Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You asked me for an example of risky play that led eventually to your exit. I gave you one. If you don't even concede it is a risky play it is pointless discussing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then it's pointless. While there's certainly risk involved it appeared that it was at worst a neutral EV decision if not slightly +EV. Since he was compensated for the risk your only argument is that he shouldn't make what he thinks is a +EV call. This decision simply just doesn't apply to what we're trying to discuss here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is pointless. I said so in my original post. No matter what example I give Giga could say he had a read that motivated the play. He got involved in even more marginal spots with even worse hands during the final two days of that event but posting them will only yeild a very predictible answer.

He made a request. I found a hand fitting the request, finding a high risk play leading to the exit. Not for pot odds discussion but for metagame discussion since that is what the OP is about. But as predicted it was a waste of time.

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
You asked me for an example of risky play that led eventually to your exit. I gave you one. If you don't even concede it is a risky play getting over half of your stack in the middle in a 40/60 situation it is pointless discussing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot tell if you are being serious or not. You really think that QJ was a risky play? I feel like that last post was dripping with sarcasm, but it is kind of hard to tell. There is no risk with that QJ hand, it is what it is....once I raised, and then get reraised, I cannot fold the hand once I find out I have the proper odds to make the call, you cannot make fundamental errors and win in the long run, it just isn't possible.

Unless you were being sarcastic, you need to take some time and study hand equity vs pot equity. If you are making a profit by calling, then you should call. Calling is very easy to figure out, there are no combined probabilities, there are no implied odds, there is only one factor, how much is the pot, and how much do I have to put in. Once you have that number, you know what you can call with. Not making calls when you are supposed to call makes the game nearly impossible to beat.

This isn't a small edge here for me either, this is a situation that i cannot pass up. My equity in the pot is 38%, which means there is approximately 50k that I am just giving to rehne by folding. I am making 50k in chips, every time I call that reraise. How could you fold when you know that you are getting 50k by calling? That would be insane.

[Lloyd]

Well, hands A8o or stronger represent 21.6% of the total possible hand holdings. I assume that 23% is just some other approximation of that figure. Now, how he uses that number during the heat of the moment is still what interests me.

[Exitonly]

Right, but hands in that range include Q9s, QTo etc. Just because pokerstove ranks them by strength this way doesn't mean the pusher knows these hands and their order.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but hands in that range include Q9s, QTo etc. Just because pokerstove ranks them by strength this way doesn't mean the pusher knows these hands and their order.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? You haven't memorized all of the hand possibilities and their precise order? No wonder you busted out of that EPT event [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
He made a request. I found a hand fitting the request, finding a high risk play leading to the exit. Not for pot odds discussion but for metagame discussion since that is what the OP is about. But as predicted it was a waste of time

[/ QUOTE ]

There is not a winning player in the world that is folding that QJ in that spot. When you know that you are making money by calling, how on gods green earth is that considered a risky play, you really need to stop posting about these hands. You obviously lack fundamental knowledge, and have absolutely no business posting in a thread that is designed to help people learn, you are acting as an authority on a subject matter that is rather high level, and you haven't learned pot odds yet. You cannot post a hand that I played as risky when everything that I do in the hand, would be standard for every other winning player in the world.

You are showing a lack of respect towards the readers of this forum by writing responses that have a voice of authority or knowledge, yet the responses themselves are written in a manner that suggests the poster clearly has a fundamental lack of understanding in the most basic parts of the game. You cannot respond to my reply with an "I told you so" response and expect that you will be taken seriously, you have yet to write a single post in this thread that even hints that you even know the rules of the game.

[Freudian]

You open raise with the intention of calling off over half of your stack as a dog 25% of the time (or even more often depending on your read on BB if he resteals). If this isn't a risky strategy to you what is?

I think you need to define what you mean with risky play. I think it is quite possible that there is no realistic situation that fits your criteria.

If you had open raised to 500k with 87s you also would have had the pot odds to call his push. Would that also not have been a risky play?

[mlagoo]

i think we refer to that as the straw man fallacy

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
You open raise with the intention of calling off over half of your stack as a dog 25% of the time (or even more often depending on your read on BB if he resteals). If this isn't a risky strategy to you what is?

I think you need to define what you mean with risky play. I think it is quite possible that there is no realistic situation that fits your criteria.

If you had open raised to 500k with 87s you also would have had the pot odds to call his push. Would that also not have been a risky play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Freudian,

You cannot continue posting in a manner that shows your lack of knowledge more and more with every post. It lends itself to a bootstrapping type effect. The only thing you are doing here by posting, is hurting your long term chance of becoming a better player.

Why not just ask questions about an idea or a concept rather than posting an opinion that doesn't have any knowledge base to form anything reputable? This board is more than just a place for you feel self important.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You open raise with the intention of calling off over half of your stack as a dog 25% of the time (or even more often depending on your read on BB if he resteals). If this isn't a risky strategy to you what is?

I think you need to define what you mean with risky play. I think it is quite possible that there is no realistic situation that fits your criteria.

If you had open raised to 500k with 87s you also would have had the pot odds to call his push. Would that also not have been a risky play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Freudian,

You cannot continue posting in a manner that shows your lack of knowledge more and more with every post. It lends itself to a bootstrapping type effect. The only thing you are doing here by posting, is hurting your long term chance of becoming a better player.

Why not just ask questions about an idea or a concept rather than posting an opinion that doesn't have any knowledge base to form anything reputable? This board is more than just a place for you feel self important.

[/ QUOTE ]

No definition of risky play?

The reason I asked is because it is obvious that we have wildly different definitions but it is hard to discuss when you don't define what you mean.