|
|
#21
10-27-2005, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: an example of why red zone is good
I'm sorry but you are demonstrating yet again very confused thinking and I don't need to read your whole very long post in order to understand it.
[ QUOTE ] my assertion is that having a small stack gives you more +tEV spots [/ QUOTE ] This is completely irrelevant. In fact when you have a tiny stack every spot is +EV for you. Please read this: Magical Pink Zone [ QUOTE ] So, i'm saying that in certain spots, when you have a midsized stack, its advantagous to take gamles. [/ QUOTE ] This is completely in contradiction to your own theory, and specifically betgo's theory, which both talk about how limited is your play in the "orange zone", since you supposedly CAN'T play as much as you would "want", or "need", or whatever. Now you're saying that it is in fact advantagous to take MORE gambles in this "orange zone", in order to GET OUT OF IT, so you won't need to play so "TIGHT" and in a "-EV" way. It's all getting more and more ridiculous by the second. 
|
|
#22
10-27-2005, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: an example of why red zone is good
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Well that settles it then. [/ QUOTE ] well yes. if nobody wants to try to take a bit of time to think through my arguement, and make an intelligent coutnerpoint, then sure. there's really no point in all these lame, thoughtless 1-liners that everyone keeps giving. [/ QUOTE ] I've read all these threads and my response is SO WHAT? People are totally misreading Harrington. Poker is math, but it's NOT. Those who are compelled to call because the pot odds tell them to call are soon to be out on their butts, sooner or later. You can do all the math calculations you are able to, and still don't get it. People on 2+2 are completely blind to anything but the math, and it's pretty sad. (Ok, many but not all. There are some pretty smart guys here, too.) The rest who believe that the only way they can play is pushbotting everything are walking examples of Poker for Dummies. Winning poker is not just getting in with the best of it. It's surviving when you don't get hands. It's outplaying, outlasting and outwitting your opponents. (Hmm, sounds like a good tagline for a reality show about survivors.) It's making him fold his hand when he has you beat, by making him believe you've got a better hand. Pushing all in preflop is cowardly poker. I don't care what you're numbers say, you are saying I'll take my chances because I'm afraid I may get beat by a superior player who understands psychology and position and when to bet on nothing. You're saying, "I'd rather be lucky than good." Winning poker is more about playing post-flop. All you math whizzes seem able to do is play pre-flop. You either don't want to learn or afraid to learn how to play the turn and river. Here's a great stat for you: Most books are about preflop. According to statistics, since 90% of the poker books is about preflop play, then preflop is most important. Wrong!!! It's EASIER to write about preflop play. It's harder to PLAY postflop, so it's harder to write. Harrington should be applauded for the amazing amount of postflop play in both books. Stuff it appears many on this forum have skipped over. Give me M12 vs your M5 and I guarantee you I'll advance a lot farther than you will. I'll pick my spots, pick on the weak sisters, and put on plays you have never seen, because you never learned them. You'll be busy with your calculators and lining up the pens in your pocket protector instead of watching your opponents, what they play, what they will call with and what they will raise, and esp when they will FOLD. Red zone is better than Orange or Yellow? You gotta be kidding me. That isn't at all what Harrington ever said or meant. I'm ranting here, but I'm sick of guys playing poker who have just enough knowledge to think they know anything. And then sucking out on me and thinking they played it right. Usually with an M of 5. I'm also sick of guys arguing a position when everyone else has pointed out to them that they are wrong. And trying to prove it with numbers that are usually irrelevant and most often situational. Ever heard, "it depends"? It means something to those who understand the game. It's not just a catchphrase, but an understanding that there are a dozen elements in every situation, not just some formula that says PUSH HERE. Either learn to play the whole game, or enjoy your winnings at wherever you are now, because it's not likely you'll ever advance beyond where you are now. Rant mode off. If this appears to be an irrational argument to you, then lots of luck. Rational thought doesn't appear to suit many here. CJ
|
|
#23
10-27-2005, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: an example of why red zone is good
[ QUOTE ]
This is completely irrelevant. In fact when you have a tiny every spot is +EV for you. Please read this: Magical Pink Zone [/ QUOTE ] yes. i read this. very clever. [ QUOTE ] This is completely in contradiction to your own theory, and specifically betgo's theory, [/ QUOTE ] no. its not. did you read T9s hand? in certain spots, yes you need to be tighter. but in other spots, like in the T9s hand, and usually against shorter stacks, you need to be more aggressive, and take gambles that will result in you either you bein in the redzone if you lose, or being a big stack if you win.
