The Reason For Raising...

[GrinderMJ 0]

The fact is that poker is all about math for you. Not for Jennifer Harmon. It's what works for you, not what works for a whole host of other people. Everyone needs to find their own way, Zach, with the tools best fitted for themselves. I'm glad you are comfortable with the way you make decisions, but it is not the only way. Do you watch HSP? Do the math on some of those plays, Zach - you think Sammy Farha makes plays based on math? Poker is related to mathmatics in the same way composing music is: it's inherent in the structure - it isn't a finite sytem for making decisions.

ackackackackakcakc this is such a misapplied concept. Can somebody who is better at math/poker theory explain why this is wrong..

[Zach6668 513]

Wow,This is great we need more discussion like this on here.This is one of the better threads in a long time, even if the majority know what is right, most people are at least offering some pretty good insight.Thank you and Congrats to the forum.Oh I would like my steak medium rare:)Huskers20

Check the strategy forums more often, we get great poker discussions similar to this in there on a daily basis.I'm actually hoping that my leaving this thread in Gen Poker for a few days will hopefully lead some people to check it out down there a bit more often.

[GrinderMJ 0]

The fact is that poker is all about math for you. Not for Jennifer Harmon. It's what works for you, not what works for a whole host of other people. Everyone needs to find their own way, Zach, with the tools best fitted for themselves. I'm glad you are comfortable with the way you make decisions, but it is not the only way. Do you watch HSP? Do the math on some of those plays, Zach - you think Sammy Farha makes plays based on math? Poker is related to mathmatics in the same way composing music is: it's inherent in the structure - it isn't a finite sytem for making decisions.

Ok this isn't complete, but I think it will help you relate and see how EVERYBODY plays with math. You used the example of Jen Harman and Sammy Farha. People see hands they play where they call a big river all in bluff with a hand that can only bea ta bluff, and they assume that means they aren't playing with math. However, they are. They use live tells/ reads to create ultra tight ranges weighted HEAVILY towards specific hands. So even if the math dictates a fold vs. a standard range for their opponent, they are still making a mathematically correct call based on a hand range that they create. God I hope that was coherent even a little.

[Zach6668 513]

ackackackackakcakc this is such a misapplied concept. Can somebody who is better at math/poker theory explain why this is wrong..

Yah, you added a bit in your last post, and I tried above this one, but I'm not sure how complete my answer is either. It's kinda tough to explain. I think our answers combined did a decent job. If not, LLY or Simo will be around shortly, lol.

[NoSup4U 0]

BTW I think Scott just started this thread so some people could help him justify fancy play syndrome ;)Play ABC poker and beat most games. Don't play ABC poker, and spend life wondering how come Sammy Farha can win doing all these crazy things and win and somehow you try it and keep having big winning and big losing sessions that average out to 0. (Thats kind of a paraphrase of aba20) Mark

[simo_8ball 0]

The fact is that poker is all about math for you. Not for Jennifer Harmon. It's what works for you, not what works for a whole host of other people. Everyone needs to find their own way, Zach, with the tools best fitted for themselves. I'm glad you are comfortable with the way you make decisions, but it is not the only way. Do you watch HSP? Do the math on some of those plays, Zach - you think Sammy Farha makes plays based on math? Poker is related to mathmatics in the same way composing music is: it's inherent in the structure - it isn't a finite sytem for making decisions.

Oh. Dear. God.

The people who use their "feel, image, etc" are using that to create a range of hands their opponent could have, and using mathematics to determine the best possible play.

^^ That explains it all ^^Chris Ferguson - "If you think the math isn't important, you don't know the right math."

[Dogpatch 2]

LOLZ at the math/strat guys who say poker can be reduced to math. LLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZIt's gonna be a very rude awakening when you figure out poker is all about MAGIC

Then why isn't Antonio Esfandiari the WSOP Champion? Hmmmmm... smart guy? I'm being facetious here, I hope everyone gets it.

Wow,This is great we need more discussion like this on here.This is one of the better threads in a long time, even if the majority know what is right, most people are at least offering some pretty good insight.Thank you and Congrats to the forum.Oh I would like my steak medium rare:)Huskers20

Yes, this has been a GREAT thread.

[11 to 1 0]

ackackackackakcakc this is such a misapplied concept. Can somebody who is better at math/poker theory explain why this is wrong..

