Question about Harrington's books...

[Greg Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always think you should bet as much as your opponent will likely call. If your a 60% favourite to win and you check you earn 60% of 0. If you bet $100 and your opponent calls you earn $60. If you bet $1000 and your opponent calls you earn $600.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget that you lose 40% of the time when you're a 60/40 favorite and get called.

[Dalek]

But you lose $800 for a $400 profit.

[Dalek]

Sorry. Just re-read posts and realised there wrong. What i meant was if you bet $1000 dollars you earn $600 and lose $400 for a $200 profit per $1000 dollar bet.

Draws are usually closer to 70-30 so you make even more. This is why i reccomend betting as much as your opponent will call while making sure your opponent has incorrect odds to call.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why i reccomend betting as much as your opponent will call while making sure your opponent has incorrect odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's overly simplistic and basically impossible to implement because it assumes
1- you never pay your opponent off if he hits
2- you're ahead

You can never gaurantee either of these (unless you have the nuts).

It is often the case in poker where you make profit if your opponent calls, and if he folds, but if he folds you have higher EV.

[Greg Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry. Just re-read posts and realised there wrong. What i meant was if you bet $1000 dollars you earn $600 and lose $400 for a $200 profit per $1000 dollar bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you've got it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why i reccomend betting as much as your opponent will call while making sure your opponent has incorrect odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's overly simplistic and basically impossible to implement because it assumes
1- you never pay your opponent off if he hits
2- you're ahead

You can never gaurantee either of these (unless you have the nuts).

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to guarantee anything. Follow the correct strategy and the results will take care of themselves in the long run.

[ QUOTE ]

It is often the case in poker where you make profit if your opponent calls, and if he folds, but if he folds you have higher EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

sometimes. I want the call a lot.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why i reccomend betting as much as your opponent will call while making sure your opponent has incorrect odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's overly simplistic and basically impossible to implement because it assumes
1- you never pay your opponent off if he hits
2- you're ahead

You can never gaurantee either of these (unless you have the nuts).

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to guarantee anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you assume something to be true, and it isn't necessarily true (i.e. it isn't guaranteed) then you've made a mistake.

[Vetgirig]

Harringtons advice comes from a world where the opponents are good and thus wont call if they get bad odds. If one play against weaker opponents that pay off more than they should one should of course try to bet more to get payed more.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is often the case in poker where you make profit if your opponent calls, and if he folds, but if he folds you have higher EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

sometimes. I want the call a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but he's saying (correctly) that just because a call has a positive expectation doesn't make it the best play, since your expectation might be higher still if they fold. This is common when they have a reasonable draw and a fair amount of equity. You still want them to make a mistake.

Also Harrington's books concern tournaments - unlike cash games you're probably hoping for a little more fold equity and less in close EV cases. Although, lol donkaments.

[numbnuts007]

Alot of you guys need to read Theory of Poker.

If you haven't read it assume i'm talking about you.