consolation prizes

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

and Fnord please feel free to sit at a six max NO LIMIT table with me any day of the week....I'll eat your balls for breakfast...you and I both know it

Heads-up perhaps. HUNLHE has never been a very good game for me. With 4 other guys at the table protecting me from naked aggression, I think I would be in pretty good shape so long as I had enough cash on hand to gamble back up with you. After a my run-in with you and Micheal I did a bunch of re-thinking on how to deal with players who raise too much pre-flop.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

Originally Posted by arkana

Originally Posted by dwarfman

57% VP$IP, 28% PFR and an AF of 15 (NL ring 6 max).

A guy with these stats wont be a long term winner.

Total Winnings: $26,313
Total Final Tables: 10

Date Tournament/Event Place Winnings
10/15/2005 Hold'em NL $30 23 $149
08/09/2005 Hold'em NL $50 25 $129
07/21/2005 Hold'em NL $10 9 $211
07/20/2005 Hold'em NL $30 7 $878
07/18/2005 Hold'em NL $10 9 $238
06/20/2005 Hold'em NL $5 22 $311
06/02/2005 Hold'em NL $5 1 $1,190
06/01/2005 Hold'em NL $20 38 $38
04/20/2005 Hold'em NL $10 52 $99
03/11/2005 Hold'em NL $20 1 $2,540
03/11/2005 Hold'em NL $10 9 $209
03/04/2005 Hold'em NL $10 4 $2,535
02/11/2005 Hold'em NL $10 49 $74
01/31/2005 Hold'em NL $10 93 $64
01/30/2005 Hold'em NL $10 131 $46
01/29/2005 Hold'em NL $10 14 $417
01/25/2005 Hold'em NL $10 5 $2,010
01/17/2005 Hold'em NL $10 55 $118
01/08/2005 Hold'em NL $10 1 $4,940
12/20/2004 Hold'em NL $10 70 $66
11/30/2004 Hold'em NL $20 16 $51
11/28/2004 Hold'em NL $10 1 $10,000

FYP.

{This post has been removed}

{This post has been removed}

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

LOL Fnord I already smoked you at least 4 or 5 times heads up...you dont want nunna this bro. You reloaded more times than Keanu Reeves if I recall correctly...save your money bud

I think I dropped 3 or 4 buy-ins. However, you were catching mad cards at the right times and had me second best in spots where I must go to the felt against you. Anyway, I'm not disputing that you probably have the best of it heads-up. I just don't have enough experience running without the ball against difficult players.

At $10 or $20 a game, I'd love a re-match though.

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

you mean sitting at a $10.00 or $20.00 buy in heads up ? or you talkin 10/20 limit

Per buy-in with a sane/no rake.

How about right now? Best out of 3? Id love to watch...

I'm currently at work, then I'm off to take some money from Xianti, TTanaka and Eric later tonight. We'll work something out. Soupie wanted to set something up and do side bets. Oddly enough, a staw poll had me as the favorite.

I'm watching. I like the undercards + gutshot calling you AI.
BTW the answer to yr IRC message that I missed is "yes"

edit: woops, it was undercards & backdoor

{This post has been removed}

Arkana, how do you want your crow cooked?

I was watching (even though its 12:30 am here and i have to work tomorrow). It didn't look anything like 57% VPIP and 30% PFR to me... Definitely tighter preflop and less crazy raises. Some very aggressive moves but you appeared to pick you spots well for the most part. Keep playing your A-game and stop rolling dice and you will make me eat my words. Congrats.

{This post has been removed}

Where did the $100 go? Want to talk about it?

ripp i'm not seeing you in the 6max tourney.... ?

Originally Posted by LeFou

ripp i'm not seeing you in the 6max tourney.... ?

Yah, play it!

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

as far as I am concerned a poker database is essentially worthless.

I agree with that, you can make 20 correct plays in NL and win a bit of money and lose it all in 2 bad plays. Limit is a game of consistancy NL is a situational game, there is no general answer like for any situation its all about you and the moment.

BTW I wasn't ragging on your style - just saying the true comment about the second hand call - nice gambling.

Hell I'm jealous of your style - I don't have the balls, the bankroll, and don't play at the right limits for it methinks.
Bluffing NL $10 with 4 callers to your raise is a great path to leak city.

Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp

FYPs man!

