Irexes
Legend
Silver Level
They can speak for themselves, but I am pretty certain that is not what did or would say
I'll leave you to it.
They can speak for themselves, but I am pretty certain that is not what did or would say
I'll leave you to it.
D
drawingneardead
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Yes. I found it suprising as well. But here it is:
AG said:
“Pot odds alone dictate your decision in all in situations."
Upon my contestation:
FP said:
“AG is absolutely correct. Pot odds, and pot odds alone, are what dictates how to play in an all-in situation. If you fold because you want to save your money, the better move is to just not play poker at all."
Giving me the opportunity to say....
Read it and weep.
AG said:
“Pot odds alone dictate your decision in all in situations."
Upon my contestation:
FP said:
“AG is absolutely correct. Pot odds, and pot odds alone, are what dictates how to play in an all-in situation. If you fold because you want to save your money, the better move is to just not play poker at all."
Giving me the opportunity to say....
Read it and weep.
Lo-Dog
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
can't be bothered to go back to the exact context of the above remarks but they are absolutely correct pertaining to cash games.
tourneys have other considerations such as bubble play.
roland cote
Legend
Silver Level
camn i love this thread.. best since i came heree! but, i do believe he said he came in with onkly 500 bucks and it is all in! AG.... you said you are in the money about 27% of the time if i remember rite. what would you do in this situation,. i'm asking you because of your hi in the money results. (and you always give such great insight to the game)
D
drawingneardead
Enthusiast
Silver Level
As is normal...
The brightest among will now question PO as the only governing factor.
The weakest of mind will rally to defend the (inherently incomplete) status quo.
About the same results I would get if I went into a country music forum and asserted that the USA is not the "most free country in the world".
For the best. If everyone saw the light it could potentially hurt my bottom line.
For the last time I will impress upon you:
Position, relative stack size, bankroll, implied potential income, pot odds, and implied odds are all governing factors in decision making at the poker table.
If you have never been prevailed upon to fold a hand that is getting good pot odds, you are not considering all things.
Some of my assertions result from the game I play specifically, and the methods I have used to make money in those games.
If you still think that PO is GOD, your game will continue to suffer.
When you are drawing, I hope it is me that is defending...
The brightest among will now question PO as the only governing factor.
The weakest of mind will rally to defend the (inherently incomplete) status quo.
About the same results I would get if I went into a country music forum and asserted that the USA is not the "most free country in the world".
For the best. If everyone saw the light it could potentially hurt my bottom line.
For the last time I will impress upon you:
Position, relative stack size, bankroll, implied potential income, pot odds, and implied odds are all governing factors in decision making at the poker table.
If you have never been prevailed upon to fold a hand that is getting good pot odds, you are not considering all things.
Some of my assertions result from the game I play specifically, and the methods I have used to make money in those games.
If you still think that PO is GOD, your game will continue to suffer.
When you are drawing, I hope it is me that is defending...
Irexes
Legend
Silver Level
So we are weakminded.
Lovely.
On the plus side at least you are not being patronising.
You've read the bits you want to in this thread and ignored the bits you don't. This will no doubt go on forever so I'll leave you to it
Lovely.
On the plus side at least you are not being patronising.
You've read the bits you want to in this thread and ignored the bits you don't. This will no doubt go on forever so I'll leave you to it
D
drawingneardead
Enthusiast
Silver Level
I swear I was gonna stop posting on this thread....
So many reasons. I do not believe that a CPU can throw random cards. I do not trust the casinos, they can manipulate card generation. Take a couple thousand flops in live games and you will see the difference. It is difficult to explain, but patterns can be seen in CPU generated boards. I am adverse to b&m casinos that use pokerpro and other CPU systems as well as online games. These casinos don't carry all the problems that online casinos do, but the issue with generating random cards is there. I have this type of casino 10 min. from home and I got about 80 hours in. As many old pros will tell you, the cards just don't come out right...
A big chunk of poker strategy is missing, as you must know. I use alot of psychological cues that are not apparent against online opponents. Body language is huge. You know all this already, not sure the point of the question. I will continue.