It isn't wrong. It also isn't right. Some of you guys treat pokermath like it's religion - THERE IS NO ULTIMATE ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING. You think someone can explain why I'm wrong? Fine, go call Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Jen Harmon, and have them explain it to you and Zach/Actuary. I am essentially quoting them.Now - I never said one should play entirely without using the basic probabilities or ignore the relative sizes of stacks, pots and bets. What I said was: it is only one tool. If in your personal poker toolbox you want to put math in the top tray and reach for it first, be my guest. But is not the only way, the right way, or even the most profitable way. And as expressed here EVERY major poker pro will disagree - you don't decide ONLY based on numbers. And if that were true, and if you were as good at math as Zach is - you wouldn't be here spending hours a day posturing as an expert - you'd be playing the Big Game and winning.As for you Z/A - I left strat because your advice sucked and you were unable to understand as simple a concept as "playing with better players - who beat you - is a great way to learn." - So I got advice from real pros and started winning. In life as well as poker, you all are going to have to realize someday that almost nothing is RIGHT. That a lot of ways and means, ideas and philosophies are all equally valid for the individuals who all vary in such unique ways. And you are going to have to read and listen for comprehension, I never said, nor have I heard anyone say, that plays should all be made by "feeling" and leave all other things out. A toolbox, and everyone has one they use for all kinds of things they do in life, has a lot of different things in it. If yours only has one - you are limiting yourself severly.It is not a good idea to ALWAYS raise preflop with pocket AAs. Apparently, according to the behavior of a couple respected professionals, and probably more if you did a poll, it isn't even ALWAYS a good idea to play them. Dialogue is not about being right or wrong - it is about exchanging a lot of ideas, making a pool in a desert of confusion that everyone can come along and drink from.You want to base 99% of your poker decisions on numbers only, I think you should. But it is still only one choice and not the best choice for everyone.

[Actuary 3]

It isn't wrong. It also isn't right. Some of you guys treat pokermath like it's religion - THERE IS NO ULTIMATE ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING. You think someone can explain why I'm wrong? Fine, go call Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Jen Harmon, and have them explain it to you and Zach/Actuary. I am essentially quoting them.Now - I never said one should play entirely without using the basic probabilities or ignore the relative sizes of stacks, pots and bets. What I said was: it is only one tool. If in your personal poker toolbox you want to put math in the top tray and reach for it first, be my guest. But is not the only way, the right way, or even the most profitable way. And as expressed here EVERY major poker pro will disagree - you don't decide ONLY based on numbers. And if that were true, and if you were as good at math as Zach is -

I stopped reading right there.It's so clear you know nothing about Zach.And your inability to COMPREHEND how MATH PERMEATES all these APPARENTLY NON MATH elements you cite is flustrating.

[nutzbuster 7]

BTW I think Scott just started this thread so some people could help him justify fancy play syndrome ;)Play ABC poker and beat most games. Don't play ABC poker, and spend life wondering how come Sammy Farha can win doing all these crazy things and win and somehow you try it and keep having big winning and big losing sessions that average out to 0. (Thats kind of a paraphrase of aba20) Mark

ZOMG I HATE YOU! Well, that is part of it for sure. But sometimes I really do doubt.I had 2 horrible results today where the proper raise and continuation got me busted. In fact I OVER raised both hands and still had 5 people to the flop!Which some will argue is fantastic!...yet others will say, oh SH*T!well...the first hand my set of tens got sucked out on but a river flush, and A-A lost to donkey calling with Q-4 when she made a set of Q's on the turn.I mean...in each case if I just slow down a little I could have caught my breath and prolly gotten away from those hands after studying the opponent...maybe. Is there really any getting away from those hands?I know I am running extremely bad right now, and Obv. you want to get it in with the best of it, and then try to protect it, but this is a perfect example of a situation where I begin to doubt.

[Actuary 3]

so I went back to finish reading....

As for you Z/A - I left strat because your advice sucked and you were unable to understand as simple a concept as "playing with better players - who beat you - is a great way to learn." - So I got advice from real pros and started winning.

lol.

