QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow if thread goes to show one thing, it is that gobbo you're a bit of an a$$. I already knew this by watching your total absence of class when losing to Hansen at the Aussie Millions.

Grow the fk up and let someone express their opinions without shooting them down in flames.

You are a good poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you get 10% of the information and flame me. Awesome. Glad you're getting the story straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not being rude but i have to say the way you acted towards Hansen was appalling. He admitted he got lucky and you just had to stick the knife in, even though he offered you an admirable defeat without patronising you one bit.

I understand this a high stakes forum but as gp has said the guy is trying his hardest and does want to learn off people like you. He may not show it but it must be the case or otherwise he wouldn't be playing this game (compliment).

Rant over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think baltostar is trying his hardest? He's just trying to stir up [censored] with everyone and not trying to learn from us, he's trying to teach people how to do things that don't make sense. He's spreading confusion around and making people who are just now developing their games doubt their fundamentals, which is incredibly dangerous.

If there were someone on the boards when I was just starting out who spread nothing but blatantly false things like baltostar is doing, then it might have affected how quickly I would've developed as a player. I want to stop it before it causes significant damage.

And as for australia, everything happened within a few minutes and I lost a HU for 500k after getting ridiculously unlucky about 18 times and controlling the table for four hours. Allow me to make one offhanded remark that wasn't even meant the way you think it was. He said he was pretty damn lucky, I confirmed it. Whoopee. I wish I didn't have to defend myself in every [censored] thread I posted in.

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand this a high stakes forum but as gp has said the guy is trying his hardest and does want to learn off people like you. He may not show it but it must be the case or otherwise he wouldn't be playing this game (compliment).

[/ QUOTE ]
He sure has a funny way of showing it.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
This type of analysis is also why raising a bunch of limpers with a big pair tends to be such a profitable strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear baltostar,

Your long winded, distorted and irrelevant analysis is not needed to explain why raising a bunch of limpers with a big pair tends to be such a profitable strategy.

It is such a profitable strategy because it is simply very much +cEV.

[auc hincloss]

[ QUOTE ]
Baltostar,
Plz just stop posting him, like can a mod ban him. Because every thread he posts in he makes ridiculous arguments that are obviously wrong and derails the thread from potentially good discussion. Or maybe an alternative just have a baltostar discusses poker theory thread and only allow him to post there.

[/ QUOTE ]

genius.

[NHFunkii]

baltostar, have you noticed that in every one of your examples you are not closing the action, where in this case you are?
also, call because you have QQ, not for set value. I don't understand why people are even considering folding here.

[Astyanax]

For one thing he promotes debate. When he says something, I like to hear the responses so I am learning the do's and the dont's so to speak. I haven't seen a nasty streak to his posts nor have I seen a deliberate troublemaker.

You get the best of both worlds. You get the fish learning from him hence adding to your +ev plus it highlights the antithesis between yours and his posts...

Amazing that a fairly simple preflop spot has provoked so much action. Carry on.

[baltostar]

[ QUOTE ]
balto,
the time to worry about the issues you bring up is before you put the first chip in the pot. So, in this hand for example, when you raise QQ to 600 you need to consider the possibility that you will be putting in more chips than just the 600 and its implications for playing the hand. After you have put the 600 in, and the action comes back to you facing a reraise, you need to consider your immediate odds, which is the amount of money in the pot now vs how much you now have to put in. Part of that consideration of course is how likely you will be to lose chips after the flop (negative implied odds), and how likely it is you will make additional money (implied odds). You are right in that many players make mistakes BEFORE they put the first chip in the pot because they dont consider how many more chips will continue to go as action progresses. That does not change the fact that at the current decision points you cant use the money you've already put in to calculate your odds because you dont get that money back. In this example right now you have to put 1200 more and see a flop (with no risk of putting anything more in the pot before the flop), or fold and put in zero more.


