Low Ceiling vs High Ceiling-SNG strategy(long)

[lastchance]

Ok, yeah. We're just pointing some odd logic in the original post. Your examples and explanation of a very basic poker + SNG theory made little sense.

Instead of talking about High Ceiling and Low Ceiling, saying that playing preflop push/fold at L1-L2 is stupid and suboptimal would have been much easier to understand and also much more correct.

[jcm4ccc]

Your original post makes an obvious, uninteresting point in a long-winded, condescending, and insulting way.

The rest of the forum is giving you way too much respect by actually taking you seriously, when a simple "[censored] off, [censored]" should suffice.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
You say that your strategy of correct postflop play "can defend against variance", but you provide nothing to substantiate that claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I say here is variance is determined comepletely and totally by losing hands. If you never lose a hand there will be no variance. That means that if you can take pots that you would otherwise lose if you should down, you're defending against variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very suprised noone has picked up on how worng this is though I guess it just goes to show how many people see the concept of variance simply as running bad. In a NL cash game You can win every single pot you ever play and still be subject to variance! Sometimes you will win more and sometimes you will less. The only two people not subject to variance are the guy who coms 1st in every SnG he plays (nobody) and the guy who places out of the money in every Sng he plays (some people). Variance is not neccesarily a bad thing. If you could pick a lottery with a +ev of $1 and no variance or one with a +ev of $1,000,000 but huge variance which would you pick?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Your original post makes an obvious, uninteresting point in a long-winded, condescending, and insulting way.

The rest of the forum is giving you way too much respect by actually taking you seriously, when a simple "[censored] off, [censored]" should suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I was pretty close to giving a simple "[censored] off, [censored]" reply earlier on this thread, but decided to take the less offensive route for a change. I agree that the original post here is very uninteresting at best, as most intelligent posters here point out too. There's an illusion of some "hot" discussion here, because the OP is insisting on answering each reply in a very didactic way, which is kind of funny actually (although I still didn't see him replying to my earlier reply above... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]).

[45suited]

Sorry, I have a hard time being lectured to about "higher ceiling" play by someone who does not realize that 77 is significantly stronger than 22. This is not exactly a higher level "low ceiling" concept, so I really don't think that your "higher ceiling" play is much better than any of us PP push monkeys anyway.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;sb=5&o=

[treeofwisdom7]

this post sucks really. show me an example that a high ceiling player would play so much different than a low ceiling player. call me a low ceiling player HAAAAAHAAAA but if a move is correct i'll take it. if its like SS then i'll take it if i believe its correct..


WHERES THE EXAMPLE?

[zaphod]

[ QUOTE ]
yes the perfect player eliminates chance. Not literally. He just does not get involved when he can't win.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me. So when does the perfect player get involved? Only when he cannot loose?

Example 1: Hand 1 of a SNG. UTG moves all in, perfect player is UTG+1 and holdes aces. What does he do? If he calls there is a greater than zero chance that he will loose.

[ QUOTE ]
And another thing to think about besides the fact that the perfect player needs to only show down one hand, the last one. He also only needs to beat one guy, the last one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly the perfect player have never played on PP. Some players will not lay down a hand whatever you do, so in order to win chips from them you will have to show down some hands.

Example 2: Your perfect player plays a table full of players willing to gambol at any moment. They will not lay down their hands whatever happens. The perfect players next 200 hands, will be no better than A9 off(usually much worse), he will get no chance to see flop for free in the BB since his opponents will be raising all the time.
So how does your perfect player plan on winning this SNG when he does not get any decent hand? Remember that he is eliminating chance, so getting lucky is not the answer.

Oh, by the way i know your answer, you will tell that you are not the perfect player so you cannot know...
I think the perfect player only exist in your immagination.

Or maybee i forgot to turn on my sarcasm detector?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Instead of talking about High Ceiling and Low Ceiling, saying that playing preflop push/fold at L1-L2 is stupid and suboptimal would have been much easier to understand and also much more correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made an early response to some of the more obvious errors in the original post, and came back to find a monster thread. After skimming through endless pages, I have found this thread has become difficult if not impossible to follow. A big part of the reason for this is the OP's insistence on using his own terminology without sufficient definition. Every reply has a slightly different assumption of what LC and HC mean, and how they apply to the game that that poster plays. Without standardized terminology, the discussion has degenerated into intersecting monologues. I feel that I understand less now of what the OP meant by his invented terms than I did to begin with. If the OP wants a meaningful discussion, he should use the standard terminology of the forum, rather than try to get the forum to use his.

Until then, I'm outta here.