View Single Post
  #137  
Old 10-21-2007, 12:14 AM
baltostar baltostar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 541
Default Re: A5s in blind battle.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have some misunderstanding of the concept of EV. As long as my ability to recognize, maximize and push the variance at any +CEV spot at early-mid stages (regardless if it's by playing passively or aggressively) is superior to my opponents, I have an advantage, period. In other words, as long as I'm better than them as a poker player (i.e, adjust faster then them, read them or others at the field better than they do it, win more chips than others would win in identical spots, etc etc etc), I'll make more money them them.

And in essence, it's exactly the same as in cash games. You mentioned earlier in this thread those overaggressive players who went busto. Well, surely players who don't adjust well, will lose eventually if they use only one style against changing fields and particularly vs. smart players. This still has nothing to do with the notion that playing to maximizing EV is the most profitable approach to the game (logically speaking! i.e, by definition), whether if it's by checking, betting, reraising or calling, in any particular spot in any street during any hand that takes place..

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really amazing to me that you, my biggest critic on this thread (apparently), have made the least effort to understand what I am saying. Others have. They don't necessarily agree with what I'm saying, but they understand my arguments.

Nobody *knows* marginal cEV+ scenarios. They perceive them. There's always a margin of error. The problem with marginal cEV+ scenarios is the margin of error can push you into cEV-.

But that's just one problem, the 1st order problem.

The 2nd order problem is analyzing marginal cEV+ scenarios as if hand-isolated cash game situations, rather than understanding them relative to the avg scenario you can expect to receive during the remainder of your M-bracket.

The 3rd order problem is purusing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that *tend* to scale stakes until the risk is inappropriate for the relative opportunity during your M-bracket, committing your stack to opps that are significantly sub-par.

The three add-up to sub-optimal play. Right now this sub-optimal play works. But as the player ecosystem continues to transform it will no longer work nearly as well.
Reply With Quote