View Full Version : Theory of Poker: Chapters 11-12 Discussion
MEbenhoe
09-06-2004, 03:47 PM
Sorry guys, my trip to Canterbury last night caused me to be late with this, but lets get posting on these topics.
MEbenhoe
09-06-2004, 03:48 PM
Section for Chapter 11 discussion
MEbenhoe
09-06-2004, 03:49 PM
Section for Chapter 12 discussion
uw_madtown
09-07-2004, 06:57 AM
Going to read these tomorrow and catch up with comments on Chapters 4-12, probably post some of my own comments late tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday. Keep this project going, it's a great thing! What book might be next? SSH? (hint hint)
- UW
AKQJ10
09-07-2004, 10:35 PM
Sorry i've been less involved than i intended, but this is the real "meat" of discussion.
I'll start with a question and answer, going from memory, and a little bit of discussion.
Q: What key assumption are necessary for a semi-bluff to make any sense?
A: That there's a significant chance that your can win the pot immediately.
Maybe this is obvious and very simplistic fare for a knowledgeable audience, but to me it's very fundamental. For example, i get the impression that people read HEPFAP and conclude it doesn't "work" because the games it describes are so different from the typical low-limit game. Maybe i'm just imagining that, because the 2+2 crowd certainly doesn't think that, but i get the impression that many people do.
Here's another Q that i'll refer back to the book for the A:
Q: Why is it often a bad idea to semi-bluff when you're last to act?
A: See p. 102 (4th ed.), "When Not to Semi-bluff"
jwvdcw
09-09-2004, 03:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Q: What key assumption are necessary for a semi-bluff to make any sense?
A: That there's a significant chance that your can win the pot immediately.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally disagree with Slansky's examples #33, 34, and especially 35 in TPFAP, which all deal with semi-bluffing. I've posted about it before, but not gotten huge responses. Perhaps a little disagreement with Slansky will get this discussion rolling. Thoughts?
MEbenhoe
09-09-2004, 04:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Q: What key assumption are necessary for a semi-bluff to make any sense?
A: That there's a significant chance that your can win the pot immediately.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally disagree with Slansky's examples #33, 34, and especially 35 in TPFAP, which all deal with semi-bluffing. I've posted about it before, but not gotten huge responses. Perhaps a little disagreement with Slansky will get this discussion rolling. Thoughts?
[/ QUOTE ]
Could you post the examples please? I don't own TPFAP
AKQJ10
09-13-2004, 10:14 PM
Wow, i figured our discussion would eventually die out but i thought it'd take a little longer. /images/graemlins/blush.gif
When i get a chance i'll try to post the HEPFAP examples.
Anyone reading through TOP still?
MEbenhoe
09-13-2004, 11:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
When i get a chance i'll try to post the HEPFAP examples.
[/ QUOTE ]
He was talking about hand examples from TPFAP not HEPFAP
Boylermaker
09-14-2004, 10:40 AM
I'm still in, but haven't yet had a chance to read the last 'assignment'. Canada plays for the gold tonight, so I definitely won't get to it tonight (will be severely beer-impaired). Will try to post some discussion comments on Wed or Thurs.
As Zehn
09-14-2004, 11:19 AM
I've been backlogged with work. I'm still reading and will post shortly.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.