Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

also because other people realize the need to move at these pots they're full of [censored] more often so your FE tends to be even higher than it would otherwise

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

Alright I don't really see what you are getting at...which tourneys does this apply to? Which blind level (antes or non)? It just seems like you are talking about the basic concept of semibluffing...which doesn't come up a lot when its push/fold poker preflop. Honestly I can't draw a single thing that would aid me in the 100r, for example, from your above post.

Which people do you notice this attitude in? Which situations are people passing up marginal hands? Is it late position opens? Is it defending the blinds? How do we see these draws when people are playing push/fold poker preflop?

And i'm still a bit confused about this statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile they sit back and criticize people they think of as clowns without even stopping to think that maybe they're doing something that, if not technically IMMEDIATELY +EV PERFECT POKER ZOMG, DOES in fact help them win TOURNAMENTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean we've gone over this before...does having a big stack outweigh the negatives of making -EV plays to get there? So far I haven't seen any evidence in favor of that argument. If your semibluffs are +EV, they are +EV in some part due to the fold equity. Obviously if you are making a lot of -EV plays in the name of playing big pots, you will accumulate big stacks, and win some tournaments.

But just because this style of play "DOES in fact help you win TOURNAMENTS", presumably referring to individual tournaments, doesn't mean its a winning strategy in the long run. Without statistics, you are just ranting imo.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I mean we've gone over this before...does having a big stack outweigh the negatives of making -EV plays to get there? So far I haven't seen any evidence in favor of that argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
didn't Matt Matros write up an article a while back and do some math demonstrating that you should get your stack in as a 46/54 dog right away if you can, because you simply aren't going to get enough opportunities further on to acquire those chips? (i.e. if you play out the tournament like you normally would, you will double up less than 46% of the time, not to mention factoring in the chips you missed out on accumulating because you didn't have the stack to threaten other people with their zomgtournamentlife.)

I'm saying that people lose sight of what they need to do to win the tournament and just sort of coast along on autopilot until they get a big hand. They don't adjust for individual opponents and they don't recognize when they should try to play a big pot and when they shouldn't. They think their big hands are enough to get them through and they don't go after enough of the other pots.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But just because this style of play "DOES in fact help you win TOURNAMENTS", presumably referring to individual tournaments, doesn't mean its a winning strategy in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]
uhhhhh tournaments are so top heavy that any strategy that allows you to win more of them at the expense of smaller cashes is a good one

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

no, that statement (as well as a couple others you've made) is simply an incorrect generalization

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

It might help one win individual tournaments from an observers perspective (ZOMG xxxx has another chip lead!) but that doesn't mean that the whole strategy of -EV moves has been proven as long-term +EV...which i'll be bold enough to say never will, especially if your going to continue making -EV moves when you get the big stack.

You really thinking taking a 46/54 dog at the beginning is +EV? When everyone in the tournament is deeper stacked, including the bad players? Doesn't sound like good poker to me, and until someone comes along and proves it I'll continue to hold this opinion. Find that article and some statistics please, this is still mumbo jumbo.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

He refers to this article - http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/15093

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
no, that statement (as well as a couple others you've made) is simply an incorrect generalization

[/ QUOTE ]
and you (as well as a couple other people who do this every time i post) simply tell me i'm wrong without telling me why. it's cool though. don't ever challenge yourself to re-examine your game. keep thinking of me as the crazy ranter person. [censored] i knew there's a reason i never even bother discussing strat on this forum anymore. bunch of inflexible thinkers who think they have it all figured out.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Find that article and some statistics please, this is still mumbo jumbo.

