|
|
#31
09-25-2005, 09:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A very tommy hand
[ QUOTE ]
"i noticed that you didn't calculate ANY possibility of your read being wrong and/or it being the opposite of what you thought it was. ... if your read would be wrong 5% of the time, i think putting that small bet in on the flop would be worth it because of the 6sbs already in there and ..." But Barron, if allowing for a margin of error in the read means that it will be correct for me to bet no matter what my read is, then why should I bother trying to get a read at all? Tommy [/ QUOTE ] i agree. and in this case i think a check is likely warranted more often than not. my point is only that a read that you stick with may or may not be worth it. i'd personally rather have a read and perform some weighted randomizing task to determine whether i follow it. but i, as you know, am not a live player and am not as developed at listening and feeling the flow of the game. my problem is that people are not always consistent. they do things different than a read allows, even if its a fairly solid read. we are still physiologically, mentally, and subconsciously driven beings. sometimes, these motivations conflict, sometimes they compliment, and sometimes they converge. how can you tell the difference? this is what separates you from a great deal of poker players. i can't tell the difference, so i, for the most part, go with betting paterns and past distributional actions before reads. you are different than me in the weight you put on your reads and the way they add to your expectation. thats what makes you better than i. i dont even have the chance to develop these skills thanks to my computer. in any case, im sorry im babbling. i just got back from a long 5/10 live NL session...my second one ever and my first in 2.5years. im tired and i just wore my mental abilities out by listening to a schneider vs. sklansky hand im still thinking about. i hope he posts it. my linebloats the pot too much. anyways, thats neither here nor there. the bottom line is taht we can talk back and forth all day about reads, their motives, their application, their relation to your stance in a hand and your balance as a player. i dont not like your play. i dont love it. for me its very close, but in this case leaning towards a check, for reasons you state. i just offer a perch on an opposing side of the precipice from which to view your predicament. Barron 
|
|
#32
09-25-2005, 09:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very tommy hand
After tommy explained the read part, I like checking here.
I would say following reads like this adds greatly to your BB/100. How else are these live pros beating games for 3-6bb per 100? Of course the players play worse, but when you know whose limping whose not, and can also further identify the range of hands for a villain.... it helps I wanted to tell him to bet, but all that came out was damn buddy sometimes ya gotta check. -blake
|
|
#33
09-25-2005, 03:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very tommy hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Pr(James not being sarcastic>0)=100%. i asked him. [/ QUOTE ] Do either of you play poker? Your notation is a mess, here, again, btw... [/ QUOTE ] If you are asking if I play poker, the answer is yes. -James [/ QUOTE ] i too have been known to spew chips. ps, what notation is "a mess?" Barron [/ QUOTE ] Because you used a negative statement which really confuses things. And this whole thing about a probability of a probability being >0 is also confusing.
|
|
#34
09-25-2005, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very tommy hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Pr(James not being sarcastic>0)=100%. i asked him. [/ QUOTE ] Do either of you play poker? Your notation is a mess, here, again, btw... [/ QUOTE ] If you are asking if I play poker, the answer is yes. -James [/ QUOTE ] i too have been known to spew chips. ps, what notation is "a mess?" Barron [/ QUOTE ] Because you used a negative statement which really confuses things. And this whole thing about a probability of a probability being >0 is also confusing. [/ QUOTE ] i fixed it for you in a post somewhere, i mapped james's truthfulness as a random variable and let that be distributed as a discrete -1,1 ...i dont know where that post is but its somewhere in this thread lol Barron
|
|
#36
09-25-2005, 11:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: uh, notation correction...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Pr(James not being sarcastic>0)=100%. i asked him. [/ QUOTE ] Do either of you play poker? Your notation is a mess, here, again, btw... [/ QUOTE ] would this be better for you? let X be a random variable mapping the probability of x=james's truthfulness ~ Discrete [-1,1]: THen the Pr(x=1)=1 if not then i dunna what you want... Barron [/ QUOTE ] Holy schniekes, I think, is what the kids are saying these days. You're getting colder. You wanted something like: Pr(James not being sarcastic)=1 You gibber when you try to get technical*, which isn't a crime, at all, btw. [*where technical is a euphemism for whatever it is you try to get.] Anyway. NOT THAT IT MATTERS OR HAS MUCH TO DO WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU MIGHT BE TRYING TO SAY, but what integers are in the range from -1 to 1, for example, say...
|
|
#37
09-26-2005, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: uh, notation correction...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Pr(James not being sarcastic>0)=100%. i asked him. [/ QUOTE ] Do either of you play poker? Your notation is a mess, here, again, btw... [/ QUOTE ] would this be better for you? let X be a random variable mapping the probability of x=james's truthfulness ~ Discrete [-1,1]: THen the Pr(x=1)=1 if not then i dunna what you want... Barron [/ QUOTE ] Holy schniekes, I think, is what the kids are saying these days. You're getting colder. You wanted something like: Pr(James not being sarcastic)=1 You gibber when you try to get technical*, which isn't a crime, at all, btw. [*where technical is a euphemism for whatever it is you try to get.] Anyway. NOT THAT IT MATTERS OR HAS MUCH TO DO WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU MIGHT BE TRYING TO SAY, but what integers are in the range from -1 to 1, for example, say... [/ QUOTE ] discrete [-1,1] means its either 1 or the other, not a range. since there's no other notation its assumed it is equiprobable. anyways, people do have differentnotations. doesn't really matter though B
|
|
#39
09-26-2005, 12:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: uh, notation correction...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Pr(James not being sarcastic>0)=100%. i asked him. [/ QUOTE ] Do either of you play poker? Your notation is a mess, here, again, btw... [/ QUOTE ] would this be better for you? let X be a random variable mapping the probability of x=james's truthfulness ~ Discrete [-1,1]: THen the Pr(x=1)=1 if not then i dunna what you want... Barron [/ QUOTE ] Holy schniekes, I think, is what the kids are saying these days. You're getting colder. You wanted something like: Pr(James not being sarcastic)=1 You gibber when you try to get technical*, which isn't a crime, at all, btw. [*where technical is a euphemism for whatever it is you try to get.] Anyway. NOT THAT IT MATTERS OR HAS MUCH TO DO WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU MIGHT BE TRYING TO SAY, but what integers are in the range from -1 to 1, for example, say... [/ QUOTE ] discrete [-1,1] means its either 1 or the other, not a range. since there's no other notation its assumed it is equiprobable. anyways, people do have differentnotations. doesn't really matter though B [/ QUOTE ] Oh you are so correct on that last thought. I'm letting go of the tar-baby. Good stuff.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
