an example of why red zone is good

[Exitonly]

Yea... what MLG said.


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

[Nicholasp27]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you still think the T9s hand was any good. It's bad to begin with, and the reasons why you think it is good actually make it worse.

You have 20 BB and a hand that is roughly EV-neutral but a 40/60 dog for 2/3 of your stack. That's the *definition* of 'fold and find a better spot', but it gets better; you justify it by saying "well, if I fold this, I'm gonna let myself get blinded down anyway, so let me take this gigantic gamble to get a big stack because I don't know how to play with 20 BB. (Oh, by the way, I also give up all folding equity at the table the 60% of the time I lose, but who cares about that? I can profitably shove lots of hands even when they see my cards, so therefore, pushing 83o from the CO next hand when BB is calling with almost anything is perfectly OK because it still shows a profit!)" And then you compare it to Gigabet...why? What's 5K going to get you here with two people over 15K at the table? If you wanted to bully the shorter stacks you could do that with 20 BB!

This hand is terrible. Betgo's threads are terrible. Your attempt at defending them is terrible. The last two days, this forum has been terrible, and I really hope that it's not the start of a downward spiral.

[/ QUOTE ]


i think he may be at that 'dangerous level of knowledge'

he's read about gigabet's theories and tries to apply it without understanding it, and so he wants to double up here to go from being middle stack to being...middle stack

he didn't see the part where winning the 'coin flip' has to give more of an advantage in bullying than u had before the 'coin flip'...and enough extra advantage in bullying that it makes it +ev to take the wrong side of a coinflip



kinda like how someone may read about keeping in shorty in the bubble and then blindly do that even tho they aren't gonna use their stack aggressively to gain more ev than they gave up by folding to shorty

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
i think he may be at that 'dangerous level of knowledge'

he's read about gigabet's theories and tries to apply it without understanding it, and so he wants to double up here to go from being middle stack to being...middle stack

he didn't see the part where winning the 'coin flip' has to give more of an advantage in bullying than u had before the 'coin flip'...and enough extra advantage in bullying that it makes it +ev to take the wrong side of a coinflip



kinda like how someone may read about keeping in shorty in the bubble and then blindly do that even tho they aren't gonna use their stack aggressively to gain more ev than they gave up by folding to shorty

[/ QUOTE ]

i really didn't think it would come to this, but i suppose i brought it on myself when i said "i'm relatively new to MTTs" i'm not going to toot my own horn, and say i'm a great player, but I am certainly not a clueless novice. i have only been playing MTTs seriously for a short time, but i am a VERY serious poker player. please don' take this the wrong way, as i'm not trying to say i'm better than everyone. i'm simply saying that those who say i'm a novice are very far off.

I'm a total bookworm with poker material, and try to read just about anything i can get my hands on. i feel like even the bad books help a little since i can look at them objectively, and see WHY they are bad.

and on the other hand, when i post a "new" idea on here, i know that i'm rarely being at all innovative, or revolutionary in my thinking. a "theory" like this that i'm making is just me restating in my own words what i've learned from those smarter and more creative than myself. in this particular case, i was hoping that i could better word what it was that i learned from betgo's post, and how it ties together IMO with gigs famous stack size theory. that post, while brilliant, is also increadibly convoluted, and its very difficult to fully grasp. the fact is, its a very complex problem that he's offering a model that he uses to solve it. unfortunately gig doesn't have the time and/or writing skills required to simplify such an abstract concept into an easily readable post. certainly gig isn't the only pro MTTer to think of, or apply this concept, i'm sure many of the top players have an intuitive feel for it. the fact is, this concept is VERY hard to present in an easy to understand fashion, which can be very frustrating.

i might not be all the way there yet in my interpretation, but i've learned enough to know that the concept itself is REAL. i know i'm not doing a good job of getting my point accross, and i appoligize for that. a large part of my frustration is at myself for not being able to clearly state my thought proccess, and actual ideas on the subject.

[AtticusFinch]

I wonder if this whole mess could have been averted if the stated point was not "the Red Zone is Good," but "Don't give up with a short stack. The Red Zone is not so bad."

[Sam T.]

I agree with Atticus. What I took away from the discussion (other than the need for a drink) was:

1) Sometimes you should take a -EV situation to build a big stack, even if it means going into the red zone if you lose.

because...

2) Being in the Red Zone is different than being busted...

and

3) When you are in the Red Zone, your pushes with decent hands will be called by marginal hands, increasing your chances of doubling up.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if this whole mess could have been averted if the stated point was not "the Red Zone is Good," but "Don't give up with a short stack. The Red Zone is not so bad."

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. i cursed myself pretty bad after i realized this fatal mistake.