sanemancrazywrld

You don't know that until the cards are turned over though and the cards don't get turned over until you're all in.You said coinflip at best. The money went in, he was a 3-1 favourite. We knew that was a possibility before, we know it for certain now. The money went in, and it wasn't a coin flip. Hence "coinflip at best" is flat out wrong. Res ipsa loquitor.

Ok lets look at the advantages to pushing in:1. Your opponent folds - you win the blinds plus his raise. Not bad at all.2. Your opponent calls - think like him. Are you going to call an all in against your hand with KQ? If so, can I play at your table?The only hands you dominate that will call you are the AQ/AJ. Pocket pairs are a coinflip, AA/KK and you are meat.So if you are looking to pick up the blinds and the raise, sure, push in. But be prepared to give your entire stack up if you are called.If the situation is different (ie Im the chip leader, and can cover someone else's all in) b

Against any pocket pair (even the lowly 22), this is a coinflip situation (50% chance of winning, also known as a 50% chance of being knocked out). Why put your entire stack at risk with this hand?This is an ideal place to use the stop and go strategy.If you were the short stack (in this case 4th place), Id agree with this concept, but why risk your 3rd place finish, when seeing a flop gives you all the information you need to push or not?DevThis is an absolutely awful place to use the stop and go. The raiser very likely has absolute garbage. You'll never have any idea if the flop missed him

In your example, you're talking about one crappy math guy. That's okay, you're just using a different definition of math guy than I am. Perhaps from your experience, those players who are mathy types tend to pay off too much. But a good math guy will do a decent assessment of the probability you're bluffing, and not just call everytime with anything just because they're getting 10-1. And just to nitpick, if you're betting a quarter of the pot, you're giving him 5-1 on the call :wink: I'm just playing around here, depends on your definition of pot. I'm pretty sure you're aware of pot

In Daniel's evaluation of Paul Phillips, he wrote:Strengths: At heart Paul is a "math guy" but his application of his knowledge is excellent. He has a great understanding of the game and his fundamentals are close to flawless. Weaknesses: Predictability. Paul's greatest strength could also be deemed his biggest weakness in a sense. His approach often lends itself to patterns that are exploitable by some of the other top players in the game. If someone's fundamentals are close to flawless, they don't have patterns that are exploitable by other players. Part of having perfect fundamentals is h

Why would he reraise all in with aces? Because many players think "why would he reraise all in with aces?", and call off with some cheese like KK or QQ or AK. Many, many, many players have been bust out with the old "why would he jam with the nuts?" thought. The answer being, because he thought you might just call.

Suppose the game features players which fold every single unpaired hand to a raise, always put you on AK when you raise, and if you just limp, they'll jam with any two cards. Now prove your contention.

If you truly believe that luck breaks even for everybody, then you don't understand the situation.

No.

This is precisely what would be expected to happen if Mike Caro is right (which I believe he is). Looking back after the fact, there will be *some* players who appear at the final tables more often. The names you mention are the "names" precisely because of the fact that they've been successful. Run all the tourneys of the last couple of years again in an alternate reality, and you'd likely have written a different list of names above.The players you mentioned are very, very good players, but Daniel and Gus have to be two of the luckiest guys in the world. I'm sure someone will respond,