"agressive" vs. "weak" - different maximization problems

[Confiscator]

If you are trying to put me on tilt by your looking down at me with all your "expert" advice then you are wasting your time.

I said it once and I say it again, I don't need preaching.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are trying to put me on tilt by your looking down at me with all your "expert" advice then you are wasting your time.

I said it once and I say it again, I don't need preaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but you could use a good paddling.

You'll notice at the end, I asked for some teaching. If you're not willing, then I'll listen to others.

[Confiscator]

I completely agree.

In principle.

I do know what an "advertisement play" is (as all of you).

Where we probably might disagree is in what exactly situation we would take the "advertisement play".

I believe the "advertisement play" is a an occasional event, given the right situation at the table, opponents, etc. I would not play it routinely.

But the discussion we had about "taking all small edges" was about "taking all small edges routinely ". That's the part I disagree with - routinely .

[Phil153]

This is getting absurd.

The whole LAG/weak-tight dichotomy is nonsense. There is no such thing. Poker is made of thousands of specific situations, each with the opportunity to make the correct play. The correct play is defined as one which makes the most money in the long run.

Preflop is the first opportunity you get to make the correct play. You will be dealt one of the following categories of hands:

1. Highly profitable hands that win money even when played poorly
2. Profitable hands that win money when played adequately
3. Generally low profit to losing hands that win money when played skilfully and lose money when played unskilfully.
4. Generally unprofitable hands that win money when played skilfully and selectively against poor opponents.
5. Losing hands that cannot win regardless of skill or opponents.

When starting out, the correct play is folding categories 3 and 4. This is simply because you don't have the skill to show a profit with them. As your skill grows, this changes.

There are three reasons for playing categories 3 and 4. One is that they're profitable all by themselves. This is enough reason in itself. Two is that they make you harder to read by the simple fact that you're playing more hands. This means opponents have to put you on a wider range, giving them less information and therefore less ability to make correct plays against you. Three is that they make you look unskilled in the eyes of poor and mediocre players, including weak tights. The way the games are now, this is gold.

Returning to the point about information: this cannot be overstated. For example, everyone knows that position is very important in all poker games. The ONLY reason it's important is because of information. Think about that for a second. Over time, the money flows to the person with the most information. By playing too tight or too passive, you give tremendous amounts of information to your opponents, and just as importantly gain no information from them. Against unskilled or unobservant players, it doesn't matter as much. Against reasonable players, you will get destroyed.

There's much more to discuss about this but I don't have the time or inclination. If you want to believe that "the master is steady", fine. But don't come on here and arrogantly claim that a weak tight style is correct, and that "you play for money". It's only correct if you're very unskilled, and you will get laughed at by people who simply know better - the very people who can you meaningful advice.

[Confiscator]

[ QUOTE ]

you could use a good paddling.



[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely your retired principal's Weltanschauung is speaking.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

you could use a good paddling.



[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely your retired principal's Weltanschauung is speaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another zinger!! Credit given for correlating the paddling comment to your earlier principal reference though.

It would be helpful to understand what you're trying to accomplish in this thread. Your original post states a theory? a hypothesis? I don't know. Thus far, most replies have been met with accusations of preaching or humorously enough, containing what was your word?...sophistic..tendencies.

It's as if you expect someone to respond with an equation like:

A = Player
B = how to play
C = Winner overall

A + B = C, what does B need to equal to balance this equation?

Now the thread seems to have morphed into if B would include "pushing small edges" of which most posters agree and you may or may not (depending on who replied I guess).

[kurto]

"I don't know Kelly criterion, but just try how hard it is to loose 750 times or more (instead of 666) out of 1000 on a a spot where your ev is 0.333333 (= calling a pot size bet). So loosing 10 000 buy-in ..."

I don't think its that hard. I don't think its that hard to lose 75 out of a hundred hands where one's ev was better the 50%.

You can run bad. And when you do, even when you run 'even' (you win as often as your EV dictates) it can still take a long time to make up for your bad run.

Though when I correctly compute my EV (that's the key... in PLO8, its not always so easy), I do my best to make the correct call; I'd be foolish to assume that I will get paid off with cash. Sometimes you just win a lot of sklansky bucks.

[vingte]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think its that hard. I don't think its that hard to lose 75 out of a hundred hands where one's ev was better the 50%.


[/ QUOTE ]
with a 33.33% EV
You lose 75 or more hands out of 100 : 4.58%
You lose 750 or more hands out of 1000 : <0.000001%

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
"this is a poor thinking", "you are not supposed to do that" "young man", but "you are permitted to ask for heaven's advice"

Does most of the response here come from school principals?


[ QUOTE ]
Knowledge of poker theory, opponents' revealed hands at showdown, and analysis of the betting should be enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

True if you play for fun. I play for money.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a lot to learn if you're looking to results to determine the correctness of your play.

This thread is silly. Most of these people have good advice. You should listen instead of argue. If you disagree, ask questions. Frankly you come off as a preachy, pedantic noob who can't handle variance.

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
This is getting absurd.

The whole LAG/weak-tight dichotomy is nonsense. There is no such thing. Poker is made of thousands of specific situations, each with the opportunity to make the correct play. The correct play is defined as one which makes the most money in the long run.

Preflop is the first opportunity you get to make the correct play. You will be dealt one of the following categories of hands:

1. Highly profitable hands that win money even when played poorly
2. Profitable hands that win money when played adequately
3. Generally low profit to losing hands that win money when played skilfully and lose money when played unskilfully.
4. Generally unprofitable hands that win money when played skilfully and selectively against poor opponents.
5. Losing hands that cannot win regardless of skill or opponents.

When starting out, the correct play is folding categories 3 and 4. This is simply because you don't have the skill to show a profit with them. As your skill grows, this changes.

There are three reasons for playing categories 3 and 4. One is that they're profitable all by themselves. This is enough reason in itself. Two is that they make you harder to read by the simple fact that you're playing more hands. This means opponents have to put you on a wider range, giving them less information and therefore less ability to make correct plays against you. Three is that they make you look unskilled in the eyes of poor and mediocre players, including weak tights. The way the games are now, this is gold.

Returning to the point about information: this cannot be overstated. For example, everyone knows that position is very important in all poker games. The ONLY reason it's important is because of information. Think about that for a second. Over time, the money flows to the person with the most information. By playing too tight or too passive, you give tremendous amounts of information to your opponents, and just as importantly gain no information from them. Against unskilled or unobservant players, it doesn't matter as much. Against reasonable players, you will get destroyed.

There's much more to discuss about this but I don't have the time or inclination. If you want to believe that "the master is steady", fine. But don't come on here and arrogantly claim that a weak tight style is correct, and that "you play for money". It's only correct if you're very unskilled, and you will get laughed at by people who simply know better - the very people who can you meaningful advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really good post.