|
|
|
|
#1
11-23-2004, 08:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
QUESTION FOR SKLANSKY AND MASON
Are there times when making the best ev play would not be the best play. Another words if you were underbankrolled for the limit you were playing would it be correct to pass on slight positive ev plays to reduce your swings to avoid the chance of going broke. Or is the best ev play the only correct play. For one example raising 22's out of bb with 8 or 9 limpers in the pot. Or if you have your own examples where it would be correct to pass on slight ev situations to avoid the risk of going broke. That is of coarse if there is ever a time to do so. Thanks in advance for your responses.
|
|
#2
11-23-2004, 10:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: QUESTION FOR SKLANSKY AND MASON
I'd like to take this opportunity to respond for Mrs. Sklansky and Malmuth.
"Yes and no, it's close. Do you see why? I'll let others elaborate. Best Wishes, Davson." (jk, jk, all in good fun!)
|
|
#4
11-23-2004, 10:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: QUESTION FOR SKLANSKY AND MASON
Sure. Think about when you're in a limit tournament. You have a tournament life to consider and a limited bankroll. You're not going to necessarily jam a positive EV draw for value the same way you would in a ring game.
Luke
|
|
#5
11-23-2004, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: QUESTION FOR SKLANSKY AND MASON
Let’s say you have a net worth of $200,000. Someone offers to make a bet with you on a 199,999 to 1 shot. He’ll take the odds for $1.01. You pay $200,000 if he hits. He will only play the game once. Your EV is +$0.009995. Are you going to risk all of your life savings for an excellent chance of winning a penny?
If you are playing head-up no-limit poker with a $0.50 and $0.25 blinds. You have your life savings of $200,000 on the table. There are just the blinds in the pot. Your opponent bets $200,000 and you know that your chance of having the best hand on the river is exactly 50-50. Would Sklansky or Mason insist that you call because you have a +EV of $0.375? (Maybe Mason would because he’s mean and maybe David would just because he’d like to watch.) If you agree that it would be foolish to make the positive EV play in these extreme examples, it must be correct to not make +EV plays sometimes that are not as extreme, right?
|
|
#6
11-23-2004, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: QUESTION FOR SKLANSKY AND MASON
Thank you that was my point precisely.
|
|
#8
11-23-2004, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: hmm?
Well if thats what he's looking for in requirements to respond than you will surely get a reply as you statement is ugly and oboxious.
|
|
#10
11-23-2004, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: hmm?
Ok no problem.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
