|
|
#41
03-07-2007, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: high stakes limit
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Except for the fact that A5s is a dog to the set of random hands on a Q 7 6 board. </font> Explain what you mean by this. [/ QUOTE ] Board: Qc 7s 6d Hand 0: .461 { A5s } Hand 1: .539 { random } Tighten up his range since he 3-bet and A5s is even worse(66:34 dog vs. pairs, Axs/o, broadways, K9o, K9s-K7s). 
|
|
#42
03-07-2007, 10:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: high stakes limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] <font color="blue"> Except for the fact that A5s is a dog to the set of random hands on a Q 7 6 board. </font> Explain what you mean by this. [/ QUOTE ] Board: Qc 7s 6d Hand 0: .481 { A5s } Hand 1: .519 { random } Tighten up his range since he 3-bet and A5s is even worse(63:37 dog vs. pairs, Axs/o, broadways, K9o, K9s-K7s). [/ QUOTE ] jeff, this doesnt take into account for when i "feel" that i have him beat.
|
|
#43
03-07-2007, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: high stakes limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you run A5s against other 3-bettable non-ace hands, such as KJs, et al., I'm pretty sure A5s is NOT a dog on a Q76 flop (that's without analysis of simulations, but I'm willing to bet that's right. Again, this from tons of experience playing HU. [/ QUOTE ] i will take this bet for any amount. [/ QUOTE ] Now that I'm using my pokerstove, I see that you're right. But poker is not played in a vaccuum, or on a simulator for that matter. I'm still willing to bet that check/folding the flop every time, won't perform as well as mixing it up in a real game. Want to take that bet? [/ QUOTE ] how daft are you??? that wasn't what Victor ever argued [/ QUOTE ] Well *NEVER* folding is not what I ever argued! Again, my first response clearly states it might be ok. I only said that ALWAYS folding is terrible. Ya know what? I'm gonna chalk this whole thing up to a communication gap from hell. I'll even concede that maybe I started it (although I don't ssee how). I really don't care any more. Later all.
|
|
#47
03-07-2007, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: high stakes limit
[ QUOTE ]
pbob, your point is stupid. there are plenty of times when history doesnt matter. the most glaringly obv is the first hand of a freakin match. [/ QUOTE ] that may be, but this thread has deteriorated into a pokerstove math problem and arguing about whether or not we are behind a random hand. i submit that it doesn't much matter what you do here if it is the first hand of the match.
|
|
#48
03-08-2007, 12:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: high stakes limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] pbob, your point is stupid. there are plenty of times when history doesnt matter. the most glaringly obv is the first hand of a freakin match. [/ QUOTE ] that may be, but this thread has deteriorated into a pokerstove math problem and arguing about whether or not we are behind a random hand. i submit that it doesn't much matter what you do here if it is the first hand of the match. [/ QUOTE ] THIS... Might be the most important point of the thread! It really doesn't matter much what you do here if it's the first hand (or played in a vacuum). That was my intended point that got taken all out of context (perhaps my fault for being a poor communicator?).
|
|
#50
03-08-2007, 09:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: high stakes limit
FWIW I found a lot of useful content in LeStat's posts unlike the haters' posts. It's sad (or very nice) to see that high stakes poker players cannot really understand how to apply Pokerstove results and the limitations of its use.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
