Theory of Poker: Chapters 11-12 Discussion
 

Sorry guys, my trip to Canterbury last night caused me to be late with this, but lets get posting on these topics.

Chapter 11
 

Section for Chapter 11 discussion

Chapter 12
 

Section for Chapter 12 discussion

Re: Theory of Poker: Chapters 11-12 Discussion
 

Going to read these tomorrow and catch up with comments on Chapters 4-12, probably post some of my own comments late tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday. Keep this project going, it's a great thing! What book might be next? SSH? (hint hint)

- UW

Ooh, the semi-bluff....
 

Sorry i've been less involved than i intended, but this is the real "meat" of discussion.

I'll start with a question and answer, going from memory, and a little bit of discussion.

Q: What key assumption are necessary for a semi-bluff to make any sense?

A: That there's a significant chance that your can win the pot immediately.

Maybe this is obvious and very simplistic fare for a knowledgeable audience, but to me it's very fundamental. For example, i get the impression that people read HEPFAP and conclude it doesn't "work" because the games it describes are so different from the typical low-limit game. Maybe i'm just imagining that, because the 2+2 crowd certainly doesn't think that, but i get the impression that many people do.

Here's another Q that i'll refer back to the book for the A:

Q: Why is it often a bad idea to semi-bluff when you're last to act?

A: See p. 102 (4th ed.), "When Not to Semi-bluff"

Re: Ooh, the semi-bluff....
 

[ QUOTE ]


Q: What key assumption are necessary for a semi-bluff to make any sense?

A: That there's a significant chance that your can win the pot immediately.


[/ QUOTE ]

I totally disagree with Slansky's examples #33, 34, and especially 35 in TPFAP, which all deal with semi-bluffing. I've posted about it before, but not gotten huge responses. Perhaps a little disagreement with Slansky will get this discussion rolling. Thoughts?

Re: Ooh, the semi-bluff....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Q: What key assumption are necessary for a semi-bluff to make any sense?

A: That there's a significant chance that your can win the pot immediately.


[/ QUOTE ]

I totally disagree with Slansky's examples #33, 34, and especially 35 in TPFAP, which all deal with semi-bluffing. I've posted about it before, but not gotten huge responses. Perhaps a little disagreement with Slansky will get this discussion rolling. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you post the examples please? I don't own TPFAP

Bump!
 

Wow, i figured our discussion would eventually die out but i thought it'd take a little longer. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

When i get a chance i'll try to post the HEPFAP examples.

Anyone reading through TOP still?

Re: Bump!
 

[ QUOTE ]


When i get a chance i'll try to post the HEPFAP examples.



[/ QUOTE ]

He was talking about hand examples from TPFAP not HEPFAP

Re: Bump!
 

I'm still in, but haven't yet had a chance to read the last 'assignment'. Canada plays for the gold tonight, so I definitely won't get to it tonight (will be severely beer-impaired). Will try to post some discussion comments on Wed or Thurs.