Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   High Stakes MTT (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=89)
-   -   A5s in blind battle. (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=523052)

baltostar 10-24-2007 07:35 PM

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure we're just talking about this...

"I will say one other thing, and I think it may be the point you are getting at. For a long time, players in MTTS by and large were bad in a very specific way. They were weak tight, especially when faced with a decision for all their chips. Therefore playing in a manner which increased your own varience almost definitionally increased your EV. That in my opinion is no longer the case. That doesnt mean that you should turn down EV ever, it just means that increasingly the most EV strategy may not be the most aggresive one.

which, you know, i said a while ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but I think for most highly successful tournament players, aggressive play is the preferred style, what they're good at, and what gets them the best $/hr, because it's the best way to take advantage of risk-averse players, who are still the big majority.

So, if you are an aggressive style player, I don't see how you can scale-back aggression without passing up some perceived cEV+.

What makes a cEV+ line in a marginal spot cEV+ is the aggressive use of FE : bluffs and semi-bluffs.

If you scale back the aggressive use of FE for those lines, then they're definitely not cEV+.

In the marginal perceived cEV+ spots, you either have to be willing to max scale the risk (allin), or not pursue them at all.

Avoiding the significantly sub-par cEV+ spots is the only way I can think of to scale-back back aggression and improve your results.

curtains 10-24-2007 07:50 PM

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw for a TON of people, drastically lowering variance, even if it reduces your profit by 10-30% will be hugely +EV in poker and in life.

[/ QUOTE ]

curtains, I don't know what exactly you mean by 10-30% drop (in ROI?), but I'm not sure at all that most winning mtt players (specifically online players who play tons of tourneys), will accept that offer (if winning would drop a lot less, sure I might consider it). I don't play massive volume and I'd not accept it.

This might sound absurd to you, but for me, and I'm sure that for many others, the ups and downs of poker and the struggle that come with them, are big part of what makes poker (and other forms of lets call it "intelligent gambling") so appealing.

I don't know, maybe I see it this way cause I had a v big cash recently, that was so amazingly satisfying. And it was worth going through a lot of variance, to "get there" (edit: no, it didn't change much, as I'm sure was thinking the same way before that).

Also there was a big thread about this subject in hsnl, maybe a year and a half ago, interesting stuff, but most of it has to do with people's psychology, not a lot more.

[/ QUOTE ]


btw has nothing to do with MTTs. Of course MTTs by nature are ridiculously swingly with huge variance. You can't avoid gigantic swings in MTTs no matter what you do.

It's more about cash games and stuff like playing lower limits, even though your win rate may be slightly less, but your quality of life and stamina to play will be higher. It's much easier to play more hours and better when you are winning, no matter who you are. There are very few exceptions to this rule.

curtains 10-24-2007 07:51 PM

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure we're just talking about this...

"I will say one other thing, and I think it may be the point you are getting at. For a long time, players in MTTS by and large were bad in a very specific way. They were weak tight, especially when faced with a decision for all their chips. Therefore playing in a manner which increased your own varience almost definitionally increased your EV. That in my opinion is no longer the case. That doesnt mean that you should turn down EV ever, it just means that increasingly the most EV strategy may not be the most aggresive one.

which, you know, i said a while ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but I think for most highly successful tournament players, aggressive play is the preferred style, what they're good at, and what gets them the best $/hr, because it's the best way to take advantage of risk-averse players, who are still the big majority.

So, if you are an aggressive style player, I don't see how you can scale-back aggression without passing up some perceived cEV+.

What makes a cEV+ line in a marginal spot cEV+ is the aggressive use of FE : bluffs and semi-bluffs.

If you scale back the aggressive use of FE for those lines, then they're definitely not cEV+.

In the marginal perceived cEV+ spots, you either have to be willing to max scale the risk (allin), or not pursue them at all.

Avoiding the significantly sub-par cEV+ spots is the only way I can think of to scale-back back aggression and improve your results.

[/ QUOTE ]


Dude I'm not retarded and nothing you say ever makes any sense, because it's written so poorly.

baltostar 10-24-2007 09:00 PM

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Dude I'm not retarded and nothing you say ever makes any sense, because it's written so poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

MLG figured it out. We just don't agree on the solution.

What am I supposed to do ? Risk professionals think in terms of distribution curves and how to achieve the most desirous shape.

When you add in that it's kind of hard to understand this stuff unless you've taken a bunch of classes in math, stat, and probability, it's really pretty challenging to explain it to a diverse audience, even a poker audience, no matter how smart they are, and you guys are probably the smartest.

I don't think I am explaining it that badly. Definitely improving. It's just hard to explain this stuff without graphs and equations. And if you go that route, then you can only explain it to a bunch of math-heads.

I give up. All the haters have it wrong. I have some real insight into why today's aggressive game is going downhill in profitability and I'm just trying to explain in best I can.

PrayingMantis 10-24-2007 09:16 PM

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I give up. All the haters have it wrong. I have some real insight into why today's aggressive game is going downhill in profitability and I'm just trying to explain in best I can.


[/ QUOTE ]

NOBODY IS A HATER. AND NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE SOME REAL INSIGHT INTO ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH POKER, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU ARE LIKE AN INSANE HOMELESS PERSON WHO PREACHES TO PEOPLE ABOUT HOW THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY IN THEIR CAREERS. IT'S BEYOND ABSURD.

Also, there were some ridiculous self-contradictions in your last reply to MLG. I won't even bother to point them out because you'll reply with the same repetitive long winded BS.

Farewell.

Pudge714 10-24-2007 10:03 PM

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 
Serious question how are people still reading Balto's posts. Not in a LOLZ he is stupid ignore him way, but they are the most boring rambly incoherent rants I have ever seen on 2p2. Reading more than three sentences makes me want to smash my head against a wall.

the alex 10-24-2007 10:26 PM

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 
[ QUOTE ]
gobbo most villains will bet their midpair on the flop and rightfully so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still having issues as to when this is anything BUT a c/c.

NHFunkii 10-25-2007 01:20 AM

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude I'm not retarded and nothing you say ever makes any sense, because it's written so poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

MLG figured it out. We just don't agree on the solution.

What am I supposed to do ? Risk professionals think in terms of distribution curves and how to achieve the most desirous shape.

When you add in that it's kind of hard to understand this stuff unless you've taken a bunch of classes in math, stat, and probability, it's really pretty challenging to explain it to a diverse audience, even a poker audience, no matter how smart they are, and you guys are probably the smartest.

I don't think I am explaining it that badly. Definitely improving. It's just hard to explain this stuff without graphs and equations. And if you go that route, then you can only explain it to a bunch of math-heads.

I give up. All the haters have it wrong. I have some real insight into why today's aggressive game is going downhill in profitability and I'm just trying to explain in best I can.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still an undergrad, but I'm majoring in stats at harvard and you are definitely explaining it terribly. Maybe you should go the 'math-head' approach and maybe a couple people will understand you, instead of no one


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.