|
|
#131
10-20-2007, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A5s in blind battle.
[ QUOTE ]
PrayingMantis: I went back and read all your posts on this thread. Never once do you address my arguments in any sort of specific manner. [/ QUOTE ] First, I did address your revolutionary ideas in a specific manner a few times here. You just didn't like what you read. Second, sending you to read the archives is also very specific. Your ideas, and very similar ones, were discussed many times in the past (by many posters, including MLG and myself, in some extremely specific manners). [ QUOTE ] Who cares what the archives say ? This isn't history, this is poker. [/ QUOTE ] That's a really good point. Also: who cares what anyone ever said? And specifically, who the [censored] cares about these stupid things called "pot odds", EV, ICM, risk of ruin. Yeah, who cares. Poker is here and now. [ QUOTE ] All you have is a bad case of protectionist syndrome. [/ QUOTE ] Protectionism of what? Of the best way for making the most money possible in MTTs? Please, go ahead and tell us again and again about your ideas, nobody stopped you from doing that, then apply empty "risk management" concepts in random MTT spots, for completely unconvincing reasons. I'll keep pushing my variance every time I perceive a spot to be good enough +CEV. And it shouldn't be much more than a little +CEV for me in order to do this. That's because (1) I've read almsost every post written in the past about this matter, here and elsewhere, I discussed it myself many times with others, and I'm 100% convinced that that's the the most +$EV strategy for MTTs, and (2) I had great success by doing so, as other players on this forum had. [ QUOTE ] I write how I think. And I respect other people who write how they think and I make an effort to understand them. [/ QUOTE ] It certainly doesn't seem to be the case, judging from the way you post. 
|
|
#133
10-20-2007, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A5s in blind battle.
[ QUOTE ]
I'll keep pushing my variance every time I perceive a spot to be good enough +CEV. And it shouldn't be much more than a little +CEV for me in order to do this. That's because (1) I've read almsost every post written in the past about this matter, here and elsewhere, I discussed it myself many times with others, and I'm 100% convinced that that's the the most +$EV strategy for MTTs, and (2) I had great success by doing so, as other players on this forum had. [/ QUOTE ] Until it doesn't work anymore because too many players like are you are doing it and too many other players know that players like you are doing it and are looking to pick you off. This is why USPC is so pre-flop pushbot oriented. Everyone's anticipating the other guy will put the variance move on first.
|
|
#134
10-20-2007, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A5s in blind battle.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'll keep pushing my variance every time I perceive a spot to be good enough +CEV. And it shouldn't be much more than a little +CEV for me in order to do this. That's because (1) I've read almsost every post written in the past about this matter, here and elsewhere, I discussed it myself many times with others, and I'm 100% convinced that that's the the most +$EV strategy for MTTs, and (2) I had great success by doing so, as other players on this forum had. [/ QUOTE ] Until it doesn't work anymore because too many players like are you are doing it and too many other players know that players like you are doing it and are looking to pick you off. [/ QUOTE ] You seem to have some misunderstanding of the concept of EV. As long as my ability to recognize, maximize and push the variance at any +CEV spot at early-mid stages (regardless if it's by playing passively or aggressively) is superior to my opponents, I have an advantage, period. In other words, as long as I'm better than them as a poker player (i.e, adjust faster then them, read them or others at the field better than they do it, win more chips than others would win in identical spots, etc etc etc), I'll make more money them them. And in essence, it's exactly the same as in cash games. You mentioned earlier in this thread those overaggressive players who went busto. Well, surely players who don't adjust well, will lose eventually if they use only one style against changing fields and particularly vs. smart players. This still has nothing to do with the notion that playing to maximizing EV is the most profitable approach to the game (logically speaking! i.e, by definition), whether if it's by checking, betting, reraising or calling, in any particular spot in any street during any hand that takes place..
|
|
#135
10-20-2007, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A5s in blind battle.
[ QUOTE ]
One thing is clear: if it's a hotly debated theory, and neither side can gain a decisive edge, or provide an ironclad proof, then these boards certainly should not adopt it like a puppy and apply it ad infinitum letting it pee all over the house. This is madness. [/ QUOTE ] MADNESS?!? 
|
|
#136
10-20-2007, 11:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A5s in blind battle.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that with the gobbo image betting 5-6K is superior to c/c. But c/c can be better sometimes if you have history vs. BB and know his tendencies. As to other parts of the hand, if villain is weak tight I'd raise a lot of hands pf and also this (not always tho). Otherwise limping is fine. Flop I'd check or bet, checking is fine IMO. [/ QUOTE ] Sure limping may be fine , but it's certainly not better than raising . Why give your opponent a free look at the flop when your hand definitely rates to be better ?
|
|
#137
10-21-2007, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A5s in blind battle.
