Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Responding to a bunch of different posts:

If you have some other way to adjust for this problem, more power to you. What works for me when deciding when to play across events is to consider total chip outlay in relation to max payoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off I'll start by saying that people who say baltostar is making false statements arent completely right.

But I hasten to add that baltostar ( IMO) hasnt made clear his base assumptions and model. So it is in fact a half truth.

The way I see it, what baltostar is proposing is an alternate methodology to compute implied odds, because magically computing the possibility of btn reraise etcis not possible.

While it might be a good strategy to employ for a bot, humans can do better, and thats why we use cost to call. As humans we can adapt better when more information becomes available.

Again your method solves the apparent paradox of using cost to call, when trapped in a min-raising war between two other stacks, but it does not perform well in most situations.

If you design your algorithm to work well for all cases, and make special concession for fringe cases which constitute 5% (shooting from the hip figure, but something ridiculously low) of all cases, then, quite often it will be a poor strategy.

It will be much better to identify the fringe cases, and deal with each separately and accordingly. Treating everything uniformly is a cop-out in my opinion. You seem to have given up and want to do no better.

So you are bent upon creating this uniform decision making model, completely ignoring improvements that can be made on the basis of empirical evidence.

eg: the raising war will happen very infrequently. WHy?? Because empirical evidence tends to indicate so.

Now if you were writing a bot, you could use cost to call in most cases, and total cost in special cases, that are identified using some basic heuristics. I'm pretty sure you would gain equity overall, despite losing some equity while identifying problem cases.

Re: this post is not about Baltostar
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The "implied odds", which is really the implied expectation, are what you expect to win if you hit, multiplied by the percentage that you hit. It's really that simple. And flopping a set or better is 7.5:1...


[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean if villain had you covered you would call mostly any amount as long as there were 7.5:1 ratio of what you can win and how much it is to call? This can't be right.

I am trying to develop a shorter hand way of figuring out when to call with small pairs for set odds (I only play live so don't fiddle w/numbers as much as I should). How does your stack and villain's play come into this equations (I realize with smaller stacks and w/a villain that won't stack off w/1 pair calling is less desirable, but how do you account for them mathmatically?).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 7.5:1 is required implied pot-odd for set-mining.

Stacksize, villain's plays and other factors are definately in consideration.

Edit: As for this hand, this is a call to me.

Re: this post is not about Baltostar
 

[ QUOTE ]
If a decision criteria for playing across event risk is to be useful, it should not incur radical swings in validity when successively applied to similar scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does this mean?

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The real problem with only concentrating on cost-to-call is that players tend to get pulled into assuming excessive relative stack risk. Opportunities tend to look better than they really are when rated on a relative basis.

[/ QUOTE ] This is basically saying that players who only consider cost-to-call tend to underestimate how often they will be required to put more money in the pot, right?

You say players 'tend to get pulled in' and situations 'tend to look better' than they are. These are not arguments for your point. A competent player will NOT tend to get pulled in, and will not tend to see better oppotunities than actually exist. That's our whole point: if you grant us reasonably accurate predictive abilities as to our opponents tendencies, then we do not get 'sucked in' to -ev situations. And we don't ask that this assumption be granted for no reason: time and again experience has borne out our assumption.

Re: this post is not about Baltostar
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The "implied odds", which is really the implied expectation, are what you expect to win if you hit, multiplied by the percentage that you hit. It's really that simple. And flopping a set or better is 7.5:1...


[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean if villain had you covered you would call mostly any amount as long as there were 7.5:1 ratio of what you can win and how much it is to call? This can't be right.

I am trying to develop a shorter hand way of figuring out when to call with small pairs for set odds (I only play live so don't fiddle w/numbers as much as I should). How does your stack and villain's play come into this equations (I realize with smaller stacks and w/a villain that won't stack off w/1 pair calling is less desirable, but how do you account for them mathmatically?).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 7.5:1 is required implied pot-odd for set-mining.

Stacksize, villain's plays and other factors are definately in consideration.

Edit: As for this hand, this is a call to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I am nittier than this. I just felt a while ago I bled too much set-mining and have tried to find spots where implied odds are worth it.

BTW, I would call this had as well.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real problem with only concentrating on cost-to-call is that players tend to get pulled into assuming excessive relative stack risk. Opportunities tend to look better than they really are when rated on a relative basis.

