copernicus

Three points:1) The teams won't necessarily be all that level this year in any category other than salary expenditures. The league's at least 3-5 years away from NFL-style parity, and likely will never quite get there.2) Most teams don't have a full roster yet, and won't until fairly late in training camp.3) Nobody really knows how the rule changes are going to work out, or whether the NHL will stick with them.In short, gambling on the NHL right now probably isn't a +EV move.I disagree, principally because of your first two reasons. Vegas oddsmakers don't know the sport that well, and the init

Other than the Ranger Dans (Blackburn and Cloutier) who spent some time in Calgary tuning up their games and spending some time with the younger players, the standout was Brycen Eberwein. He led the Shattuck Tier I team to USAH Nationals, and shut out a great LA Selects team, stopping 22 shots.Blackburn's two blocker style was fun to watch and he was rarely beat on the "glove side" by these shooters (mostly Canadian Jr A and WHL players)...his coach swears he will make it back to the NHL, but Ive got to believe NHL shooters will find the top corner on him too often.Cloutier was amazing as alw

With unlimited rebuys for 4-6 rounds its pretty clear that calling/reraising standards need to be loosened up to respond to the Axo and any 2 suited cards that are often played all in during the rebuy phase.How far do you go though, not knowing any of the individuals?An alternative would seem to be tightening up, surviving with close to your intitial buy in until the last rebuy round, then taking a rebuy and an addon. With nearly triple the buy in you are somewhat above average in chip count, although at a fairly steep cost.Any other strategy thoughts?

I spoke with several AHL, Junior and NCAA Div I goalies today, including 2 who were involved in testing pad sizes. Their pretty much unanimous opinion was that 11 inch pads did not/will not hurt their game. What they lose in coverage they pick up in mobility.However, those that played with 10 inch pads said there was a huge difference, even from 11 inch. They attributed it to rebound control, and felt that technology might eventually overcome any problems with the 10s. With less area to spread impact over they found that rebounds were coming off their pads harder and out of their reach, and

thanks for the correction. Dont know the others you mention, I'm much closer to the goalie side of things. I agree about JVR right now though..its his potential given his rather slight stature, and the NTDP has a great training regime.

TheDominatorHockey fans know my Avatar at PStars :-)

I dont think anyone has a problem with TOP, since all it does is present very straightforward and indisputable concepts of EV, information etc. Even the "recipe" books, HAP, SSHE and TP in and of themselves are valuable as a starting point for the novice. I think all Ulliot is saying (and David and Mason would agree) is that to succeed against top players you can't play a cookie cutter style of "Raise with Group 1....." or strict adherence to the Gap Concept. Or, to butcher the line from "Cincinatti Kid", poker is doing the wrong thing at the right time. (Which, if you dig into it, is really

when you are playing middle pairs against a bunch of limpers, you are playing for the set. If you don't flop it, get out. If you dont get out, you've turned yourself into one of the chasers, but you're likely to be playing with 2 outs against a couple of 8+ outers, unless the flop is totally unconnected and rainbow.And DNs point about not building the pot for the draws is correct at these limits. While you may make a lot of money in low limits from players chasing draws, you don't make it when they have the correct odds to chase the draw. When you build a pot by raising with your own drawing h

Since the advent of the Jennings, the Vezina has really been a Save Percentage award, with one of the top 3 tenders in S% winning almost every year. Luongo was the best of the non-platooned goalies in S% (though his GAA was way down on the list, thats what the Jennings is for).Luongo got screwed in the "lifetime achievement award" syndrome for Brodeur, who may have deserved the Hart (but should have immediately given it to Scott Stevens), but was nowhere near deserving a Vezina.

A very well written book about a true artist of poker and gin. It carried lots of memories for me since I was hanging out at some of the same places in NYC that he was when he was coming up in the game, but that isnt needed to appreciate his story.When you need a break from strategy books, this is one great read. The movie, I think the name was "High Roller", plays more like a TV soap opera, while "One of Kind" is a reality show.

problem with Sklansky's appraoch, even to tournament play, is one of style. Davids approach to everything is conservative, mathematically solid play that will avoid trouble spots and try to maximize advantages. My guess is Daniel, Devil Fish, Layne Flack etc don't give a crap about the "gap concept". They play the man as much as they play the cards, and you wont find that in any book.

