actually address the question he claims they address -- AK v. AA.

They both deal with only one case in such a matchup -- where the K can't make a winning flush.

Back when I went to school we were taught to do monte carlo simulation when the oomputation was difficult but to use special cases and exact computation to verify the monte carlo procedure.

I guess the kids just do it backwards these days. Kind of like ball caps.

12:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from