Posted 15 October 2005 - 01:56 PM
wow, mr. well respected poker pro is kind of a moron. This statement is true. You can beat it playing this way not because of your superior skill, but because of your huge stack. More specifically, it doesn't matter if someone is "taking at shot" for $2,000. The stakes are high enough to make players in that game care about the money at risk. $125,000 means must less to you than $2,000 means to these players. That is the key. If they had say $30 at risk and you played this way, they would never fold and your style would not overpower the game. You're counting on the fact that the money matters to them and a loss would affect them. For this "blind" style to work, the stakes need to be high enough for the other players to value the money at risk here we see mr. poker pro ignoring the fact that money is relative. just because $2k means something to one person has no bearing on its relative worth to another. for some, $2k is a piss in pot, for others, $30 is a fortune. It is this same concept that prohibited Doyle, Jen, Howard, et al from playing Andy Beal much higher than they did. They knew Andy wanted to play high enough to put the pros in an uncomfortsble position, thus reducing if not eliminating their edge. Andy's bigger bankroll and the pros style adjsutments due to the very high limits would work to Andy's favor. The pros acknowledged all of this, thus their insistence on setting these limits. actually the concepts are completely unrelated. The high stakes that andy wanted wouldnt reduce the corporations edge, it would merely make it more likely that variance would wipe them out before they could realize the edge. Casinos don't set table limits to slowly rake the players. They do it to prohbit what you're doing. The game can be overpowered. An analogy would be the table limits set in the pits. If there were no range of bets allowed, only a mininum bet at Blackjack say, the game could easily be beaten by a millionaire just by using the double your bet method. (just keep doubling your bet when you lose, until you win eventually. As long as you don't go broke you will beat the casino.) again, way off base. the casinos interest in table limits at a blackjack table is far more direct than their interest in table limits at a poker table. I really shouldnt have to explain why. not to mention hes ignoring the fact that the casino DID NOT SET A LIMIT in this game, making the whole point moot. also, you would think a pro gambler would know the names of the betting systems hes describing. martingale betting is a fairly widely known concept. Daniel, I like you and think you are a great player and a fine person. Players with your character have advanced poker and its perception. But you will never be included with the true elite until you're above sitting in this type of game for amusement. Doyle, Chip, and Johnny would never do this. Tiger Woods would never appear at the local public course and play blind-folded.Tiger woods plays pro-am tourneys. he plays charity tourneys. he goofs off in these events. the comparision, once again, is not only useless, but is based on misinformation.