Phil Ivey vs. Jman 300/600

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In particular, his stop-loss strategy and tendency to buy in short means you're VERY unlikely to take him for a big score. He quits as soon as he starts to lose.

So why does anyone play him?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. Ivey has figured out a stop loss strategy that makes it -EV to play him. Unexploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you're being ironic, I don't care.

The guy quits when he's down at most 100k , what you going to do? Your losses will be bigger than your wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop loss strategy's are only good if you play worse when losing.



[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this part. There are other considerations here that people rarely consider. These are mostly image related and it's hard for me to accurately explain them but I'm pretty sure they do exist. I've always quit playing HU when i lost a couple buyins and I can't emphasize how much that has helped me. Simply put, it's just really hard to play anyone, much less a WCP, when he has the momentum in the match.


[/ QUOTE ]
But, this is just another way of saying you think you play worse when you're losing. As does most everyone. You said "I disagree with this part" and went on to simply re-word that part, not disagreeing with it at all.

[Taylor Caby]

That's not true at all. Dlizze worded it better than I did. I do think I play worse when I'm losing, as does everyone, but some people not by a whole lot so it's not a big deal.

That's not my point, my point is your opponents react differently to you when they have "momentum" in a HU match. This adds quite a bit more variance to the game at the very least, and at the most makes it much harder for you to win.

For example, Ivey had no problem getting it all in against Jman for 150 BB'sish with TQ on a T high flop. He raised the flop against Phil because he wanted Phil to push. If he felt Phil was playing more tight/solid, I would make a case for Ivey folding TQ preflop, and if he does call, he's not going to be raising the flop against Jman, because if he gets shoved on he's in a horrible spot.

At the very least, not abiding by strict stop loss rules adds variance to the game. That's not something I'd want to do when playing a WCP HU at stakes that I'm probably not completely comfortable at to begin with.

tc

[king_of_drafts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
jesus christ just when i thought ppl couldnt get more stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Judging by your past posts, which seem to consist largely of one-line post equivalents of grunts, you're not exactly Einstein yourself. And if you want to compare graduate degrees, I'd be more than happy to do so, sport.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having fun imagining you typing this.

[inyourface]

this could be settled if JMan would take a screenshot of him vs Ivey off PT lifetime.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not my point, my point is your opponents react differently to you when they have "momentum" in a HU match. This adds quite a bit more variance to the game at the very least, and at the most makes it much harder for you to win.

[/ QUOTE ]
.... in other words you play worse when you're losing. And your opponent plays better when he's winning. Right. Established. So by "disagree" you meant "agree 100% wholeheartedly".

[mustmuck]

[ QUOTE ]
He raised the flop against Phil because he wanted Phil to push.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we should stick with Ivey and Jman.

[Taylor Caby]

I'm quoting another post:

I have to agree with this. Certain metagame issues come into play that make it harder to win in a HU match after you started off losing. I feel them when I play, hard to explain though. One that I can explain is pretty simple. When you start off losing, even if you're not on tilt, your opponent will likely suspect that you are tilting. This will make it more difficult to bluff profitably because your opponent can justify light calls with, 'he's probably on tilt'. You could counter by saying that it is not bad for us that our opponent is calling lighter, but I think that a situation in which we can profitably bluff frequently is better. If you adjust perfectly by value betting thinner and bluffing less I guess you'd be ok, but I think that strategy is much more difficult to play well.

Playing better or worse isn't the point - the point is that even optimal decisions will have worse expected outcomes, or at the very least, higher variance.

tc

[Taylor Caby]

BTW, I'm not claiming what I say is 100% truth. It's what I believe, it's obviously what Ivey believes, and I know some others that agree with me.

Most players will never quit after losing a couple of buyins. Many are too stubborn to do so, most just think that they aren't playing any worse so there is no reason to quit. I don't think they give this phenomenon too much thought, and that's fine.

To each his own, I'll do what I've found success with, just as you should too.

tc

[NedForrest]

holy crap ure all right, jman and ivey have played hundreds of millions of hands vs each other so its so easy for us to calculate their EV to the 0.00001%

amazing

[nichtsnutz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In particular, his stop-loss strategy and tendency to buy in short means you're VERY unlikely to take him for a big score. He quits as soon as he starts to lose.

So why does anyone play him?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. Ivey has figured out a stop loss strategy that makes it -EV to play him. Unexploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you're being ironic, I don't care.

The guy quits when he's down at most 100k , what you going to do? Your losses will be bigger than your wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me introduce you to a little thing I call math:

5 * $100K > 1 * $400K