|
|
#21
09-22-2005, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How Times Have Changed...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Public service announcement: Nikla is God [/ QUOTE ] So, does that mean Nikla > Vehn????? Say it ain't so! ___1___ [/ QUOTE ] If you are asking seriously, I dont think its even a contest. 
|
|
#22
09-22-2005, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Times Have Changed...
[ QUOTE ]
Probably because it doesn't really matter that much. I think you can play tight from the blinds, so long as you play aggressively when you do defend (by 3-betting or calling and checkraising a lot of flops). There are 2 players I don't like stealing from, those who call everything and play well postflop, and those who will 3-bet me often and play well postflop. Both styles will deter aggressive stealers from messing with you. Most players who play tight from the blinds are not aggressive enough when they do decide to play. These players will get run over, as will those who defend a lot but don't play well post flop. So, you either have to be: 1) Loose in the blinds and play like a champ postflop 2) Tight in the blinds, but aggressive when you do play. Either of these styles will probably yield similar results. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks... ___1___
|
|
#24
09-22-2005, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Times Have Changed...
[ QUOTE ]
Here is a post that gives some elaboration of what I'm referring to as well as some results of mine that may be helpful. I think this method is particularly beneficial because, even though it is limited by the sample size problem, it is unique to you and your particular handling of these hands postflop. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, great post! Can't believe I missed it the first time. Thanks, ___1___
|
|
#25
09-22-2005, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Times Have Changed...
VIP of 2+2 HUSH players
This poll shows most 2+2ers play in the old style. Its easy to listening to players who have loosened up a bit and run good, but tight still rules. Players like Nikla, Im sure in one post I read of his he had never had a decent downswing, clearly running good. Who would put money on him maintaining even 3.5BB over 150k hands? No doubt a goodplayer but wiser players except 3bb is about the max you can expect to make over the long run and you dont need to play 25+ to achieve that.
|
|
#26
09-22-2005, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Times Have Changed...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you are asking seriously, I dont think its even a contest [/ QUOTE ] No, not serious. Just a reference to Vehn's status of "Limit Holdem God". ___1___ [/ QUOTE ] vehn had some sick results, but nothing like this.
|
|
#27
09-22-2005, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Times Have Changed...
[ QUOTE ]
Players like Nikla, Im sure in one post I read of his he had never had a decent downswing, clearly running good. [/ QUOTE ] Not having a decent downswing is also a function of such a high winrate. [ QUOTE ] No doubt a goodplayer but wiser players except 3bb is about the max you can expect to make over the long run and you dont need to play 25+ to achieve that. [/ QUOTE ] In the current state of the 10/20 I very seriously doubt you will hear of ANYONE beating the game for 3bb+/100 who has a VPIP below 25% (this is also assuming 4-tabling)(and over, say, a 150k hand sample). ___1___
|
|
#29
09-22-2005, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
more babbling
I just reread Inside the Poker Mind recently and just wanted to say some stuff. Feeney points out that poker players are easily seduced by the player who breezes in, plays many more hands than the average person and comes in swoops up all the money with an enormous win rate and leaves. All poker players want that to be true. So when we see someone who does that, we elevate them in our minds to being these god like players. And we would like to be them.
GuyOnTilt pointed out in his post that over 100k hands, a player with a 1.8 BB/100 win rate could be running at over 3.5 BB/100 or as low as 0.5 BB/100. We would be extolling the virtues of however the 3.5 BB/100 player played and analyzing stat posts and listening to downswing posts from the 0.54 BB/100 player, even if they were the same player. Who is to say that 22/17 or 30/20 is a better way to play, for sure? We don't know. If you say that 22/17 is right, you are wrong. If you say that 30/20 is right, you are wrong. We just don't know which way is right. It could be neither of them are right-- it could be that if your postflop style is integrated with your preflop starting hand selection that you can beat the game for 3/100 no matter what your starting hand selection is, as long as you are not too far off in la-la-land with your preflop selection. We simply do not have enough data to say one way or the other. We also don't know if defending your blinds a lot or a little is better-- gonores is tight, Nikla is loose. Both of them do very well and neither of them have played even close to enough hands in steal situations for us to which way is better. So, we can argue all day on here about which style is better but in the end it is just wasted brain cycles and time. The only thing we can do is look at hands. We can ask, "Were we ahead when the money was going in?" we can ask if there was a better way to play the hand. We can look at our opponents and their stats and preflop and postflop tendencies and make the best decision we can about whether or not a certain play was correct. We can look at the hands at showdown and envision a better way to play. We can try to put opponents on hands the best we can and play the best we can against that range, regardless of the outcome of the individual hand. The win rate at the end of those decisions is irrelevant. We can not accurately evaluate the quality of the decisions by looking at the win rate. The thought processes going into each decision is what can be analyzed accurately and is what is important until each of us have played millions of hands. Only then can we look back and ask which style, if any, was objectively better.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
