- Status
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
I have to assume he is talking about me.Dorkus Malorkus said:
Thank you Dorkus, it's nice to be noticed. Okay, this is a sincere question and I'm asking this in the nicest way possible. Is it not possible to be (a) and not (b)? Not at all? While you didn't actually call him a liar outright, your blatant implication is that he is lying. I've heard of many people, pro and amateur, go on huge streaks both in wins and losses. Couldn't this fit in that category?Dorkus Malorkus said:
Just like needing to think in perspective of long term and short term, the truth about poker sessions really just a combination of what the two of you are saying. There are shorter individual sessions that each player plays (I don't know anyone that plays 24x7x365). To view, review, and evaluate how you did in a particular session (especially if trying a new twist to your game), you need to look at that short term outcome to see how you want to tweak your play. However, that one session is not a long term indicator and can't be viewed as such. It is all of those shorter sessions that add up to your long term outcome.Dorkus Malorkus said:
Think of it kind of like NASCAR. The driver has one race to drive (long term, one continuous session). But he doesn't simply get on the track in the car as is and drive 500 miles to the end. He takes laps (shorter sessions), evaluates how things are going, stops, and makes changes. If he ignores either, the short session learnings or the long term goals, then he WILL lose the race.
I am NOT going to even address this except to say check out the link that Dorkus provided in a previous post ...Here . Regardless of your opinion on the topic, the chain of threads is very rational by all involved over there and makes for some interesting reading. I've decided to write off the previous exchanges as difference of opinion, nothing more. Besides, best as I can tell, Dorkus is still likely pissed at me for not caving in.Dorkus Malorkus said:
Th-th-th-th-that's all, folks. Peace.
Last edited:
blankoblanco
plays poker on hard mode
Silver Level
Jack Daniels said:I am NOT going to even address this except to say check out the link that Dorkus provided in a previous post ...Here . Regardless of your opinion on the topic, the chain of threads is very rational by all involved over there and makes for some interesting reading. I've decided to write off the previous exchanges as difference of opinion, nothing more. Besides, best as I can tell, Dorkus is still likely pissed at me for not caving in.
Th-th-th-th-that's all, folks. Peace.
That's all fine and good, but that link doesn't apply here. Toadly was talking about folding Aces pre-flop in a cash game, not any sort of tournament situation, which is what makes it so baffling. I'm sure you could find rare situations in tournaments where it's excusable to fold Aces pre-flop, but in a cash game? If you're folding Aces pre-flop in a cash game in ANY situation you're either a) stupid, b) playing well beyond your bankroll limits, or c) a combination of the two. Guess which one applies to Toadly!
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
combuboom said:
There you go, trying to stir things up again. While this may have started with a cash game example, part way through it became general discussion on whether any situation exists in which AA could be folded PF. And just like any poker question, it is possible to craft a scenario in which anything you want to prove can be proven (remember - lies, damn lies, and statistics). That is where the link becomes applicable.
Besides, even if by some stretch of the imagination it wasn't applicable, it is still an interesting read (especially for a topic that is hotly contested on many forums).
F Paulsson
euro love
Silver Level
I'll answer sincerely and in the nicest way possible: I'm pretty sure that's the function of the "or" in Chris's statement; to imply that it's got to be (at least) one of them - not necessarily both.Jack Daniels said:
Dorkus Malorkus
HELLO INTERNET
Silver Level
I'm reneging on my earlier promise in this thread, but ehhh, I like to think we've moved on. :x
I was talking about Toad guy actually.
Ehh, you're reading too much into what I said. For once I wasn't being sarcastic or anything like that! Take what I said at face value, in other words in my opinion either (a) applies, (b) applies, or both apply to some extent. I'm not necessarily accusing anyone of lying, just stating that it's one of two distinct possibilities here. By saying "I'll leave the readers to judge", I meant exactly that.
You're right, but there is a distinct difference in how we analyse the short-term and the long-term. When we look at a hand, or a session, we are doing so in an effort to improve our long-term ability, and hence winrate. We cannot neglect the short-term in attempting to improve our long-term expectancies, but we have to analyse the short run with the long run in mind. If we didn't, we'd be thinking we'd played badly getting all our money in on the turn only to be rivered by a 1-outer.
Similarly, we can't fool ourselves into thinking we are playing "well" or "badly" just because of the results of a session. Toadly's post was placing too much importance on the results of these individual sessions, and placing too much importance on individual sessions which are subject to insane amounts of variance is not the way to get an accurate picture of things.
He referrred to "winning half of his sessions" somewhere, for example. This is meaningless. I could be 'winning half my sessions' and be a huge winner, or I could be 'winning half my sessions' and be a huge loser. Similarly I could be finishing up in two-thirds of my sessions, but I could only be breaking even in terms of profit.
To maximise the accuracy of our results, we look at the long run, which provides more accurate results subject to less variance. To combat short-term failings such as tilt (and thus improve our game in the long run), we review sessions and individual hands (the short run). Toadly's error (well, one of his errors) was that he was using results in the very short run for the wrong purpose, simply as a means of determining his ability and expectancy in the long run. This makes precious little sense.
I phrased that all really badly (I'm at work trying to look like I'm actually doing work), but nevermind. :/
I was talking about Toad guy actually.
Ehh, you're reading too much into what I said. For once I wasn't being sarcastic or anything like that! Take what I said at face value, in other words in my opinion either (a) applies, (b) applies, or both apply to some extent. I'm not necessarily accusing anyone of lying, just stating that it's one of two distinct possibilities here. By saying "I'll leave the readers to judge", I meant exactly that.
You're right, but there is a distinct difference in how we analyse the short-term and the long-term. When we look at a hand, or a session, we are doing so in an effort to improve our long-term ability, and hence winrate. We cannot neglect the short-term in attempting to improve our long-term expectancies, but we have to analyse the short run with the long run in mind. If we didn't, we'd be thinking we'd played badly getting all our money in on the turn only to be rivered by a 1-outer.
Similarly, we can't fool ourselves into thinking we are playing "well" or "badly" just because of the results of a session. Toadly's post was placing too much importance on the results of these individual sessions, and placing too much importance on individual sessions which are subject to insane amounts of variance is not the way to get an accurate picture of things.
He referrred to "winning half of his sessions" somewhere, for example. This is meaningless. I could be 'winning half my sessions' and be a huge winner, or I could be 'winning half my sessions' and be a huge loser. Similarly I could be finishing up in two-thirds of my sessions, but I could only be breaking even in terms of profit.
To maximise the accuracy of our results, we look at the long run, which provides more accurate results subject to less variance. To combat short-term failings such as tilt (and thus improve our game in the long run), we review sessions and individual hands (the short run). Toadly's error (well, one of his errors) was that he was using results in the very short run for the wrong purpose, simply as a means of determining his ability and expectancy in the long run. This makes precious little sense.
I phrased that all really badly (I'm at work trying to look like I'm actually doing work), but nevermind. :/
Last edited:
4
40oztofreedom
Rising Star
Bronze Level
agree...somewhat
aa is just a pair and since it is the best pair out there some people seem to just slowplay it until they have been beaten but even when you think that you are beat u still call b/c you are in love with them, same with the ak people just fall in love with these two hands and call off on bets even if the betting action towards them indicates they are beat
aa is just a pair and since it is the best pair out there some people seem to just slowplay it until they have been beaten but even when you think that you are beat u still call b/c you are in love with them, same with the ak people just fall in love with these two hands and call off on bets even if the betting action towards them indicates they are beat
- Status