Jump to content

Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5


Recommended Posts

Assuming that there are no bankroll considerations (ie, if you have a short roll and make this call and wrong and you bust your roll and can't play...) when is there ever a situation in a cash game where the mathematically correct decision is not the correct decision?
maybe he means something like 'just because a decision is +ev, doesn't mean it's MAXev'? which isn't what he said, really, but sigh, this thread isn't locked yet so he can say all sorts of stuff.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can't pokerstove AKQ vs 99 though

He doesn't have AKQ offsuit.

I'm Jon.

Assuming that there are no bankroll considerations (ie, if you have a short roll and make this call and wrong and you bust your roll and can't play...) when is there ever a situation in a cash game where the mathematically correct decision is not the correct decision?
You can factor all that crap into the correct mathematical decision, including risk of ruin thresholds, etc, if you really wanted to.edit - why am I still reading/replying to this thread?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming that there are no bankroll considerations (ie, if you have a short roll and make this call and wrong and you bust your roll and can't play...) when is there ever a situation in a cash game where the mathematically correct decision is not the correct decision?
well, its a quote from Chip Reese. (rip)... But if you want to argue how he was wrong, go ahead.
Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe he means something like 'just because a decision is +ev, doesn't mean it's MAXev'? which isn't what he said, really, but sigh, this thread isn't locked yet so he can say all sorts of stuff.
The move which is +EV is fine, but the mathematically correct move is the one that maximizes our EV. Just because poker is a game of imperfect information and we'll never have all of the information at hand to make what will be the maxEV decision in actuality, but it's our job as poker players to try and approach that solution and come as close as possible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The move which is +EV is fine, but the mathematically correct move is the one that maximizes our EV. Just because poker is a game of imperfect information and we'll never have all of the information at hand to make what will be the maxEV decision in actuality, but it's our job as poker players to try and approach that solution and come as close as possible.
agreed and well said
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can factor all that crap into the correct mathematical decision, including risk of ruin thresholds, etc, if you really wanted to.edit - why am I still reading/replying to this thread?
because its not locked yet.
well, its a quote from Chip Reese. (rip)... But if you want to argue how he was wrong, go ahead.
provide context and a link, thanks.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot fathom what kind of narcissism it must take to need attention this much or be completley unwilling to accept that you could ever be incorrect. There is not a single winning player agreeing with royal, and a small group of people who made well over a million dollars last year playing no limit hold em disagreeing with him, on extremely fundemental concepts. I genuinely don't think you get more fundemental than "why do you bet" unless you want to get into the "miller high life rules of NO LIMIT TEXAS HOLD EM". At this point, i have to agree that royal is either intentionally trolling or getting off on leveling everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
provide context and a link, thanks.
How about this.And how about also instead of taking quotes from other people (which may be out of context) that you don't understand in a failing effort to try and sound intelligent, why don't you just stop insisting that you've never been wrong about anything poker related when you have half a dozen people all saying the same thing which contradicts the things that you're saying.
Link to post
Share on other sites
because its not locked yet.provide context and a link, thanks.
It is from Super system. He is talking about how he got his money in as very slight (like 7/13 but I can't remember off hand) favourite against a massive fish, lost , couldn't reload and had to watch from the side lines as the fish punted money away to everyone else in the game.
Link to post
Share on other sites
At this point, i have to agree that royal is either intentionally trolling or getting off on leveling everyone.
Since this same basic thing has happened in maybe a dozen or more threads in this forum, I can all but guarantee that it's certainly not him leveling anyone.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Chip Reese never said the play with that maximum expectation isn't always the correct one.RT, I suggest you take a step back and objectively look at your game. I dont know how you can argue the mathematically correct play isn't always the right one. Maybe in situations where people misapply math like, chip EV in a satty when they should be worrying about ICM. So in that case the mathmatically best play for cEV isnt always best but thats because ICM would be more accurate and ICM would be the correct one, which is the correct formula to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming that there are no bankroll considerations (ie, if you have a short roll and make this call and wrong and you bust your roll and can't play...) when is there ever a situation in a cash game where the mathematically correct decision is not the correct decision?
It is from Super system. He is talking about how he got his money in as very slight (like 7/13 but I can't remember off hand) favourite against a massive fish, lost , couldn't reload and had to watch from the side lines as the fish punted money away to everyone else in the game.
Edit: Loosh, we're also discussing only cash games here. In tournaments it's certainly correct to pass up certain +EV situations in spots to wait for situations that are more significantly in our favor down the line.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is from Super system. He is talking about how he got his money in as very slight (like 7/13 but I can't remember off hand) favourite against a massive fish, lost , couldn't reload and had to watch from the side lines as the fish punted money away to everyone else in the game.
Thats another math problem which includes factors such as expectation per hand as well as risk of ruin.Every poker decision has a math problem behind it, and being ignorant of that fact doesn't give anyone the right to make retarded comments like the best mathematical play isnt always the best one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, even though the Chip Reese quote is not relevant here, I think it's important to note that a lot of great players became great players through tons of experience. However, they did not all have the same tools available to study poker that are available today. Thus, many of them will make fundamental mistakes that don't hurt them as much because they are amazing at other aspects of the game. Take Negreanu, for instance. He gets made fun of a lot on 2+2 for his play because he does some things that are fundamentally incorrect, but he overcomes them through his ability to read people well and control pot size and get people to do what he wants. All this means is that improving certain fundamentals would make him that much better and he has admitted as much and has strived to improve at NLHE through studying what the internet kids are doing. Lastly, even if you bought into the statement that the mathematically correct decision isn't always the best descision, shoving 250 more into a 200 dollar pot when we're drawing to two outs or our opponent is folding a worse hand isn't a case where that would be applicable.EDIT: This post rambles, but I hope the point is clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lastly, even if you bought into the statement that the mathematically correct decision isn't always the best descision, shoving 250 more into a 200 dollar pot when we're drawing to two outs or our opponent is folding a worse hand isn't a case where that would be applicable.
How would you know? Maybe its one of those times that we throw math out the window aka Chip Reese style. The best way to know if it is or not is to throw a quarter 6 feet in the air above your head. If it lands between 32 and 8 degrees (this is assuming that you are facing 0 degrees obv) then I suggest we at least entertain every play possible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...