|
|
#21
10-31-2005, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Lastly, what's it like living in Victoria? Is it something like heaven? [/ QUOTE ] no, but it's not too bad either. lots of rain in the winter, but one of the prettiest cities in Canada. Why? thinking of moving here? We are supposed to be getting a legit casino poker room pretty soon, so one major drawback of victoria will soon be gone. I'll also say this about Victoria. People who don't live in Victoria think that living in Victoria would mean lots of trips to Vancouver and Seattle. This is a myth. Considering the time, expense and hassle involved with getting off the isalnd, it actually feels pretty isolated here sometimes. Then again, a lot of people like it that way. Regards Brad S [/ QUOTE ]common consensus in canada is that victoria is one of the best places to live. your real estate market is running on a heater too. i'm not the biggest fan of live poker other than home games with friends. in edmonton we have at least 4 cardrooms but profit isn't there compared to online and the typical pokerroom degenerates can be tough to deal with. 
|
|
#22
10-31-2005, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Is everyone content to fold in a situation like this? [/ QUOTE ] Nope, I'd rather not send the message that my BB is ripe for the taking. [/ QUOTE ] Isn't this situation similar to the rule about calling a single all-in with any 2 cards if you are getting 2:1 for less than a third of your stack?? In this case, you are calling a single all-in, the pot is laying you roughly 1:1, and you are roughly 50% to win the hand. By the same logic as the previous example, shouldn't it be a clear call as long as it's for less than half your stack?? In this case it's for significantly less than half your stack which should make it an attractive option. What am I missing?
|
|
#23
10-31-2005, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips
i don't know the math behind icm very well, but i'd be shocked if there were a time to take a coinflip when there are 3+ players.
the reason that coinflips are ok HU is not that blinds can't be negligible (i think you said that) it's that cashEV = chipEV (at least according to ICM) so flips are neutral.
|
|
#24
10-31-2005, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips
Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table
|
|
#25
10-31-2005, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips
[ QUOTE ]
Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table [/ QUOTE ]which is against ICM theory
|
|
#26
10-31-2005, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table [/ QUOTE ]which is against ICM theory [/ QUOTE ] ... and it will surely sometimes contradict a basic pot odds call as well, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong. Just because it doesn't jive with the chip model that is commonly accepted within this forum, it certainly doesn't mean his play is wrong. He's just using a different chip model, and it may be better than ICM. It's hard to argue with his success .
|
|
#27
10-31-2005, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips
Heads up, tiny stacks, enormous blinds.
300-600 Hero (bb) 800 chips Villain (sb) 800 chips, pushes Hardly exciting, but I don't think there any exciting solutions. Lori
|
|
#28
10-31-2005, 03:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table [/ QUOTE ]which is against ICM theory [/ QUOTE ] ... and it will surely sometimes contradict a basic pot odds call as well, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong. Just because it doesn't jive with the chip model that is commonly accepted within this forum, it certainly doesn't mean his play is wrong. He's just using a different chip model, and it may be better than ICM. It's hard to argue with his success . [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#29
10-31-2005, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table [/ QUOTE ]which is against ICM theory [/ QUOTE ] ... and it will surely sometimes contradict a basic pot odds call as well, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong. Just because it doesn't jive with the chip model that is commonly accepted within this forum, it certainly doesn't mean his play is wrong. He's just using a different chip model, and it may be better than ICM. It's hard to argue with his success . [/ QUOTE ] However his success has nothing to do with this problem. Lori
|
|
#30
10-31-2005, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I am thinking more about situations with 4+ players, (and maybe with 3, though I am less sure about that) [/ QUOTE ] 3 will be same as 4. as long as more than one spot is paying out, you don't want to take a coinflip. 4 players is 0:2:3:5, 3 is essentially 0:1:3, so it's not fundamentally different.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
