Negreanu's Folly? - Page 4

dibbs · #31 10-18-2005, 09:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And if he had a huge stack, larger than everyone elses, he could make a call with a draw a huge mistake on his opponents part. This is just a simple example of how being short stacked in live poker can be a disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other way round. If he has no money, them calling with a draw doesn't give em any implied odds, so they're making a mistake. If he's deep, they gain implied odds, its much less of a mistake.

JMa · #32 10-18-2005, 10:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Players who keep rebuying to 20 BB stacks are lame and annoying. It doesn't seem to be profitable either, from what I've observed, and I have seen some players using what appears to be proper shortstack strategy. Good hands just don't come around often enough to run with a 20 BB stack. I suppose the lame shortstack strategy could work well in a deepstacked game where 50 BB is a standard reraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

buying in short in party 5/10 games is obviously profitable, otherwise it wouldnt exist to the same extent that it does.

#33 10-18-2005, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]

buying in short in party 5/10 games is obviously profitable, otherwise it wouldnt exist to the same extent that it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that logic, playing the lottery must be insanely profitable. Because x is an often-employed stategy does not mean x is net profitable.

MTBlue · #34 10-18-2005, 02:55 PM

Nice post.

JMa · #35 10-18-2005, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

buying in short in party 5/10 games is obviously profitable, otherwise it wouldnt exist to the same extent that it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that logic, playing the lottery must be insanely profitable. Because x is an often-employed stategy does not mean x is net profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

let me see if I get this right: You are comparing playing 5/10 NL with a short stack to playing the lottery? dont compare apples w/ pears.

Vincent Lepore · #36 10-18-2005, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but there is no such thing as an infinite bankroll and the casino simply set max bet limits for variance purposes

[/ QUOTE ]

While it is true that there is no one with an infinite bankroll it is also true that there are people with bankrolls large enough to beat a casino with a doubling up system that is given a large number of double ups. Variance is not why the Casino's do not allow infinite max bets. They do it for self protection and that's it. Do you really believe that a Casino wants a Bill Gates and Warren buffet and there fellow rich folk to gang up and place a 20 billion dollar bet and risk going broke?

Vince

#37 10-18-2005, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
buying in short in party 5/10 games is obviously profitable, otherwise it wouldnt exist to the same extent that it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
let me see if I get this right: You are comparing playing 5/10 NL with a short stack to playing the lottery? dont compare apples w/ pears.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to say that the lottery and online short-stack poker were the same (although apples and pears are pretty darn comparable). I just meant that inferring the merit of a money-making stategy by how many people employ it is bad reasoning. People do dumb things. Because lots of people do X does not mean X is a smart thing to do. Like arguing about logical minutiae in a subthread with stranger in the middle of the day in an online forum....

I suck.

fuego527 · #38 10-18-2005, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but there is no such thing as an infinite bankroll and the casino simply set max bet limits for variance purposes

[/ QUOTE ]

While it is true that there is no one with an infinite bankroll it is also true that there are people with bankrolls large enough to beat a casino with a doubling up system that is given a large number of double ups. Variance is not why the Casino's do not allow infinite max bets. They do it for self protection and that's it. Do you really believe that a Casino wants a Bill Gates and Warren buffet and there fellow rich folk to gang up and place a 20 billion dollar bet and risk going broke?

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you seriously arguing that the reason isn't variance and instead it is risk of ruin (a percentage whose value is a function of 2 variables, one of which IS variance)? I honestly do not understand how you can feel so strongly about this topic and understand it so little at the same time.

JMa · #39 10-18-2005, 03:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
buying in short in party 5/10 games is obviously profitable, otherwise it wouldnt exist to the same extent that it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
let me see if I get this right: You are comparing playing 5/10 NL with a short stack to playing the lottery? dont compare apples w/ pears.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to say that the lottery and online short-stack poker were the same (although apples and pears are pretty darn comparable). I just meant that inferring the merit of a money-making stategy by how many people employ it is bad reasoning. People do dumb things. Because lots of people do X does not mean X is a smart thing to do. Like arguing about logical minutiae in a subthread with stranger in the middle of the day in an online forum....

I suck.

[/ QUOTE ]

im a journeyman though...wow thats a bad joke.

anyway I guess your logic must apply to the opposite as well i.e. assuming that because lots of people do X does not mean X is a dumb thing to do? Playing w/ a short stack is related to in this thread. "IHateCats" states that [ QUOTE ]
a surprising # of very good short handed specialists will make very, very loose calls against a 20x-40x BB move in after they've been reraised all in for 20x-40x, regardless of how tight I've been

[/ QUOTE ]. From what Ive seen and experienced myself, I found this to be very true in party 5/10.

#40 10-18-2005, 06:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
anyway I guess your logic must apply to the opposite as well i.e. assuming that because lots of people do X does not mean X is a dumb thing to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Saying the statement "when X is Y it is always also Z" is a false statement does not mean that "when X is Y is it sometimes also Z" is false, nor does it imply that "when X is Y it is never also Z" is true. I don't understand how you are debating this simple proposition: Because a lot of people do something does not mean it is a good thing to do. There are good things a lot of people do, bad things a lot of people do, good things few do and bad things few do. The goodness of a thing is best judged by factors other than how many people partake in it. I'm a logic nit. I apologize.