($215)- archived [wchen] hand A J

[Oluwafemi]

***** Hand History for Game 1340756354 *****
30/60 TourneyTexasHTGameTable (NL) (Tournament 8115551) - Thu Dec 23 23:40:21 EST 2004
Table Table 14451 (Real Money) -- Seat 6 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: lalalaarry (975)
Seat 2: PaulMokeski (810)
Seat 3: ZJustin (1045)
Seat 4: scooberyo (840)
Seat 5: ophthalmodel (1125)
Seat 6: rushchair (1100)
Seat 7: wchen (925)
Seat 9: BrewTdog (1955)
Seat 10: ComeOnKid (1225)
wchen posts small blind (15)
BrewTdog posts big blind (30)
** Dealing down cards **
ComeOnKid folds.
lalalaarry folds.
PaulMokeski folds.
ZJustin folds.
scooberyo folds.
ophthalmodel raises (125) to 125
rushchair folds.
wchen raises (910) to 925
wchen is all-In.
BrewTdog folds.
ophthalmodel calls (800)
Creating Main Pot with $1880 with wchen
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 8h, Kc, Td ]
** Dealing Turn ** : [ 9c ]
** Dealing River ** : [ 3h ]
** Summary **
Main Pot: 1880 |
Board: [ 8h Kc Td 9c 3h ]
lalalaarry balance 975, didn't bet (folded)
PaulMokeski balance 810, didn't bet (folded)
ZJustin balance 1045, didn't bet (folded)
scooberyo balance 840, didn't bet (folded)
ophthalmodel balance 2080, bet 925, collected 1880, net +955 [ Kh Ad ] [ a pair of kings -- Ad,Kh,Kc,Td,9c ]
rushchair balance 1100, didn't bet (folded)
wchen balance 0, lost 925 [ Ah Jh ] [ high card ace -- Ah,Kc,Jh,Td,9c ]
BrewTdog balance 1925, lost 30 (folded)
ComeOnKid balance 1225, didn't bet (folded)

------
Well, in retrospect it was probably a bit too aggressive. As Justin knows, I was in two $1K's SNG's and trying to gauge the games there, since these are new tournies. Maybe I bit off more than I could chew by playing these many games at once,

There are a couple of points with the hand. The $125 is cutoff raise by an aggressive player. If I am going to raise, I don't really think I can make it an intermediate amount between $125 and all-in, hence if I am raising it is going to be all-in. I wuld rather raise than call because I don't want the BB to make a cheap call.

So I think the decision is between jamming and folding. Let's quantitatively compare the two options.

Folding: I simply lose 15.

Jamming: (A) if he folds I win 155.
(B) If he calls I win 955 or lose 925. If he has AK I am close to 28%, but it could be a better situation, like I could be against TT. Let's say I win 1/3 of the time on average when he calls. My equity is about 625 of the 925 (we are counting the whole 925 because we are saying folding is -15) I put in for an expected net of -300.

So the question is how often he has to fold to make my play profitable. LEt f be his chance of folding.

155*f - 300*(1-f) > -15. That is saying my equity for jamming is higher.

so 455f > 285 so f > 62.5 or so.

It's actually has to be a little better than this for two reasons--first the BB could simply wake up with a big hand and pick me off. Secondly, there is some non-linearity in chips but this effect is mostly offset by the time value of being able to play more tournies.

So is he going to fold 2/3 of the time or so? Maybe, if his range of hands is too wide, but in truth it was probably a small mistake.

I knew it was close when I made the play. My goal in these single tables is not to try to make each play perfectly but to try to play many of these at once proficiently. If I am going to make an error, like most players I will err on the aggressive side. Hope this helps.

Bill

then later,

-------
i deliberately left out calling since the analysis is much harder. You have to take into account the BB possibly overcalling and how you are going to play the flop. I certainly don't see it as "certainly +ev." In fact I see it as almost definitely -ev, though maybe less -ev than jamming or folding.

Say you call for 110. What is your plan postflop? 2/3 of the times you are going to miss. Your can have one of two plans. Play aggressively only when you hit (by check-raising or betting) and play agressively always, or some mixture of the two plans.