[/ QUOTE ] This is basically saying that players who only consider cost-to-call tend to underestimate how often they will be required to put more money in the pot, right?

You say players 'tend to get pulled in' and situations 'tend to look better' than they are. These are not arguments for your point. A competent player will NOT tend to get pulled in, and will not tend to see better oppotunities than actually exist. That's our whole point: if you grant us reasonably accurate predictive abilities as to our opponents tendencies, then we do not get 'sucked in' to -ev situations. And we don't ask that this assumption be granted for no reason: time and again experience has borne out our assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily EV-. Could be marginal EV+ significantly below the avg opportunity expected during the current M-bracket.

I think this is a bit difficult to see if you concentrate on relatively deep-stacked online tournaments, such as the FTP $1M or $750K with starting stacks 5000,3000 respectively.

If you concentrate on the shallow-stacked tournies, such as the FTP $24+$2 or $69+9, or SnGs, all with starting stacks of 1500, this problem of being pulled into excessive sub-par opportunities becomes very clear.

It doesn't take very many unanticipated min-raises, or even 3x bb raises, following which you again call for set value, or combo-draw value, etc., until you typically end up with significant damage to your stack utility.

The criteria of using cost-to-call to calculate implied odds given to play across the flop event can easily pull you into squandering significant stack utility on multiple significantly sub-par opportunities.


Sidenote: I'm really amazed that there are people on here who think that required implied odds for set-mining are equal to the base odds of hitting a set. This is a ginormous humongtic leak, way way larger than the subtle leak for which I am proposing a solution.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sidenote: I'm really amazed that there are people on here who think that required implied odds for set-mining are equal to the base odds of hitting a set. This is a ginormous humongtic leak, way way larger than the subtle leak for which I am proposing a solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, i was going to correct this too, btu saw you posted and was dying to read what new things you've said.

i actually think your latest post is the most coherent you've made, but your whole system seems to be in place to prevent you from [censored] up, and like requin said, better players dont need these guidelines.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Sidenote: I'm really amazed that there are people on here who think that required implied odds for set-mining are equal to the base odds of hitting a set. This is a ginormous humongtic leak, way way larger than the subtle leak for which I am proposing a solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain to me the difference between the two?

I'm sorry I haven't read thru the entire thread. Maybe you had said that before, but I'd appreciate if you can explain to me (again, if you had done so).

(BTW, I've been reading about poker computation at 2p2's probability forum and this site, http://www.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/

However,you brought up something different and new.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

Because everytime yo hit a set you wont get payed off for your full stack, sometimes your set wotn be good, sometimes they'll just c/f and you wont get 1 bet... etc etc.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sidenote: I'm really amazed that there are people on here who think that required implied odds for set-mining are equal to the base odds of hitting a set. This is a ginormous humongtic leak, way way larger than the subtle leak for which I am proposing a solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain to me the difference between the two?

I'm sorry I haven't read thru the entire thread. Maybe you had said that before, but I'd appreciate if you can explain to me (again, if you had done so).

(BTW, I've been reading about poker computation at 2p2's probability forum and this site, http://www.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/

However,you brought up something different and new.

[/ QUOTE ]

you aren't going to stack someone every time you hit your set. you have to account for boards that will slow down your opponent and for the rare but very costly set over set situation. also you might lose to a flush or straight.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sidenote: I'm really amazed that there are people on here who think that required implied odds for set-mining are equal to the base odds of hitting a set. This is a ginormous humongtic leak, way way larger than the subtle leak for which I am proposing a solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain to me the difference between the two?

I'm sorry I haven't read thru the entire thread. Maybe you had said that before, but I'd appreciate if you can explain to me (again, if you had done so).

(BTW, I've been reading about poker computation at 2p2's probability forum and this site, http://www.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/

However,you brought up something different and new.

[/ QUOTE ]

you aren't going to stack someone every time you hit your set. you have to account for boards that will slow down your opponent and for the rare but very costly set over set situation. also you might lose to a flush or straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true. I encountered it twice this past weekend at Caesars LV $2K event.

I'm not sure what's the arguments here, I'll go thru the posts and try to understand Boltastar's point. But, we also have other situations that get us more than 7.5x return, sometimes even >> 20x, when we have a set.

