|
|
#21
11-04-2007, 06:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Shouldn\'t all decisions be standard for the best payers (theory)(l
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] poker is the same at 1/2 as it is at 1house/2house. You're still trying to exploit the players that you play with as much as possible. Only difference is that 1/2 player's tendencies are way more obvious than 1house/2house player's. But figuring out how to exploit these tendencies for as much ev as possible, never leaving a penny on the table, is very very difficult. [/ QUOTE ] Yea but maximizing your hourly doesn't always involve a game where your really able to play 100% optimal but at lower levels you should be able to pretty much be on autopilot. [/ QUOTE ] What in the world are you talking about? [/ QUOTE ] your telling me you or anyone else is able to play 100% optimal on 8+tables simultaniously.... thats assuming its even doable on one... 
|
|
#22
11-04-2007, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Shouldn\'t all decisions be standard for the best payers (theory)(long)
[ QUOTE ]
No. The least of reasons being that you often play the same hand different ways, not even just depending on your opponent but also on your image and things even more abstract like the 'flow' of the game. And this is all outside of regular balancing like you occasionally reraising, occasionally cold calling and sometimes even folding the same hand in the same situation. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Otherwise a person should have an exact play (or couple of plays randomized or weighted one way or the others mostly for metagame because there will always be an optimal play in a vacume but maybe a different play will work better after a little history. [/ QUOTE ]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