Harrington Vol 2 is the Bible.

other books. There are some discussions of thought processes that help organize your approach to tournament play that i havent seen anywhere else.Vol 2 is, unfortunately, very very good. There are a lot of end game principles that took me years of playing to learn and discover on my own playing in online tourneys, that he lays out. It is an essential part of any library for all but seasoned pros.

to sites and collect hand histories 24/7. They are virtually indetectable and even if sites invested the time to find them, the countermeasures would be onerous.A straight mathematical model, with optimal pre-flop actions by position and number of players that is as accurate as a human is easy. Adding a layer of modeling of each players past pre and post flop play isnt that difficult either. Simply categorizing a player in quadrants of loose/tight and passive/aggressive is enough to beat most low and mid limit players.The University of Alberta's poker group are not the only smart people in th

no one else has for future development, watch for John (I think thats his first name) Van Riemsdyke. He will be going the U17 National Team Development Program, and has tremendous upside potential. He is 6'3 or so but very light at age 15 or 16, and when he bulks up some will be even tougher to control than he is now. He has great hands and speed, scoring the OT goal in the NJ State Championships, and led his youth team to the USA Hockey Midget Minor Nationals.While you are in TO, I'll be in Calgary watching the top goalie prospects in North America. If I spot anyone new for you to draft, DN,

no red line will speed up the game. The rule was added (in the 40s I believe) to speed up the game, and, while things have changed since then they havent changed that much.There are several game cloggers that can result from no red line:endless icings from missed passesfrequent turnovers at the blue lines from intercepted passesa more clogged neutral zone as defenses drop back moreThe proponents of no red line point to the Olympics and how much it helps that game. Any benefit from no red line in the International game is enhanced by the wider ice. The narrower passing lanes of NHL ice have th

No where near enough info. Playing heads-up is playing your opponent not the cards if you have a much bigger stack down to a smallish stack, playing almost anything all-in with a very small stack.

You nailed it here, though I dont think you can eliminate AA, which you lose to anyway. If hes got AA and is looking at your hands he has to put you on AA, AK, KK, QQ. Since KK is less than 1/3 of those holdings, he's unlikely to slow down much heads up out of fear of KK. All the more reason to get out after the check raise. BTW I dont think I like his check raise on the flop. It should have eliminated you when you have at best a 3 1/2 outer. A smooth call on the flop followed by a check raise on the turn might have been more likely to extract the max from you. If the 4h matches a suit on the

"In a large game, taking the blinds is a good thing. In a fifty cent/dollar game, I'm not interested in stealing blinds. "The size of the game should be irrelevant to whether or not you are interested in stealing blinds. The ability to occasionally steal blinds and pick up 3/4 of a big bet without a lot of risk is still 3/4 of a big bet vs an average return of 1-2 bbs per hour, whether a bb is $1 or $1oo. If you arent interested in stealing blinds because the limit is too low to bother with, you probably have other leaks because the limit is too low. Why give away money?

"Ok let me explain…this is one of my favorite moves in NL tourney. We have a guy go all-in who is short-stacked, then someone behind him simply calls. I view this as a huge mistake, and I love to capitalize on it. I’m suited, with Ace high, and I have fold equity here. If I get rkuras to fold, I can only lose 230 on this hand. If he folds and I win, I win 460. I don’t want rkuras to call here, but if he does, I feel confident that it’s a decent gamble to take. If he calls and I lose, well I’m basically done. If he calls and I beat him but lose to jibbers, I still win 890. Most of you may disag

These guidelines arent all that "tight tight" for limit play at any level. KQ and Axs in particular are rarely playable out of position at any level. Middle and low pairs out of position depend on the table and might be ok if you can play them well post flop, which generally means knowing how to build a pot with a set and folding without making the set. The only major category left out is suited connectors, which again are rarely playable in limit out of position, you just dont have the needed leverage that no-limit gives you to make them profitable.

Actually this is a description of implied odds, not reverse implied odds...the pot you expect to win/current and future bets compared to your drawing chances and assuming you win if you make your hand.Reverse implied odds is essentially your opponents view of his implied odds, or, from your viewpoint, what it will cost you to find out that your hand has become 2d best when he makes his hand.

your objective with AA in no limit is to get action, but isolate the opponents to 1 player, and you accomplished that. Your opponent happened to be a joker who caught cards on this one.However, unless youve got a super read on your opponent (which would have been wrong in this case anyway) you have to expect a set, 2 pair, or AK from him. A total bluff just doesnt seem to make sense given the small size of the pot going into the flop, and playing anything but TPTK that strongly is at least a semi-bluff.Since there are only 6 AK's vs 9 sets plus 27 possible 2 pair combinations you are a 6/1 do

Huh? Is my computer miscing up threads?

Sorry, I disagree here, unless you have a solid read that someone has two pair or a set. There are likely to be more outs here than just the flush, at least 3 As and a discounted 1.5 Ts. Even without the extra outs, there are plenty of implied odds even 3 handed to call the flop. Add the extra outs its a no brainer. On the turn emvon isnt showing a lot of strength betting 1/4 of the pot. At that point I would put him on a low pair at best, possibly a weak A or solid K. If he's an awful player then maybe a small chance of a Q. You may even be ahead at this point! But give it 2 outs for disc