Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
c/c river vrs a bad player bet vrs a thinking one

[/ QUOTE ]
wtf?

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

So how do all of you who wanted HSMTT open to everyone feel now that baltostar has exploited you?

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
So how do all of you who wanted HSMTT open to everyone feel now that baltostar has exploited you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Amazingly, I think this might be the most on-point he's ever been.

But I actually play it the same as Gobbo a lot, sometimes I'll check/call river depending on who villain is.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
c/c river vrs a bad player bet vrs a thinking one

[/ QUOTE ]

shouldnt this be the opposite?

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'd either bet or crai

[/ QUOTE ]

you are the worst at river check raises

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm actually very good, i just do it too much

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
c/c river vrs a bad player bet vrs a thinking one

[/ QUOTE ]

you are the worst, and you continue to deny it

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
baltosar you have the most backward, unintuitive way of thinking of EV as I have ever seen. You should never consider the EV of a hand by the max you "should" be making with it, it is all about making the most you can possibly make given the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong and wrong.

You're totally misunderstanding how I look at EV. This is explained in other posts of mine.

I am not advocating artificially constraining one's play in a rigid manner because the stakes escalate outside an avg takedown for a given scenario.

I am advocating using reasonable expectations for various scenarios as a sort of alarm system to warn oneself that you are drifting into murkier and murkier risk-invested waters.

In my experience (which admittedly does not include high-level live play), what prevents very many good players from becoming great players is that they are not very good at perceiving relative risk.

They are good at obtaining an edge in a hand (reading an opponent, tactical play, bet sizing, etc), but they are not good at perceiving that their incurred risk is excessive relative to the avg opp they can expect in their current M-bracket (and other relative opp metrics).

They over-focus on EV+ to the detriment of stack variance control.

Your statement :

"it is all about making the most you can possibly make given the situation"

is an excellent representation of the flawed thinking that I am referring to.

If what you said was correct for tournament play, then why wouldn't one always attempt escalate the stakes to playing for stacks for even the tiniest perceived EV+ ?

When a hand's risk (as measured by stack/pot ratio, or as measured by cost to continue the most EV+ line, or other metrics) moves significantly outside of reasonable expectations for the pre-flop or flop scenario, one should ask themselves the very serious question:

"Do I have exceptional confidence that this is an opportunity significantly better than the avg opp I expect to receive in my current M-bracket ?"

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think Baltostar's ideas regarding expected EV given a particular hand are actually conceptually similar to those expressed in Professional NLH Volume 1, which focuses on SPR (stack-to-pot ratio) and optimal SPR's for given hands. So perhaps we'll be seeing a book by Baltostar published by 2p2 in the near future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't even know about this. But I have that book sitting in my pile of to-be-read so I'll take a look soon.

I'm actually kind of surprised I receive so much resistance here to my ideas. If you talk with good professional traders it's all about protecting oneself from over-scaling a trade. In trading, all manner of mechanisms (including absolute rules regarding % of bankroll risk on a given situation) are deployed to prevent oneself from defeating oneself by assuming excessive variance relative to a perceived opp.

Clearly, poker is not trading because in poker you can target single thinking opponents, but nonetheless some extremely valuable concepts are generally transferrable.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

I'm not going to bother to read through your ramblings baltostar, but I think it's funny that you think you can speak with such weight on issues in which you have no experience whatsoever.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

Can we ban baltostar, not because he is a terrible poster (he is), but because everythread ends up getting hijacked by him.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I am advocating using reasonable expectations for various scenarios as a sort of alarm system to warn oneself that you are drifting into murkier and murkier risk-invested waters.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah see, that is terrible. Really it is.

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience (which admittedly does not include high-level live play),

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not surprised. What do you typically play?

[ QUOTE ]
what prevents very many good players from becoming great players is that they are not very good at perceiving relative risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of things which keep a good player from becoming a great player, whatever the [censored] you just mentioned is certainly not one of them.

