Loci
05-11-2005, 09:36 AM
Another sleepless night, another semi coherent rant.
Background of this message: I am currently studying to be a high school teacher. I have a crogity old professor who, despite not having actually set foot into a secondary classroom for almost a decade, sticks by his beliefs about outdated and disregarded theoretical approaches to teaching. His beliefs and teachings contradicts what every secondary school in the nation is doing and when confronted by this by our class "Well it may work in practice, but does it work in theory?"
Hmmm.
My generalization of this quote to this theory: EV+ is a relative thing. Clearly the base of all calls is statistical analysis, but this application works when we know all of the cards (via reads, psychic ability, or blatant cheating) so a great deal of emphasis in our development of poker ability should be to improve THESE abilities, (which then changes our level of play in terms of calling raising and bluffing) rather than concerning ourselves with a short term outcome of a hand, session, day, week, etc.
I know: I'm stating the obvious.
But the point is really this; making the wrong decision for the right reason is EV+. Making the right decision for the wrong reason isn't. A LAG should call down with nothing sometimes just to advertise. This person makes their money by breaking people and getting action. A player who is a rock shouldn't call down with nothing. He makes his money by making accurate calls and value betting. Furthermore, no two individuals can play the same way, because their individual presenses will generate different responses from the same people even when they play identical hands. While we should certainly be striving for perfection in all of our abilities, making choices that maximize our INDIVIDUAL play is the ultimate goal.
In any case, it's just a thought.
Background of this message: I am currently studying to be a high school teacher. I have a crogity old professor who, despite not having actually set foot into a secondary classroom for almost a decade, sticks by his beliefs about outdated and disregarded theoretical approaches to teaching. His beliefs and teachings contradicts what every secondary school in the nation is doing and when confronted by this by our class "Well it may work in practice, but does it work in theory?"
Hmmm.
My generalization of this quote to this theory: EV+ is a relative thing. Clearly the base of all calls is statistical analysis, but this application works when we know all of the cards (via reads, psychic ability, or blatant cheating) so a great deal of emphasis in our development of poker ability should be to improve THESE abilities, (which then changes our level of play in terms of calling raising and bluffing) rather than concerning ourselves with a short term outcome of a hand, session, day, week, etc.
I know: I'm stating the obvious.
But the point is really this; making the wrong decision for the right reason is EV+. Making the right decision for the wrong reason isn't. A LAG should call down with nothing sometimes just to advertise. This person makes their money by breaking people and getting action. A player who is a rock shouldn't call down with nothing. He makes his money by making accurate calls and value betting. Furthermore, no two individuals can play the same way, because their individual presenses will generate different responses from the same people even when they play identical hands. While we should certainly be striving for perfection in all of our abilities, making choices that maximize our INDIVIDUAL play is the ultimate goal.
In any case, it's just a thought.