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have some misunderstanding of the concept of EV. As long as my ability to recognize, maximize and push the variance at any +CEV spot at early-mid stages (regardless if it's by playing passively or aggressively) is superior to my opponents, I have an advantage, period. In other words, as long as I'm better than them as a poker player (i.e, adjust faster then them, read them or others at the field better than they do it, win more chips than others would win in identical spots, etc etc etc), I'll make more money them them. And in essence, it's exactly the same as in cash games. You mentioned earlier in this thread those overaggressive players who went busto. Well, surely players who don't adjust well, will lose eventually if they use only one style against changing fields and particularly vs. smart players. This still has nothing to do with the notion that playing to maximizing EV is the most profitable approach to the game (logically speaking! i.e, by definition), whether if it's by checking, betting, reraising or calling, in any particular spot in any street during any hand that takes place.. [/ QUOTE ] It's really amazing to me that you, my biggest critic on this thread (apparently), have made the least effort to understand what I am saying. Others have. They don't necessarily agree with what I'm saying, but they understand my arguments. Nobody *knows* marginal cEV+ scenarios. They perceive them. There's always a margin of error. The problem with marginal cEV+ scenarios is the margin of error can push you into cEV-. But that's just one problem, the 1st order problem. The 2nd order problem is analyzing marginal cEV+ scenarios as if hand-isolated cash game situations, rather than understanding them relative to the avg scenario you can expect to receive during the remainder of your M-bracket. The 3rd order problem is purusing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that *tend* to scale stakes until the risk is inappropriate for the relative opportunity during your M-bracket, committing your stack to opps that are significantly sub-par. The three add-up to sub-optimal play. Right now this sub-optimal play works. But as the player ecosystem continues to transform it will no longer work nearly as well.
|
|
#138
10-21-2007, 06:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A5s in blind battle.
[ QUOTE ]
It's really amazing to me that you, my biggest critic on this thread (apparently), have made the least effort to understand what I am saying. Others have. They don't necessarily agree with what I'm saying, but they understand my arguments. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not your "biggest critic". Others simply got tired with you. This will be my last post here. And, seriously, sir, it's the 100th time I'm saying this, but your arguments are not as deep as you think they are, or hard to understand. Very far from it. No special effort is needed. [ QUOTE ] Nobody *knows* marginal cEV+ scenarios. They perceive them. There's always a margin of error. The problem with marginal cEV+ scenarios is the margin of error can push you into cEV-. [/ QUOTE ] Of course there's a margin of error, and even the best players make mistakes occasionally. However, the better the player you are, the least errors in "perceving" +CEV spots you'll be doing. This is so clear I don't see any reason to even mention it. [ QUOTE ] The 2nd order problem is analyzing marginal cEV+ scenarios as if hand-isolated cash game situations, rather than understanding them relative to the avg scenario you can expect to receive during the remainder of your M-bracket. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, baltostar. You are more worried about your survival in a particular spot (for whatever "avg scenario" and "m-bracket" reasons) than about making the most chips possible out of it. Do you not understand that with a certain hand in certain same conditions (position, stacks, etc), you'll make more against player A than against player B? And maybe much more against player C? Better player will tend to make max against each particular player, and by saying that I mean that they will make more than other players in same conditions, while risking more, naturally. Thinking about hands in terms of "avg-scenario" is possibly one of the most unhelpful ways to look at poker situations. [ QUOTE ] The 3rd order problem is purusing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that *tend* to scale stakes until the risk is inappropriate for the relative opportunity during your M-bracket, committing your stack to opps that are significantly sub-par. [/ QUOTE ] "Committing my stack to opponents that are significantly sub-par"? are you nuts? Do you perceive "committing my stack to opponents that are significantly sub-par" as a bad thing? I don't believe I actually read this. Baltostar, here are some news to you: that's usually how good players double up! by commiting their stack to opponents that are sub-par in certain way or other! Usually your +CEV spots, certainly in early-mid stages, will be vs. those players. Not willing to "commit" when you find those spots is absurd. [ QUOTE ] But as the player ecosystem continues to transform it will no longer work nearly as well. [/ QUOTE ] What will not work as nearly as well? Playing to maximize CEV? Please read my last few posts for the theoretical reasons for the absurdity of this statement of yours, and for the practical ones: well, it works amazingly well for me, for a few years now and up to about last week. I'm 100% certain it will keep working. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