In terms of getting paid off when you hit, with AJ it is hard to see how it's going to happen unless you hit 2 pair or better. If you hit an A, it's hard to imagine a hand less than top pair putting their chips in. If you are playing your opponent for Ax in his distribution then we go back to jamming being the best play.

But let's say you call, the BB folds and essentially win the pot when an Ace or Jack hits (+155) and essentially lose the pot when one doesn't hit (-110). That's still -20 for the play , which is worse than folding -15.

As I said before I think the scenario above is optimistic for you. While you might be able to get paid off for more when you hit, you might also be the one paying off to AK/AQ when an A hits or to a higher pair if a J hits. While you may be able to bet/raise and take the pot when you miss, you might also get called and lose more. I mean you don't want to jam preflop because you might be dominated, but being dominated is also the worst situation for playing AJ postflop....

Bill

comments on his thinking and analysis. i want to also add that David Sklansky ranked Bill Chen #1 as part of his Top 10 Smartest Poker Players list.

[Apathy]

He acknowledges a small mistake on his part but in reality the mistake was much greater.

IMO:

He OVERestimates his pot equity when he is called.

He OVERestimates his opponents opening range (this one is not so clear but it is my experience that a typical range at this buyin and for that position and raise size calls more then 66%)

He mentions decreasing value of chips but dismisses it by suggesting that improved hourly rate makes up for the difference which is a bit of a cop out agrument. The fact that you doubling up does not really come close to doubing your equity in the tournament coupled with the fact that you are broke if you lose this hand is a key and overlooked point by chen.


This hand is a fold by a mile and a bigger mistake then he is argueing it is.

[tigerite]

I definitely agree, this is a fold - at 15/30 blinds. Now, with higher blinds, maybe 25/50, certainly 50/100, it wouldn't be so bad, depending on the situation and read on the player. That's another key thing here for me, no way he can have a read good enough to know his range at level 2.

[Daliman]

BIll is a brilliant mind, and calculates things I have no clue about, but he isn't that great a SNG player. Risking 925 to get however many chips he thinks is his EV is just bad. AT ain't calling here. Just goes to show you SNG's ain't all math.

The decreasing value of chips is WAY more significant than you're acknowledging.

[Oluwafemi]

anybody in favor of calling?

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
anybody in favor of calling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he has more FE postflop

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anybody in favor of calling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he has more FE postflop

[/ QUOTE ]

It MIGHT be less of a losing play to smooth call depending on how you wanted to play it post flop.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
anybody in favor of calling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of position vs a know aggressive, tricky player?

Not with AJ.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anybody in favor of calling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he has more FE postflop

[/ QUOTE ]

It MIGHT be less of a losing play to smooth call depending on how you wanted to play it post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

part of his argument is that he did'nt want the BB to be able to call cheaply.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anybody in favor of calling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of position vs a know aggressive, tricky player?

Not with AJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you would have called with A K after being reraised all-in with 9-players left with 15/30 blinds?

[Daliman]

Depends on my opponent.

If it's wchen, yes, but I ain't happy. You're getting odds on a race.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO:

He OVERestimates his pot equity when he is called.

He OVERestimates his opponents opening range (this one is not so clear but it is my experience that a typical range at this buyin and for that position and raise size calls more then 66%)

He mentions decreasing value of chips but dismisses it by suggesting that improved hourly rate makes up for the difference which is a bit of a cop out agrument

[/ QUOTE ]

This hand/explanation blew my mind (coming from supposedly the "smartest" poker player on the planet) when I first saw it in the WPT Forum. It's a good example of two skill sets in poker/SNGs. Some people are brilliant at working the numbers once you give them a fixed set of assumptions. However, if they make incorrect assumptions to start with, then no matter how brilliant they are at working numbers, their conclusions will be off.

Sometimes being really "smart" can be a curse - instead of just acknowledging to yourself that you f-d up and made a mistake, you'll go to extreme lengths to either justify it or say, "well, maybe it was a mistake, but it was still very close." Perfect example here.

And we all make overaggressive/dumb plays from time to time, I'm hating on the 20/20 hindsight "variable-tweaking flawed analysis," not so much the mistake itself.

I guess FPS continues to manifest itself in many different ways...

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO:

He OVERestimates his pot equity when he is called.

