Apathy or unquenched desire?

[nath]

also because other people realize the need to move at these pots they're full of [censored] more often so your FE tends to be even higher than it would otherwise

[Bakes]

Alright I don't really see what you are getting at...which tourneys does this apply to? Which blind level (antes or non)? It just seems like you are talking about the basic concept of semibluffing...which doesn't come up a lot when its push/fold poker preflop. Honestly I can't draw a single thing that would aid me in the 100r, for example, from your above post.

Which people do you notice this attitude in? Which situations are people passing up marginal hands? Is it late position opens? Is it defending the blinds? How do we see these draws when people are playing push/fold poker preflop?

And i'm still a bit confused about this statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile they sit back and criticize people they think of as clowns without even stopping to think that maybe they're doing something that, if not technically IMMEDIATELY +EV PERFECT POKER ZOMG, DOES in fact help them win TOURNAMENTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean we've gone over this before...does having a big stack outweigh the negatives of making -EV plays to get there? So far I haven't seen any evidence in favor of that argument. If your semibluffs are +EV, they are +EV in some part due to the fold equity. Obviously if you are making a lot of -EV plays in the name of playing big pots, you will accumulate big stacks, and win some tournaments.

But just because this style of play "DOES in fact help you win TOURNAMENTS", presumably referring to individual tournaments, doesn't mean its a winning strategy in the long run. Without statistics, you are just ranting imo.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean we've gone over this before...does having a big stack outweigh the negatives of making -EV plays to get there? So far I haven't seen any evidence in favor of that argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
didn't Matt Matros write up an article a while back and do some math demonstrating that you should get your stack in as a 46/54 dog right away if you can, because you simply aren't going to get enough opportunities further on to acquire those chips? (i.e. if you play out the tournament like you normally would, you will double up less than 46% of the time, not to mention factoring in the chips you missed out on accumulating because you didn't have the stack to threaten other people with their zomgtournamentlife.)

I'm saying that people lose sight of what they need to do to win the tournament and just sort of coast along on autopilot until they get a big hand. They don't adjust for individual opponents and they don't recognize when they should try to play a big pot and when they shouldn't. They think their big hands are enough to get them through and they don't go after enough of the other pots.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
But just because this style of play "DOES in fact help you win TOURNAMENTS", presumably referring to individual tournaments, doesn't mean its a winning strategy in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]
uhhhhh tournaments are so top heavy that any strategy that allows you to win more of them at the expense of smaller cashes is a good one

[NHFunkii]

no, that statement (as well as a couple others you've made) is simply an incorrect generalization

[Bakes]

It might help one win individual tournaments from an observers perspective (ZOMG xxxx has another chip lead!) but that doesn't mean that the whole strategy of -EV moves has been proven as long-term +EV...which i'll be bold enough to say never will, especially if your going to continue making -EV moves when you get the big stack.

You really thinking taking a 46/54 dog at the beginning is +EV? When everyone in the tournament is deeper stacked, including the bad players? Doesn't sound like good poker to me, and until someone comes along and proves it I'll continue to hold this opinion. Find that article and some statistics please, this is still mumbo jumbo.

[kutuz_off]

He refers to this article - http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/15093

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
no, that statement (as well as a couple others you've made) is simply an incorrect generalization

[/ QUOTE ]
and you (as well as a couple other people who do this every time i post) simply tell me i'm wrong without telling me why. it's cool though. don't ever challenge yourself to re-examine your game. keep thinking of me as the crazy ranter person. [censored] i knew there's a reason i never even bother discussing strat on this forum anymore. bunch of inflexible thinkers who think they have it all figured out.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Find that article and some statistics please, this is still mumbo jumbo.

[/ QUOTE ]
the matros article

also, here are some statistics i'm sure you'll understand. the relevant ones i marked with a red asterisk for ease of use. i apologize in advance for being such a dick and i still [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] you but since no one here takes me seriously who [censored] cares anyway.

graphic 1
graphic 2

i'm out. peace.

[nath]

you know what else, i know i play like [censored] about half the time. i don't think i'm anywhere near the best i can be. that roi will only go up if i ever get my head screwed on properly.