Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

not true.

each bluff on each street is seperate.

his turn bet has fold equity.

if he is calling th turn just to bluff the river, then you are correct.

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, is it possible that this was all a planned streak to get action again? I remember about a month or so ago he was complaining how no one gave him action anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the answer to this, and probably noone here can say for sure. However, if he did just donk off 200K just to get action again, that was brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL.

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

he confirmed it in his amazon featured flow about table image

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

you don't have to pay for it, go to www.soundclick.com and search for Pragress.

Marnix

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page...m?bandID=99740



it takes a long time, to rake what ive got to leaf here

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the main thing his style has got going is that he has a massive bankroll and isnt afraid of variance, and i dont think you can say the same for alot of players in that game.

350 preflop hu.

potted on flop = $2,100 on turn.

say 1500 bet on turn ave. = $5,100 river.

If he pushs 14,000 on river. He needs Villian to fold 75% of the time to win money...

This doesnt account for the times he has the nuts.

its all just math. it can be tweaked anyway he wants it, based on opponent, etc. just have to plug in numbers:

percentage of time villian will call/fold.

percentage of time he has the nuts.

then he picks the right spots w/hand reading.

if people play passive against him, they cant win.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'd assume he always lost when called on the river, while this line was conceived from pf onwards, he needs to win more often than 75% to make a profit since half of the money in the pot was his own to begin with.

Marnix

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not essential that he makes a profit on the river bets, right? It seems that they could just serve as a threat and cause people to play worse against him during other parts of hands.

This reminds me of the concept of an "incredible threat" from game theory. This simply says that a strategy can be part of an equilibrium even though the final action taken in certain situations does not maximize EV. The action serves as a threat so that those situations won't happen in the first place. It's like saying "if you don't let me choose the radio station, I'll drive this car off a cliff", and having the other person believe you. I'm thinking this could be related to the overbetting, but I see that it doesn't map perfectly to that.