He OVERestimates his opponents opening range (this one is not so clear but it is my experience that a typical range at this buyin and for that position and raise size calls more then 66%)

He mentions decreasing value of chips but dismisses it by suggesting that improved hourly rate makes up for the difference which is a bit of a cop out agrument

[/ QUOTE ]

This hand/explanation blew my mind (coming from supposedly the "smartest" poker player on the planet) when I first saw it in the WPT Forum. It's a good example of two skill sets in poker/SNGs. Some people are brilliant at working the numbers once you give them a fixed set of assumptions. However, if they make incorrect assumptions to start with, then no matter how brilliant they are at working numbers, their conclusions will be off.

Sometimes being really "smart" can be a curse - instead of just acknowledging to yourself that you f-d up and made a mistake, you'll go to extreme lengths to either justify it or say, "well, maybe it was a mistake, but it was still very close." Perfect example here.

And we all make overaggressive/dumb plays from time to time, I'm hating on the 20/20 hindsight "variable-tweaking flawed analysis," not so much the mistake itself.

I guess FPS continues to manifest itself in many different ways...

[/ QUOTE ]

does Gigabet's Q 3 hand ring a bell? although i prefer folding this hand, i agree with his [wchen's] play and reasoning a whole lot more than Gigabet trying to justify and explain his.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
does Gigabet's Q 3 hand ring a bell? although i prefer folding this hand, i agree with his [wchen's] play and reasoning a whole lot more than Gigabet trying to justify and explain his.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, hold on there...I agree Giga's Q3 post was a bit rambling and probably pushing things too far, but the underlying point about the intangible aspect of relative stack sizes in SNGs affecting $EV (+$EV for some -cev plays, and -$EV for some +cev plays) is solid - that was really the point of his post and the hand he gave as an example was probably the most extreme one he could find. Giga's backed his shat up with some solid results for a long time, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things, and his posts (even the ones that go out there) are centered around solid logic/play (maybe he pushes it to and past the parameteres of that sometimes, but he doesn't ingore SNG reality/variables to make some neat numberical calculation work).

W. Chen was trying to argue that his AJ play was +cev (or on 2nd glance, at the least only slightly -cev), when in fact if you gave it more realistic variables it was more than slightly -cev. On top of that, it pretty much whiffed on the intangible aspect of SNGs where the skilled player has more +EV plays late in the game, and that by putting your entire tourney life on the line, you're passing up these later +EV plays a good % of the time (making it really bad from a $EV standpoint).

If I'm sitting in lecture and some lifetime econ. professor is talking out of his ass on something that doesn't jive with logic, it's probably because his ideas haven't had to have surived the reality of the business world. On the contrary, if some ex-CEO who kicked ass at the helm of a couple of Fortune 500 companies is saying some out there stuff, well...maybe his success has gone to his head and now he talks out of his ass, but I'll give him the benefit of doubt given his track record.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Giga's backed his shat up with some solid results for a long time, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things, and his posts (even the ones that go out there) are centered around solid logic/play (maybe he pushes it to and past the parameteres of that sometimes, but he doesn't ingore SNG reality/variables to make some neat numberical calculation work).

[/ QUOTE ]

so let me get this straight, you're willing to give Gigabet the benefit of the doubt with his Q 3 hand because it was, "centered around solid logic/play" and " he doesn't ingore SNG reality/variables to make some neat numberical calculation work)"? c'mon Gramps. forget to the extreme. the logic of that play was plain dumb, period! i don't care if it's Gigabet or Barry Greenstein.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Giga's backed his shat up with some solid results for a long time, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things, and his posts (even the ones that go out there) are centered around solid logic/play (maybe he pushes it to and past the parameteres of that sometimes, but he doesn't ingore SNG reality/variables to make some neat numberical calculation work).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
so let me get this straight, you're willing to give Gigabet the benefit of the doubt with his Q 3 hand because it was, "centered around solid logic/play" and " he doesn't ingore SNG reality/variables to make some neat numberical calculation work)"? c'mon Gramps. forget to the extreme. the logic of that play was plain dumb, period! i don't care if it's Gigabet or Barry Greenstein.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - even the rambling, going off stuff is prefaced with very logical, solid points that he attempts to give an example of -

[ QUOTE ]
For those that do not know, there was a very long and controversial thread(in the MTT forum) about another hand that I had played. Basically, I had made a -ev call because I had felt that the positive ev I would gain later in the game, if I win the hand, outweighs the negative ev of the specific hand. Because you cannot mathematically prove the positive equity of future happenings with any certainty, this is all theory...

