Malmuth, can you explain your reasoning?

In question 17 of your hold 'em quiz in Poker Essays 3, you say you should play about as many hands in a tight and passive game as you should in a loose and passive game. Do you still believe this is true? If so, can you explain your reasoning behind this answer?

He says "roughly." That's a relative term.


By the way, it looks like Pokermon is QuadNines. Wasn't he barred from posting here?

He says "roughly." That's a relative term.

I see. So, in terms of square miles, Alaska and Rhode Island are "roughly" the same size. You might believe otherwise, but I don't think Mason was trying to write meaningless drivel.

By the way, it looks like Pokermon is QuadNines.

I'm not, but I've learned a few things from reading his posts.

[skp]

You raise a good topic for discussion. The problem as I see it is that you raise it in a hostile manner which tends to cut the discussion short. It's not very helpful to ask "do you STILL believe that to be true"...Given that the book just came out recently, I assume that Mason does STILL believe it to be true. Why don't you tell us your take on the issue (BTW, I too believe that Mason's statement is debatable) and we can discuss it.

[skp]

I too have learned from Quad's posts. For example, I now know that the common belief that pi equals 3.14 is ill-conceived. Quads has ably pointed out that it in fact equals 3.142857142.

In all seriousness, Quads' logic and ability to talk poker with the nth degree of precision is unequalled. Too bad he wastes so much time on trying to discredit Sklansky and Malmuth.

"I see. So, in terms of square miles, Alaska and Rhode Island are "roughly" the same size."

You know what I mean. Why try to twist it to make your argument look good? "Roughly" is a perfectly reasonable term here. Any difference in the number of hands is not only dwarfed by the difference in the mix of hands, but is unimportant both practically and conceptually.

It is hard to imagine that anyone but Quadnines (Mark Glover) would think his RGP posts important or interesting enough to tout them here. Also, you were asked if you were QuadNines several times previously, and never answered. Others seem sure you and he are the same guy. I can only say I'd need very good odds to bet you're telling the truth when you say you're not him.

The problem as I see it is that you raise it in a hostile manner which tends to cut the discussion short. It's not very helpful to ask "do you STILL believe that to be true"

I didn't capitalize STILL in my question.

Given that the book just came out recently, I assume that Mason does STILL believe it to be true.

During the past couple weeks, there has been some discussion on RGP about Malmuth's conclusions. If he read those discussions, he might have changed his mind. That's why I asked.

If anyone can explain the logic behind Malmuth's conclusions, I'd appreciate it if they explained it.

[Dynasty]

I now know that the common belief that pi equals 3.14 is ill-conceived. Quads has ably pointed out that it in fact equals 3.142857142.

skp,

If you ever want to have fun with Mr. Quads, you can point out to him that pi does not equal 3.142857142. pi = 3.1419....

The other figure cited by Quads is equal to 3 1/7 which is often used as an estimate of pi to simplify calculations in things like finding the area of a circle. I remember using it back in Junior High School.

[skp]

hehe...thanks....my error...not Quad's error...I just divided 22 by 7 to come up with the erroneous figure.

[skp]

Okay. My apologies. I thought you were being hostile but your explanation makes sense and I accept it. I'll have a look at the other thread you speak of over at RGP.