In live games, players have more to lose than money. Players are inclined to play better to avoid embarrassment. They do play better, but more predictably as well.
online poker is alot like a bad home game. Advanced plays don't work on players who arent astute. Have you ever had a bad player call you down with tptk when you were betting a flush card, just to have him admit that he never noticed the possibility of a flush?
I learned to play limit hold em as a kid as it runs in the family. By the time Online casinos popped up all over, I had great experience and was very well studied (TY Mr. Sklansky). So the 1st time I played an automated system I had already mastered statistical poker, that is I knew the odds of any given situation. So I had already memerized basic statistics and when those stats didnt hold up in the face of automated card generation, I decided never to risk money on the systems. This happens with many live players.
I hate to be telling online players this:
Poker is a game of primarily 2 aspects; the mathematical aspect and the psychological aspect.
The mathematical aspect can be mastered by an astute player in a matter of months. The psychological one takes a lifetime. Online players do not develop that aspect. In fact, they become PO following robots. Unable to even see the entire game, let alone exploit.
Using myself as an example: I could tell you the chances of making a backdoor flush, or boating up from a set or 2pair, before my balls dropped. At the same time I am years from mastering the nuances of the psychological aspect of the game. All my weaknesses lie on that side, just like all accomplished players.
Moving on.....
Players don't play well online. The action is ridiculous, mostly because of the same incomplete avenues of thought I have been trying to refute here. One player makes a bad call...Then another because he got the right PO with the 1st bad caller....So the next one calls. Soon you have the 5 way all ins that you find online, and would have the regulars at the casinos in stitches.
Defending a made hand in online cash games is like defending a made hand in a home game with 8 rookies. You are better to not defend, and to play hands while planning for the river. Bad poker.....
D
drawingneardead
Enthusiast
Silver Level
F Paulsson
euro love
Silver Level
Since drawingneardead is, as Irexes noted, not actually responding to what people say but rather to what he thinks they said or what he wished they said I'm directing this post to all other people who may believe he has a point and explain where he goes wrong:
His assertion that pot odds "can often be thrown out the window" when you're facing an all-in is ridiculous.
When deciding to lay down a hand that he knows has positive expected value so that he can afford to keep playing, he's giving up profit. In his specific case, maybe that works out to the best. Maybe he has a small bankroll and his only way to sustain a living out of it is to buy-in for large parts of it and pray that he doesn't go bust that night. For casino play, where there aren't that many tables going at once and not every limit has action, this could be a point. But, and this is key, his opponents gain from it. He's the one being outplayed, not the other way around, when he declines a 3:1 shot in a 4:1 pot.
As for this:
"Position, relative stack size, bankroll, implied potential income, pot odds, and implied odds are all governing factors in decision making at the poker table."
I agree with four of them, disagree strongly with bankroll having to be one (read the Tommy article I linked - hey, he's a live player. Maybe you trust him) and I think "implied potential income" sounds like a made up phrase.
And that's the principle argument. If your bankroll even enters your mind at the poker table, something's wrong.
His assertion that pot odds "can often be thrown out the window" when you're facing an all-in is ridiculous.
When deciding to lay down a hand that he knows has positive expected value so that he can afford to keep playing, he's giving up profit. In his specific case, maybe that works out to the best. Maybe he has a small bankroll and his only way to sustain a living out of it is to buy-in for large parts of it and pray that he doesn't go bust that night. For casino play, where there aren't that many tables going at once and not every limit has action, this could be a point. But, and this is key, his opponents gain from it. He's the one being outplayed, not the other way around, when he declines a 3:1 shot in a 4:1 pot.
As for this:
"Position, relative stack size, bankroll, implied potential income, pot odds, and implied odds are all governing factors in decision making at the poker table."
I agree with four of them, disagree strongly with bankroll having to be one (read the Tommy article I linked - hey, he's a live player. Maybe you trust him) and I think "implied potential income" sounds like a made up phrase.
And that's the principle argument. If your bankroll even enters your mind at the poker table, something's wrong.
D
drawingneardead
Enthusiast
Silver Level
It is made up. As all poker terminology is. It is money that I can make using the stack in front of me (if I dont give it away as a 3 to 1 dog because I am getting good pot odds).