[GrinderMJ 0]

It isn't wrong. It also isn't right. Some of you guys treat pokermath like it's religion - THERE IS NO ULTIMATE ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING. You think someone can explain why I'm wrong? Fine, go call Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Jen Harmon, and have them explain it to you and Zach/Actuary. I am essentially quoting them.Now - I never said one should play entirely without using the basic probabilities or ignore the relative sizes of stacks, pots and bets. What I said was: it is only one tool. If in your personal poker toolbox you want to put math in the top tray and reach for it first, be my guest. But is not the only way, the right way, or even the most profitable way. And as expressed here EVERY major poker pro will disagree - you don't decide ONLY based on numbers. And if that were true, and if you were as good at math as Zach is - you wouldn't be here spending hours a day posturing as an expert - you'd be playing the Big Game and winning.As for you Z/A - I left strat because your advice sucked and you were unable to understand as simple a concept as "playing with better players - who beat you - is a great way to learn." - So I got advice from real pros and started winning. In life as well as poker, you all are going to have to realize someday that almost nothing is RIGHT. That a lot of ways and means, ideas and philosophies are all equally valid for the individuals who all vary in such unique ways. And you are going to have to read and listen for comprehension, I never said, nor have I heard anyone say, that plays should all be made by "feeling" and leave all other things out. A toolbox, and everyone has one they use for all kinds of things they do in life, has a lot of different things in it. If yours only has one - you are limiting yourself severly.It is not a good idea to ALWAYS raise preflop with pocket AAs. Apparently, according to the behavior of a couple respected professionals, and probably more if you did a poll, it isn't even ALWAYS a good idea to play them. Dialogue is not about being right or wrong - it is about exchanging a lot of ideas, making a pool in a desert of confusion that everyone can come along and drink from.You want to base 99% of your poker decisions on numbers only, I think you should. But it is still only one choice and not the best choice for everyone.

God what a trainwreck of a post this is. There's like 9 different statements in this that made me go: and 2 that made me go: and about 4 that made me go: and 1 that made me go: and then 1 that made me go: :)

[Actuary 3]

at least we tried to help...http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...c=88268&hl=http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...c=88075&st=http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...c=88834&hl=there are more....

[David_Nicoson 1]

You want to base 99% of your poker decisions on numbers only, I think you should. But it is still only one choice and not the best choice for everyone.

These intangibles like reads can be quantified and then it's math. If a player says, "I think he has aces, I'll fold my KQ," his intuition is merely an input into a mathematical framework, or else it's a flawed decision. How sure is he? What odds are the pots and stacks laying?

[Actuary 3]

These intangibles like reads can be quantified and then it's math. If a player says, "I think he has aces, I'll fold my KQ," his intuition is merely an input into a mathematical framework, or else it's a flawed decision. How sure is he? What odds are the pots and stacks laying?

David,this man 11 to 1 has been told this countless times by Simo and Zach.Since you are not a known pro to him, he will also not understand the same concept from you.He started playing Limit in February..... to put it in context.

[simo_8ball 0]

Summarized:11 to 1: "I'm a freaking idiot."Zach/Actuary: "Here's a very polite and complete explanation of where you went wrong, for no apparent reason other than kindness."11 to 1: "STOP THAT, FUCKHEADS. I SAID I'M AN IDIOT AND I MEANT IT."Our apologies for briefly getting in the way of your ambition.

[Ouch-8s 4]

Summarized:11 to 1: "I'm a freaking idiot."Zach/Actuary: "Here's a very polite and complete explanation of where you went wrong, for no apparent reason other than kindness."11 to 1: "STOP THAT, ****HEADS. I SAID I'M AN IDIOT AND I MEANT IT."Our apologies for briefly getting in the way of your ambition.

I'm quite certain I've seen that before but it remains as amusing as ever.

[simo_8ball 0]

I'm quite certain I've seen that before but it remains as amusing as ever.

Yeah, it's Paul Phillips from the 'AA preflop in WSOP' thread. I first read it over a year ago and I've always thought it was hilarious. Very applicable to this thread, too.

[GrinderMJ 0]

aaaaaaaaaaaand simo moves into my top 5 favorite posters list.

[Zach6668 513]

bahahahahahahhahaahaha...I'm soooooooooooo drunk from last night still, but I had to get up cuz my room reeks of puke, so I cranked up the computer and this thread has me rolling on the floor laughing, hahahaahahahahahahahah.