Ulysses == El Diablo

He changed his name in the main forum, however in the archives he's still registered as Ulysses

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp

FYPs man!

Ulysses == El Diablo

He changed his name in the main forum, however in the archives he's still registered as Ulysses

Oh, I apologize. What was I thinking to ever think Fnord was slippin?

Just out of curiosity, what's your 2+2 handle?

Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp

Just out of curiosity, what's your 2+2 handle?

Fnord.

I like that 2+2 thread, this vince guy is such a skeptic

If people think playing tight is the way to beat NL, then they'll never beat a game past $200 NL.



lol

"If people think playing tight is the way to beat NL, then they'll never beat a game past $200 NL."

has something changed or isn't ilikeaces about the most successful tag ever? spino1i comes to mind also

I think hand selection probably plays a fairly small role in how successful you will be at no limit holdem, it's primarily the decisions that you make after the flop. In that sense, tightness doesn't really have a necessary advantage over looseness, and vice versa.

I disagree
The advantage to playing tight is the fact that you generally start with better hands than your opponents. This is improtant in any game with common cards.
The advantage to playing more hands is that you are given the opportunity to make more decisions. If you can make better decisions than your opponents, you have more chances to win money.

I agree totally with the opinion that making better postflop decisions than your opponents makes a bigger difference than making better preflop decisions.

The thing I'm not so sure about is starting card values. Starting with better cards than your opponents is a good thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot if you think about it. AK is definitely better than AQ, but when the flop comes AQ3, the person holding AK better be a good decision maker. Postflop is crucial. Then again, I can't argue with poker tracker if it tells me something like playing 78s in MP is a money leak. Then again again, poker tracker also can't measure how much more money, if any, my loose image is making me on my good hands.

The advantage to playing tight is the fact that you generally start with better hands than your opponents. This is improtant in any game with common cards.

This advantage comes mainly pre-flop and diminishes dramatically on the flop and even more post-flop when you're playing higher limits. I think the main advantage is that playing tight makes your decisions considerably easier. If you make good decisions and play well on/after the flop then I think you're seriously limiting your profit by playing tight.

Laggy players understand that they are usually playing inferior starting hands. They're relying on their position and post-flop play to bridge that gap. They also have the advantage of unpredictability. It's difficult to put them on a hand and a tight player is going to check to them more or bet less out of fear of the unknown. As a result they're going to get more free/cheap cards and more free/cheap showdowns than they should. They're also going to have a much easier time getting money on their big hands.

In a game with common cards, it's actually less of advantage to play tight because it makes it that much easier for opponents to put you on a hand. If you're capable of playing any two though it suddenly becomes much harder. If you play tight, you're range of hands is drastically diminished. You're going to have a very hard time getting your monsters paid off. You're also going to be faced with many difficult decisions with your semi-strong hands if other players are betting into or raising you.

big pots and good money is often made when better starting cards fall behind other hands postflop or even when good flopped hands fall behind good turned hands

Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp

Then again, I can't argue with poker tracker if it tells me something like playing 78s in MP is a money leak.

Poker Tracker is measuring your performance with certain cards, not the de facto value of those cards.

This is slightly off topic but why the hell not?

I often make wisecracks about "math guys" and their approach to poker. Now, I fully understand how important math is at the poker table, but if you focus only on the numbers without factoring in your opponent’s mood and playing style, you’ll come up with the wrong answer far too often.

Poker is a game of people, first and foremost. You could have all of the "poker math" down pat, but without the ability to read into how your opponents think and what they are likely to do in most situations, all of that knowledge becomes worthless to some degree.

Players like Phil Ivey, Erick Lindgren, John Juanda, and Jennifer Harman all understand the mathematics behind the game, but they rely heavily on their ability to read people in crucial situations. Their thought process generally isn’t, "Well, there is $600 in the pot and he’s bet $200. That means I’m getting 4-1 odds that he’s bluffing. I have no choice, I have to call."

It’s more like, "Does this guy have it or not? Does this guy have the guts to bluff me here? Would he even play that hand in this spot? If he did have me, would he bet $200 or would he bet more?"

Of course, they would definitely factor in the fact that they are being laid 4-1 odds on the call, but not before first doing some exploration and looking for clues that will help them make a more informed educated guess.

Conditional probability is what you should focus on if you want to reach the highest levels in poker. Static probability can get you only so far.

