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

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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