Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5

[KingJames 11]

I've never noticed your sig here at fcp;HOFA long time ago? 50nl?

[TrueAce13 18]

We've already seen credibility applied to Matt's argument through graphs. Royal Tour, do you have any graphs or evidence of winnings? What were your results like playing 1/2 in Vegas?

Can't post live graphs brah.This thread is pretty entertaining tho. lol RT

[Snamuh 0]

I think it was late in 2008 when I was baked and screwing around at 50 NL HU.

[KingJames 11]

Can't post live graphs brah.This thread is pretty entertaining tho. lol RT

pretty sure Mark did somewhere... keep good records in Xcel and then you can make a graph

[TrueAce13 18]

pretty sure Mark did somewhere... keep good records in Xcel and then you can make a graph

sigh i suck at life

[KingJames 11]

Don't be hard on yourself, Ryan. Just no cop-outs ITT

[Snamuh 0]

Can't post live graphs brah.This thread is pretty entertaining tho. lol RT

Anyone who doesn't maintain at least Excel records (if they don't have HEM) is foolish.

[TrueAce13 18]

I get owned again

[Merby 3]

This is fantatic!

This simple omission made me laugh far more than it was legally allowed to do. I don't know why "fantatic" is so much funnier than "fantastic", but it is and I am grateful for having read it. It is likely due to my level of alertness at the end of a long, dull day.

I made a long post about math and learning poker the other day. here is the linkI wont re-post it here because taken out of context it doesn't have the same affect.

Trying to pad your score in the "Bull's best of SSNL" thread, are we?

[bull62 0]

This simple omission made me laugh far more than it was legally allowed to do. I don't know why "fantatic" is so much funnier than "fantastic", but it is and I am grateful for having read it. It is likely due to my level of alertness at the end of a long, dull day.Trying to pad your score in the "Bull's best of SSNL" thread, are we?

LOL. It'll be a while before I get to that one.

[babylondonks 5]

I'm surprised fighter didn't break that up into 4 posts tbh

[Royal_Tour 0]

Thats another math problem which includes factors such as expectation per hand as well as risk of ruin.Every poker decision has a math problem behind it, and being ignorant of that fact doesn't give anyone the right to make retarded comments like the best mathematical play isnt always the best one.

Yes, every poker decision has math involved. Its an analytical game, similar to chess, but unlike chess, poker has 2 added variables, 1 is luck, the other is chips.Its this same reason why poker bots dont dominate NL holdem. You can create a chess bot to challenge the worlds best. But a bot to challenge the worlds best nl players is like night and day.

Lastly, even if you bought into the statement that the mathematically correct decision isn't always the best descision, shoving 250 more into a 200 dollar pot when we're drawing to two outs or our opponent is folding a worse hand isn't a case where that would be applicable.EDIT: This post rambles, but I hope the point is clear.

I have no idea where you're getting numbers from.. Im honestly lost at what this means.Here, since you worry about the horrible advice being given to newbs, please go to this 2nd thread which is littered with Royal Tour advice for the same game.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=140668

We've already seen credibility applied to Matt's argument through graphs. Royal Tour, do you have any graphs or evidence of winnings? What were your results like playing 1/2 in Vegas?

well, we both know your post is an attempt at humor, but keeping in line with the trend of this thread, i'll go ahead and humor you,matt made roughly 0.59 on every dollar, so if he is playing 1/2 as his most dominant game, its a fair comparison I did my Royal Run to 10k. some of you might remember, so thats easily trackable since it was posted on these forums.I completed it in 18 weeks. I played 5 days a week on average, so (90) days total. I played 4 hours a day average, so 360 hours.In live games you can see 27 hands an hour... (thats fair no?) so = 9,720 hands.so my win rate was $1.02 per hand @ 1/2Also - Just an FYI for you, and anyone else who cares, I dont want to play poker fulltime as a career. I enjoyed my time playing because I had fun and spent my winnings traveling, since i wasnt tied down.I'm sure if I had the drive to really treat poker like a career, it would be different. but truthfully, I'd rather work in a factory 12 hours a day then sit at my computer multi-tabling on Pstars.

[Naismith 0]

I'm sure if I had the drive to really treat poker like a career, it would be different. but truthfully, I'd rather work in a factory 12 hours a day then sit at my computer multi-tabling on Pstars.

I think a lot of people are like this and it's certainly admirable to have that kind of drive for traditional work.That said, it's also likely why those of us that do grind out multi-tables of poker for hours every day to pay the bills know what we're talking about here.