[/ QUOTE ]
the matros article

also, here are some statistics i'm sure you'll understand. the relevant ones i marked with a red asterisk for ease of use. i apologize in advance for being such a dick and i still [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] you but since no one here takes me seriously who [censored] cares anyway.

graphic 1
graphic 2

i'm out. peace.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

you know what else, i know i play like [censored] about half the time. i don't think i'm anywhere near the best i can be. that roi will only go up if i ever get my head screwed on properly.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

what are you doing posting those stats? [censored] you. if the question is who is better at tournament poker, the answer is unquestionably me. gfy

and why don't you look at the last 4 months instead of including every single tournament i've ever played, aka before i got better than you.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

and no i'm not overreacting, its incredibly stupid and cocky of you to post stats like they prove you are right.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

Nath,

You're being silly.

You are essentially saying -EV is +EV and if you disagree you are inflexible of thinking outside the box.


If you think certain "outside of the box" strategies/plays are in fact +EV the onus is on you to show/explain/prove why/how they are. You can't just say this is correct and if you don't agree with me then you are wrong.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

well this thread sure got a lot worse after leo's posts !

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

Yeah, see, this is yet another reason why you need some (or perhaps even more than some) apathy. When you only care about making money (as opposed to making more money than the next guy), poker doesn't turn into a childish dick-waving contest.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

jesus there are some smart people in this forum. awesome read.

I'm somewhere in between. I hate losing in general. But admittedly things that used to excite me just don't anymore. I don't really flinch anymore unless its a big final table or something. All I try to do now is just focus purely on decisions. Was the decision right? If yes im happy, if not im upset - no matter the result.

As for my horse, he'd sure as hell better want it.

Ben

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

also to chime in a bit, i have to say that i have a really strong desire to do well in a huge tourney again. i'm primarily a cash game player but being chip leader/top 5 in chips in the million from 50 on down to the final table was by far the most excited i've ever been and the most fun i've ever had playing poker. having a lot of chips in a tournament is always a ton of fun. but at the same time when i bust out of a tourney im just like "lol donkaments, standard" so yes, somewhere in between is the best is what i'm trying to say. /ramble

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

apathy is way way better then the other extreme. I think it also lets you play super aggro and not worry about busting out in extremely silly spots or looking stupid like 4bet shoving 25s if you think its right because you don't care how others will perceive it afterwards and if you let the results eat at you, its just bad news bears...

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no, that statement (as well as a couple others you've made) is simply an incorrect generalization

[/ QUOTE ]
and you (as well as a couple other people who do this every time i post) simply tell me i'm wrong without telling me why. it's cool though. don't ever challenge yourself to re-examine your game. keep thinking of me as the crazy ranter person. [censored] i knew there's a reason i never even bother discussing strat on this forum anymore. bunch of inflexible thinkers who think they have it all figured out.

[/ QUOTE ]

the reason that statement was an incorrect generalization is because of the fact that it is not winner take all. ICM clearly shows that it is sometimes best not to make the decision that gives you the best chance of winning the tournament. If you really want a concrete example I can give you one, but that should be clear enough.

And no, I don't think I have it all figured out.

edit: the other blatantly incorrect generalization I was talking about was:

[ QUOTE ]
ANY time you think you can make people fold, you should.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, if you really want me to think of an example for this I will, but it's pretty clear. I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I just hate when you go off on these rants and make silly generalizations, even if you do have a point underneath.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

GIGABLOCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKS

THE CHIPS FLOW LIKE A RIVER AND I AM THE DAMN, THE [censored] DAMN. WAFFLE CRUSH

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

sigh I was not going to post in this because I didn't want to lower the overall intellect in the posts in this thread but I feel I need to defend nath here with an argument me and him have had with many others in threads in the past.

I spent many hours today trying to explain this stuff to a student today about the one part of tourneys I've experienced and couldn't prove because the math is too intensive. This is a lot of gigablock theory/optimal stack ideas theory included, I know many of you disagree with the block theory but it's correct in many complex ways.

Basically the jist of it is this example.

Say I have have a 15bb stack at the middle stages of a tourney and the stacks to my direct left are effectively this 20bbs,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45 , and say the player to my left is an aggro solid player who will give me fits is too my left the other players are no where as good as as him or me we are def first and 2nd in skill at the table.

