Insane HH from Niagara 10k involving THE Vanessa Rousso (and Shaniac)

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but if it's not automatic then it's dependent on our playing well or badly and curtains is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course Im right, they are all out of their minds. This particular question isn't even open for debate. I've already proven that you lose less than -150 with a very simplistic strategy of opening allin on the flop when you flop the nuts only and check folding every other time. If you want to start saying that I'm forced to put in lots of chips with the 8th nut flush then whatever.

The point is that from a theoretical standpoint, its superior to raise to 150 UTG with 74s, or even 72o for that matter, than it would be to throw the chips down the gutter. Anyone who acheives a lower than -150 expectation after this play is simply playing badly, and that's not my fault.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Curtains, you're a 2p2 legend in my book, but you're really wrong here. Go back and reread Ansky's posts, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what Ansky said, but what I have said is irrefutable. Yes perhaps most players will have an EV of worse than -150 here, but again, that's not what I'm saying.

[postoakpoker]

I think there are situations where the decisions won't always be crystal clear, and sometimes we'll make the wrong decisions (we all make mistakes). So, over the long run, the -EV of the initial decision has more -EV implications postflop than meets the eye.

I should note that I'm obviously not a seasoned poster or player, and am probably in way over my head [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are situations where the decisions won't always be crystal clear, and sometimes we'll make the wrong decisions (we all make mistakes). So, over the long run, the -EV of the initial decision has more -EV implications postflop than meets the eye.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only due to human weakness and mistakes later in the hand. In any case this isn't a really practical discussion because obviously no one who raises to 150 UTG with 74s is planning to simply check fold every flop unless they flop the nuts.

[curtains]

OK OK I KNOW IVE POSTED THE SAME THING IN DIFFERENT WORDS LIKE 5 TIMES. Let me make the following very clear:

I understand that from a practical standpoint, someone who raises to 150 UTG with 74s, may be likely to have an expectation of loss that is more than 150. I understand that because of this, it's probably more of a mistake for most people to make this play. However from a purely theoretical standpoint, its impossible for this play to have a negative expectation of more than .75% of our chips. Whenever a play loses less than 1% of our total stack in an MTT, I cannot call it in isolation a "horrible play".

Maybe it's a bad play, it's pointless, whatever...but the fact of the matter is that if you were a perfect playing poker machine and you made this play, it would barely effect your overall tournament EV.

Everyone who says it's a clear mistake and etc etc, I agree with you. I tend to talk about things from a purely theoretical standpoint, and don't take into account that an action may lead to further inaccuracies. This is especially true because we simply don't know who the players involved are and how skilled they are. All we really know is the situation and the cards and stack sizes and etc, and from that, the only thing that can be determined is that the worst possible theoretical expectation from our play must be no worse than -150.

[adanthar]

yeah okay, but all I said was there's a significant chance the raise is worse for him than throwing some chips on the floor, which is not where you went with this [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BTW, I get you, but I'm not totally sure it's theoretically right either since there are math-based spots where you have to put in more chips after the initial raise. it's close enough though.

[WarDekar]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah okay, but all I said was there's a significant chance the raise is worse for him than throwing some chips on the floor, which is not where you went with this [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BTW, I get you, but I'm not totally sure it's theoreticallyf right either since there are math-based spots where you have to put in more chips after the initial raise. it's close enough though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on curtains, no one was arguing the theoretical aspects of how you can make sure your expectation is losing less than 150 chips. You're twisting what we said just so you can argue your point, of course if you play well you'll lose less than 150, but most people aren't going to be able to play this well enough to make the risk worth it.

[postoakpoker]

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
However from a purely theoretical standpoint, its impossible for this play to have a negative expectation of more than .75% of our chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

no one has argued against this, and honestly, I doubt anyone cares. your argument holds no weight because it just isn't practical.

Requin, it is hard for me to simplify it like that, but if raising 47s UTG+1 is an -EV play that means that we will lose money in those pots on average, making it a bad play and something that we shouldn't do. The reason why it's a -EV play is explained very well in Ansky's posts imo.

[kleath]

Curtains you're arguing that reverse implied odds don't exist in NLHE, this is just not true.