I think calculating implied pot-odd for/against set-mining is still one of the right tools for deep stack sitatuations like OP's hand.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i actually think your latest post is the most coherent you've made, but your whole system seems to be in place to prevent you from [censored] up, and like requin said, better players dont need these guidelines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or so they like to believe ...

I stand by my analysis that there are pervasive persistent thought patterns on these boards that do not properly account for relative opportunities, especially in relation to stack utility risk.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Responding to a bunch of different posts:

If you have some other way to adjust for this problem, more power to you. What works for me when deciding when to play across events is to consider total chip outlay in relation to max payoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off I'll start by saying that people who say baltostar is making false statements arent completely right.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he IS making completely false statements, they have some relevance in a different context but in regards to the actual thread he is completely wrong because he can't use extremely basic logical processes to follow his own concepts. Yes, when you are figuring implied odds on any given action where you are not closing the action you have to account for the possibility of getting raised, if you are closing the action however that is completely irrelevant, the only relevant factors are what the price is to call and what our expectation is if we hit, current pot odds absolutely figure into that.

Re: this post is not about Baltostar
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The "implied odds", which is really the implied expectation, are what you expect to win if you hit, multiplied by the percentage that you hit. It's really that simple. And flopping a set or better is 7.5:1...


[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean if villain had you covered you would call mostly any amount as long as there were 7.5:1 ratio of what you can win and how much it is to call? This can't be right.

I am trying to develop a shorter hand way of figuring out when to call with small pairs for set odds (I only play live so don't fiddle w/numbers as much as I should). How does your stack and villain's play come into this equations (I realize with smaller stacks and w/a villain that won't stack off w/1 pair calling is less desirable, but how do you account for them mathmatically?).

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to your question is no. You have to make an assessment of "what you expect to win", not "what you can win", which is an assessment of many factors, including the depth of the stacks, the strength of your opponent's hand and his ability to get away from a big hand. I don't believe hard-and-fast rules are achievable given the number of variables involved. Obviously, if you cannot win better than 7.5x your risk, you should not call for the sole purpose of flopping a set. And anything close to 7.5x undoubtedly isn't worth it either. In Shannon's hand, the Villain raised the UTG raiser, which indicates that he has a very big hand, which signals that he's probably willing to put a lot more chips in the pot postflop. Set mining against people who have made a standard postflop raise from middle or late position is almost invariably a mistake, since there's no reason to think their hand is very strong. Of course, there are often many reasons to call with a pair other than just set mining.

Here are two examples from the Caesar's $10K event I just busted out of which show my thought process in two set-mining hands. First, blinds 50/100, very laggy player raises UTG to 250, UTG+2 calls 250, MP1 who's been very active raises to 1250 (this shows he has a big hand since he's putting in a 3bet of a UTG raise, albeit from a laggy player, with many people yet to act behind him), CO calls 1250, Button calls 1250, I look down at 22 in the SB. Since UTG is super laggy in opening but has never 4bet, I don't give him credit for much of a hand and I'm not very worried that he's going to reraise everyone. I figure if I call, the pot will be so big that UTG and UTG+2 will call as well. At that point, the pot will have 7600 in it. Someone is going to have to bet at least 3-4K into a pot that big to try to take it down, so I figure the minimum I will win if I flop a set is 9500 (10600-1250) or so, and there's a good chance of winning a lot more since MP1 has a hand he might not be able to fold. Everyone has at least 13K to start the hand. So I called, UTG and UTG+2 did not, which means I was overly optimistic. Flop: K Q 2, two spades, I checked, checked around to CO who bet 2K, I moved all in for about 12K more, everyone folded, CO thought forever and made a terrible call with AK, I doubled up.

Second example: 100/200, loose EP limps, loose MP limps, button who has about 27K raises to 1000, I look down at 55 in the BB with 25K. This was again a situation where I thought the two limpers would follow if I called, since they had done so in similar situations, which would create a big bet on the flop, so I called. Neither limper had limp/reraised all day, so I wasn't worried about that. Additionally, the Button had shown a tendency to stick with big hands rather than folding them, which is what you want. The 2 limpers both folded, so much for my analysis, making me overly optimistically wrong again. Flop: J 5 3, two hearts. I check, Button bets 1500, I raise to 4500, he raises to 12K, I move allin, he instacalls and turns over JJ. GG me.

