[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
Awesome thread.

I don't get why people are making such a huge deal about the hand. Was it -CEV, yeah, probably. Was it likely to be a HUGE mistake? Nah.

[/ QUOTE ] It wasn't the hand so much as the rationales provided for the hand. I personally have never read so many flaky, vague rationales for a simple hand.

[ QUOTE ]
It was interesting reading this thread develop. I think it caused such a stir, b/c Nath came across more than a little smug in the way it was presented, and is pretty clearly being at least somewhat results oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]
actually, Nath lost the hand to a set of 3s.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that you always have to justify your moves with math is a little over the top. For a single hand, yeah, EV calcs are usually reasonable (although the assumptions may not be).

[/ QUOTE ] You should be able to justify, in mathematical or logical terms, either the present EV or future EV of a play. As stevepa pointed out, the justifications provided were neither mathematical or logical (your opponents apparently fold more out of fear of Nath, except when Nath gets pocket aces, and then suddenly they are calling more).
[ QUOTE ]
I think most people drastically underestimate the value of taking a gambool for a big stack.

[/ QUOTE ] Nath already had a big stack. What he was gambooling with was losing that big stack, or at least making a serious dent in it.
[ QUOTE ]
I think we could all probably learn something if we stop being so freaking petty (and Nath, you could turn down "I'm the new Doyle Brunson" routine).

[/ QUOTE ] This thread was a serious discussion on the merits of an unorthodox move. It engendered a lot of passion, but I don't see pettiness anywhere (well, maybe a few Ansky-like digs, but not many for a thread of this size).