Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

Cap if they're maniacs, call (to see whether anyone caps) if they're LAGs, fold if they're rocks. Why is this difficult?

The vast majority of opponents fall into none of these three categories.

GoT

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

in the live 6-12 game I play in, it would be perfectly appropriate to call three bets with TT. Online is way different, and higher limits different as well. Your book was written for small stakes games, and from what I can tell, live ones at that. For that, I agree completely, but until they have a pokertracker version that works in a live game, I have no stats to back it up. In my game, people are three betting and capping with J-9 suited, because they are in already, and since it is going to get there anyway, they may as well do it themselves. I am completely serious.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not making this stuff up. I'm not being nit-picky. If I put it in the book.. particularly if I backed it up with an example.. it's IMPORTANT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one want to say "Thank you." for taking the effort to make these important points online and in the books. Your books and posts have made playing winning poker a possibility for me.

Thank you.

-Saint_D

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
in the live 6-12 game I play in, it would be perfectly appropriate to call three bets with TT. Online is way different, and higher limits different as well. Your book was written for small stakes games, and from what I can tell, live ones at that. For that, I agree completely, but until they have a pokertracker version that works in a live game, I have no stats to back it up. In my game, people are three betting and capping with J-9 suited, because they are in already, and since it is going to get there anyway, they may as well do it themselves. I am completely serious.

[/ QUOTE ]
i agree with this 100%... however, i'm not talking about J9s that limped and got stuck for a raise and then put in then 3rd bet... i'm specifically talking about a 10 handed game where UTG raises and UTG+1 3 bets. i agree also that it may be "perfectly appropriate"... if "perfectly appropriate" means "not -EV". the EV of the play hasn't been proven to me however.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in the live 6-12 game I play in, it would be perfectly appropriate to call three bets with TT. Online is way different, and higher limits different as well. Your book was written for small stakes games, and from what I can tell, live ones at that. For that, I agree completely, but until they have a pokertracker version that works in a live game, I have no stats to back it up. In my game, people are three betting and capping with J-9 suited, because they are in already, and since it is going to get there anyway, they may as well do it themselves. I am completely serious.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i agree with this 100%... however, i'm not talking about J9s that limped and got stuck for a raise and then put in then 3rd bet... i'm specifically talking about a 10 handed game where UTG raises and UTG+1 3 bets. i agree also that it may be "perfectly appropriate"... if "perfectly appropriate" means "not -EV". the EV of the play hasn't been proven to me however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe Ed is saying if you are in EP1 (UTG+3) you should be cold calling with TT. I read this to mean if you are there are a a numer of people in the hand, and those people have weak raising (and calling) standards, there will be a lot of these guys going to far after the flop. If this is so, a hand like TT is reasonable.

eg.
UTG raises, UTG+2 calls,
EP1 two bets, EP2 calls,
folded to C/o who three bets, you are on the button...CALL.

I don't think Ed is betting his reputation on the idea of always calling three bets cold with TT. I interpret it to mean that at times it is OK, and you have to think a bit. If the raisers are loose, it might be OK. I think what it says in the book is reasonable for the games I play in.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe Ed is saying if you are in EP1 (UTG+3) you should be cold calling with TT.

[/ QUOTE ]
that is exact what the chart says should be the "default" play.

i agree with all but a few of these default plays... one of them being the Ax and Kx suited hands early position when you expect the pot to be large, the other is this TT play.

i just argued it shouldn't be the default play... if anything fold should be default and call/raise should be the 5% play if other certain parameters are met, such as tendancy for people behind you to also call the 3 bets cold, or tendancy for the UTG and UTG+1 to raise and re-raise with hands worse than TT.

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.

Phew. At first glance I thought you were going to call me a liar.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

And then challenge you to a heads up match for $10k [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I agree with El Diablo. I am a 3BB/100 winner and have had a 300 BB downswing, but if I was really playing my A game through that stretch, it probably would have only been 230-250.

And so it begins... again.....
 

So, what was the over-under on the amount of time it would take after the release of the book before people started nit-picking the pre-flop section? Anyone?

You have pocket T's, and it's three bet to you. Who cares what you do? Ed says call, I'd probably fold, la di dadda dadda.

BTW, my sister bought the book and I've been looking it over. On the balance, I'm really impressed with it. There are some things I would change, but a few of the concepts presented therein were really well presented. The other nice thing about the book-- less than 5% of its readers will have either the natural intelligence or the poker acumen to properly apply the advice, which means the games should get even better. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Can't wait till people start tossing isolation raises at me on the flop with middle pair and a back door flush draw...

Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
 

Everyone must be as lazy as me! Proving Ed wrong is cake.

Here is the Algorithm.

Take your Risk of Ruin equation and plug in your unacceptable loss. 500BB?

Plug in confidence level 95% (3 Simgmas or whatever)

Solve for Standard Deviation.

Square it.

Wa La!

If you are playing a game where your variance is higher than this number then you are at risk of losing your bankroll.

Sklansky/Mason?? in some OLD articles talks about optimum SD for LIMIT poker.

Jim Brier (Middle Limit Hold'em) coached a PRO B&M player who Jim says was playing winning poker who not only lost +300BB but was DOWN over a 1yr period!

We all know there are plenty of marginal plays that can be based on math or reads or how many tamales you ate. Whether or not your BR can handle them is easy to calculate. (I'm too lazy for easy)

These questions also are a LOT more relevant in No Limit games, Omaha, Casino whoring, etc... I know that we aren't talking about those, but its the same math.

Get a calulator.

See you at the tables!