[ QUOTE ]
They are good at obtaining an edge in a hand (reading an opponent, tactical play, bet sizing, etc), but they are not good at perceiving that their incurred risk is excessive relative to the avg opp they can expect in their current M-bracket (and other relative opp metrics).

[/ QUOTE ]

ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev

... is all that matters. Variance control? lol.

[ QUOTE ]
If what you said was correct for tournament play, then why wouldn't one always attempt escalate the stakes to playing for stacks for even the tiniest perceived EV+ ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would generally pass up VERY small edges, but nothing too sizable.

What is your knowledge based on Baltostar if you don't mind me asking?

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is your knowledge based on Baltostar if you don't mind me asking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on following (in descending order of importance) :

1. logical independent thinking
2. reading 1000s of hands on these boards and realizing detrimental patterns of good players
3. 10 years experience as a highly successful trader
4. extensive study of most of the poker literature
5. playing multi-100s of online STTs and MTTs
6. 5 years experience successful pedigree handicapping
7. student of risk-analysis, probability, mathematics at top-tier universities and independently
8. experience successfully coaching others in sports which they are better than me

But you should never listen to anyone based on their credentials. You should always break-down what they are saying into logic elements and question whether it really works.

Yeah, Raymer is a very good player, yeah Raymer won the WSOP, but when he says "I'm not good enough to pass up any EV+ opportunity" you have to forget his credentials and really think hard if that is logically justified thinking.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
They are good at obtaining an edge in a hand (reading an opponent, tactical play, bet sizing, etc), but they are not good at perceiving that their incurred risk is excessive relative to the avg opp they can expect in their current M-bracket (and other relative opp metrics).

They over-focus on EV+ to the detriment of stack variance control.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a long-winded way of claiming that these other posters, according to you, value cEV too much over $EV. (I don't agree with your claim, fwiw.)

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are good at obtaining an edge in a hand (reading an opponent, tactical play, bet sizing, etc), but they are not good at perceiving that their incurred risk is excessive relative to the avg opp they can expect in their current M-bracket (and other relative opp metrics).

They over-focus on EV+ to the detriment of stack variance control.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a long-winded way of claiming that these other posters, according to you, value cEV too much over $EV. (I don't agree with your claim, fwiw.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]


1. logical independent thinking
2. reading 1000s of hands on these boards and realizing detrimental patterns of good players
3. 10 years experience as a highly successful trader
4. extensive study of most of the poker literature
5. playing multi-100s of online STTs and MTTs
6. 5 years experience successful pedigree handicapping
7. student of risk-analysis, probability, mathematics at top-tier universities and independently
8. experience successfully coaching others in sports which they are better than me



[/ QUOTE ]


These make me (and most good poker players) less likely to believe you are knowledgeable about poker.

Ever consider the fact that you are thinking about situations the wrong way?

I am infinitely more likely to listen to someone like Randal, who is 19 and has relied on poker for income since 16-17 than someone who has a list of useless (poker-wise) accomplishments like Baltosar.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

I can't believe Im about to say this, but I don't totally hate what balto has said in this thread. Some of it is conceptually awkward, and backwards. All of it is presented in a rediculously pompous and condescending manner, but some of it if translated into normal poker talk seems quite useful.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe Im about to say this, but I don't totally hate what balto has said in this thread. Some of it is conceptually awkward, and backwards. All of it is presented in a rediculously pompous and condescending manner, but some of it if translated into normal poker talk seems quite useful.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was going to make this same post! And now i'm goingn to quote it.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

balostar your 800 post thread can be summed up in 2:

POT CONTROL

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.


Yes you are successful in life congrats I was going to be a trader too before poker but guess what I bet you aren't a +EV MTTer in 100fo+ online right now. But those posting are... so why not let us help you get better like you helped others. Instead of being too egotistical to even respond to people better then you at POKER, because they are younger then you or not as well read as yourself.