[/ QUOTE ]

Giga opens that Q3 thread with a very solid point (referring to the KJ post in the MTT many months ago re: a -cev hand that (arguably) became +$EV because of the chip gap it'd open up the times he won/giving a big stealing edge that people in that particular tourney (2-table Step-5) would tend to respect). Maybe the Q3 example itself goes off a bit with how you recognize such -cev/+$EV situations and the model for such (or maybe not), but there's some phenomenal stuff in the underlying reasoning in a lot of his other posts, and he's a great SNG player (or that's my opinion having played 100s against him back in the day). I'm not saying, "because Giga said it it's right, I give him the benefit of the doubt and accept it as correct." I'm saying because he sees variables/nuances that some "theoriticians" completely whiff on and incorporates into his analysis & play, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on some of his opinions (not that I agree with all of them), because I know he considers variables that other (supposedly) very smart players miss.

WChen's post was a perfect example of a very good theoritican (with a fixed set of variables) who arrived at his numbers through flawed assumptions (IMO and ITO of just about everyone else), and completely whiffed on some SNG strategic concepts that made the highly aggressive play at Level II even worse from an $EV standpoint. Who cares how great your are at crunching the numbers once you've simplified everything down to numbers that you're comfortable/interested with. Playing poker is reality, if you're not great at figuring out what's going on, and/or you whiff on some of the nuances & intagible things going on in SNGs, that number crunching ain't gonna do you a whole lotta good.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the Q3 example itself goes off a bit with how you recognize such -cev/+$EV situations and the model for such

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe is pusing it.

also, there's a big difference between the K J hand and Q 3.
i could completely understand his play and logic in that hand [K J] but trying to dress his Q 3 as anything other than what it was--- a quackish move that got lucky---- damn near deserves an Oscar for:

[ QUOTE ]
Best Theoretical Explaination For Justifying Playing A Crap Hand When You Know Better Award

[/ QUOTE ]

[curtains]

IMO this is a pretty terrible play.

I think you are looking at the results rather than the actual play. Giga won the Q3 hand, but that is not the reason the play was made and not even the expected outcome, and I still think he makes valid points in that post. I agree that wchens play is not a good one, and his math is skewed to make it seem better than it was.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are looking at the results rather than the actual play. Giga won the Q3 hand, but that is not the reason the play was made and not even the expected outcome, and I still think he makes valid points in that post. I agree that wchens play is not a good one, and his math is skewed to make it seem better than it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not looking at the results of Giga's play; i'm looking at him playing the hand in the first place and then trying to justify it by making points that are completely ludicrous in the complex of the hand. for all we know, Giga could've actually misclicked on the hand by mistake and after seeing all the controversey it stirred up on 2+2, then decided to draft some elaborate dissertation on why it was justifiable. let's be real here. throw out the fact that he's able to make valid points in his post and ask yourself:

[ QUOTE ]
was it a sound and wise play?

[/ QUOTE ]

no matter how much math wchen calculates, pretty much noone is buying his argument of reraise pushing with A J in that spot with the blinds at 15/30. so my thing is, i'm finding it hard to see how some of you guys are buying Gig's argument of playing his Q 3 hand. it seems you all are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt of making a bad play simply because his posts are valid and are centered around solid/logic play.

you say wchen's math skewed his bad play and made it seem better than it was. Giga's logic, although based on the intangible aspect of relative stack sizes in SNGs affecting $EV (+$EV for some -cev plays, and -$EV for some +cev plays) [thnx Gramps], skewed his bad play and made it seem better than it was. a bad play is a bad play; the only difference is that some win and most lose.

[curtains]

for what its worth I also think that Gigabets raise with Q3o was terrible.

