|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: RB (Choose 2) | |||
| Portis (@Houston) |
   
|
17 | 48.57% |
| Kevin Jones (GB) |
  
|
8 | 22.86% |
| Fred Taylor (@Ind) |
  
|
9 | 25.71% |
| R. Droughns (Balt) |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| D. McAllister (Atl) |
  
|
1 | 2.86% |
| Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#321
08-09-2007, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: P5\'s top donk-n-go player is going pro
Obv there had to be some multi-table SNG cashes factored into her "40% roi."
|
|
#322
08-09-2007, 12:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: P5\'s top donk-n-go player is going pro
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] lol suspicions that cowpig has 0 SNG theory understanding: confirmed way to embarass yourself ...or level the [censored] out of everyone with yr retardation [/ QUOTE ] although hes def wrong here, he has a v. good grasp of 6-max NL IMO. [/ QUOTE ] there's less theory in cash than in donkaments or dng's IMO [/ QUOTE ] absolutely but its all counter-intuitive and not at all important for anyone except those playing them, just like a SNG player doesnt really need a sick grasp of deepstacked turn and river play. [/ QUOTE ] i'm saying concepts like ICM are more difficult to comprehend, understand, and master than the more abstract nl cash theories
|
|
#323
08-09-2007, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: P5\'s top donk-n-go player is going pro
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] lol suspicions that cowpig has 0 SNG theory understanding: confirmed way to embarass yourself ...or level the [censored] out of everyone with yr retardation [/ QUOTE ] although hes def wrong here, he has a v. good grasp of 6-max NL IMO. [/ QUOTE ] there's less theory in cash than in donkaments or dng's IMO [/ QUOTE ] absolutely but its all counter-intuitive and not at all important for anyone except those playing them, just like a SNG player doesnt really need a sick grasp of deepstacked turn and river play. [/ QUOTE ] i'm saying concepts like ICM are more difficult to comprehend, understand, and master than the more abstract nl cash theories [/ QUOTE ] Someone please convince me that raising A8s OTB in that situation is unprofitable, because I've done a ton of math and the claim still seems absurd to me.
|
|
#324
08-09-2007, 12:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: P5\'s top donk-n-go player is going pro
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] lol suspicions that cowpig has 0 SNG theory understanding: confirmed way to embarass yourself ...or level the [censored] out of everyone with yr retardation [/ QUOTE ] although hes def wrong here, he has a v. good grasp of 6-max NL IMO. [/ QUOTE ] there's less theory in cash than in donkaments or dng's IMO [/ QUOTE ] absolutely but its all counter-intuitive and not at all important for anyone except those playing them, just like a SNG player doesnt really need a sick grasp of deepstacked turn and river play. [/ QUOTE ] i'm saying concepts like ICM are more difficult to comprehend, understand, and master than the more abstract nl cash theories [/ QUOTE ] Someone please convince me that raising A8s OTB in that situation is unprofitable, because I've done a ton of math and the claim still seems absurd to me. [/ QUOTE ] the simplest way to explain is that however often you lose that pfr+your c-bet (or more) you're equity is [censored] and the times he folds the flop or you make the best hand only increase your equity a little. correct SNG play in the early levels is pretty painfully nitty.
|
|
#325
08-09-2007, 01:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: P5\'s top donk-n-go player is going pro
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] lol suspicions that cowpig has 0 SNG theory understanding: confirmed way to embarass yourself ...or level the [censored] out of everyone with yr retardation [/ QUOTE ] although hes def wrong here, he has a v. good grasp of 6-max NL IMO. [/ QUOTE ] there's less theory in cash than in donkaments or dng's IMO [/ QUOTE ] absolutely but its all counter-intuitive and not at all important for anyone except those playing them, just like a SNG player doesnt really need a sick grasp of deepstacked turn and river play. [/ QUOTE ] i'm saying concepts like ICM are more difficult to comprehend, understand, and master than the more abstract nl cash theories [/ QUOTE ] Someone please convince me that raising A8s OTB in that situation is unprofitable, because I've done a ton of math and the claim still seems absurd to me. [/ QUOTE ] the simplest way to explain is that however often you lose that pfr+your c-bet (or more) you're equity is [censored] and the times he folds the flop or you make the best hand only increase your equity a little. correct SNG play in the early levels is pretty painfully nitty. [/ QUOTE ] the fact that peoples' cold-calling ranges oop are so defined makes it (relatively) unlikely that I'm going to c-bet on a flop where I will be called.
|
|
#326
08-09-2007, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: P5\'s top donk-n-go player is going pro
[ QUOTE ]
you may be right, but the way ROI should be calculated is: total winnings / total buyins [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I think the way sharkscope works is like this: You play 3 tourneys: A $10 where you win $20 (profit $10). A $50 where you win $75 (profit $25). A $100 where you win $0 (profit -100). Your ROI= ((10/10)+(25/50)+(-100/100))/3 =.5/3= 17ish%. If you do total profit/total buyins it skews wayy too much for higher stakes. There are players on sharkscope with positive ROI and negative net winnings, and negative ROI and positive net winnings.
|
|
#327
08-09-2007, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: P5\'s top donk-n-go player is going pro
quotes are getting long, but in a low stakes donk'n go they really arent that defined at all+ you know how to play postflop but even still the EV gained by letting these idiots stack off w/ TPGK in limped pots to each other and push/folding correctly while they wait for premiums on the bubble is so much >>> than what you gain by raising this hand.
|
|
#330
08-09-2007, 01:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: P5\'s top donk-n-go player is going pro
Cowpig,
Here is a really basic example (don't actually do the ICM calcs because I'm pulling these number out of my ass) You start a $1500 tournament 10 handed with 1500 chips. If you win all the chips at the table you will only get 50% or of the total prize pool or $7500. Where in a cash freezeout you would get $15000. Since this is the case for your tournament equity the following is true Lets say you start a tourney with $1500 worth of equity (assuming no skill edge etc) You lose 500 chips on the first hand your equity goes from 1500 to 1000. You gain 500 chips on the first hand your equity goes from 1500 to 1750. Furthermore each additional chip you gain becomes worth less and less.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
