I've summarized the arguments for this play below:
<u>Barry Bonds is a great player/Barry Bonds struck out/Therefore striking out is a great play</u>
<ul type="square">[*]It's a big reason why I go so deep and go to multiple wins when I'm running well[*]I just assumed that because moves like these worked and I won tournaments that they must be profitable[*]I win more when I make more wild plays and do more things that most people think are donkey moves[*]At what point do people stop assuming I just run well and start considering that maybe I understand something about tournaments that most people don't[*]I was "running well" when I was at 480% ROI over a 3 month period last fall[*]I don't fully understand the concepts of Nath's play either. But he's extraordinarily successful with it. If it's a good run, it's a hell of a long one. Try to look at his posts as a glimpse into a uniquely successful player's mind, instead of tearing it down like a common one[/list]<u>E=mc2</u>
<ul type="square">[*]a play that looks like it should be an obvious loser really isn't, in the right set of circumstances, and tournaments are often more about finding and exploiting these situations than playing good poker[*]I'm trying to give back a little of my thought processes, even when I don't always understand them[*]I don't think about tournaments like most people do. I'm trying my best to articulate ideas that aren't very common or easy to articulate[*]It might be that there's some bit of conventional MTT wisdom that may be turned on its head[*]it may be that people struggle to understand things that go against conventional wisdom and aren't getting what I say or how to apply it[*]ometimes working it backwards shows you what you wouldn't see working it forward. Like an inventor or programmer working an existing product from completion to beginning in order to improve it. Reverse engineering isn't an out-of-the-ordinary concept in poker, but I think improves the understanding of this particular thought process[*]if there is this concept- let's call it N where N= the ability of Nath to get what he wants (chips) in a tournament, this play is quite possibly a great example of the how and why of it. Probe enough to find the "bad" spots that arent so bad and they likely appear[/list] <u>betgo's Red Zone Theory, Reversed</u>
<ul type="square">[*]the three shortstacks are on his left. If he doubles them up, then the fact that they have enough chips to resteal will actually work against them, because Nath wil be the one in a position to resteal -- not them[/list]<u>She’s a maniac, maniac</u>
<ul type="square">[*]if I'm playing like a lunatic it's probably because the table is playing weak[*]my aggression and unpredictability both picks up enough chips to keep me ahead of the game and builds monster pots when I have a big hand[*]My image is usually that of a complete lunatic who is not only raising all sorts of random garbage but also calling with it. And who wants to take a hand that might be marginally +cEV against a psycho who's definitely calling and might have you crushed?[*]Against a horrificly LAGgy player like Nath you not only CANNOT figure the math in detail, but you also have a near impossible task measuring it even loosely. This is where Nath's frightening strategy comes into play. You have no idea where he raises. You have no idea where he calls. You can't re-raise him, because he's definitely calling. You can't push, because he will call. You have no idea where you stand when he pushes, because it could be with anything. His style play is the ultimate smokescreen[*]If he has to call a shortstacks all-in with 47s, then whatever, chalk that one up to shania/metagame. Next time he raises utg with AA, the bb can push 33 into him again and its whiz-bang-ship-holla-pwned[/list]<u>F Poker Math</u>
<ul type="square">[*]I should just stick to being a mystical philosopher-sage of tournament poker and let others do the math[*]If someone else wants to do the math to prove me wrong, fine. Math isn't my strongest suit.[*]Whether or not you can prove the math is wrong in this case, I'm pretty sure I'm still doing something right.[*]i like this hand because it shows an extreme example. so extreme, its probably not even a good move, but who cares, the math needs to include the image/read which is too subjective to include[*]he has attempted to justify this with some math. Whether or not it worked in this specific 47 UTG example, think about the big picture[*]Sure, this play may be -EV if you figure the math in detail. Frankly, though, you CANNOT EVER figure the math in detail while in actual play[*]No one has the poker skill and mathematical capacity to factor all the variables in accurately enough that a solution to any poker problem using math could possibly be complete. You'd have to quantify things that are difficult or impossible to quantify[/list]<u>F Chips</u>
<ul type="square">[*]I have the chips to do it, and losing those chips doesn't affect my position at the table[*]Those chips are easy to reacquire as I've been terrorizing the table[*]occasionally you'll want to err on the side of aggression, even when it might costs you chips in the short run[*]the crucial point is that these are the so called "excess chips" some are willing to gamble with (i.e., make potentially -cEV moves to create +$EV situations)[*]this particular play may be-EV, and may be very -EV. If that's what you're seeing, you're missing the point[*]the totality of the plays he makes has some upside that you can't just measure in terms of slightly -EV here and there[*]so really it only cost you the T9800 in chips when you called the AI. You will make far more than 9800 when you do catch something PF against the bigger stacks[*]It just seems that with a ton of chips, the cards become less important than psychological dominance over the table[/list]