|
|
#261
10-19-2006, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] BEING HUMBLE IS FOR PUSSIES AND LOSERS. WORLD CHAMPS AREN'T HUMBLE [/ QUOTE ] but your not the world champ, Yugo is... [/ QUOTE ] Beat me to it... 
|
|
#262
10-19-2006, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?
[ QUOTE ]
Cage fight for bankrolls obv [/ QUOTE ] Uh, chessboxing for bankrolls?
|
|
#263
10-19-2006, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?
Why is bigjoe raising JTo for 1/2 his stack utg?
|
|
#264
10-19-2006, 12:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?
[ QUOTE ]
Why is bigjoe raising JTo for 1/2 his stack utg? [/ QUOTE ] Maybe he was tilting from when Newt_Buggs luckboxed him 3 hands in a row to bust him on the bubble in a 1k?
|
|
#265
10-19-2006, 12:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?
[ QUOTE ]
So ok bgijoe please tell me how this hand is worthy of ridicule. I'm waiting, teach us HORRIBLE PLAYERS the secrets of your ICM. To post about a hand like this as proof that I make clear -EV plays (like bigjoe did) is simply ridiculous. [/ QUOTE ] Curtains, I'm getting very annoyed by your attitude here. You ask me to post a hand that I considered to be -EV. I did. By my calculations it is -.3%. Obviously you, and other good players, aren't going to make a call much worse than that. Although I'm sure I make -.3% calls I really hope I dont make worse calls than that.
|
|
#266
10-19-2006, 12:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So ok bgijoe please tell me how this hand is worthy of ridicule. I'm waiting, teach us HORRIBLE PLAYERS the secrets of your ICM. To post about a hand like this as proof that I make clear -EV plays (like bigjoe did) is simply ridiculous. [/ QUOTE ] Curtains, I'm getting very annoyed by your attitude here. You ask me to post a hand that I considered to be -EV. I did. By my calculations it is -.3%. Obviously you, and other good players, aren't going to make a call much worse than that. Although I'm sure I make -.3% calls I really hope I dont make worse calls than that. [/ QUOTE ] Why is it -.3%? Don't just say "its -.3" put some ranges in print! Bigjoe is the one who used this hand to insult me. I don't think its at all -.3%. Honestly I don't even think its close after running some stuff and because of the math I posted above. For example, lets say that you knew the SB would call with the following absurdly loose range: 22+,A2+,K2+,Q9o+,Q5s+,JTo,J8s+,T9s and that I would call with the also pretty loose range: 22+,A2s+,A3o+,KTs+,KJo+,QJs These ranges are both relatively loose, as Im sure you'd agree since I included 22 for myself and [censored] K2o for the SB!!! Against this range, its +EV for you to push up to 34% of hands (and obviosuly you should push even more if we are tighter, which we almost surely will be in practice.) Against you pushing 34% of hands (which based on the ranges which you seem to feel the blinds are calling you with, is too tight a pushing range), SNGPT tells me that its -.1% for me to call. Who knows, maybe my SNGPT is broken. Anyone else check these numbers for me? I mean wtf do you guys expect, bigjoe mocks me by talking about this hand, and its probably not even -EV or at worst maybe -.1. I have no idea where this magical -.3% figure is that you are getting.
|
|
#267
10-19-2006, 12:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it -.3%? [/ QUOTE ] The range I thought I was shoving there would make it -.3% to call with 22.
|
|
#268
10-19-2006, 12:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why is it -.3%? [/ QUOTE ] The range I thought I was shoving there would make it -.3% to call with 22. [/ QUOTE ] And maybe the range you are shoving is too tight against the calling ranges you are attributing to your opponents (ie if you expect us to fold 22). Listen bigjoe used this hand to ridicule me. Its a total joke, the hand is not even badly played by me IMO. Meanwhile someone posts this completely ridiculous hand where he's psuhing with JTo into 6 opponents, one of whom is clearly psychotic enough to call him with Q9o and the other with KQo, not to mention it's dreadful for his image. I have never in my history on 2+2 intentionally tried to ridicule someone by pointing out some random hand they played badly. Now bigjoe does it and somehow my attitude is bad because I expose this hand as not being bad for me at all? I mean I've played much worse hands than this, tell him to find one of them instead of making some snide comment about an obviously debatable hand. If someone sees a hole in my math please let me know!
|
|
#270
10-19-2006, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?
lol at pissaments
lol at encouraging leaky SNG players on public boards to acquaint themselves with tools that will help fix those leaks lol at calling out very good SNGs players who play at lower buy-in levels for various reason and increasing the chance they may move up to your stakes. lol at prop bets lol at thread hijacking I know we all have big egos around here and a lot of people can back them up to an extent(and I know I'm jumping on the anti-this thread bandwagon late in the game), but if it's going to spill over, there's things called IM/PM/e-mails Now if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to be the guy with a 0% ROI who drives (an unregistered/uninsured) Porsche.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
