congrats. you guys win

[pfkaok]

i hope you all feel very proud. the overall stubborness of this forum chalks up another victim. i will not continue to argue my ideas, which i think have merit, but clearly nobody on here wants to have an intelligent, thought-provoking discussion about it. this has certainly been a developing trend around here. rather than try to gain what we can, and look to learn what there is to learn from a post, people insist on showing how smart they are by calling the poster stupid. a lot of times somebody will present a new idea that could have a lot of merit if it were looked into more, but since they didn't type it out in a way thats 100% clear to anyone on a first read through, all it gets is flamed. its very ridiculous. its good to be critical of posts, but you need to do it in a constructive way. often times, for severly flawed logic this can be done very succinctly, and does not have to include LOL, or the word "retard".

i'm sorry, but this is very upsetting to me as a young, aspiring poker pro, that the site that has taught me so much is turning into what it is.

in all honestly, if TOP had never been written, and a young player came on this site trying to share some brilliant, new insightful theory, like FTOP, but typed it up in a slightly unlear manner, i have no doubt that he would get flamed on these boards.

[MLG]

See this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3793333&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

edit: hopefully link fixed. I just posted it in one of the other threads, and thought it would be better here.

[rockythecat99]

MLG link takes u to another forum not a post.

[Sam T.]

[ QUOTE ]
See this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=plnlpoker)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confuzzd. This is the Mid-Stakes PL and NL board.

[MLG]

sorry. link fixed.

[Cactus Jack]

I think the operative word you use is "young." Age may cure that condition.

Dude, I'm sorry you feel hurt. People here were really trying to help you. It's not about winning or losing, and that you feel it is, sucks. It's about ALL of us winning, which we do when we build on each others' accumulated wisdom. When you get entrenched in a position, you stifle your own growth, and you are both very entrenched and very stifled.

Your opinion on this forum is also completely in error. Hey, if I could make a post which in essence said "Math Sucks" on *this* site, then everybody is safe! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Hope you'll stick around. You can do my taxes.

CJ

[pfkaok]

yes. i saw that. i've read TPFAP, so i know the idea of chips being worth more with a short stack is nothing new or novel. but i think that theory is only accurate at times. i think that its NOT simply an inverse relationship between total Tchips, and value per Tchip. i think that the value of chips goes down as you go from say red to orange, but then goes back up when your stack gets big. kind of like an upwards parabola, with the bottom valley somewhere in the orange zone. that is my theory. maybe its not entirely accurate or correct, but it would be nice to have THAT actually discussed, rather than just getting flamed for my inability to clearly state what i was trying to say.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
rather than try to gain what we can, and look to learn what there is to learn from a post,

[/ QUOTE ]

I, for one, learned a lot from the threads regarding this whole 'red zone' debacle. Just because I didn't come to the conclusion that the 'theory' is valid, doesn't mean I didn't learn about poker from the discussion of why it fails.

[ QUOTE ]
people insist on showing how smart they are by calling the poster stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I don't mean to attack you, but I do want to defend some other posters, so I have to say that no one in these discussion has made more ad hominem attacks or poisoning the well fallacies than you.

[ QUOTE ]
in all honestly, if TOP had never been written, and a young player came on this site trying to share some brilliant, new insightful theory, like FTOP, but typed it up in a slightly unlear manner, i have no doubt that he would get flamed on these boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the smell of ego in the afternoon.

[MLG]

unfortunately, you missed the main thrust of the post.

[Firefly]

Please stay.
While you will not find my name on any of these posts over the last few days, i feel that you and betgo have been very cordial discussion what is obviously (and possibly not correct) theory.
It takes guts to post something that is completely out of the norm of poker and then attempt to defend it with tact and intelligence. I found that i had to evaluate certain concepts in terms of my small stack play and possible +EV of a short stack.
In short, please stay, i'd just stay away from this crazy debate/flamewar this has turned into. Take a week or so off the site and come back. We have a short memory here and you will be accepted back with open arms.
Thanks
Alex (Firefly)

[gergery]

You need to decide why you read and post here. Is it:
a) to learn and get better at playing poker
b) to feel smart and respected

If you want to improve your poker then its very obvious that you should get over your hurt ego (which is very natural to have in this spot), and continue to post.

It’s somewhat less obvious that getting over your hurt ego and continuing to post is also the best path towards being smart and respected here.

-g

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
unfortunately, you missed the main thrust of the post.

