|
|
#11
03-10-2004, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Has 3x become 4x?
I like 3.5x, which would be the max opening raise in Pot Limit, but that's just me.
|
|
#12
03-10-2004, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has 3x become 4x?
my understanding was 4-6 times BB, not 3 - and a bit more if there are antes involved...
I'll mix it up a little sometimes...come in with 6 times BB for AA, 3 times for KK - stuff like that....keep em guessing...but usually 4-6 is the way to go. RB
|
|
#13
03-10-2004, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 4 = 3, so there\'s no difference
mosch,
Nah. My son found this on a website, along with a bunch of other spurious mathematical "proofs," and I thought it was cute. And when I saw the title of Soss' post, it was just too good not to include.... Cris
|
|
#14
03-10-2004, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 4 = 3, so there\'s no difference
Hi eastbay,
[ QUOTE ] Gee, that's one high-stakes tournament... [/ QUOTE ] Yes, especially if the blinds are such that this statement is true. (There is one case....) Cris
|
|
#15
03-10-2004, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 4 = 3, so there\'s no difference
[ QUOTE ]
4(a + b - c) = 3(a + b - c) ... cancel common factors ... and ... [/ QUOTE ] Whoops. (a+b-c) = 0 by our original assumption (a+b=c). You just divided by 0 (twice!). Go stand in the corner. When I was a kid I had a shirt that showed this 'proof' for 1=2. No point really, just reminicing. AKQJTen, I'm sorry to hear about your wife (I'm assuming that the statement was true). May I reccommend being very careful about your poker playing (either take a break or step down in limits to where tilt won't destroy your bankroll) until you feel like your head is on straight... Chris
|
|
#16
03-10-2004, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has 3x become 4x?
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't feel it's worth risking 4x to win 1.5x. If I raise 3x with AK or a decent pair, and they call me with mediocre hands like AT, KJ, or 44, so be it. I expect to win more than I lose postflop anyway, and even more so when I start with the best hand. In fact, I like to raise somewhat less than 3x. For example, when the blinds are 50,100 on Pokerstars, I usually raise to 280. It works just as well as 300, and saves me 20 when it doesn't work out so well. [/ QUOTE ] Interesting. I usually make it 4x the BB up through 25-50, then 3.5x for the 50-100 level and then 3x from there on out. Reasoning being that I want to make the implied odds for calling me with speculative hands that much worse early on. I was playing a .50/1 NL table and someone was raising 2.70 as their 'standard' raise. What is funny about this is that is puts a lot of 'chips' on the table and if someone is not paying attention (i.e. playing multiple tables, watching TV, etc) it looks like a big raise and someone may bullett fold before they realize that it was in fact less than $3. Not that I ever did that. No no. Not me. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
|
|
#17
03-10-2004, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has 3x become 4x?
I don't like 2x. It does not seem to work anywhere near as often as 2.5x or more, at least if your goal is to get a fold preflop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
|
|
#18
03-10-2004, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 4 = 3, so there\'s no difference
Hi Chris,
[ QUOTE ] Whoops. (a+b-c) = 0 by our original assumption (a+b=c). You just divided by 0 (twice!). Go stand in the corner. [/ QUOTE ] Yup, I know. That's why I called it "mathematical chicanery." Cris
|
|
#19
03-10-2004, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 4 = 3, so there\'s no difference
[ QUOTE ]
Hi eastbay, [ QUOTE ] Gee, that's one high-stakes tournament... [/ QUOTE ] Yes, especially if the blinds are such that this statement is true. (There is one case....) Cris [/ QUOTE ] I guess you didn't get my "joke." It wasn't very good. eastbay
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
