Hank Azaria laying down KK.....should I be impressed?

[0evg0]

i want to thank all of you for making me laugh very heartily.

lol retardsarguingwithridiculouslysuccessfulmttplayera ments

[Matte_Maiden]

Did you read my post?

I meant that if player one is given 5-1 odds on his money and have kings but is 100% (player two accidently flipped them over but didn't get any penelty) that player two has aces he makes money/chips every time he calls, at least in the long run.

So, let's look at players two's perspective. To make it simple, the pott is $5000 (don't yell at me about cash game contra tournament, from player two's perspective it's almost the same) and it's $1000 more to player one to call. Every time player one folds, player two wins the $5000. But every time player one calls, he will only get about 80% of the pott which then is $6000. 80% times $6000 equals $4800. He makes $200 less in the long run when player one calls instead of folds.

This was what I tried to say with my last post. =)

[StrayBullet]

[ QUOTE ]
I called an all in at the WSOP main event with 32 offsuit because I was getting 3 to 1 pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think I'd get much out of this thread at all, but suprisingly, I was wrong!

Nath (Sir), can you please expound on this a bit please? I ran "Stove" and against a random hand, your 32o is 67-33 dog. Did you know the opponent, played together long, had a read, etc.....I'm lost here as I don't see the range that makes this a call.

Hopefully I can thank you (someone) for taking the time to repsond, thanks!

[THAY3R]

3 to 1 = 25% not 33%.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I called an all in at the WSOP main event with 32 offsuit because I was getting 3 to 1 pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think I'd get much out of this thread at all, but suprisingly, I was wrong!

Nath (Sir), can you please expound on this a bit please? I ran "Stove" and against a random hand, your 32o is 67-33 dog. Did you know the opponent, played together long, had a read, etc.....I'm lost here as I don't see the range that makes this a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
3 to 1 = 25% not 33%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fairly rough estimate:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

4,890,340,224 games 6.110 secs 800,383,015 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 71.1117 % 70.74% 00.38% { 66+, A7s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, A8o+, KTo+, QTo+ }
Hand 2: 28.8883 % 28.51% 00.38% { 32o }

[SenorBeef]

Ignoring the meta-game differences (like how your opponents will treat the tournament) I think some of you guys fundamentally misunderstand the nature of some aspects of poker if you feel you should play the ME differently than a play money tournament, if your goal is the same (to win).

The right play is the right play. It doesn't matter if it's a once in a lifetime tournament, or if you're playing a play money tournament with some STD-ridden crack whores in Balitmore (home of STD-ridden crack whores). To say "I'd normally do ___ with ___ here, but since this is the WSOP..." is creating poker mistakes based on your psychological hangups.

Also, some people seem to fundamentally misunderstand what "the long term" means. You don't have to actually reach the long term in any meaningful way for statistical EV analysis to be meaningful. You can't say "I'll only ever play 1 WSOP ME, so there is no long run, it's just now, so I'll throw EV out the window" ... you make the play based on the averages and probabilities because that's the correct thing to do - there's no better way to make decisions - not because you plan to be around long enough for the long term to equal out. That part is irrelevant, whether you plan to play 1 tournament or a million.

[adanthar]

nath,

I can already tell this layoff is doing you some good, because you are being way too patient in this thread, heh.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone REALLY needs to go read the MTT forum. I'm getting tired of this thread because I'm explaining concepts which are considered fundamentally basic to winning at tournaments, and they're covered extensively there.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest I'm kind of tired to see REGULAR MTT posters saying every time this discussion come up, that this is an issue already solved in the MTT forum, and some of you even ridicule some other posters just because don't accept POT ODDS like it was on the Bible.
This issue has not been resolved, I mean the issue that just pot odds matter and that you should take any ounce of EV regardless of some other circumstances.

Where were you guys when we discussed the issue in ** this post ** by Mason Malmuth ?

If you are so sure that Pot Odds is all that matter, why instead of responding posters in this forum and feeling all mighty about it, give it a try to respond to well thought and excellent posts like this one

Wotmog Theory

We have discussed this topic multiple times, long time ago, since I was not convinced I posted this example and nobody of the regulars then could give a good answer. It was until the Mason thread with the Wotmog post the first time my example was explained; and if you really understand the WotMog post and read all the Mason thread; you'll see that the Pot Odds is all that matter mentality is far from being an issue resolved in the MTT forum.

I think the illusion with this being resolved has more to do with the macho mentality (i.e. "I play to win") and the proliferation of LAGS in the forum.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
instead of responding posters in this forum and feeling all mighty about it

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
nath,

I can already tell this layoff is doing you some good, because you are being way too patient in this thread, heh.

[/ QUOTE ]

apparently not.

[sirio11]

At least you have tried to explain your point. I was talking about some other posters with one liners.