[/ QUOTE ]

well. ok. el D's post though was not very well thought out. do you actually believe that you have more +EV pushing with a 12BB stack? i can do some math to disprove it if you like, but it seems that it should be fairly obvious to a very experienced MTTer like yourself. of course, if you pushed with the exact same range in the same spot, then you'd have, on average a larger stack after doing so with the 12BB stack than with the 6 BB stack. but that doesn't mean that the play is more +EV. if on average, i pushed with x-y range with 12BB and my expected stack after the play was 12.2 BB, then that's +EV. if, with the same range i could push with the 6BB stack and, on average have 6.4BB, then thats MORE +EV. yeah, you steal the blinds more often with the bigger stack, but that also means that you're in MUCH worse shape when you do get called, and also, you stand to lose much more, since your stack is 12BB.

[MLG]

you honestly think that was the main point of my post? I'll sum it up. You are wrong, at least 4-5 excellent players/posters take the time to explain patiently why you are wrong. You insist that they are closeminded and you are right. Your need to be right is overriding your desire to get better at poker. That sucks.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
yes. i saw that. i've read TPFAP, so i know the idea of chips being worth more with a short stack is nothing new or novel. but i think that theory is only accurate at times. i think that its NOT simply an inverse relationship between total Tchips, and value per Tchip. i think that the value of chips goes down as you go from say red to orange, but then goes back up when your stack gets big. kind of like an upwards parabola, with the bottom valley somewhere in the orange zone. that is my theory. maybe its not entirely accurate or correct, but it would be nice to have THAT actually discussed, rather than just getting flamed for my inability to clearly state what i was trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me use an analogy here. Let’s say Poker is like….oh, maybe, say, ….an auto race (I just made that up now).

The guy who is the race leader is like the chip leader. The guys who are several laps behind are like the shortstacks. Guys in the middle of the pack are middle stacks.

Your comments on the relative value of red and orange stacks is like saying, “well, the guys who are way behind in the race and way ahead in the race can both accelerate real quick ‘cause no one is near them, while the guys in the middle don’t have that flexibility”. That’s true, but what you miss here that having those advantages inherently gives up something even more important: position in the race. Because if you are several laps behind in the auto race, you still need to catch up and pass the cars in the middle if you ever want to finish first.

So the advantages that you correctly point out about being a shortstack are more than offset by the disadvantages inherent in being a shortstack to start with. And being able to move up at a greater rate than the middle stacks is more than offset by the fact that you have that much farther to travel.

--greg

[Cactus Jack]

A long time ago, my best friend got into a fight with a secondary friend of ours. At a point, he had this kid on the sidewalk, sitting on his chest and holding onto his hair, and dropping his head onto the cement.

"Give up."
"no"
Thump.
"Give up?"
"no"
Thump.
"Man, this guy is so stubborn he'll get his brains beat out on the sidewalk rather than give up," I said. I was much smarter at 14 than I am now. Too many tokes.

You're getting terribly close to becoming irrelevant here. Not where you want to be.

CJ

[Exitonly]

I think if you can wade through all the insulting comments, which unfortunately there were a lot of, there actually was a good bit of discussion. There were a bunch of good points made, and i don't know why you're getting so flustered by it.

[Cactus Jack]

Unless your Dale Jarrett at Taledega. Then being behind is clearly +EV. He stays out of the big wrecks which occur in the middle of the pack and often is up front at the end. The leaders can't put him out in the pits. That's the difference between poker and racing. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ok, so I'm a redneck poker player. hehe Good analogy, tho.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

You need to decide why you read and post here. Is it:
a) to learn and get better at playing poker
b) to feel smart and respected

If you want to improve your poker then its very obvious that you should get over your hurt ego (which is very natural to have in this spot), and continue to post.

It’s somewhat less obvious that getting over your hurt ego and continuing to post is also the best path towards being smart and respected here.

-g

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you. you make a very good point, and i certainly respect what you have written in your posts a lot, and usually enjoy reading them. i'm def not talking about people like you here. and it wasn't so much that my ego was hurt, it was more just all out frustrating trying to clearly state what it was i was trying to state. i said that this theory is "similar" to gigs stack size thing, by which i mean i read his post over MANY times before finally understading it well enough to apply it at times to my own MTT game. by no means am i taking credit for coming up with a new, revolutionary theory. for me it took a long time before this stacksize thing finally clicked, but it was a great feelin when it finally did. i tried my best to explain what i had learned to others, but my poor wording, or inability to express myself clearly, destroyed any chance i had of that.

sorry if it sounds like i'm trying to compare myself to gig, or sklansky. i really had no intention of coming off that cocky. i was simply using them, since they are GREAT THINKERS, to prove my point of all the senseless berating that goes on here. and just how rare it is that a new idea will get looked at with an open mind, and critiqued in a constructive way.

i can't be the only one here fed up with the way that so many people seem to just scan all these posts with an eye for how they can make the poster look as stupid as possible. sure, some posts are very silly and stupid, with ideas that are very harmful and bad if you think they're true. and when the logic is THAT severly flawed, it can usually be explained in a few short sentences or less, constructively, why it is incorrect. but the fact is, many of these posts have value to them, and can improve people's games if they were given a chance rather than just immediately flamed

[pooh74]

Great analogy...and yes, its that simple.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me use an analogy here. Let’s say Poker is like….oh, maybe, say, ….an auto race (I just made that up now).