[citanul]

olu,

the hand and thread you brought up from the archives is quite a good one. i believe that wchen's play here is pretty bad, as has been pointed out by other posters.

however, i don't understand why you insist on bringing other unrelated hands into every discussion you enter. particularly, you bring up the Q3 hand about once per thread you start/enter.

my advice honestly is to stop trying to figure out that one hand, just let it go. understanding or believing you understand that one hand is not going to help you in any way to be a better poker player relative to the amount you could improve other parts of your game spending the time in other ways. it is far more likely i think that you become a worse poker player by trying to understand, let alone incorporate, such ideas into your day to day play.

please don't feel that i mean to be insulting here at all. you genuinely do bring up interesting hands and topics, and clearly do do a fair amount of reading in the archives and such, i just think you simultaneously get sidetracked or hooked on certain topics that in the long and short term hinder your growth as a player.

citanul

[curtains]

Hey, Id be confused too when some people constantly state Gigabets theory of stacksizes/blocks as though its gospel or as if it even makes the slightest bit of sense and isn't a bunch of random voodoo nonsense. Honestly if I had never visited 2+2 and came and saw people talking about that thread/advice as though it made sense or was valuable, I would likely never come back.

I would also assume that Gigabet was some guy who just thinks he is a good player, whom other people somehow think is good and likes to talk a lot, but whom actually is very confused. Of course, being around and seeing him play the high stakes games, I don't believe this is true, however its the impression I'd get based on his post and the reaction to his post.

Even if it does make sense in some hyper advanced way that I can't even begin to comprehend, it doesn't make any sense for me, or probably 99% of the posters here to think about.

Maybe the idea that Giga was trying to put forward is just that if you have a huge stack, sometimes your chips aren't quite as important to hold on to and you can splash around a little extra if you choose your spots wisely? If so that's probably true, although it doesn't read anything like that at all.

[Ryendal]

The Q3o move was bad in my opinion too, but the ideas behind are real for me.
But this block-stack theory was really useful when the Party blind structure was without the 75/150 level. with the actual structure, it's simply totally different IMO

If 1/1000 person understand this, it's still to much I believe /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[citanul]

look:

a) this thread isn't about that hand. or if it is, it shouldn't be. if people want to discuss that thread again, bump it, or start another thread about it. but i think that the wchen hand has discussable merit and should be talked about independently of that goddamn Q3 hand.

b) if there's any merit to the "block theory" it should be totally independent of the 75/150 blind level. if you believe that the existence of another level messes with this, your understanding of this "theory" is even worse than you think it is.

citanul

[Ryendal]

[ QUOTE ]
b) if there's any merit to the "block theory" it should be totally independent of the 75/150 blind level. if you believe that the existence of another level messes with this, your understanding of this "theory" is even worse than you think it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

I simply believe nobody understand better than me this theory, and I don't want to discuss about it anymore.

Good luck to everybody, let it friendly, I hope /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[citanul]

i mean to be quite friendly and helpful here, but i think that if you think that the addition of the 75/150 level eliminates the validity as such of this theory then you do not understand it as much as you think you are.

citanul

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
olu,

the hand and thread you brought up from the archives is quite a good one. i believe that wchen's play here is pretty bad, as has been pointed out by other posters.

however, i don't understand why you insist on bringing other unrelated hands into every discussion you enter. particularly, you bring up the Q3 hand about once per thread you start/enter.

my advice honestly is to stop trying to figure out that one hand, just let it go. understanding or believing you understand that one hand is not going to help you in any way to be a better poker player relative to the amount you could improve other parts of your game spending the time in other ways. it is far more likely i think that you become a worse poker player by trying to understand, let alone incorporate, such ideas into your day to day play.

please don't feel that i mean to be insulting here at all. you genuinely do bring up interesting hands and topics, and clearly do do a fair amount of reading in the archives and such, i just think you simultaneously get sidetracked or hooked on certain topics that in the long and short term hinder your growth as a player.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

the point of bring up Gig's Q 3 hand was due in part to it repeatedly being said/implied in this thread that Gig's play, although extreme, is given more credit because he make valid points in his explaination and is based on sound/logical play.

curtains hits it right on the head when he says a person reading that kind of example for the first time will be confused. if you wanna preach a theory based on stack sizes and blocks when it deals with taking -EV situations, his Q 3 hand, IMHO, is the wrong hand to use as an example and clearly sent the wrong message.