I think the preflop call in the second hand is marginal, the one in the first hand is the type of call I think you have to make in playing to win.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

OP: a hand.

balto: you should do X, because 2+2=5

all: no, you're wrong, it's not 5.

balto: yes it is.

all: no it's not.

balto: well, you see, 1+1=2 and 2+2=5 so you should do X

all: 1+1=2 is not relevant and 2+2=5 is wrong.

balto: 1+1=2 is relevant, blah blah blah

all: no it is not

balto: sure it is, and here's why: blah blah blah

someone: balto is actually right about 1+1=2

balto: of course, and that's why you should do X

all: 1+1=2 is not relevant to anything here at all, and 2+2=5 is wrong

balto: well, as you see now, 1+1=2 is true. I was right after all

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

That was awesome.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

perfect.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

god that is perfect

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

i don't want to read through 10 pages of baltostar, perma-IP ban please.

My take on the hand however, goes as follows.

Against an unknown i would put him on 1010+, Aks, ako and maybe? AQs(a pretty bad hand for you to play a flop with)

It is a tough spot b/c you will stack off to AA and KK a lot when you flop an overpair. You will still lose to JJ and 1010 (assuming villain is a liberal C-bettor like most players) pretty often when the flop comes Axx Kxx AKx. If he has JJ or 1010 or KK you will not get good value when the flop comes AQx. Set over set is a null value b/c i am assuming he is reraising w 1010+ and you are the middle child.

If you are an online pro with unlimited buyins and 8 tables running, i recommed reraising pre or calling and playing a flop OOP. If you are Phil Hellmuth (which i think you very well could be against a random warmup field) then i recommend folding because this hand is pretty close to evenEV for a lot of chips.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

pm,
that was amazing.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

Definitely a POY candidate, PM. A+

Re: this post is not about Baltostar
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The "implied odds", which is really the implied expectation, are what you expect to win if you hit, multiplied by the percentage that you hit. It's really that simple. And flopping a set or better is 7.5:1...


[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean if villain had you covered you would call mostly any amount as long as there were 7.5:1 ratio of what you can win and how much it is to call? This can't be right.

I am trying to develop a shorter hand way of figuring out when to call with small pairs for set odds (I only play live so don't fiddle w/numbers as much as I should). How does your stack and villain's play come into this equations (I realize with smaller stacks and w/a villain that won't stack off w/1 pair calling is less desirable, but how do you account for them mathmatically?).

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to your question is no. You have to make an assessment of "what you expect to win", not "what you can win", which is an assessment of many factors, including the depth of the stacks, the strength of your opponent's hand and his ability to get away from a big hand. I don't believe hard-and-fast rules are achievable given the number of variables involved. Obviously, if you cannot win better than 7.5x your risk, you should not call for the sole purpose of flopping a set. And anything close to 7.5x undoubtedly isn't worth it either. In Shannon's hand, the Villain raised the UTG raiser, which indicates that he has a very big hand, which signals that he's probably willing to put a lot more chips in the pot postflop. Set mining against people who have made a standard postflop raise from middle or late position is almost invariably a mistake, since there's no reason to think their hand is very strong. Of course, there are often many reasons to call with a pair other than just set mining.

Here are two examples from the Caesar's $10K event I just busted out of which show my thought process in two set-mining hands. First, blinds 50/100, very laggy player raises UTG to 250, UTG+2 calls 250, MP1 who's been very active raises to 1250 (this shows he has a big hand since he's putting in a 3bet of a UTG raise, albeit from a laggy player, with many people yet to act behind him), CO calls 1250, Button calls 1250, I look down at 22 in the SB. Since UTG is super laggy in opening but has never 4bet, I don't give him credit for much of a hand and I'm not very worried that he's going to reraise everyone. I figure if I call, the pot will be so big that UTG and UTG+2 will call as well. At that point, the pot will have 7600 in it. Someone is going to have to bet at least 3-4K into a pot that big to try to take it down, so I figure the minimum I will win if I flop a set is 9500 (10600-1250) or so, and there's a good chance of winning a lot more since MP1 has a hand he might not be able to fold. Everyone has at least 13K to start the hand. So I called, UTG and UTG+2 did not, which means I was overly optimistic. Flop: K Q 2, two spades, I checked, checked around to CO who bet 2K, I moved all in for about 12K more, everyone folded, CO thought forever and made a terrible call with AK, I doubled up.

