[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In particular, his stop-loss strategy and tendency to buy in short means you're VERY unlikely to take him for a big score. He quits as soon as he starts to lose.

So why does anyone play him?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. Ivey has figured out a stop loss strategy that makes it -EV to play him. Unexploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you're being ironic, I don't care.

The guy quits when he's down at most 100k , what you going to do? Your losses will be bigger than your wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop loss strategy's are only good if you play worse when losing.



[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this part. There are other considerations here that people rarely consider. These are mostly image related and it's hard for me to accurately explain them but I'm pretty sure they do exist. I've always quit playing HU when i lost a couple buyins and I can't emphasize how much that has helped me. Simply put, it's just really hard to play anyone, much less a WCP, when he has the momentum in the match.

tc

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with this. Certain metagame issues come into play that make it harder to win in a HU match after you started off losing. I feel them when I play, hard to explain though. One that I can explain is pretty simple. When you start off losing, even if you're not on tilt, your opponent will likely suspect that you are tilting. This will make it more difficult to bluff profitably because your opponent can justify light calls with, 'he's probably on tilt'. You could counter by saying that it is not bad for us that our opponent is calling lighter, but I think that a situation in which we can profitably bluff frequently is better. If you adjust perfectly by value betting thinner and bluffing less I guess you'd be ok, but I think that strategy is much more difficult to play well.