Good Article by Death Donkey

[DeathDonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
DD, I like your "technical" format better. I read your Badugi article. It's funny how your posts are usually very blunt, but somehow not completely revealing. Now the bluntness is gone and I have to search for the revelation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate this. I tried to be conversational while at the same time having a solid point, I think I succeeded at the first goal and failed at the second. I felt this article was a bit on the thin side content-wise but I had it on my mind from seeing lots of posts recently about people whining about LAGs and how they had the secret to poker and were the biggest winners and blah blah. My wife liked this article best because she said it was funny and entertaining but she knows nothing about poker so maybe that speaks volumes [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
When you were writing the article who was your target audience?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whiny 2+2ers who are scared of / losing to / annoyed by / enamored with the toughish LAGs out there.

-DeathDonkey

[andyfox]

And I'm saying that if, eight times in a row, you think your chances of winnning merit calling, and you end up second best all eight times in a row, it's likely you're misguided in your analyses. That it's more likely that that is the case then that the calldowns were correct.

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm saying that if, eight times in a row, you think your chances of winnning merit calling, and you end up second best all eight times in a row, it's likely you're misguided in your analyses. That it's more likely that that is the case then that the calldowns were correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, I think you may need to play some poker on the interweb. There is a guy named s915 who plays 15/30 limit HE on FT with stats of 50/40. I know you don't know or care what that means but basically he will make sure that almost all pots he plays are sizable enough that losing eight times in a row won't make calling the 9th time incorrect.

[andyfox]

"losing eight times in a row won't make calling the 9th time incorrect."

Of course it won't. Nor will it make it correct. All I'm saying is this: I face eight consecutive river decisions. I call every time and lose every time. The odds are slim that I'm playing well. I realize the general point is that, against a LAG, one is probably playing less poorly than one would be if they called a river bet from, say, me, eight times in a row.

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
"losing eight times in a row won't make calling the 9th time incorrect."

Of course it won't. Nor will it make it correct. All I'm saying is this: I face eight consecutive river decisions. I call every time and lose every time. The odds are slim that I'm playing well. I realize the general point is that, against a LAG, one is probably playing less poorly than one would be if they called a river bet from, say, me, eight times in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I follow you but isn't something either incorrect or correct. Is there another option?

[mike l.]

"if, eight times in a row, you think your chances of winnning merit calling, and you end up second best all eight times in a row, it's likely you're misguided in your analyses."

in general im with andy on this one. in mid limit games you should rarely be getting tricked into calling by the pot size so often against the sort of passive retardation that is other mid limit players. see the thing about live mid limit lags is they tend to ramp down their aggression significantly as the hand plays out from p/f to river. theyre all about the pf and flop spazz and then they usually mellow out. so if you paying them off a lot something is still probably wrong with your own game.

but against lags shorthanded on one of many rigged poker sites i think ive called 100 times in a row and been shown the nuts so i guess anything's possible.

[stinkypete]

you guys (mike, surfdoc, andyfox, justina) are all talking about different things and are all correct.

[andyfox]

It can be correct based on your analysis of the situation: i.e. I think I have a 10% chance of winning this hand, and I'm getting 15:1, I'll call. But my 10% figure might be wrong; I really should figure I'm only 5% to win, thus my call was wrong.

I make more wrong decision against LAGs, no doubt about it. But I would question my thinking about just how LAGgy my oppponent is if he has the goods on me eight times in a row.