Heres another one: conditional probability
Figure that out and lmk what you think.
Great players entertain the validity of thier own ideas. They use these ideas to become better than everyone else. Do you think this game is entirely figured out. Do you think that application of pot odds (one of the most basic fundamentals in poker) can make you a great player? Basic is all that you seem to have.
If you can't explain it through pot odds than it can't be explained????
Are you capable of thinking beyond basic poker theory?
Examine the previously mentioned terminology and lmk..
benevg
Legend
Silver Level
absolutely not made up. and very well defined, to boot.
nobody argues your main point, that other factors than pot odds come into play on the table. we do argue one point only: when and only when the question is "do i put all of my chips in?" things like position, stack size, and implied odds simply do not matter. believe it.
your bankroll considerations are much like refusing to play the coin-flipping game AG proposed somewhere because you only have the money for 1-2-3 payments left. you would be right, but that doesn't mean the game is not profitable for you.
please don't. as many people have said, this is a good thread.
Last edited:
Ronaldadio
Legend
Silver Level
To quickly answer your question here FP.
IMO, pot odds can be thrown out of the window in MTT`s. Sometimes!!!
You are sitting at a final table. Delt AA (yes, this one again.) everyone goes all in before you. This is a massive tourny with big jumps in prize money. You are in 10th place. At this stage you are about 28-30% to win the hand pre flop.
If you win this hand you will jump to 3rd ($8,000) place - because of pot sizes. However, if you fold you will jump from 10th to 4th guarenteed - going from winning $1,000 to a guarentee of $5,000.
Ignore for now the exact money, exact chip stack, etc - everyone is all in up to you so you will be getting way over 4:1 +
I would fold. Folding would guarentee 5:1 on my money.
So, PO dictate a call, other circumstances say fold. The other circumstances, IMO, massivley outweigh the PO.
Cash games, however, are different. I would call. I probably have the best hand.
I feel with this discussion we are talking about two things at the same time, being -
- Drawing seems to be under bankrolled for the game he is playing. I would think, and this is comming from someone who has never played B&M ring games, ring games have got to be more reliant on PO`s than MTT as you can top up if you go bust? The approach about not wanting to bust out in his first hand seems to be more relevant to a MTT than a ring game. You should not be `bust out` of a ring game - u should have the facility/ bankroll to top up after your good call was muffed.
- MTT has the big variable - once u lose your chips u r gone, therefore PO`s is not the only determining factor - unless you multi table and you are playing almost robotic (I do agree with a few people that if PO`s were the only factor involved in poker a bot would win most of the time - worrying?)
WVHillbilly
Legend
Silver Level
Ronaldadio, you're right the OP was talking about a MTT but DND has made it clear that he would do the exact opposite of what you just said. That is he would call/push in a MTT and fold in a cash game.
It boils down to this: DND is playing outside of his bankroll and is forfeiting potential value because of it.
DND thanks for the answers. Really helps me to put all your other posts in the right context. Let's see: Online poker's rigged, too many bad players chasing, can't see the whites of their eyes. Heard it all before, just usually not from someone as literate as yourself. You forgot to mention potential bots, BTW. I'm sure you meant to but it was a long post and it probably slipped your mind.
Thanks.
It boils down to this: DND is playing outside of his bankroll and is forfeiting potential value because of it.
DND thanks for the answers. Really helps me to put all your other posts in the right context. Let's see: Online poker's rigged, too many bad players chasing, can't see the whites of their eyes. Heard it all before, just usually not from someone as literate as yourself. You forgot to mention potential bots, BTW. I'm sure you meant to but it was a long post and it probably slipped your mind.
Thanks.
Ronaldadio
Legend
Silver Level
NineLions
Advanced beginner
Silver Level
D
drawingneardead
Enthusiast
Silver Level
benevg, you have brought sanity back to this thread. I can stop beating the dead horse. Players are considering the main idea of my posts in light of the fact that I am not great with debate and easily get sidetracked. (Did I mention my absolutist tone?)
WVHillbilly, I never made a distinction between cash games or tourneys regarding this issue (review previous posts if you don't believe). I am contending that other governing issues (than PO) should be applied in both games.
