[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.