The guy who is the race leader is like the chip leader. The guys who are several laps behind are like the shortstacks. Guys in the middle of the pack are middle stacks.

Your comments on the relative value of red and orange stacks is like saying, “well, the guys who are way behind in the race and way ahead in the race can both accelerate real quick ‘cause no one is near them, while the guys in the middle don’t have that flexibility”. That’s true, but what you miss here that having those advantages inherently gives up something even more important: position in the race. Because if you are several laps behind in the auto race, you still need to catch up and pass the cars in the middle if you ever want to finish first.

So the advantages that you correctly point out about being a shortstack are more than offset by the disadvantages inherent in being a shortstack to start with. And being able to move up at a greater rate than the middle stacks is more than offset by the fact that you have that much farther to travel.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. well, i'll try to apply it to your analogy. if you were in the middle of the pack, and i gave you a choice. you can use a nitro booster that will either shoot you out inot the lead, or stall your can for a minute, which will wind you up in the back of the pack. would you be willing to take that gamble? i think that a lot of times it would probably improve your overall chances in the race, esp if the prize pool in that race were particularly top heavy.

[rockythecat99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me use an analogy here. Let’s say Poker is like….oh, maybe, say, ….an auto race (I just made that up now).

The guy who is the race leader is like the chip leader. The guys who are several laps behind are like the shortstacks. Guys in the middle of the pack are middle stacks.

Your comments on the relative value of red and orange stacks is like saying, “well, the guys who are way behind in the race and way ahead in the race can both accelerate real quick ‘cause no one is near them, while the guys in the middle don’t have that flexibility”. That’s true, but what you miss here that having those advantages inherently gives up something even more important: position in the race. Because if you are several laps behind in the auto race, you still need to catch up and pass the cars in the middle if you ever want to finish first.

So the advantages that you correctly point out about being a shortstack are more than offset by the disadvantages inherent in being a shortstack to start with. And being able to move up at a greater rate than the middle stacks is more than offset by the fact that you have that much farther to travel.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. well, i'll try to apply it to your analogy. if you were in the middle of the pack, and i gave you a choice. you can use a nitro booster that will either shoot you out inot the lead, or stall your can for a minute, which will wind you up in the back of the pack. would you be willing to take that gamble? i think that a lot of times it would probably improve your overall chances in the race, esp if the prize pool in that race were particularly top heavy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Omg did he just say stall his car in a race??? Pf please just stop man. I am not trying to insult you but this is ridiculous.

[stew77]

PFK,
i agree 100% with your comments and the way you feels towards the forum. Your only option is to suck it up and try and get what your looking for out of it. The fact is that this site has so many Egos, unjustified and not, that for every credible and helpful post you read, you will just as easily find 2or3 useless rants/ego boosters.
Many of the "top" players have complete disregard for those starting out a the point they were once at. I have sent PMs to different players, and I hope these posters dont mind if I say who, but AZK and Greg Raymer were the only ones to reply, no matter how big or small the question .
It is a tough situation, bringing all these different personalities and poker minds together for one common goal - to get better.
I just believe that many posters could be a bit more positive and not be so ignorant sometimes.

stew

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me use an analogy here. Let’s say Poker is like….oh, maybe, say, ….an auto race (I just made that up now).

The guy who is the race leader is like the chip leader. The guys who are several laps behind are like the shortstacks. Guys in the middle of the pack are middle stacks.

Your comments on the relative value of red and orange stacks is like saying, “well, the guys who are way behind in the race and way ahead in the race can both accelerate real quick ‘cause no one is near them, while the guys in the middle don’t have that flexibility”. That’s true, but what you miss here that having those advantages inherently gives up something even more important: position in the race. Because if you are several laps behind in the auto race, you still need to catch up and pass the cars in the middle if you ever want to finish first.

