Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
someone tell me in less than 3 sentences what balostar is saying, because i haven't read anything he's written but i'd like to take a stance on the issue since i'm so good at poker

[/ QUOTE ]

"I don't know what I am talking about. Thus, I cover it up by writing incredibly long and confusing posts."

2 sentences, bam

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Would you rather read what I write or what Chen writes in The Mathematics of Poker ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would rather makeout with Bill Chen than read what you write.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone's got yellow feva, gobbo's got yellow feeevaa

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
When did I say I thought is was deep and revolutionary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it is very clear from the way you phrase your posts and ideas. You also specifically admit, at the very next sentence you write, at noticing "thought patterns on these boards that are detrimental to good players' games". In other words, you have a "deeper" understanding of this game than some long term winners who are posting here.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, when I used to write for trading sites, people gave me a lot of credit for explaining risk ideas in a straightforward manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Risk ideas" with regard to MTTs were discussed on these boards and elsewhere for ages. Your way of "explaining" it is rather poor actually, and again, there's nothing new about it.



[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather read what I write or what Chen writes in The Mathematics of Poker ?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really a laughable comparison. First, I have never got annoyed reading Chen's book (regardless if I understood some stuff in it or not). Your posts are annoying as hell. Second, and much more importantly, Chen actually suggests a rather interesting (some of it new) perspective on the analysis of poker hands. Your posts are much more like a teenager who is trying to impress his friends by talking about football using words he heard the day before in a TV show about "quantum mechanics" (on the discovery channel).

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

PrayingMantis,

Yofehhhhhhhhhhhhh [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

Toda. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

5375

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

I don't think Baltostar deserves as much crap as he is getting. Sometimes it helps yourself when you you can put your thoughts on paper. This is just the way his brain works.

As said earlier (shaundeeb maybe?), if MLG or Shaniac or some other very well respected poster wrote some of his posts they would be viewed in a much more positive light with countless 'POTY' and crap like that. I do realize that when stereotypes of the community as a whole are cast over many well respected players, the perception of the post takes a negative twist:

[ QUOTE ]
I said I have noticed persistent and pervasive thought patterns on these boards that are detrimental to good players' games because the patterns are based on certain flawed assumptions about tournament risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should not be said.

Lastly, if MLG can cliff note baltostar from now on, I believe some very good discussion may develop.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
balto,
Basically what you are saying (in reference to this specific situation) is that playing a marginal hand oop and relying on your postflop skills is something that should be done sparingly. Your reasons are that even if it is a +EV situation, it is very marginallyy +EV and when playing against a good opponent who knows how to apply pressure, your varience will be rocketed through the levels you should be comfortable with. If your claim is that many players don't take this into consideration I agree with you. If your claim is that many players overestimate their postflop ev when making that decision, I agree with you. Correct me if Im wrong.

P.S. If those are your points you have merit, but I would be willing to wager that specifically gobbo, in specifically this situation has thought these things through.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty good interpretation.

What I'm saying is more complex though. Part of the problem is that I haven't had enough time to come up with good hand examples, which would solve a lot of this communication problem.

Here's another way to conceptualize what I'm saying (please don't crucify me on the details b/c it's just an artificial example and you can understand my point even if it's not a realistic scenario) :

Imagine that with you as pre-flop oop raiser you perceive that it's more likely than not that you're slightly ahead of villain on flop.

You also perceive that 6 major lines could develop. (For simplicity assume that your perception of ahead/behind does not change during the line.)

1. bet, villain calls you down to river
2. bet, villain raises, you c/c down to river
3. c/r, villain pushes, you fold
4. c/r, villain calls you down to river
5. c/c to river
6. check flop, villain checks behind, bet turn; villain raises 40% of the time and you fold, otherwise villain calls down to river

Now, you perceive that lines 2,4,5 will likely lead to excessive relative chip risk (pot size) for this scenario; lines 1,3 will not; and line 6 will lead to excessive risk 60% of the time.

Excessive relative risk is defined as risk significantly outside of the risk associated with a reasonable expectation for this pre-flop scenario within the current M-bracket.

So, you decide that **on the basis of not incurring excessive relative risk for this scenario** that you should bet, not check.

(NOTE: M-bracket could just be rest of this level, or could include next level as well, depends on what how next level will escalate & your stack size).

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is more complex though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]

you repeat some common ideas and just use a stronger vocabulary in a way to confuse the reader so much that they assume it's right. If MLG/Shaniac or some other really sick mtter who doesn't post much posted the same things it would be taken as pure gold whether it was right or not. It sucks bt the inverse is true you posting what you did will be dismissed before it's even read. When I read it I see what you are saying and it's not as revolutionary and different as you think we just didn't articulate it like you.


[/ QUOTE ]

completely agree with whats sean [censored] deeb just said.


[ QUOTE ]

Would you rather read what I write or what Chen writes in The Mathematics of Poker ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather read poker for dummies.