Second example: 100/200, loose EP limps, loose MP limps, button who has about 27K raises to 1000, I look down at 55 in the BB with 25K. This was again a situation where I thought the two limpers would follow if I called, since they had done so in similar situations, which would create a big bet on the flop, so I called. Neither limper had limp/reraised all day, so I wasn't worried about that. Additionally, the Button had shown a tendency to stick with big hands rather than folding them, which is what you want. The 2 limpers both folded, so much for my analysis, making me overly optimistically wrong again. Flop: J 5 3, two hearts. I check, Button bets 1500, I raise to 4500, he raises to 12K, I move allin, he instacalls and turns over JJ. GG me.

I think the preflop call in the second hand is marginal, the one in the first hand is the type of call I think you have to make in playing to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post Todd, addresses many of the issues I have been thinking about and further confirmation that I set-mine too much. BTW, I really don't think you were "wrong" in first post about UTG and UTG+2 not calling - that had to be a mistake on their part given pot odds. Maybe hand 2 is less more marginal call.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
god that is perfect

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Please believe me, I have been diligently studying poker for 2 years, including every respected book written on NLHE (just now starting on Ed Miller's latest.)

You have to understand I have multiple degrees in math, engineering, computer science, and I've been gambling in varous forms for almost 15 years, and I can't help it if I notice serious flaws in mechanisms of thought that have become de rigeur in the poker community.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok... Noted...

[ QUOTE ]

The importance of relative stack risk considerations become apparent if you scale up the scenarios:

Imagine a tournament where every time you limp or call to play for set value you are not raised.

Now imagine an identical tournament but where every time you limp or call to play for set value you are min-raised and you call the raise (because you calculate your given implied odds based on cost-of-call and they always exceed your calculated required implied-odds).

In the 2nd tournament, on avg lose you twice as much stack utility each time you miss your set. You are much more likely to do well in the 1st tournament than in the 2nd.

Now play 1000 type 1 tournaments, and a 1000 type 2s. All else equal, the type 1 tournaments have significantly larger $EV.

The real problem with only concentrating on cost-to-call is that players tend to get pulled into assuming excessive relative stack risk. Opportunities tend to look better than they really are when rated on a relative basis.


[/ QUOTE ]

So... Multiple degrees in maths, engineering and computer science you said. Then you should know the importance of backing up your claims with a valid proof. Since I happen to have a Master of Science in computer science I know this is something they teach you during the first year when introducing abstract algebra and logics. And your example of the two tournaments is _not_ (NOT!) a valid proof that you have to take previously invested money into consideration when you calculate current odds. As already stated, this is something you have to account for before you make the initial call/raise, but I think most posters here in HSMTT know that.

So... No Q.E.D at the end of your post.

[ QUOTE ]

If you have some other way to adjust for this problem, more power to you. What works for me when deciding when to play across events is to consider total chip outlay in relation to max payoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your opinion of 'works for me' is equal to cashing in 1/3 18-man tournaments, more power to you.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

I’ve known Baltostar for quite some time, and I don’t find it the least bit surprising that his way of thinking has encountered opposition on a public message forum.

He may have mentioned his background in trading, but he probably neglected to reveal his other talents, and I assure you if you were aware of them, you would not be so quick to dismiss his advice.

From a garage in Ohio, Baltostar developed a visual language he calls the “Logic Alphabet,” in which a group of specially designed letter-shapes are maneuvered like puzzle pieces to reveal the geometric patterns hidden beneath the symbolic web. For the last five years, Baltostar has been exploring the symmetries and relations inherent in these patterns, which he has made manifest in a series of delicately crafted wooden models and in thousands of pages of diagrams.

Baltostar’s work is based on a discovery that the logic on which our computers run is allied with a geometric structure whose form is a tesseract, or four-dimensional cube. Much of his work over the past half-century has aimed at identifying the one, two and three-dimensional subsets of this group of symmetrical relations.

The resulting models and diagrams, often crystalline in nature, constitute a genuine research project in logic while simultaneously passing through distinct aesthetic phases. Most importantly, these models enable us to manipulate logic symbols spatially. The parallels between his research and the game of poker are obvious.

