Negreanu's Folly?

[Big_Jim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he covers someone, it is in fact the very opposite: his opponents are far more likely to be correct making a call w/ a draw due to the implied odds they will be getting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me El Diablo but you are a naive person if you believe that the only factor when considering implied odds is the stack size of your opponent. In fact one should first consider the opponents skill level before counting on getting anything at all from future bets. If you make calls based on getting impilied odds from a skilled professional you will find yourself sorely disappointed. Case in point. The most recent TV coverage of last years WSOP has a hand between Sam Fahra and DAniel. Daniel flops the nut straight. Makes a big bet on the turn. The board pairs and a flush gets there. Fahra bets his flush. Daniel correctly mucks his nut straight. So much for implied odds.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me Vince, but you are a naive person if you believe that Diablo. or anybody else reading. this doesn't already know that Stack Size is not the only thing to consider when considering implied odds.

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel correctly mucks his nut straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
nh.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me Vince, but you are a naive person if you believe that Diablo. or anybody else reading. this doesn't already know that Stack Size is not the only thing to consider when considering implied odds

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't believe a poster like El Diablo would not consider his opponent when considering implied odds. No my comment was more toungue in cheek than anything else. I was just wondering why such a good poster as El Diablo would use such and obvious gufaw when supporting his position. I guess you feel the same way. I mean you read his post. He said that because the bettor had a small stack his opponnent was less likely to call. He tried to make this a strong point to prove something I guess. The fact is that this was a multi way pot with four or five opponents. Plenty of implied odds from the opponents of the raisor but he didn't mention that.

Vince

[limon]

while ultimately i like to cover the table my initial buy in is always short. information is the key to winning poker and id rather donk off 200 "learning" than 2000. its like a reverse haircut, you can always add more but you can never take any off.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
He seems to think from his comments that this someghow makes buying in short correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I didn't get that at all. Probably because he doesn't say or even suggest it. Since when does simple = correct?

Greenstein (Ace on the River) and Miller (SSHE) go further than DN. They advocate buying in with a short stack. Miller believes there is a net advantage, Greenstein says little, as I remember, other than it is his preferred strategy.

[KaneKungFu123]

is this a joke?

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
is this a joke?

[/ QUOTE ]i think OP really is just extremely stupid. bad beat for him.

[Joseph Busti]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[dibbs]

[ 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.

[Vincent Lepore]

Excuse me but if you look at the example you will not that even without implied odds the calls are correct.
That's the whole point.
Vince