So the advantages that you correctly point out about being a shortstack are more than offset by the disadvantages inherent in being a shortstack to start with. And being able to move up at a greater rate than the middle stacks is more than offset by the fact that you have that much farther to travel.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. well, i'll try to apply it to your analogy. if you were in the middle of the pack, and i gave you a choice. you can use a nitro booster that will either shoot you out inot the lead, or stall your can for a minute, which will wind you up in the back of the pack. would you be willing to take that gamble? i think that a lot of times it would probably improve your overall chances in the race, esp if the prize pool in that race were particularly top heavy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now let's say that all those nitro boosters do is bring you to the middle of the pack again, where they can't be used again (to make the analogy fit a little tighter). Not only that, but...say...40% of the time, they cause you to crash (and 40% is being lenient). Thus, being in the back of the pack allowed you the opportunity to use those boosters, but at a risk, and the very best result was that you're back in the middle.

[Stipe_fan]

I think everybody needs to step back and take a deep breath.

Firstly, I read more than I write on this board. But what I am seeing is multiple personalities of the posters clashing here.

MLG has never minced words. Could he be a little nicer when he gives his reply, maybe. I don't know him personally. Someone mentioned egos at work here. I don't think it is a ego thing. It is just him. All his posts have a matter-of-fact-ness to them.

If we all are a little more positive in our posts I think it would incite a more instructive, rather destructive, board. Not positive in the way of always agreeing with the poster, just be less derisive when posting.

Stipe

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
MLG has never minced words. Could he be a little nicer when he gives his reply, maybe. I don't know him personally. Someone mentioned egos at work here. I don't think it is a ego thing. It is just him. All his posts have a matter-of-fact-ness to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

as i had said before, it really was more frustration that anything else for me. and MLG wasn't one of the posters who was frustrating me. he maybe had 1 or 2 posts in there that were short and uninformative, but for the most part his disputes with my ideas were done with some thought, and rationale. actually trying to help me. my extreme frustration was with posters who would make several posts, with their strongest points being, "12 is bigger than 6, you are retarded" those posts server ZERO purpose, other than to cause problems. and nobody gets anything positive from them. these people who make no effort to understand the ideas are annoying and have only negative effefts on this forum. MLG is def not one of them.

[Jurollo]

While I understand where you are coming from this forum is far from what you depicted. In fact, I think the MTT is the best forum on this site for listening to, and analyzing new ideas. Sometimes ideas come along and get shot down by many people for various reasons but that is just how it goes. Most of the posters here are very young, i seem like an elder at only 22, so sometimes things become slightly immature in the way they are handled. I think you really need to take a look at where MTT was a year ago and where it is now, you'll see it is a much better place for strategy and less for just sweat threads. I would like to think Lloyd, Chief, TTIU and myself have a little part to do with that. Just rethink things, ideas are always welcome here and will always be debated with vigor. Keep posting!
~Justin

[Cactus Jack]

I see people disagreeing without being too disagreeable.

Ever been on RPG?

[pfkaok]

thanks jurollo. point well taken. lately i've spent most of my time in this forum, but i've been a regular on other forums for a while, and its true that a lot of others are much worse. to be honest i think that most of my beef comes from the fact that lately i've spent a lot more time in this forum than i ever have in any single forum. for some reason since i've been playing more MTTs, i've found that they appeal to me more than any other form i've played. so i've had much more of a desire to put in tons of hours, and really challenge myself to keep pushing my game. but it just seems like so many people on here are very unreceptive to anything that challenges "common knowledge"

this is mostly the medium strength, pretty good players, who get more satisfaction from proving others wrong then they do from learning, and challenging themselves. you, MLG, and the truly TOP posters, aren't like that, and as gergery put, the fact that you aren't likely is a huge factor in why you guys are the best.

and i know what you mean too. i'm 25, and a lot of times i feel like i'm an old man around here.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]

and i know what you mean too. i'm 25, and a lot of times i feel like i'm an old man around here.

[/ QUOTE ]

25? You've still got milk on your breath! I'm a crusty-old 31.

Think of it this way. They're kids. Kids are rude, and think they're infallible. I know that I had a nasty habit of stating my informed opinion as a proven fact when I was 19. Why should the members of this forum be any different?

But they're smart kids, and have valuable things to say. Just ignore the puffery.

That being said, to the kids (defined as anyone younger than I am): Learn some manners. Manners will get you places in life that no amount of money ever will.

[PrayingMantis]

It is never easy to present some kind of revolutionary and non-conventional idea, and to be fiercely attacked because of it. It also takes guts, and I have no problem admiting it. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. And in this specific discussion you were wrong, and was proven to be wrong time and again by many people, in a very logical, informative, and methodical way. You were also flamed, sometimes in a harsh manner, but that's just the reality of on-line discussion.