You should listen to what he has to say.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

lol

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I’ve known Baltostar for quite some time, and I don’t find it the least bit surprising that his way of thinking has encountered opposition on a public message forum.

He may have mentioned his background in trading, but he probably neglected to reveal his other talents, and I assure you if you were aware of them, you would not be so quick to dismiss his advice.

From a garage in Ohio, Baltostar developed a visual language he calls the “Logic Alphabet,” in which a group of specially designed letter-shapes are maneuvered like puzzle pieces to reveal the geometric patterns hidden beneath the symbolic web. For the last five years, Baltostar has been exploring the symmetries and relations inherent in these patterns, which he has made manifest in a series of delicately crafted wooden models and in thousands of pages of diagrams.

Baltostar’s work is based on a discovery that the logic on which our computers run is allied with a geometric structure whose form is a tesseract, or four-dimensional cube. Much of his work over the past half-century has aimed at identifying the one, two and three-dimensional subsets of this group of symmetrical relations.

The resulting models and diagrams, often crystalline in nature, constitute a genuine research project in logic while simultaneously passing through distinct aesthetic phases. Most importantly, these models enable us to manipulate logic symbols spatially. The parallels between his research and the game of poker are obvious.

You should listen to what he has to say.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting, because reading this actually makes me want to NOT listen to what he has to say even more than before

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

wtf how can you fold queens against an unknown in this spot? Can't he have like ATs... not to mentions AK, his most likely holding I think.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You should listen to what he has to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubts at all baltostar is an intelligent human being and he's obviously doing a lot of studying in the area of poker. But, why should we listen to what he has to say, when he simply cannot listen to what others, professional poker players with several 100K in lifetime winnings, have to say? It's not scientific at all, it's pure and simple ethics...

This tends to be widespread personal shortage among over-educated people (professors, scientists etc.) who spend their entire lives trying to prove something. They become so involved in their works that they are unable to absorb anything from the outside world that contradicts their thinking. Those people have a fundamental enormous life leak...

Baltostar is so determined to prove that you can play poker successfully 100% based on a strict set of rules that you under no circumstances may diverge from, that he cares not to think he actually might be off here. I may regret this when I next year read about boundaries of reasonable expectations for specific hands, the theorem of Schroedinger's cat applied to poker, and the improved method of calculating implied odds in his upcoming poker book. Until then I will continue listen to those who actually have proven track records to their names and are able to establish a two-way communication.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’ve known Baltostar for quite some time, and I don’t find it the least bit surprising that his way of thinking has encountered opposition on a public message forum.

He may have mentioned his background in trading, but he probably neglected to reveal his other talents, and I assure you if you were aware of them, you would not be so quick to dismiss his advice.

From a garage in Ohio, Baltostar developed a visual language he calls the “Logic Alphabet,” in which a group of specially designed letter-shapes are maneuvered like puzzle pieces to reveal the geometric patterns hidden beneath the symbolic web. For the last five years, Baltostar has been exploring the symmetries and relations inherent in these patterns, which he has made manifest in a series of delicately crafted wooden models and in thousands of pages of diagrams.

Baltostar’s work is based on a discovery that the logic on which our computers run is allied with a geometric structure whose form is a tesseract, or four-dimensional cube. Much of his work over the past half-century has aimed at identifying the one, two and three-dimensional subsets of this group of symmetrical relations.

The resulting models and diagrams, often crystalline in nature, constitute a genuine research project in logic while simultaneously passing through distinct aesthetic phases. Most importantly, these models enable us to manipulate logic symbols spatially. The parallels between his research and the game of poker are obvious.

You should listen to what he has to say.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting, because reading this actually makes me want to NOT listen to what he has to say even more than before

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who assumed that this post was a joke?

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’ve known Baltostar for quite some time, and I don’t find it the least bit surprising that his way of thinking has encountered opposition on a public message forum.

He may have mentioned his background in trading, but he probably neglected to reveal his other talents, and I assure you if you were aware of them, you would not be so quick to dismiss his advice.

From a garage in Ohio, Baltostar developed a visual language he calls the “Logic Alphabet,” in which a group of specially designed letter-shapes are maneuvered like puzzle pieces to reveal the geometric patterns hidden beneath the symbolic web. For the last five years, Baltostar has been exploring the symmetries and relations inherent in these patterns, which he has made manifest in a series of delicately crafted wooden models and in thousands of pages of diagrams.

