Low Ceiling vs High Ceiling-SNG strategy(long) - Page 5

Nick M · #41 06-28-2005, 11:59 PM

it's not impossible, it just can't be done by anyone on this planet. This means that the sky is the limit when you play HC strategy. You make the rules. Your skill decides your ROI, not JUST the odds and/or the cards.

Nick M · #42 06-29-2005, 12:02 AM

I had a feeling you were going to try and rip me a new one. This is OK. You are you and I am me. I will of course respond to your post...once I figure out all these big words. Thanks for the Reply!!!!

lastchance · #43 06-29-2005, 12:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
it's not impossible, it just can't be done by anyone on this planet. This means that the sky is the limit when you play HC strategy. You make the rules. Your skill decides your ROI, not JUST the odds and/or the cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, this is completely and absurdly wrong. A perfect poker player cannot win every single SNG. It is impossible, because you will have KK when your opponent has AA. You will be card-dead. Like it is impossible to beat the big game for more than 1 BB/Hour, it is impossible to beat SNGs over a certain ROI, depending on how lousy your opponents are.

A perfect player's ROI is strictly decided by how bad that player's opponents are.

You can't beat at Tic-Tac-Toe. It's the same with poker. There is optimal play, and depending how close to it your opponent plays, you can't beat them for a higher ROI than is possible.

Moonsugar · #44 06-29-2005, 12:11 AM

Your ROI can only negative and in a magnitude equal the rake, not 0%.

Nick M · #45 06-29-2005, 12:13 AM

hahaha thanks BL

You know it's funny. I am so surprised that no one has brought up the fact that LC strategy is so important when you are 8 tabling. And HC strategy is almost impossible 8 tabling. This is why you play preflop because it allows you to play more tables which actually gains your more $EV.

My defense to this arguement would be that I believe the best LC player 12 tabling could not make more money than the best HC player 6 tabling...I think hahahaha.

The LC section is pitifully short...damn I need to maybe step it up a little.

[ QUOTE ]
For all intents and purposes, PP SnG may as well start at 800/1000 chips at t50/100 (with 2-5 arbitraty villians gone AWOL That is where the profit comes from.

[/ QUOTE ]

totally agree. I think on PS LC starts at the 75/150 or the 100/200 level depending on the amount of players left.

[ QUOTE ]
I will play 7 people, in a coinflipping roundrobin, for last man standing stakes of 50/30/20. IF im the sh*t, i may be a little more likely than anyone else at the table to get the top prizes.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is basically what LC poker is I totally agree.

Moonsugar · #46 06-29-2005, 12:18 AM

All poker is math, it is just not the math you think it is.

Some structures are such that there is only 'Low Ceiling Poker' (TM) available.

I only win when my opps. make mistakes. I don't really care what street they make it on.

Nick M · #47 06-29-2005, 12:20 AM

An SNG can be beat by only showing down one hand, the last one.

The perfect player can win every single SNG he plays. There is just no one alive that can do it. Don't think in terms of reality, think in terms of the word perfection. Try to picture it, an SNG can be won by only showing down 1 hand, the last one. The perfect player will grind you down to 1 chip and then take you out with the best hand when he gets it.
We all strive to become this person, no one will ever do it obviously but it is possible. Just because no one has ever done it or no one will ever do it, doesn't mean it's not possible.

lastchance · #48 06-29-2005, 12:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The perfect player can win every single SNG he plays. There is just no one alive that can do it. Don't think in terms of reality, think in terms of the word perfection. Try to picture it, an SNG can be won by only showing down 1 hand, the last one. The perfect player will grind you down to 1 chip and then take you out with the best hand when he gets it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is impossible against a very good player. I remember a PSI when HL raised ATs on the button, Chip Reese called. Chip Reese check-raised HL on a Txx board, and Lederer called.

What I'm saying is that there's no way the perfect poker player can get away from HL's hand there. If you're HL, you're going to lose a lot of chips when this happens, and there's no way in hell the perfect poker player doesn't lose a lot of chips here to someone like Chip Reese.

If your opponent is good enough, they should be able to make it impossible for a perfect player to laydown the second best hand in certain spots. If your opponent is good enough, they should be able to make it near impossible for you to call a bluff in certain spots.

With only 50x BB at most, there's no way that any, and I repeat any player wins every single SNG, let alone 30-40%. And there's no way the perfect poker player has more than a 50% ROI at the Step 5 Higher's.

eastbay · #49 06-29-2005, 12:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I had a feeling you were going to try and rip me a new one. This is OK. You are you and I am me. I will of course respond to your post...once I figure out all these big words. Thanks for the Reply!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

That was certainly not "trying to rip you a new one."

I think you point out an important concept: that edges in deep stack poker can be bigger than short stack poker. However, I don't think this is not already well understood by most intermediate players.

I think we really found your motivation at the end of your post where you said something "and having fun doing it." I think this is your motivation. You find analysis dry, boring, and, as you characterized it, anti-freedom. It's clinical, for squares, and just plain no fun, right? Well, not everybody feels that way. Some people think working the numbers is fun, and there's actually a deeply creative element in trying to find new ways to apply analysis to poker situations.

It's not for you. That's cool. Just don't try to discredit it in ways that don't make sense.

eastbay

lastchance · #50 06-29-2005, 12:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I think we really found your motivation at the end of your post where you said something "and having fun doing it." I think this is your motivation. You find analysis dry, boring, and, as you characterized it, anti-freedom. It's clinical, for squares, and just plain no fun, right? Well, not everybody feels that way. Some people think working the numbers is fun, and there's actually a deeply creative element in trying to find new ways to apply analysis to poker situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, we're nerds. :P