|
|
#24
10-27-2005, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: an example of why red zone is good
i can't believe you put this much time/thought into this...
the next time im' a mid-stack i'll be sure to lose half of it so i can then have more profitable options as a short stack... please...just stop...
|
|
#26
10-27-2005, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: an example of why red zone is good
[ QUOTE ]
This is completely in contradiction to your own theory, and specifically betgo's theory, which both talk about how limited is your play in the "orange zone", since you supposedly CAN'T play as much as you would "want", or "need", or whatever. Now you're saying that is in fact advantagous to take MORE gambles in this "orange zone", in order to GET OUT OF IT, so you won't need to play so "TIGHT" and in a "-EV" way. [/ QUOTE ] The whole not-actually-a-theory is full of contradictions, that's what I was trying to point out in the quote at the top of this thread and in the one or two other posts when I've bothered to address this. To the small, minuscule, microscopic, extent that the theory holds, it is true only by definition (like people who say god exists because he's perfect, or any action a person takes is selfish). No operational definitions are given to the terms, rather the same words means different things in different sentences because that's the only way to keep the house of cards from collapsing beyond repair.
|
|
#27
10-27-2005, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: an example of why red zone is good
Very well said.
|
|
#28
10-27-2005, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: an example of why red zone is good
[ QUOTE ]
Winning poker is more about playing post-flop. All you math whizzes seem able to do is play pre-flop. You either don't want to learn or afraid to learn how to play the turn and river. [/ QUOTE ] again. please read the post completely before bashing. this seems to be a recurrin problem here. people look for something in the post that they can jump on, and then just attack. i'm not sure if you guys are skipping the rest of the posts, or just skimming, or what... but its really pathetic. I LIKE TO HAVE A BIG STACK. i'm not a great player, but i'm at least pretty good imo, and am working a whole lot on improving my postflop game. yes, i am a "math" player, and know most of the PF push numbers pretty well. i also understand that as i get better at postflop play i will benfit even more from having a big stack. however, all i'm saying here, is that with a middle stack, you lose a lot of the +EV preflop push spots, and you only get very little from postflop play, since your stack isn't nearly big enough to benefit much from the "deepstack edge" that a good player has postflop.
|
|
#29
10-27-2005, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: an example of why red zone is good
[ QUOTE ]
i can't believe you put this much time/thought into this... the next time im' a mid-stack i'll be sure to lose half of it so i can then have more profitable options as a short stack... [/ QUOTE ] i can't believe you felt the need to regurgitate, and repeat the, utterly useless, snappy rebuttal that has been said so many times. is it that much fun to call somebody stupid when you misunderstand what they're saying?
|
|
#30
10-27-2005, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: an example of why red zone is good
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Again, making more per hand is nice, but already having that amount is much nicer. [/ QUOTE ] ugh. never once have i said that having a smaller stack is actually better. obviously that is stupid, and that is the misunderstanding that everyone keeps making. its only "better" in the sense that its more playable, and presents you with more +EV options. This is why i believe there are times when you should take a breakeven, or even slightly -EV gamble, if you're a medium stack against a smaller stack, where if you lose you'll be redzone (not deadzone), and if you win you'll be able to have big stack advantages. also, when there's a lot of bigger stacks than you, esp if they're aggressive, sometimes its better to play extra conservatively with a medium stack. then, if you haven't had any favorable spots, when the blinds move up, your M will go down, and you'll start to have a lot more +EV spots to take advantage of with aggressive play. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that having a shorter stack makes it easier to accumulate chips. I just think that a lot of people are interpretting this incorrectly.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