Baltostar’s work is based on a discovery that the logic on which our computers run is allied with a geometric structure whose form is a tesseract, or four-dimensional cube. Much of his work over the past half-century has aimed at identifying the one, two and three-dimensional subsets of this group of symmetrical relations.

The resulting models and diagrams, often crystalline in nature, constitute a genuine research project in logic while simultaneously passing through distinct aesthetic phases. Most importantly, these models enable us to manipulate logic symbols spatially. The parallels between his research and the game of poker are obvious.

You should listen to what he has to say.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting, because reading this actually makes me want to NOT listen to what he has to say even more than before

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who assumed that this post was a joke?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who assumed that this post was a joke?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLZ! Googling "Logic Alphabet" leads you to a press release from 1953 with the exact words Vespa used. So baltostar is actually som old dude named Shea Zellweger who should be like 70+ yo. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I’ve known Baltostar for quite some time, and I don’t find it the least bit surprising that his way of thinking has encountered opposition on a public message forum.

He may have mentioned his background in trading, but he probably neglected to reveal his other talents, and I assure you if you were aware of them, you would not be so quick to dismiss his advice.

From a garage in Ohio, Baltostar developed a visual language he calls the “Logic Alphabet,” in which a group of specially designed letter-shapes are maneuvered like puzzle pieces to reveal the geometric patterns hidden beneath the symbolic web. For the last five years, Baltostar has been exploring the symmetries and relations inherent in these patterns, which he has made manifest in a series of delicately crafted wooden models and in thousands of pages of diagrams.

Baltostar’s work is based on a discovery that the logic on which our computers run is allied with a geometric structure whose form is a tesseract, or four-dimensional cube. Much of his work over the past half-century has aimed at identifying the one, two and three-dimensional subsets of this group of symmetrical relations.

The resulting models and diagrams, often crystalline in nature, constitute a genuine research project in logic while simultaneously passing through distinct aesthetic phases. Most importantly, these models enable us to manipulate logic symbols spatially. The parallels between his research and the game of poker are obvious.

You should listen to what he has to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is some very fascinating new information about baltostar.

Here is an interesting logical-physical construction of his, I've found in an interview he gave.

I'm sure the connection to online MTTs is quite clear.




http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issue...garnet-new.jpg

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

god I really hope that was a timecube reference, anyone remember that?

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

Baltostar= DS gimmick used to increase traffic

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Baltostar= Charles Wallace

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seat 1: Jemb (14425 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 2: ogganova (1425 in chips)
Seat 3: noseyboy (10975 in chips)
Seat 4: $kipToMyLou (26850 in chips)
Seat 5: Strakov (8025 in chips)
Seat 6: realmann04 (15275 in chips)
Seat 7: OnlyPlayRagz (8950 in chips)
Seat 8: pucis (14500 in chips)
Seat 9: basebal1b (16725 in chips)
Strakov: posts small blind 100
realmann04: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to basebal1b [Qd Qs]
OnlyPlayRagz: folds
pucis: folds
basebal1b: raises 400 to 600
Jemb: folds
ogganova: folds
noseyboy: folds
$kipToMyLou: raises 1200 to 1800
Strakov: folds
realmann04: folds
basebal1b: folds


It feels incredibly nitty, but this has to be just a fold preflop on the internet often times, right? Against an unknown we'd almost always be willing to get it in when the flop comes 942 here, so is it too silly to just lay the hand down instead of getting our 83BBs in this early?

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread kind of went [censored] up but I think it's interesting and should be revived.

The issue is: WTF, fold QQ to a button raise with 83BBs behind?

The questions are, does shoving only get called by better hands and JJ and AK sometimes (i.e. not enough)? Does that matter (i.e. if JJ/AK/worse doesn't put much more/anything else in UI once we call or we can be taken off the hand)

If we don't shove, should we fold because while we are clearly ahead of villain's 3b range, we will find the hand too difficult to play OOP?

Baltostar, PLEASE don't respond. Everyone else, if Baltostar does respond, PLEASE don't respond to him.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

Balt is the reason I read HSMTT

keep up the good work, post more hands they are the most entertaining but the terrible logic and analysis is a close 2nd.

Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
 

I call and I don't think its all that close.