Lets end the Stupidity Please - Page 2

MLG · #11 10-25-2005, 07:38 PM

betgo. to be clear, while I think your original post is a fairly big mistake, the real stupidity I'm referring to is all the high strung "debate" it caused. Your idea was wrong the thread(s) it developed into were stupid. That's also why I decided to make my own thread instead of replying in the existing ones.

betgo · #12 10-25-2005, 07:47 PM

What was stupid was all the smartass and insulting replies that didn't seriously consider the ideas I presented.

MLG · #13 10-25-2005, 07:56 PM

that was part of it. i did consider it, and showed why its wrong. do you have any thoughts on my actual response?

pfkaok · #14 10-25-2005, 08:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What was stupid was all the smartass and insulting replies that didn't seriously consider the ideas I presented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. if anyone had actually given decent rebutalls to the idea presented it had potential to be a very interesting debate IMO. unfortunately most people on here enjoy proving how smart they are by sarcastically mocking the ideas of others, rather than spend some time to think, and have a serious debate about the validity of a new idea.

and i'm not sure that this helps our point. but i think it hurst the validity of the people disagreeing with Betgo and I felt the need to resort to offensive insults, like "its retarded". at the very least, IMO, this shows just how closeminded and uncreative some people on here are.

betgo · #15 10-25-2005, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that it is good to be in the "red zone" because you will have more +EV situations is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want a response to your ideas, don't preface them with the statement that my idea is "stupid".

rockythecat99 · #16 10-25-2005, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What was stupid was all the smartass and insulting replies that didn't seriously consider the ideas I presented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. if anyone had actually given decent rebutalls to the idea presented it had potential to be a very interesting debate IMO. unfortunately most people on here enjoy proving how smart they are by sarcastically mocking the ideas of others, rather than spend some time to think, and have a serious debate about the validity of a new idea.

and i'm not sure that this helps our point. but i think it hurst the validity of the people disagreeing with Betgo and I felt the need to resort to offensive insults, like "its retarded". at the very least, IMO, this shows just how closeminded and uncreative some people on here are.

[/ QUOTE ]

His whole theory is based on the fact that he plays poorly postflop(his words not mine). So basically instead of getting better he wants to be a pushmonkey. That is just dumb thinking.

pfkaok · #17 10-25-2005, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that it is good to be in the "red zone" because you will have more +EV situations is stupid. Here's why. When you have a 6x stack maybe its easy to find a 60% chance of doubling up, but if you win, you only double up to twelve freaking BBs. Lets look at some numbers. If you have 6 BBs and get it in as a 70/30 favorite twice (an incredibly wildly optimistic assunmption) then what's your ev. Well you double to 12x .7 of the time or 8.4, and then you double up again to 16.8 .7 of the time or 11.76. So even if we assume you can get it in as a 70/30 favorite twice, you have on average less than 12x. If you gamble as a 1.5:1 dog for 9 BBs out of your 15x stack then .4 of the time you will have 24 BBs, and .6 of the time you will have 6 BBs so your ev equals (.4)(24)+(.6)(6)=9.6+3.6=13.2. In other words even if you gamble is only a relativels small dog now you would still need to get it in as a big favorite twice later 100% of the time for this theory to make sense. It just makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is probably the most thouhtful response to go against betgo's idea, but i still believe its flawed. you're only looking at the double ups. they are part of the reason that having a redzone stack is good, but another, IMO more important reason, is that if you pick you spots well, and know the tendencies of the plaeyrs behind you, you can easily stay afloat, or pick up a little chips by pushing a bit more than once per round.

it seems like a catch 22, but i think there's a lot of truth to it. you can get called by weaker hands and be more likely to double up, while at the same time pick up a lot of decent sized pots when they have garbage. its a bit like doyle's theory in super system where he can pick up tons of pots, while at the same time gets looser action on his really good hands.

MLG · #18 10-25-2005, 08:12 PM

did you even read my first response. as I said, your idea is wrong, all the insult spewing both ways in the thread was stupid, thats what the title of my post was talking about. if you dont want to reply to the contents of the post, obviously thats your perogative.

ChrisW · #19 10-25-2005, 08:13 PM

Betgo wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it is better to be at 10xBB than 5xBB, but you can't make many plays with 10xBB, so it may not be worth a lot of risk to gain or maintain that stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all know that 10BB is not twice as valuable as 5BB in a tournament due to the decreasing marginal value of chips. Betgo is saying that the difference in EV between the two stacks is even narrower because of playing considerations.

gergery · #20 10-25-2005, 08:14 PM

The key thing is that you need to understand WHY pushing with 5xBB is correct, and WHAT specific advantages and disadvantages you accrue for doing so.

When you have 5xbb, you would WANT to make a normal 3xbb raise. The normal raise lets you get information about how good your hand is, disguises your monsters, etc.

Except that with only 5xbb you are constrained from making the good normal play. Because any hand that an opponent could want to play (ie. one strong enough to call) will almost certainly have odds vs. the RANGE of hands you would normally want to play. And given that his hand will have odds, you want to try and take those odds away. Also, you have odds to call any raise he makes, so your decision is forced in the event of a raise.

Now, this offers you some advantages. Your decisions are simpler since they are forced. Your opponents now do not have implied odds and thus can’t call with more speculative hands. Your opponents have no fold equity against you once you enter. These are good things, and I suspect you recognize them.

But this situation comes with inherent disadvantages too. Your decisions are limited since they are forced. You are limited by the amount you can win on the upside by your stack size. You can’t play implied odds hands for the same reason. You have less fold equity. The number of chips you ultimately need to win to reach final 3 is much higher. I suspect you are NOT accurately recognizing these disadvantages. And these disadvantages are MUCH higher than the advantages.

-g