Given these stack sizes if I knew I could get it in vs the guy on my left 100% of the time as a 45% dog I would take it each time without any dead money or anything. So 45% of the time I have 30bbs and 55% I bust,

I will not argue that in an ICM model my chip value would have doubled directly due to that hand we all know that.

But i will tell you my hypothetical chip accumulating per orbit amount will skyrocket from where it was in the previous example. And I will earn back the 2.5bbs or whatever edge I gave up in that 45%flip by having a much more profitable situation every time it's folded to me in any spot. In a few orbits as long as table doesn't break I will be putting myself in more and more profitable situations with my chips where I can play more hands for a larger edge. When I would of been handcuffed to playing tight without the double. Thus increasing the chances of me winning because each orbit I am gaining way more chips then I would if I didn't take that 45% flip.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When you only care about making money (as opposed to making more money than the next guy), poker doesn't turn into a childish dick-waving contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't believe this, stop and consider my posting history on 2+2 over the last 4-6 months.

Now compare that to the many months of arguing and dick-waving prior to that.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

man my eyes hurt too much atm to read all of this thread but after reading the first 15 posts, I gotta say this has rung true in so many ways for me. when I first started I def didnt give a [censored] about the money and losing didnt affect me at all. Then I had some success hit a few decent scores and then somehow got disillusioned with tournaments as "they're all luck". I have also started to become super tilty/emotional lately as I have been on a 60k hand rollercoaster ride trying to learn to beat midstakes cash. This stuff really bother me when I think about it too, cause Im the type of guy that really doesnt care about anything, and let most things just roll of my back. At first poker was not about money at all when I had none of it and now that I have it, its like I lost all confidence in myself to hold onto it when Im downswinging/breaking even. Idk, Im def gonna read through the res of this thread in a bit, just thought I'd add my 2 cents

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

heh, just read the rest of the thread and it kinda derailed a bit:(

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

i am glad this thread has fostered some great discussion, thank you to those that chimed in with meaningful stuff and those that derailed, mehhhhhh

shane's elaboration on why he will never be the best absolutely describes my approach right now to a tee. that is, in essence, why i am now shrouded in apathy. the word i was apparantly looking for was "romantic".

and ty for the sports analagies bobneptune, today was 15 hours of live college football with great success and anything sports related is welcome to open ears

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

Pretty good discussion overall and some great posting in here.

I pretty much agree with what Leo says, falling in the middle seems healthy.

"I work hard and i play hard" seems to work for me. When i get frustrated i just write about it and the tension goes away.

GL at Bellagio guys.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty good discussion overall and some great posting in here.

I pretty much agree with what Leo says, falling in the middle seems healthy.

"I work hard and i play hard" seems to work for me. When i get frustrated i just get high and rub one out and the tension goes away.

GL at Bellagio guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

the correct answer is "both."

it's clear that you have to have detachment from the results, but at the same time still care enough that it hurts. it's a tight balance, sure wish i could attain it.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty good discussion overall and some great posting in here.

I pretty much agree with what Leo says, falling in the middle seems healthy.

"I work hard and i play hard" seems to work for me. When i get frustrated i just rub one out, and cry myself to sleep and the tension goes away.

GL at Bellagio guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

it's both, no i didn't read this thread, it's impossible to have one without the other

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
ICM clearly shows that it is sometimes best not to make the decision that gives you the best chance of winning the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
right, because at certain points late in the game moves that are +cEV are -$EV due to prize-pool implications. so why won't any of you even acknowledge the possibility that it could work the other way in the early game, when the payouts are far, far away?

of course no one is commenting on the matros article or on shaun's post, because those actually express points that agree with the ones i'm trying to make and would cause you to challenge your thinking.

so many people use variance as an excuse to not improve. i'm done with this. pm or im me if you want to talk tournament strategy.

p.s. bakes - my point was not that "i'm better than you", my point is that if you guys think i do so much [censored] wrong and i still put up a strong ROI, well, i must be doing something right that you aren't to make up for it. i try to explain and offer my thoughts here, but nobody wants them. so you can come find me to get them from now on.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

Shaun, that was a really awesome post.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

Nath,
The article mentions going allin as a 54% favorite, not a dog.