Moreover, people always feel like martyrs of some kind when they come up with new ideas, with regard to anything, and are getting attacked and criticized - but the thing is that the huge huge majority of these news and "revolutionary" ideas are simply wrong. Very very rarely, in any field, a revolutioary idea turns out to be correct. That's life.

If you think that your theory is correct, I don't understand why you are "giving up". No way you should give up, this is completely crazy. The problem, of course, is that your theory is self-contradictory in many aspects, and at points also simply illogical. That's why big parts of the discussion were about logic, and not about poker (as you would have "liked" it to be) because the LOGIC behind many of your points is flawed, and this has nothing to do with poker in particular.

[ QUOTE ]
in all honestly, if TOP had never been written, and a young player came on this site trying to share some brilliant, new insightful theory, like FTOP, but typed it up in a slightly unlear manner, i have no doubt that he would get flamed on these boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

FTOP is extremely intuitive, I would even say trivial. And in fact, I think that any player with a basic understanding of the game and EV should get to it, in some form, without the "help" of Sklansky. It's also funny IMO that it is titled a "thoerem", to give it some pretentions mathematicl flavour, while in fact it is just a rather banal notion about the nature of this game - but this has to do with Sklansky's ego more than anything else, I guess.

Anyway, I don't understand why you say on this post that "we win", and you supposedly "give up", while it's very clear that you believe that your ideas are still very valid and all the people who criticize/flame you are wrong or misunderstanding you. Either admit you are wrong, or keep "fighting" for them... I don't understand this "third option": not talking about it anymore as a "protest" against this forum?

NEVER GIVE UP PFKAOK!!!!!!!! I believe in your theory.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
el D's post though was not very well thought out.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? Much like all of my posts, it was brilliantly thought out.

[ QUOTE ]
if on average, i pushed with x-y range with 12BB and my expected stack after the play was 12.2 BB, then that's +EV. if, with the same range i could push with the 6BB stack and, on average have 6.4BB, then thats MORE +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that one way I'm going to end up w/ 12.2BB and the other way I'm going to end up w/ 6.4BB shows exactly why I better not take any unnecessary risks with 12BB that put me in the "red zone" because even if my "EV is better" in the "red zone," where I end up is a much crappier place.

[gergery]

If my choices are:

a) stay where I am in the pack, or
b) take a gamble where 50% of the time it will shoot me way ahead but the other 50% of the time I will crash and get knocked out, then it is clearly right to take the gamble.

Because in autoraces as in poker the incremental jump in prize money/prestige from knocked out to middle of pack is very small, but the incremental jump in payout from being in the middle of the pack to winning is enormous.

(note: apparently you would not do this if you’re at Taledega) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

-g

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
a) stay where I am in the pack, or
b) take a gamble where 50% of the time it will shoot me way ahead but the other 50% of the time I will crash and get knocked out, then it is clearly right to take the gamble.

Because in autoraces as in poker the incremental jump in prize money/prestige from knocked out to middle of pack is very small, but the incremental jump in payout from being in the middle of the pack to winning is enormous.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. well this is the just of my theory. again. i appologize, for the misleading title. my main idea was the nitro concept. if i'm a midstack, it will be worth taking a breakeven gambe (even slightly -EV) against a shorter stack, where if i win i move way up, and can gain the benifits of having an M in the high teens, or over 20. and if i lose, it won't be that bad b/c i'm still alive, with a very playable short stack. that is the WORST CASE THOUGH. i'm not ssaying that i want to take a gamble where i'm assured of going to a red stack. but i will take a breakeven gamble if the gamble will take me to a redstack IF it doesn't work out.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that one way I'm going to end up w/ 12.2BB and the other way I'm going to end up w/ 6.4BB shows exactly why I better not take any unnecessary risks with 12BB that put me in the "red zone" because even if my "EV is better" in the "red zone," where I end up is a much crappier place.

[/ QUOTE ]

read my last post. i'm sorry about the confusing wording, but i never meant to imply that i would PREFER a smaller stack over a midsized one. but the combined benifits of having a big stack, and the amount of +EV spots you get in the red zone IMO, make taking certain gambles correct in the orange zone. so paradoxically, it will become correct to take certain -EV gambles with smaller stacks(like calling their push), while at the same time avoiding slightly+EV gambles vs. bigger stacks(like open pushing from EP with AJo at a full table with an M of 8)

[ChrisW]

As I read through this series of threads, I see the following "dialogue":

betgo/pfkaok: "argument X"

many others: "Clearly, argument Y is retarded. You two should stop making argument Y."

betgo/pfkoak: "But we're making argument X, not argument Y."

others: "Don't bother us with irrelevancies."

Is this some kind of practical joke on betgo/pfkoak? Because if not, some of you need a remedial reading comprehension course.