|
|
#11
08-23-2005, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Gigabet play vs formula
i really wish David Sklansky or Barry G would have commented on Gigabet's Q 3 hand. somehow i believe they would'nt have thought it was a good play. too bad they don't post in the 1-table Forums.
|
|
#12
08-23-2005, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gigabet play vs formula
[ QUOTE ]
i really wish David Sklansky or Barry G would have commented on Gigabet's Q 3 hand. somehow i believe they would'nt have thought it was a good play. too bad they don't post in the 1-table Forums. [/ QUOTE ] Until they play a few thousand SNGs, I don't care what they think about this play or anything else that has to do with SNGs.
|
|
#13
08-23-2005, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gigabet play vs formula
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i really wish David Sklansky or Barry G would have commented on Gigabet's Q 3 hand. somehow i believe they would'nt have thought it was a good play. too bad they don't post in the 1-table Forums. [/ QUOTE ] Until they play a few thousand SNGs, I don't care what they think about this play or anything else that has to do with SNGs. [/ QUOTE ] common, let's be real. these guys have alot more poker experience than Gigabet does. alot of what Gigabet talked about in his analysis had more to do with just the hand itself. both David and Barry are well aware of what gamblers ruin is and, mathematically and psychologically, are more than qualified to comment. tell me you see why or do i need to go on?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
