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

[Bakes]

curtains is the man

[Jshuttlesworth]

[ QUOTE ]
curtains is the man

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jshuttlesworth]

[ QUOTE ]
OP obviously shouldn't because he folded the second nuts to a four-bet from Vanessa Rousso.

[/ QUOTE ]
I lold

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the last sentence of my post would avoid this type of response. I do put more of the blame on curtains than you do I guess since the way it seems to me is that he continuously tried to prove himself right when no one really argued that what he was saying was wrong. So when I say that curtains + people responding to him was what derailed the thread i don't see how that could be disputed. I also think that a reasonable person should have been able to see that the theoretical stuff was not all that relevant or important enough to spend 10 posts on.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the last sentence of my post would avoid this type of response. I do put more of the blame on curtains than you do I guess since the way it seems to me is that he continuously tried to prove himself right when no one really argued that what he was saying was wrong. So when I say that curtains + people responding to him was what derailed the thread i don't see how that could be disputed. I also think that a reasonable person should have been able to see that the theoretical stuff was not all that relevant or important enough to spend 10 posts on.

[/ QUOTE ]

?? No one argued that what I was saying was wrong? Did you read the responses?

Let's start an anthology:


uclabruinz: "Curtains, you're a 2p2 legend in my book, but you're really wrong here. Go back and reread Ansky's posts, please. "


adanthar: "whoa...that's definitely false. all that has to happen is you stacking off with a second best 7 high flush more than they stack off with whatever they called with, and that is exponentially more likely to happen 400 BB deep OOP than 100 on the button."

kleath: "Curtains you're arguing that reverse implied odds don't exist in NLHE, this is just not true."



So three posters who are all pretty respected flat out told me I was wrong, when I was obviously not wrong. Im sure they probably misunderstood what I was saying somehow, but where do you get the idea that no one was telling me that I was wrong? I actually don't remember being told I was wrong so violently, as I was in this thread.


Also how come no one has addressed the idea of simply mucking in the BB? This should actually be a topic for discussion because I believe that many people here believe that we have -EV with the 74s hand. If you truly believe that, there should be hands that certain players should muck from the BB instead of taking their option. Please at least attempt to quantify the difference between those situations and this situation for me. I know that there are differences but lots of people seem to think the EV of UTG was worse than -150, so I think this is something that should at least be discussed.

[DLizzle]

people said you were wrong when you were debating two different things. once it became clear that you were speaking strictly theoretically i don't think anyone debated that your theoretical point was wrong. The reason people didn't understand what you were saying at first is that the post you originally responded to did not disagree with your theoretical fact.

[KingDan]

Small suited cards go down in value as you get super deep oop. You dont insta-stack AA anymore, and you arent happy getting 400bb in with a 7 high flush usually

That said curtains is clearly right. For those arguing against pretend you are not putting any more chips in unless you flops the nuts.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
people said you were wrong when you were debating two different things. once it became clear that you were speaking strictly theoretically i don't think anyone debated that your theoretical point was wrong. The reason people didn't understand what you were saying at first is that the post you originally responded to did not disagree with your theoretical fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, out of curiosity, what did people think I was talking about?

[stevepa]

I think curtains' insistence that he was just speaking theoretically were basically unnecessary. I mean, the only reason to ever raise 74s there is because you're way better than the other players at your table. If we assume that's true, then we're going to be making fewer and smaller mistakes (i.e. -EV plays) postflop than our opponents, so the EV of this raise should never be materially lower than -150 chips.

Steve

edit: Wooo, birthday cake!

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
I think curtains' insistence that he was just speaking theoretically were basically unnecessary. I mean, the only reason to ever raise 74s there is because you're way better than the other players at your table. If we assume that's true, then we're going to be making fewer and smaller mistakes (i.e. -EV plays) postflop than our opponents, so the EV of this raise should never be materially lower than -150 chips.

Steve

edit: Wooo, birthday cake!

[/ QUOTE ]

What about to "mix it up"?

Happy birthday!