[registrar]

OK. I've finally got what Baltostar is saying. I would make a few points:

1. Baltostar: whatever your previous experience and qualifications to coach, you really do not explain yourself very well. These are difficult concepts to articulate and I have failed myself on a fair few occasions. I actually respect the fact that this has not dimmed your confidence in the ideas themselves. OTOH, whatever my merits as a poker player, I'm a pretty bright guy and a lot of my work involves the evaluation of written communication - you simply don't communicate very well through prose.

2. I would also commend you for taking a stance and defending it on these boards. A lot of the analysis that takes place on these boards is somewhat simplistic, indicative of a herd menatlity and places way too much stress of what you call dynamic hand reading and cEV in a given hand. MTTs, I am pretty sure you are correct, do not reward this approach as highly as they do others. Or, at least, this should definetly not be the only approach.

3. Braodly speaking, I agree with what you are saying. However, specific hand posts must always be considered with the proviso that, on these boards, what we can generally establish is the specific chip expectation for a particular play. It is often difficult to include enough information about the other relevant factors to indicate which play has a higher $EV. These other factors are legion - our position relative to weak spots of the table and the chances that we can exploit these more profitably and with less risk than this one (which may offer are higher cEV with more risk), the relative values of stack sizes at differing stages of the tournament, the advantages of creating and manipulating a specific image, when the table will break, how well we are playing tonight, how well we know our opponents, a gut feeling (often based on valid information but information that is not deteriminable at a concious level) etc. etc. The concept of 'risk' in MTTs is generally not discussed enough and this is why I am happy for you to post. All too often, concern over risk management is dismissed with jokes like "ZOMG tournament life on the line".

4. The good players here already 'get' what you are saying. This hand is a good example. Hero has played enough poker and plays poker well enough, to have established for the reasons that he has outlined, that playing a rag ace from the SB offers a higher expectation when limped (for him). He's also good enough to get the maximum value from the hand as played, when he concludes, through dynamic hand reading that he is ahead. A weaker player, posting on SSMTT forum, might be well-advised to raise pf for the reasons that you outline.


In conclusion, keep posting. Post more concisely and more cogently. Post specific examples from your own play which illustrate your points. Understand the limitations of public hand posting as a way of discussing and refining strategy. Never forget that the best 'players' in any pursuit (perhaps less so with poker than tennis but I believe that the assertion still holds) are the best because they do things which cannot be coached and do not rely soley on formulas.

Off all the advice I have listed, posting cogently and concisely is the most important, IMO.