*citanul, remember all the copycat hands that sprang up after that by lower level players?*

also, you seem to be under the impression that i am somehow becoming a bad player by trying to understand this hand, thus incorporating ideas like it in my day to day play. this isn't the first time you've jumped to conclusions. i've had to set you straight on this same subject before. i am a $5.50 and $11 player. true, i love to read alot of higher buy-in posted hands more than i do lower buy-in ones, mostly in part, because i feel i'm more advanced in my thinking about the game than most players at my level. however, i do not try to incorporate too much, if any, of what i read and learn from advanced players in my games against numbskulls.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
also, you seem to be under the impression that i am somehow becoming a bad player by trying to understand this hand, thus incorporating ideas like it in my day to day play. this isn't the first time you've jumped to conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

while there's some meat to the rest of your post, i wanted to respond to this part immediately:

this is the second thread we've been in together in a row where you accused me of jumping to conclusions about your play, or saying you were becoming a bad player, when i was not doing anything of the sort. i merely stated that overthinking such posts as the ones that you tend to bring up can be dangerous and hurt players' games, possibly making them worse players. i did say in the past that you appeared to be hung up on some of the issues and possibly confused by them, though i didn't say a damn thing about your own play of hands. from the hands that i've seen you post, from my recollection, your play of hands is often quite correct, and i have no reason to believe you are a terrible player.

i was just again voicing the opinion that some of the threads that you seem to concentrate a lot of your study time on are ones that are not worth the time that you are spending on them. they are fairly useless and oft dangerous threads.

i don't like being accused of doing things like jumping to conclusions, particularly about something as trite as what you are accusing me of. olu, as i said, i don't think you're becoming a bad player, i just would be very likely to assume that from the threads and points you bring up you are *not becoming as good a player as you could become as fast as you could become it* by the order and method of your studies. i hear you have a mentor of some sort these days, and hopefully amongst the services he's helping you with, he is providing some kind of directed studies approach that will allow for a less random approach to things.

particularly, there's another point i'd like to make, and i hope that it make some amount of sense. note that almost all of the people who you probably would respect their advice and thinking, me(?), curtains, gramps, abel, raptor, dali, etc, players who at least i believe think well and know a thing or two (ok, maybe not raptor and dali and curtains and gramps), were not very interested at all in either the Q3 hand or the theory of blocks/stacks. in fact said players have repeatedly criticized them, and or just said they were unimportant. i'm not personally ready to say that there is no value to either one, but i am ready to say that neither one will having "understanding" of it, make you even a little bit (maybe a tiny bit) better sng or poker player. at least not in as much as they differ from other theories or obvious facts that are stated elsewhere.

the players who are most interested in those posts/hands are the same ones who are likely railbirding and sweating every high limit game that occurs, or something like that. they are the ones who attempt to learn things out of order, is my hypothesis. and in particular, they often attempt to learn things in a way that will make them "learn" wrong things, or learn things wrong.

enough rambling for now.

citanul

[Ryendal]

Citanul

Now, I'm smoking. My english is poor, and my thoughts too much abstracted.

I don't want to mean that the 75/150 level eliminates the validity of such a theory. I only want to mean, this theory was reinforced by the "lack" of the new level.
And also, everybody has his own theory, sometimes very similar.
To understand, and To explain are significantly two different qualities.
And I don't really believe in the old proverb "What is conceived well is stated clearly" Boileau

good luck everyone /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Oluwafemi]

that's my point, it may be dangerous to harp on such subjects or hands for some lower level players but not me. none of this, in no way, no matter what you personally feel, has any type of direct effect on the speed or depth of my advancement as a player. frankly, available playing and study time, as well as bankroll issues, have had the most profound effect. i simply don't have enought time or a large enough bankroll to successful play [consistently at the $5.50 and $10 level] the way i would like. that's one of the main reasons i became interested in a backer/mentor/coach. oh, and i don't have a mentor, i said that a poster on these boards that plays between $55-$215 offered to help me improve my game. we never got into a discussion of any set particulars. simply put, i do the best i can with what time i have and what bankroll i have at my disposal. it may not be the most optimal position to flourish in but i don't see i have much choice in the matter.