To be fair to you, you are not bad at pointing out mistakes players commonly make. However, and this is why everybody including myself is losing patience with you, you constantly attribute your observations to your own brilliance at spotting the communities problems, instead of learning the fundamentals of poker well and coming to understand that the issues you are spotting have been brought up before, and talked about, and are generally grasped by good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please believe me, I have been diligently studying poker for 2 years, including every respected book written on NLHE (just now starting on Ed Miller's latest.)

You have to understand I have multiple degrees in math, engineering, computer science, and I've been gambling in varous forms for almost 15 years, and I can't help it if I notice serious flaws in mechanisms of thought that have become de rigeur in the poker community.

The common pattern of ignoring relative stack risk when deciding to play across an event has been bothering me for nearly all of the two years I've been studying poker. Relative stack risk as in "relative to other similar scenarios". (In my Scenarios 1,2 above, immediately prior to the event Scenario 2 has twice the stack risk as Scenario 1.)

Implied odds (required and given) and reverse implied odds (required and given) for playing across an event are badly flawed tools. You can not just rely on the calculations. And yet players routinely use cost-to-call to calculate implied odds given across event risk, compare the result to implied odds required (typically also mis-calculated), and base their decisions on it.

Either the criteria is way off or it is being badly mis-used.

For those decisions (only) where probability of achieving the most desirous outcome is *primarily* dependent on event risk, I recommend basing implied odds calculations on the total hand risk your stack is incurring. This too is an imperfect tool, but it's better than what most players are doing.

The way to test if a criteria is logical is to isolation test it. You can't involve other criteria, such as hero somehow magically deducing at a decision point that a re-raise is going to occur. (And this is exactly what hero would need to deduce to correctly calculate his reverse implied odds.)

If a decision criteria for playing across event risk is to be useful, it should not incur radical swings in validity when successively applied to similar scenarios.

In my min-re-raises example, a player is offered a sequence of propositions, each of which is logical to accept according to his criteria for playing across event risk. He therefore accepts each proposition but nonetheless ultimately finds himself significantly overpaying to participate in the event risk.

In fact, the growing stack only serves to propel him forward to his doom if he bases decisions on cost-to-call: not only is he being given sufficient implied odds at each decision point, but additionally his required implied odds multiplier is being reduced, plus his pot odds are increasing !

The only conclusion that can be reached is that the player's criteria is either illogical or mis-used.

[Pudge714]

Baltostar,
You're argument is right in general except it is very simple and irrelevant to this hand. There are a fair amount of hands that get posted where guys flat pre or call a shove and people successfully argue that they should fold preflop because of the probability of another player entering the pot is overweighs the slight chip edge they gain. However in this case there are only two people in the pot Nobody can act behind you your logical test is based around an outcome which cannot exist unless Hero chooses to 4bet.

[JammyDodga]

[ QUOTE ]

The way to test if a criteria is logical is to isolation test it. You can't involve other criteria, such as hero somehow magically deducing at a decision point that a re-raise is going to occur. (And this is exactly what hero would need to deduce to correctly calculate his reverse implied odds.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Serously, re-read this again. So you are saying that at any decision point pre-flop, where people are yet to act, you can't in any way make an adjustment or guess what it is they are going to do?

Finally, why quote the other guys post if you aren't going to respond to it.

REPEATING YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS AGAIN IN A DIFFERENT WAY IS NOT A REPLY!!!! PLEASE READ WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID AND ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!

[Requin]

[ QUOTE ]

The way to test if a criteria is logical is to isolation test it. You can't involve other criteria, such as hero somehow magically deducing at a decision point that a re-raise is going to occur. (And this is exactly what hero would need to deduce to correctly calculate his reverse implied odds.)


[/ QUOTE ] What. You make a judgement call as to the likelyhood of getting reraised. There's nothing magical about it, it's based on prior experience in similar situations with similar factors. Good players can come up with a very close approximation of how often this will happen. Obviously if we had no idea what the likelyhood of other people's future actions are, we couldn't use the analysis that we do. But this is not the case.