Also, after skimming the article still am not really impressed by the numbers. In most tournamentsI think a good player is more than 59% to double up and way more than 2x avg to win.

In general I think almost all of these ideas of gambling for a stack are silly, especially in a tourney like the stars mill.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nath,
The article mentions going allin as a 54% favorite, not a dog.

Also, after skimming the article still am not really impressed by the numbers. In most tournaments I think a good player is more than 59% to double up and way more than 2x avg to win.

In general I think almost all of these ideas of gambling for a stack are silly, especially in a tourney like the stars mill.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY? Just as an example, from the $27.5 buy-in $25k Gtd. on Stars:

Entrants: 1347
1st place: $7169
Avg person should win: 1/1347=.07%
Your theoretical win %: .14%

Assume 15% ITM, any cash not a win is the first cash of $50.51

.15*50.51+.0014*7169-22=17.61

17.61/22=80% ROI

This is not even accounting for all other FTs, etc., so me-thinks you haven't thought this through



FWIW, not that anyone cares, I'm on nath and shaun's side here. I apply somewhat similar strategies with sports sometimes where if my future EV earning potential is better served by taking a slight -EV gamble now, the overall EV of the move is positive.

Situations like these arise in things like tournaments because of the finite nature of things in that we have a certain period (before someone else does it) where we have to accumulate as much as possible (all the chips).

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nath,
The article mentions going allin as a 54% favorite, not a dog.

Also, after skimming the article still am not really impressed by the numbers. In most tournaments I think a good player is more than 59% to double up and way more than 2x avg to win.

In general I think almost all of these ideas of gambling for a stack are silly, especially in a tourney like the stars mill.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY? Just as an example, from the $27.5 buy-in $25k Gtd. on Stars:

Entrants: 1347
1st place: $7169
Avg person should win: 1/1347=.07%
Your theoretical win %: .14%

Assume 15% ITM, any cash not a win is the first cash of $50.51

.15*50.51+.0014*7169-22=17.61

17.61/22=80% ROI

This is not even accounting for all other FTs, etc., so me-thinks you haven't thought this through



FWIW, not that anyone cares, I'm on nath and shaun's side here. I apply somewhat similar strategies with sports sometimes where if my future EV earning potential is better served by taking a slight -EV gamble now, the overall EV of the move is positive.

Situations like these arise in things like tournaments because of the finite nature of things in that we have a certain period (before someone else does it) where we have to accumulate as much as possible (all the chips).

[/ QUOTE ]


i read this a bunch of times and all i can come up with is that you feel you poked holes in dan's hypothesis because you'd need an ROI well above 80% to win 2x as often.

if that is correct, i imagine when dan is referring to a good player, he means someone who has an roi of like 125%+ at a $25 online mtt. which, correct me if i'm wrong because i'm extremely rusty with mtt stuff, is pretty reasonable for any typical mtt grinder pro

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

0evg0:

My analysis neglected all other finishes other than 1sts which you should've noticed, he also said way more than 2x avg to win

Also, I assumed we're talking about bigger tourneys than $25 here, that was merely an example.

I just don't think anyone is way more than 2x avg to win in an MTT, sorry.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

brendan I am quite sure many 2+2ers in anything over a 1k field with a resonable structere will be over 2x avg to win. Esp a lag player who ITMs less frequently but ends up getting deep scores more frequently.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
0evg0:

I just don't think anyone is way more than 2x avg to win in an MTT, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

war I am pretty sure I am >2x avg to win a 180 If someone has a sharkscope subby can you verify?

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

Anyone that is winning way more than 2x avg is going to have an absurdly high ROI, do you not see that?