"I have a big hand and pot odds. I fold"

[sunrise]

Okay...well call me ignorant if you will but what exactly is the intended point as you see it, A_PLUS, or as anyone else sees it.

I basically see it as knowing when to lay down even though pot odds dictate a call, which is clearly a more advanced topic which is hard to grasp and can be even harder to execute in the moment of a hand.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, the hand on its own is almost indefensible. It's largely a matter of timing tells and non-quantifiable stuff, and the point is that I was overwhelmingly sure of being beaten that particular time.

[/ QUOTE ] What kind of point is that? That you trusted your "timing tells" and "non-quantifiable stuff" over common sense and logic? Your spidey sense was tingling?

In "The Little Green Book," Phil Gordon gave a point-by-point analysis, in plain english, as to why he laid down kings preflop at a final table. I don't think he used the phrase "non-quantifiable stuff" in the whole book.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
90% of the non-ABC stuff I do is based on a read on somebody I've hardly noticed until 30 seconds and two streets earlier, when he did something odd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously see things that I never will. But, even then, I think you over-estimate how often you are beat here. I dont think the inputs you recieve are dependable enough to make that accurate a read.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, the hand on its own is almost indefensible. It's largely a matter of timing tells and non-quantifiable stuff, and the point is that I was overwhelmingly sure of being beaten that particular time.

[/ QUOTE ] What kind of point is that? That you trusted your "timing tells" and "non-quantifiable stuff" over common sense and logic? Your spidey sense was tingling?

In "The Little Green Book," Phil Gordon gave a point-by-point analysis, in plain english, as to why he laid down kings preflop at a final table. I don't think he used the phrase "non-quantifiable stuff" in the whole book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats, you've successfully discovered that I don't put as much effort into message board posts or have the writing experience of Phil Gordon after he publishes a book?

etiejkdfjkjwrrkd this post isn't even supposed to be about the damn hand

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
ok the rest of your post is fine, but

[ QUOTE ]
I think online 'reads' are grossly over valued in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img-vomiting guy]

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont mean that the use of 'reads' is over valued.

I mean, people over-value the accuracy of their ability to read an relatively unknown opponents hand.

In an example, this is what I was referring to:
"I fold b/c I put him on QQ+,AKs", This kind of accuracy is statistically impossible given the normal 20-50 hands we play with someone. I mean, there is at least a 10% chance the guy will do the same with any A or K, but hasnt been dealt one yet in 20 hands.

I think tells, and reads are important, and I use them. But, I think if anyone did an objective analysis of their 'reads', they would find out that they are over estimating how often they are correct. People usually assume 90%+, when I think 60%-70% is probably closer to the best someone could actually achieve. Bascially, b/c there is so much noise invloved in the data you actually see.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

etiejkdfjkjwrrkd this post isn't even supposed to be about the damn hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why include it? I think you can make your point without it.

[adanthar]

It looked like a good idea at the time but my read turned out to blow more chunks than that guy did into the toilet?

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, the hand on its own is almost indefensible. It's largely a matter of timing tells and non-quantifiable stuff, and the point is that I was overwhelmingly sure of being beaten that particular time.

[/ QUOTE ] What kind of point is that? That you trusted your "timing tells" and "non-quantifiable stuff" over common sense and logic? Your spidey sense was tingling?

In "The Little Green Book," Phil Gordon gave a point-by-point analysis, in plain english, as to why he laid down kings preflop at a final table. I don't think he used the phrase "non-quantifiable stuff" in the whole book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats, you've successfully discovered that I don't put as much effort into message board posts or have the writing experience of Phil Gordon after he publishes a book?

etiejkdfjkjwrrkd this post isn't even supposed to be about the damn hand

[/ QUOTE ] Neither is my post. It's about your turning poker into some metaphysical hand-reading exercise that operates at a plane far above the capability of us mere mortals to understand.

Which Phil do you aspire to be? Gordon or Helmuth?

[adanthar]

jcm,

If you have a problem with the hand, that's cool. I agree I probably shouldn't have posted it/there's not really much to say other than "wow nice spider sense" or "it can't be right as often as you need to be". In retrospect, it shouldn't be on the forum.

If you think that there is no such thing as spider sense or that the on the spot intuition you pick up after hundreds of thousands of hands is *always* subservient to math you can quickly do in your head, you are always going to repeat hand #2, over and over and over again.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]

Then why include it? I think you can make your point without it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adanthar is like Col. Jessup from a few good men.

Why did he post the AA hand:

"I think he wants to post it. I think he's pissed off that he's gotta hide from us. He made a poker decision and that's the end of it. He just won more money in a tournament than you made last year, and no one's gonna tell him how to play his hand. Least of all the pushy JCM, the pukey Soss, or that A-plus clown."