Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? So?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's rather interesting as a complete subject. I think that horse thing was about some horses that sometimes do better than the average favorite, and Sklansky thinks it will then be no more the favorite or something like that what comes to it winning.
That could raise some views about tournament strategy; should one be the wild horse, use such a strategy and then maybe cool down as the tournament progresses or one gets enough ships. And does the will horses in the tournament decrease one's chances to get to the highest places.
In poker there are the mixes of players that make the game like rock, paper and scissors, and if one doesn't know well enough who is who, the horse that wins against any one of them individually, will not win (as well or at all) when they are together. Such things seems to happen in loose games if it has such a mix of players and in games where one has less information about the opponents' styles, like at full ring games compared to shorthanded games.
|