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

[DLizzle]

btw i apologize for the tone of my earlier posts they were made out of frustration for how ridiculous the thread had gone once that debate started when i thought the thread was great earlier. i don't think you did anything stupid or whatever just a bunch of misunderstandings kinda

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
What about to "mix it up"?

Happy birthday!

[/ QUOTE ]

I "mix it up" a lot (see stupid niagara bustout hand), and that, along with not playing nearly enough is why I don't make as much money as I should given how well I run. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thanks!

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if you threw 150 chips in the gutter it'd hardly be horrible and would barely effect your chances of succeeding in the tournament. I reserve such strong phrases for spots where you are risking a large % of your chips instead of less than 1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's a fairly significant chance this raise actually costs him more than 150 chips.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you play extremely well thats impossible. Theoretically there should be no situation in which a raise will cost you more chips than you are putting in. This will only occur if you have some weaknesses that you will exhibit later in the hand. I don't think that I have to assume this will be the case when I discuss the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


when you responded directly to a post that says that OFTEN (not always) costs him more than 150 on average, how would one think that you were arguing in strictly a theoretical sense when the post you are responding to is so clearly not. Especially in the way you worded the post. People basically thought you were saying that no one will lose more than 150 chips on average when they raise 74s in that spot. I understand that you said theoretically and people should have deciphered what you were saying, but that's not what happened and its easy to see why in the way it was presented.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if you threw 150 chips in the gutter it'd hardly be horrible and would barely effect your chances of succeeding in the tournament. I reserve such strong phrases for spots where you are risking a large % of your chips instead of less than 1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's a fairly significant chance this raise actually costs him more than 150 chips.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you play extremely well thats impossible. Theoretically there should be no situation in which a raise will cost you more chips than you are putting in. This will only occur if you have some weaknesses that you will exhibit later in the hand. I don't think that I have to assume this will be the case when I discuss the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


when you responded directly to a post that says that OFTEN (not always) costs him more than 150 on average, how would one think that you were arguing in strictly a theoretical sense when the post you are responding to is so clearly not. Especially in the way you worded the post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, few people were talking about throwing chips in the gutter and etc, I was responding to like 3-4 people [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Also I am really waiting for someone to at least discuss my BB scenario and tell me why its different.

[DLizzle]

i would actually like to approach that scenario because when i first read it i thought that the scenario were not even remotely close, i'll read it again and think a bit about it though because im not sure.

also, steve, it branched from the argument that for most people throwing 150 chips into the garbage would be better for a lot (maybe most, or possibly all current human players) would be better than raising 74s here.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if you threw 150 chips in the gutter it'd hardly be horrible and would barely effect your chances of succeeding in the tournament. I reserve such strong phrases for spots where you are risking a large % of your chips instead of less than 1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's a fairly significant chance this raise actually costs him more than 150 chips.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you play extremely well thats impossible. Theoretically there should be no situation in which a raise will cost you more chips than you are putting in. This will only occur if you have some weaknesses that you will exhibit later in the hand. I don't think that I have to assume this will be the case when I discuss the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


when you responded directly to a post that says that OFTEN (not always) costs him more than 150 on average, how would one think that you were arguing in strictly a theoretical sense when the post you are responding to is so clearly not. Especially in the way you worded the post. People basically thought you were saying that no one will lose more than 150 chips on average when they raise 74s in that spot. I understand that you said theoretically and people should have deciphered what you were saying, but that's not what happened and its easy to see why in the way it was presented.

[/ QUOTE ]

but c'mon how in the world could I possibly think that no one would lose more than 150 chips on average? Thats like the dumbest thing in the world. A lot of people are really terrible at poker.

[Pudge714]

Funny VR hand
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...umber=12300382

[baltostar]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

OH MY GOD. Of course they exist. However there is never a situation where the theoretical outcome of a play will cost you more chips than you have put in. The reverse implied odds may lower your theoretical EV, but it can never lower it beyond the chips you've already put in the pot.

For instance let's say that theoretically you put 100 chips into the pot OOP with AJo. Let's say that normally the play would be breakeven, but because of stack sizes, position and etc, the play will instead cost you 30 chips of EV. That is where reverse implied odds may come in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reverse implied odds are totally irrelevant to theoretical perfect-play EV.

Reverse implied odds simply do not exist in perfect-play.

Reverse implied odds apply to lines where you choose to continue to showdown even though you think you might already be behind, or you think there is a chance that you could fall behind, and if either of these is the case then continuing to showdown will require committing additional chips on later betting rounds.

Implied odds also do not exist in perfect-play.

In most discussions, it really is a mistake to concentrate on theoretical EV and perfect-play because it has so little practical application to poker other than shove and shove-call equities (where you commit all of your chips and immediately end your hand decisions).

[curtains]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

OH MY GOD. Of course they exist. However there is never a situation where the theoretical outcome of a play will cost you more chips than you have put in. The reverse implied odds may lower your theoretical EV, but it can never lower it beyond the chips you've already put in the pot.

For instance let's say that theoretically you put 100 chips into the pot OOP with AJo. Let's say that normally the play would be breakeven, but because of stack sizes, position and etc, the play will instead cost you 30 chips of EV. That is where reverse implied odds may come in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reverse implied odds are totally irrelevant to theoretical perfect-play EV.

Reverse implied odds simply do not exist in perfect-play.

Reverse implied odds apply to lines where you choose to continue to showdown even though you think you might already be behind, or you think there is a chance that you could fall behind, and if either of these is the case then continuing to showdown will require committing additional chips on later betting rounds.

Implied odds also do not exist in perfect-play.

In most discussions, it really is a mistake to concentrate on theoretical EV and perfect-play because it has so little practical application to poker other than shove and shove-call equities (where you commit all of your chips and immediately end your hand decisions).

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you play perfectly all of the time like Phil Hellmuth??

[Ship Ship McGipp]

i am not stupid enough to read this thread because i guarantee it will only make me dumber

this is a super easy fold imo, i don't think it's very close at all.