The idea is important in both types of game, just for different reasons. The importance in tourneys seems to be common knowledge. In ring games there is less pressure to act. You always know there will be another (better) opportunity. The only way you can blow your chance is to get all your chips in with bad odds (I didnt say PO).
What is worse than busting out of a tourney after getting all your chips in as a 3 to 1 dog??
Spending 9 hours @ the casino making up for 2 lost buy ins...after getting all your chips in as a 3 to 1 dog.
This was a huge problem for me and is the driving factor behind my claims. Until I began to muck draws in spite of good PO, This was a 40 - 60 hour a week game for me.
I do not have bankroll management problems, I started with nothing! If I did not limit my play, I would still be playing 100MAX for 60 hours a week to make $500. The idea that I am trying to instill here is what allowed me to play 500MAX for 20 hours a week and make $1k.
To sum it up: This strategy is in a small way is designed to address cash games, and in a large way to address playing poker for a living. Understand??
As far as failing to addess ppl's questions: I have been asked alot of rhetorical questions that are obviously designed to damage my credibility. Also, I am taking one view of the issue and the entire forum seems to be taking the other. (with a few exceptions) It is as if the issue is cut & dry or has been previously discussed. Meanwhile, very little logic has been offered in contrast to my claim.
I have been unable (or unwilling) to field them all while trying to stay on topic.
The OP's question is an important one. Also his phrasing (how many callers (all in) do I need for this to be a good call?) suggests that he has been led to overvalue PO and ignore other factors.
I also feel that this is a great thread. I do, however, feel that the main idea of my OP validates itself and should not require me to defend my credibility.
WVHillbilly, I never made a distinction between cash games or tourneys regarding this issue (review previous posts if you don't believe). I am contending that other governing issues (than PO) should be applied in both games.
The idea is important in both types of game, just for different reasons. The importance in tourneys seems to be common knowledge. In ring games there is less pressure to act. You always know there will be another (better) opportunity. The only way you can blow your chance is to get all your chips in with bad odds (I didnt say PO).
What is worse than busting out of a tourney after getting all your chips in as a 3 to 1 dog??
Spending 9 hours @ the casino making up for 2 lost buy ins...after getting all your chips in as a 3 to 1 dog.
This was a huge problem for me and is the driving factor behind my claims. Until I began to muck draws in spite of good PO, This was a 40 - 60 hour a week game for me.
I do not have bankroll management problems, I started with nothing! If I did not limit my play, I would still be playing 100MAX for 60 hours a week to make $500. The idea that I am trying to instill here is what allowed me to play 500MAX for 20 hours a week and make $1k.
To sum it up: This strategy is in a small way is designed to address cash games, and in a large way to address playing poker for a living. Understand??
As far as failing to addess ppl's questions: I have been asked alot of rhetorical questions that are obviously designed to damage my credibility. Also, I am taking one view of the issue and the entire forum seems to be taking the other. (with a few exceptions) It is as if the issue is cut & dry or has been previously discussed. Meanwhile, very little logic has been offered in contrast to my claim.
I have been unable (or unwilling) to field them all while trying to stay on topic.
The OP's question is an important one. Also his phrasing (how many callers (all in) do I need for this to be a good call?) suggests that he has been led to overvalue PO and ignore other factors.
I also feel that this is a great thread. I do, however, feel that the main idea of my OP validates itself and should not require me to defend my credibility.
Last edited:
dj11
Legend
Silver Level
Still the best thread in a long while.
I reread post 4, which was DND's first response. It was his last line about playing some cash games that looks to have really started this very interesting chain of thoughts.
In many ways this is a thread about differences between ring vs tourney play. The OP game description was clearly labeled MTT. The hand chosen by OP was a fairly common tourney situation. Often with make it or break it consequences.
IMO much of the response has been ring game slanted.
I have no problem with DND distrusting online poker. I think most of us don't distrust it. His money, his opinion. My only question about that would be how he accounts for all the new young guns of poker doing so well in big LIVE MTT's? These guys did not get proficient at poker playing live games.
Since a guiding principle of my own tourney play gives greater weight to the survival aspect of play, I probably tend to have my ears open more for someone who shows me that capability than for someone pressing odds over survival. DND shows a healthy respect for the survival instinct.
