Insane HH from Niagara 10k involving THE Vanessa Rousso (and Shaniac)

[NHFunkii]

omg why are people arguing against curtains, what he's saying is both correct and trivially so.
also, obviously fold preflop, and there's no way I fold this flop

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Curtains,
It is a small chunk of your stack, but it is also impossible for it to be +EV so you can never justify it.
Assuming we raise preflop. Postflop some people will have an expectation of greater than -150 others will have one lower and it is very player dependent.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hmm I don't think that it's impossible for it to be +EV, but okay very unlikely unless you are huge supergenius at postflop play. Perhaps better than anyone whom has ever existed.

However I suspect that with certain game conditions, a very good player can get away with virtually anything. I might be wrong, and I don't pretend to be that player, so I will never have the problem of playing lots of marginal hands due to overconfidence in my ability. I think that a decent number of people do have this problem though. At least the majority of the time that someone makes a play like this, it will be -EV for them.

[baltostar]

The concept that cEV at any decision point is "capped" on the negative side by the incremental cost to initiate/continue can be difficult to grasp.

It is true that cEV can not be more negative than the amount of chips incrementally committed at the decision point. (So, a pre-flop limp can not have cEV < -1bb.) But this is only because strict cEV calculations assume perfect play by all players going forward from the decision point.

And strict cEV is capped on the positive side by the number of chips in the pot immediately after the action is taken (before any other player acts).

To see this, consider a hand at a 9 player table with uniform pre-blinds stacks of 100bb where UTG raises 3x BB and every player calls.

Apply the -cEV cap successively to each player:

UTG cEV >= -3bb
UTG+1 cEV >= -3bb
MP1 cEV >= -3bb
MP2 cEV >= -3bb
HJ cEV >= -3bb
CO cEV >= -3bb
Button cEV >= -3bb
SB cEV >= -2.5bb
BB cEV >= -2bb

The above implies that

-3bb <= UTG's cEV <= (25.5bb + blinds=1.5bb)
-3bb <= UTG's cEV <= 27bb

Why ? Because perfect play from all players going forward necessarily implies that any single player can win no more than the sum of the chips already committed by all of the players.

This is why strict cEV in itself is a quite limited concept.

If players were to base their decisions only on strict cEV poker would be a very boring game with almost no action.

Typically, decisions to enter/pursue/continue a hand involve various assumptions that your opponents will not play perfectly. This is what I refer to as a "reasonable expectation" for given scenario.

In the context of entering a hand pre-flop, it's important not to get hung up on the strict mathematical definition of cEV because it's really only directly relevant to fold/shove decisions.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
omg why are people arguing against curtains, what he's saying is both correct and trivially so.
also, obviously fold preflop, and there's no way I fold this flop

[/ QUOTE ]

curtain's involvement in this thread basically ruined it and turned the discussion into useless math garbage. i guess he is right, i don't think anyone is really saying he is wrong, but imo he said nothing of any relevance. I don't think it's totally his fault for the direction things went in here though.

[Bond18]

I'm a huge position nit if my table has some players on it who understand its importance. I'm folding pre.

Flop seems close, and now having read results i doubt i can say what i'd do without being influenced.

Also, huge LOL at Russo.

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
curtain's involvement in this thread basically ruined it and turned the discussion into useless math garbage. i guess he is right, i don't think anyone is really saying he is wrong, but imo he said nothing of any relevance. I don't think it's totally his fault for the direction things went in here though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty ridiculous and unfair. People made some blatantly wrong statements that showed a basic misunderstanding of EV, curtains corrected them, and then people insisted on ignoring the thread and focusing on that. Blaming curtains for the direction the thread went in is absurd.

Steve

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty ridiculous and unfair. People made some blatantly wrong statements that showed a basic misunderstanding of EV, curtains corrected them, and then people insisted on ignoring the thread and focusing on that. Blaming curtains for the direction the thread went in is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, don't look at me, I just happen to think I'd rather throw away 150 chips than play this myself/most other people should too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[durrrr]

curtains if you teach me how to play chess better, i'll teach you how to post on 2p2 better

hint: everyone is retarded and you cant prove them wrong b/c they have troubles reading- instead just laugh and post stnd a lot.

[durrrr]

opening pre is prob fine (85 riv call... reallllllly?) but is pretty close regardless. A flop fold however would be criminally awful.

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, don't look at me, I just happen to think I'd rather throw away 150 chips than play this myself/most other people should too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I mean it's a clear fold preflop and even in a very good players hands this probably loses extremely close to 150 chips. But it's mind-boggling to me the number of posts there were attempting to refute curtains' post and I don't get dlizzle blaming (mostly) him for the disaster that ensued after his post.