|
|
#139
10-21-2007, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A5s in blind battle.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The 3rd order problem is purusing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that *tend* to scale stakes until the risk is inappropriate for the relative opportunity during your M-bracket, committing your stack to opps that are significantly sub-par. [/ QUOTE ] "Committing my stack to opponents that are significantly sub-par"? are you nuts? Do you perceive "committing my stack to opponents that are significantly sub-par" as a bad thing? I don't believe I actually read this. Baltostar, here are some news to you: that's usually how good players double up! by commiting their stack to opponents that are sub-par in certain way or other! Usually your +CEV spots, certainly in early-mid stages, will be vs. those players. Not willing to "commit" when you find those spots is absurd. [/ QUOTE ] opps = opportunities. The paragraph says "opportunity" 8 words prior and so the 2nd time I use it I abbreviate it. I've already said numerous times that I am advocating using avg opp for M-bracket as a warning system to help one avoid becoming drawn into pursuing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that tend to scale risk inappropriately. Obviously, if you get in a spot against a known bad player that might give you good reason to ignore the warning. Your attempts to stylize me as a nit are so pathetic I can't believe anyone else on this thread will fall for them. I've been playing an aggressive style for almost a year now (after studying the game for almost a year) and my advices are based on the large and rapidly growing number of aggressive players in the game. In all forms of gambling, everything changes. There may be long-term cycles, but in the medium-term everything changes. Haphazardly pursuing marginal cEV+ without thought to the impact of variance in a relative context is a relatively easy tactic to learn. And thousands of young players are learning it. The success of a strategy of scaling stakes at every perceived marginal cEV+ opportunity depends on a large component of FE. As more and more similar players enter the game, the value of this FE component diminishes. More and more often, you are up against another player who is just as willing to scale. To beat tomorrow's over-populated aggressive game your game must change today, and my advice is to do this by tending to avoid scaling the significantly sub-par opportunities. In this manner, in the long run, your tournament $EV will be better than non-evolved aggressive players (all else equal). They, as a group, may win more tournaments, but over the long-term you will have better bankroll growth than their avg.
|
|
#140
10-22-2007, 02:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A5s in blind battle.
[ QUOTE ]
opps = opportunities. The paragraph says "opportunity" 8 words prior and so the 2nd time I use it I abbreviate it. [/ QUOTE ] You need to write clearly. This is ridiculous. [ QUOTE ] I've already said numerous times that I am advocating using avg opp for M-bracket as a warning system to help one avoid becoming drawn into pursuing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that tend to scale risk inappropriately. Obviously, if you get in a spot against a known bad player that might give you good reason to ignore the warning. [/ QUOTE ] Big pot, big hand. Got it. [ QUOTE ] Haphazardly pursuing marginal cEV+ without thought to the impact of variance in a relative context is a relatively easy tactic to learn. And thousands of young players are learning it. The success of a strategy of scaling stakes at every perceived marginal cEV+ opportunity depends on a large component of FE. As more and more similar players enter the game, the value of this FE component diminishes. More and more often, you are up against another player who is just as willing to scale. To beat tomorrow's over-populated aggressive game your game must change today, and my advice is to do this by tending to avoid scaling the significantly sub-par opportunities. In this manner, in the long run, your tournament $EV will be better than non-evolved aggressive players (all else equal). They, as a group, may win more tournaments, but over the long-term you will have better bankroll growth than their avg. [/ QUOTE ] The point is to win. If you'd read any of the archived arguments about it, you would understand that. A: A common beginner idea in the SNG forum is that crazy aggro low limit sngs have higher variance. Beginners who propose that are quickly corrected. Variance is entirely dependent on your distribution of finishes, and not at all dependent on chipstack variance (or lagtard opponents with swingy chipstack styles). B: Your sacrificing cEV for lower variance is more suited to cash games on a tiny bankroll. C: In SNGs, an equal number of 1sts and 3rds > all 2nds. If you run any sims you'll find the same is true for MTTs, though even more dramatically.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