DN

Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp

This is slightly off topic but why the hell not?

I often make wisecracks about "math guys" and their approach to poker. Now, I fully understand how important math is at the poker table, but if you focus only on the numbers without factoring in your opponent’s mood and playing style, you’ll come up with the wrong answer far too often.

Poker is a game of people, first and foremost. You could have all of the "poker math" down pat, but without the ability to read into how your opponents think and what they are likely to do in most situations, all of that knowledge becomes worthless to some degree.

Players like Phil Ivey, Erick Lindgren, John Juanda, and Jennifer Harman all understand the mathematics behind the game, but they rely heavily on their ability to read people in crucial situations. Their thought process generally isn’t, "Well, there is $600 in the pot and he’s bet $200. That means I’m getting 4-1 odds that he’s bluffing. I have no choice, I have to call."

It’s more like, "Does this guy have it or not? Does this guy have the guts to bluff me here? Would he even play that hand in this spot? If he did have me, would he bet $200 or would he bet more?"

Of course, they would definitely factor in the fact that they are being laid 4-1 odds on the call, but not before first doing some exploration and looking for clues that will help them make a more informed educated guess.

Conditional probability is what you should focus on if you want to reach the highest levels in poker. Static probability can get you only so far.

DN

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=4#Post3602281

where is this thread going?

rippy played those hands bad.

LAG style works given right circumstances.

those right circumstances usually being:

a) tight MTT games (bubble is +)
b) short handed vs players that don't know how to adjust
c) deep stack live poker

not vs 100bb cap games against online call donkies.

it's weird how rippy makes it sound like stats/read are 2 totally different things, because combining "reads" from hands you've played with the person + stats could only strengthen your decision making skills.

in a game of maximizing edge, I don't see why you would not take this edge for purchase of PT+PAHUD ( 80$ total). as you move up the takes, the player pool will naturally decrease so your database will become more useful.

I don't see why rippy mentions his 25$-> 180$-> 100$ was it? thing as if it proves anything. only thing that matters is expected hourly rate from your play and the variances don't mean much. even the very worst players could go on rushes and the very best could go on downswings.

it would be nice if he could back his statements with some real data (like winrate over 30k hands or something) but since he's so against the whole number thing, I guess he doesn't have it.

the results makes it look like he played it bad, but he was making moves when he thought a move would work.