There seems to be something underlying this whole thread that is at best only been alluded to. Both situations, survival vs odds, ought not be antithetical. Seems to me the correct recipe might never be agreed on, but that doesn't necessarily mean the outcomes MUST be either/or.
A puzzle for the more mathematical;
Suppose through a long tourney you run into a string of events where you are 3-1 favorites. You will win these 75% of the time. For sake of discussion, lets say you run into 5 of these.
Math will suggest the long term outcome for those 5 events, will be .75 x .75 x .75 x .75 x .75.
Using my handy dandy built in calculator, tells me that .75 multiplied 5 times is in the range of 25% (0.2373046875).
To me this suggests that a blind adherence to +EV plays is -----EV!!!
So, I again suggest that an EV evaluation is an aid, not a dictum.
If my math is so flawed here, and you can show me, please do. I could have a totally skewed POV about the figures, and/or how the calculations go and I am delusional. I freely admit it is a real conditional probability.
I reread post 4, which was DND's first response. It was his last line about playing some cash games that looks to have really started this very interesting chain of thoughts.
In many ways this is a thread about differences between ring vs tourney play. The OP game description was clearly labeled MTT. The hand chosen by OP was a fairly common tourney situation. Often with make it or break it consequences.
IMO much of the response has been ring game slanted.
I have no problem with DND distrusting online poker. I think most of us don't distrust it. His money, his opinion. My only question about that would be how he accounts for all the new young guns of poker doing so well in big LIVE MTT's? These guys did not get proficient at poker playing live games.
Since a guiding principle of my own tourney play gives greater weight to the survival aspect of play, I probably tend to have my ears open more for someone who shows me that capability than for someone pressing odds over survival. DND shows a healthy respect for the survival instinct.
There seems to be something underlying this whole thread that is at best only been alluded to. Both situations, survival vs odds, ought not be antithetical. Seems to me the correct recipe might never be agreed on, but that doesn't necessarily mean the outcomes MUST be either/or.
A puzzle for the more mathematical;
Suppose through a long tourney you run into a string of events where you are 3-1 favorites. You will win these 75% of the time. For sake of discussion, lets say you run into 5 of these.
Math will suggest the long term outcome for those 5 events, will be .75 x .75 x .75 x .75 x .75.
Using my handy dandy built in calculator, tells me that .75 multiplied 5 times is in the range of 25% (0.2373046875).
To me this suggests that a blind adherence to +EV plays is -----EV!!!
So, I again suggest that an EV evaluation is an aid, not a dictum.
If my math is so flawed here, and you can show me, please do. I could have a totally skewed POV about the figures, and/or how the calculations go and I am delusional. I freely admit it is a real conditional probability.
Last edited:
D
drawingneardead
Enthusiast
Silver Level
I have nothing to say.....All I can do is smile and nod in approval.:angel:
Now I can't get the theme song from Rocky out of my head.
F Paulsson
euro love
Silver Level
Your math is not flawed, but your conclusion is far out there. What you're stating is that because a tournament often consists of multiple all-in situations, even someone who's fortunate enough to be a 3:1 favorite every time the money goes in is still unlikely to win the tournament.Math will suggest the long term outcome for those 5 events, will be .75 x .75 x .75 x .75 x .75.
Using my handy dandy built in calculator, tells me that .75 multiplied 5 times is in the range of 25% (0.2373046875).
To me this suggests that a blind adherence to +EV plays is -----EV!!!
So, I again suggest that an EV evaluation is an aid, not a dictum.
If my math is so flawed here, and you can show me, please do. I could have a totally skewed POV about the figures, and/or how the calculations go and I am delusional. I freely admit it is a real conditional probability.
This is true, and a well-known and generally agreed upon fact. People, even the best players in the world, don't win tournaments very often. You need luck to win a tournament. You need luck to win any hand. Even probable events are inprobable to occur as sufficiently long consistent chain.
And what's your proposed alternative? Folding KK preflop because you believe your opponent holds AK and you want to pass up on the 3:1 shot because, statistically speaking, you're a 3:1 dog to get knocked out if you repeat this call five times?