Razz past and present

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are not factoring reverse implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be it, since there are no implied odds in Razz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, at a loss here. I know that TT is well into the debate with you, but you need to go back and look up the definition of implied odds again. After you've done that, use logic to determine if it can apply to all forms of poker or not. (Hint: yes)

This quote kind of reminds me of Ed Miller's interview that basically said a lot of players mis-apply concepts they read in books. In this case, it's what they don't read.

All that to say, you're reading books wrong. You gotta' do some thinking beyond what's in print and use knowledge gained from other sources. You can't read them like a cookbook with an exact recipe to be found.

If I sound smug, my bad, but I was the exact same way when I first started my reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

No prob 7n7, and thanks for your input. You have every right to be smug after reading that, just like I have a right to be facetious [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Check out the rest of the thread for further explanation if you haven't already...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah, but 95% of your points have been knocked down so far, bad time to be facetious [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Please further explain the part that confused me, I think it was just your writing not the math. Sounds like your on to something there.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]