[looshle 6]

Yes, every poker decision has math involved. Its an analytical game, similar to chess, but unlike chess, poker has 2 added variables, 1 is luck, the other is chips.Its this same reason why poker bots dont dominate NL holdem. You can create a chess bot to challenge the worlds best. But a bot to challenge the worlds best nl players is like night and day.Yea but the fact that a game includes psychology and chance doesnt detract from the mathematical portion of the game.We use our psychology to determine someone's range of hands and how they will react to certain actions. Once we get those assumptions, the rest is just a math problem.The whole point of this thread is that your thought process (your psychology) in the hand is flawed by the math you use to react to the reads you've gathered. The fact that there's chance has little to do with anything.

[Naismith 0]

I have no idea where you're getting numbers from.. Im honestly lost at what this means.

This was in reference to your strategic recommendation for the hand this thread is about where you want us to check-shove 250 more dollars into a pot where every hand that beats us calls and every hand that we beat folds.

[Royal_Tour 0]

This was in reference to your strategic recommendation for the hand this thread is about where you want us to check-shove 250 more dollars into a pot where every hand that beats us calls and every hand that we beat folds.

no no, Jesus, i said this like 500 times, I was only advocating a c/r IF he had more chips.in which case it would look something like.pot is 95ishvillain bet 50, a check raise to 140ish is sufficient.

[Naismith 0]

no no, Jesus, i said this like 500 times, I was only advocating a c/r IF he had more chips.in which case it would look something like.pot is 95ishvillain bet 50, a check raise to 140ish is sufficient.

Deeper stacks makes it infinitely worse unless we're so deep that we can get villain to fold an overpair and we have reason to believe the villain is capable of folding an overpair.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Yes, every poker decision has math involved. Its an analytical game, similar to chess, but unlike chess, poker has 2 added variables, 1 is luck, the other is chips.Its this same reason why poker bots dont dominate NL holdem. You can create a chess bot to challenge the worlds best. But a bot to challenge the worlds best nl players is like night and day.Yea but the fact that a game includes psychology and chance doesnt detract from the mathematical portion of the game.We use our psychology to determine someone's range of hands and how they will react to certain actions. Once we get those assumptions, the rest is just a math problem.The whole point of this thread is that your thought process (your psychology) in the hand is flawed by the math you use to react to the reads you've gathered. The fact that there's chance has little to do with anything.

My psychology in this hand brought me to a conclusion. The math in this hand was my expected ev in two situations, 1 - how much i win if i win 100% of the time on the turn.2 - how much i win if i call and go to a river.then 2 brings back the psychology aspect of villains bluffing tendency. the chance aspect is in the form of 13% when we decide (with our psychology) that villain holds one of the 32 combo's that make up AQ or AK.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Deeper stacks makes it infinitely worse unless we're so deep that we can get villain to fold an overpair and we have reason to believe the villain is capable of folding an overpair.

If i think he has an over pair, i dont c/r.. see

[KingJames 11]

LFT

[looshle 6]

If i think he has an over pair, i dont c/r.. see

the point is you dont know and you cant assign a range of AQo+ AQsYou are so far ahead here of these hands that risking any more money is pointless because he can have an overpair

[Zach6668 513]

Guys, stop. The existence of luck screws up all the math.

[Royal_Tour 0]

the point is you dont know and you cant assign a range of AQo+ AQsYou are so far ahead here of these hands that risking any more money is pointless because he can have an overpair

I know exactly what you guys are saying.trust me. lol - you cant convince me on this hand. fundamentally, it comes across as odd, since when we assign a range of hands, that range is made up of a number of holdings and combo's. All of which help narrow our decision but inherently we're still making assumptions.But what i'm saying is in this particular case. I dont see it that way. I mean, you can continue to judge my 5 years of poker experience which has added up to 100's of thousands of hands leaving me in the blackor you just agree to disagree. all i'm saying is i'd play it my way.

[looshle 6]

I know exactly what you guys are saying.trust me. lol - you cant convince me on this hand. fundamentally, it comes across as odd, since when we assign a range of hands, that range is made up of a number of holdings and combo's. All of which help narrow our decision but inherently we're still making assumptions.But what i'm saying is in this particular case. I dont see it that way. I mean, you can continue to judge my 5 years of poker experience which has added up to 100's of thousands of hands leaving me in the blackor you just agree to disagree. all i'm saying is i'd play it my way.

so it's just different this time.bc you think sothats whyand we cant convince you through logic and mathBeing in the black doesnt mean you won btw.

[Naismith 0]

If i think he has an over pair, i dont c/r.. see

So what are you getting value from, exactly?