I feel like stephennuts now.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
balostar your 800 post thread can be summed up in 2:

POT CONTROL

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I could care less about how old people are, unless they demonstrate a correlation between age and shallowness. In fact, I deliberately dress, look, act, etc. and hang out with people far younger than me because they have a vested interest in tearing the established stagnant boring crap down rather than reinforcing it.

Second, what I am elucidating is not pot control per se. Pot control is deployed in proportion to the level of uncertainty you have regarding your opponent's holding, especially it's strength in relation to your own.

The bands (two-sided risk boundaries) of reasonable expectation for hand scenarios I am theorizing are useful in avoiding being drawn into marginal situations where the error bands (std dev) of your perception of cEV are out-of-proportion to the the relative opp of the hand vs avg opp expected for your current M-bracket.

Exercising pot control does not preclude playing for very large pots. It's just your attempt to minimize the damage if you are wrong. If opponent has read that you believe you are marginally ahead he can still move stakes up significantly. Typically you realize too late that your perceived cEV was too high.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

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.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

baltostar is going for the greatest level of all time, encompassing weeks and multiple threads. I can't wait until he turns out to be gigabet

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

gigabet was a level too lol.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

Overall I think its inconsistent to limp an ace in the sb and bet big at any point. (3K on the turn). The 3K turn bet with the PF limp and flop check looks more like a 5 than anything else.

This is a very read (on player) specific spot, but in general it looks like neither player has a 7 or a pocket pair ; since u hav a 5 its as likely for him to hav a 5 as a 2. Ur slightly behind in the hand but he will pay u with a worse 5.

I think u need to bet to keep ur range wide; I'm not thrilled that the pot has gotten so big; I'd bet 5K and not expect to get raised by worse hands.

FWIW If u had raised PF I think it's less likely for him to have a 2 and ur way ahead.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

A sign of intelligence is being able to deliver complex ideas in a simple manner. baltosar is doing the complete opposite, i.e, delivering simple ideas in a way-over-the-top complex manner, which is one of the most annoying things anyone can do, regardless of how much merit these ideas have (They do have some BTW, but are much less deep or revolutionary than what baltosar seems to think).

This is a known (although relatively rare) disease on 2+2, and not very surprisingly, it's usually found at posts written by ex-"successful traders" who have switched to poker, for some unknown reason.

From this little article (I randomly just found) about excess verbiage:

"The use of excess verbiage is not so much a flaw in reasoning but a flaw in the argument process because of the way it inhibits communication and is a barrier to a proper evaluation of a person's ideas. Nevertheless, because such a style makes it difficult for others to understand what a person is saying, it is reasonable to wonder if perhaps it is also a sign that the author herself fails to understand what she is saying.

Although it cannot be assumed that one always leads to the other, it is true that an incoherent presentation of ideas is often a sign of incoherent thinking and an inadequate understanding of the ideas involved. People who have a very good grasp of what they are explaining are usually able to present their material in a clear and coherent manner. In order to determine whether this is the case instead of some other reason (like those described above), simply tell the person that it is difficult to get through their explanation, ask them to simplify it, and see what happens."

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
A sign of intelligence is being able to deliver complex ideas in a simple manner. baltosar is doing the complete opposite, i.e, delivering simple ideas in a way-over-the-top complex manner, which is one of the most annoying things anyone can do, regardless of how much merit these ideas have (They do have some BTW, but are much less deep or revolutionary than what baltosar seems to think).

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say I thought is was deep and revolutionary. 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.

Those with any background in reading articles on risk management will recognize that my language is relatively terse and simple by comparison. 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.

I'd say this forum is way way way on the "few words as possible" scale. Not saying that's bad, but it's not always appropriate.

Problem 1: a small but decent % of what people say is way open to interpretation (it's not exact enough)

Problem 2: bare-bones talk can't really describe general concepts in risk

When I've used relatively a lot of words, it is to describe general concepts of risk. Concepts of risk are very tricky to describe in the english language because they orignate and are best-described in the language of mathematics.

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

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

neither really. and you focus way too much on "risk management" or whatever

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

This thread is retardo?

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

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

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ 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.

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 ]

<3

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.