Originally Posted by Demiparadigm

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=4#Post3602281

ugh

{This post has been removed}

{This post has been removed}

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

Conditional probability is what you should focus on if you want to reach the highest levels in poker. Static probability can get you only so far.

~~~ Daniel Negreanu

quoting 2+2 thread above
Mason MalmuthAdministrator
Grand Poobah


Reged: 08/28/02
Posts: 3715
Loc: Nevada
Re: Negreanu says.... [Re: BruceZ]
#3611583 - 10/07/05 10:56 PM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply

Hi Bruce:

I just looked at the Negreanuarticle. He says the following.

Quote:
What Howard neglected to factor in with his commentary was the conditional probability of the situation. When doing “poker math,” it’s important to not only look at the static probability of your opponent having a certain hand, but to also factor in the likelihood that your opponent could hold the hand you are worried about.




Obviously he doesn't understand exactly what is meant by conditional probability, but he's clearly making an argument for a Bayesian approach even though he doesn't realize it.

He also states this:

Quote:
I often make wisecracks about “math guys” and their approach to poker. Now, I fully understand how important math is at the poker table, but if you focus only on the numbers without factoring in your opponent’s mood and playing style, you’ll come up with the wrong answer far too often.



Again he confuses a few people who do some arithmetic type calculations with those who, like himself, are very good at statistical logic. If he ever becomes more familiar with some of our books, and I'm including my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics as well as David's Getting The Best of It where some Bayesian statistics is talked about, it would probably slow down some of these comments that Negreanu frequently makes.

And finally Negreanu states:

Quote:
Conditional probability is what you should focus on if you want to reach the highest levels in poker. Static probability can get you only so far.



Maybe it's just me but I do find it irritating when he uses the "conditional probability" incorrectly. Again to be specific he writes:

Quote:
“Does this guy have it or not? Does this guy have the guts to bluff me here?



He's talking Bayesian. That has nothing to do with conditional probability.

Best wishes,
Mason

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

Allinlife

Sorry to disappoint you pal but these moves were NOT bad moves according to the vast majority of people I have discussed them with.

Particularily hand 2 which admittedly was nothing short of miraculous...I raised the flop bet based on my instinct that he was bluffing the Queen....its as simple as that...I was looking to force a fold...end of story.....since the amount of my reraise essentially married me to the pot...folding to his reraise would be -EV. You tellin me you are going to lay it down when you still have 6 outs remaining with 2 cards to go with so much committed to the pot ? Assuming he was on the Queen (which he was with a King kicker and a flush draw) I still have a chance to hit 2 pr or even trips. Laying this hand down after committing so many chips on my reraise is straight up foolishness.

I already conceded the fact that this hand was a suckout of epic proportions...that much is not disputed. But you are painting this play out to be some kind of stupid move with low pair. It was a read I had on him based upon the size of his flop bet....turns out I was wrong in the regard but the turn and river blessed me.

I guess you have never sucked out on anyone before...must be nice.

As far as my previous success in 6 max ring goes...feel free to stop by anytime...Im sure most players who have watched me in the short handed ring will tell you that for the most part I murder it....and my tourney record for 2005 speaks for itself.

As far as my 'data'...sorry I dont use poker tracker or any other robotic aide which tracks PFR% etc...not interested....thats common knowledge. Although one change I WILL be making in 2006 is tracking win/loss rates on an Excel spreadsheet. I do plan on beginning record keeping in that regard in an effort to improve my bankroll management skills. But you can keep all the other poker 'guides' and programs which spell out win rate %'s for various hands.

Poker is situational and I may make certain moves at certain times against certain opponents which I wouldnt normally make in other various situations. I do my best to ADAPT which means not becoming a robotic player who is a servant to a computer program.

turns out your call was correct after you commit your self with the chekc raise, but all in all you got all your money in as approximately 5:1 underdog.

playing based on "instincts" you describe seem like random hinches that make no sense. the difference between a nice gutsy play and a stupid play is that the gutsy play is backed by reasonings while stupid play is just something you do random. to be honest though, hand 2 doesn't look as ugly as it did since the bettor on flop bet after being checked to him and yeah. I think plays like these are fine as long as you pick the right opponents and not do it too often for table img and what not.

your MTT results mean nothing to me w/o ROI% # of MTTS entered, though I'm pretty sure you are a long term MTT winner anyways.

I don't know what this fear you have against 'robots' is about but dling PT and using it won't brainwash you off your creative-aggro plays, it could only help you man..think of it as x-ray glasses that let's you view opponent's card, only that it's not perfected and just gives you the likely range of hands the player has. this is what PT+PAHUD does.

oh btw i suck out plenty

rip was bluffing, but he had outs. bluffing is fine when you think it will work, but always make sure you have outs in case you are wrong. this is what super system is all about.

Originally Posted by AllinLife

LAG style works given right circumstances.

those right circumstances usually being:

a) tight MTT games (bubble is +)
b) short handed vs players that don't know how to adjust
c) deep stack live poker

not vs 100bb cap games against online call donkies.

I don't agree here. LAG doesn't mean making retarded allin bluffs every other hand. It works, even in 100bb cap games. People say that your opponents aren't paying attention, but they are, especially in 6max nl tables.

I never said LAG was about dumbass allin bluffs every other hand.

gabe I don't know what you are trying to accomplish with your previous 2 posts.

I'm just observing that even at the 5/10nl 6max games I frequent on party, the majority of the big winners have TaG like stats with vpip of 25~30%ish and pfr of 10~15% with nice post flop skills and I can't think of any big winners from my database that had higher than 40vpip%. very few of these guys have positive bb/100 hands and are often a marginal winner.

{This post has been removed}

I remember seeing an article about Stu Ungar somewhere where it said that he made lots of good bets and raises when he spotted weakness and he that he was a fearless players, but the writer just couldnt remember any stories of any great laydowns of his.

So here is a challenge to you Ripptyde: Post A Hand of a good/great laydown you make I know, we all know, that you can make ballsy plays but how about showing some good hand reading skills and lay a good hand down

Originally Posted by AllinLife

gabe I don't know what you are trying to accomplish with your previous 2 posts.

you said "rippy played those hands bad. "

i gave you a reason why it wasn't bad. i doubt you care, you are too blinded by your dislike of rippy.