> > Is it possible to improve you overall win rate, if you were to bet less > > than all in? For tournaments.
> > The underlying theory is that the last chips are more valuable than the > > chips before that etc... A survival strategy.
> > The other part of the equation. How many 80-20% shots should you take > > with your whole stack in a tournament? If you are taking too many, are > > indeed on a tournament level resigning yourself to luck whether you are > > winning, and indeed the luck may be as pervasive as any other form of > > luck in the game.
> > And that indeed, practicing pot control on top of what you are doing > > would help mitigate the all-ins that you are taking, especially when you > > are being covered.
> > The underlying principle is one of gamblers ruin. Which you are running > > into over and over again. Where you are favorable, sometimes massively, > > but because you put it on the line so often, that instead of winning > > your are "paradoxically" losing.
> > Lastly your poker skills may be dramatically hampered from growth by > > your exploitation of this mistake of your opponents. It could very > > well be that at this level the mistake most being made is that your > > being overcalled in these situations, where the times that you are not > > busted you're overly rewarded.
> > That when you go up in level, that you will find that you are getting > > very little value out of your big hands, because your not being called. > > So not only are you a covered small stack much of the time, that > > you're on top of that, not able to take advantage of the "retards", and > > that you will lose DRAMATICALLY because you never learned the next level > > of skills going forward, because you think you have the game solved.
> > Just asking. Is it possible?
> Oh Johnny, such a well written and eloquent response, utterly wasted. I'm > actually mourning for the time you've spent posting this well thought and > to-the-point post. I'd like to thank you for posting it because it's a > valuable insight to tournament poker that many people overlook and I > appreciate a small reminder of it.
> However, for any of it to mean anything to Beldin, he would have to admit > that he was wrong or even made a mistake in the hand. The odds of that > are far worse than 4 to 1, and consequently, your intelligent post is > wasted on the brick wall of learning, inflicted us by the name of "Beldin."
>> MIND POINTING OUT WHO HAD A "DOUBLE GUT ' SHOT STRAIGHT DRAW ?
> I have no idea what the real term for this is, but I have heard it called > super open-ended. In that the top end of the draw makes a higher straight > than other open enders.
No It's the idiot end of a straight draw, with a cap card.
So, if the 9 hits he's got the T high straight (and if I have T9, we chop)
> Is it possible to improve you overall win rate, if you were to bet less > than all in? For tournaments.
Not in a situation like that. I'm out of position. I have the best hand. He'd call the pot with a lot of insane hands. Around half the deck can come off leaving me really uncertain as to where I am.
Shutting the hand down there is the best play. Raising enough so anyone sane mucks does that.
> The underlying theory is that the last chips are more valuable than the > chips before that etc... A survival strategy.
An incorrect strategy, way short of the money. Go read Snyders books "The Tournament Formula" and TTF2 Get back to me when you finish; you'll understand that chips lost are often worth less than chips won, and accumulating chips early is damn near vital.
> The other part of the equation. How many 80-20% shots should you take > with your whole stack in a tournament?
Ideally, none. How many 20-80 shots should HE take? A lot fewer than the onmes I take.
If you are taking too many, are
> indeed on a tournament level resigning yourself to luck whether you are > winning, and indeed the luck may be as pervasive as any other form of luck > in the game.
Nope. It's +EV. I need to make the final table a disproportionate amount of times (positively) for it to be effective. I do. Go look at the hand history again, and imagine I checkraise the pot instead.
How many cards can potentially kill me? Which cards do you check with my hand? Which do you bet, then fold to a shove?
Idiots will call the pot with 96, with T7, with J6....
Short of filling up, or spiking a 2, I could be drawing very slim./ And I'll have no way of knowing it.
> And that indeed, practicing pot control on top of what you are doing would > help mitigate the all-ins that you are taking, especially when you are > being covered.
Pot control there? Shutting the hand down is optimal. If he's too stupid, getting it in way ahead is far superior to either A) laying reverse implied odds and calling down (like when the 4 hits, I probably need to do) OR mucking when ahead (which I would probably end up doing that hand if I raise the pot and a T comes off and he raises.... which he would.
> The underlying principle is one of gamblers ruin. Which you are running > into over and over again. Where you are favorable, sometimes massively, > but because you put it on the line so often, that instead of winning your > are "paradoxically" losing.
No, Jonny. Most of the time it's the idiot raising me all in when I'm way ahead. Those occasions when I do it, I'm doing it for a very valid scientific reason.
> Lastly your poker skills may be dramatically hampered from growth by your > exploitation of this mistake of your opponents. It could very well be > that at this level the mistake most being made is that your being > overcalled in these situations, where the times that you are not busted > you're overly rewarded.
No, you don't get it. That's part of the skill. Given MOST opponents in online tournaments are thinking level zero, and a few are thinking level one, and those thinking level 2 are generally NOT thinking level two, but following a guideline that tells them to do something, wasting a lot of time trying to outplay people that will play their two cards and not much else isn't good play at all.
> That when you go up in level, that you will find that you are getting very > little value out of your big hands, because your not being called.
Up what level?
I get called at the $10 tournaments. I got called when I played the $24. Hell, on UB, when I played the occasional $100, I got called by minimal overpairs on the flop when I raised preflop, bet the flop, got minraised,. then shoved.
They're generally morons.
> So not only are you a covered small stack much of the time, that you're > on top of that, not able to take advantage of the "retards", and that you > will lose DRAMATICALLY because you never learned the next level of skills > going forward, because you think you have the game solved.
John, are you drunk? I'm a covered shortstack most of the time because almost 90% of these bozos are content to move all in with anything that might be a coin flip. When the 90% collide and collapse, the other 10% has to get in there when they're 3-1 or 4-1 favorites too. There's no real chance to outplay people until people with a clue are the majority of the remaining field.
> Just asking. Is it possible?
No. You're acting like I'm playing a WPT event. This is a field more like the WSOP main event. Deep, with a large majority of relatively weak players. They call with top pair (sometimes they raise all in with top pair) on the flop when I have a flush.
> Oh Johnny, such a well written and eloquent response, utterly wasted. I'm > actually mourning for the time you've spent posting this well thought and > to-the-point post. I'd like to thank you for posting it because it's a > valuable insight to tournament poker that many people overlook and I > appreciate a small reminder of it.
Follow, this is another example of why you're a shithead.
Poker Brat experimented with folding preflop as a 4-1 favorite to an all in. It's insane. You can't wait for the nuts, and you play best when you make your opponents make as large a mistake as possible.
> However, for any of it to mean anything to Beldin, he would have to admit > that he was wrong or even made a mistake in the hand. The odds of that > are far worse than 4 to 1, and consequently, your intelligent post is > wasted on the brick wall of learning, inflicted us by the name of > "Beldin."
Follow, you fuckhead. put your stats out. You show you have a winning record at ALL, you can debate this topic with me. Until then, shut the fuck up
> > Is it possible to improve you overall win rate, if you were to bet less > > than all in? For tournaments.
> > The underlying theory is that the last chips are more valuable than the > > chips before that etc... A survival strategy.
> > The other part of the equation. How many 80-20% shots should you take > > with your whole stack in a tournament? If you are taking too many, are > > indeed on a tournament level resigning yourself to luck whether you are > > winning, and indeed the luck may be as pervasive as any other form of > > luck in the game.
> > And that indeed, practicing pot control on top of what you are doing > > would help mitigate the all-ins that you are taking, especially when you > > are being covered.
> > The underlying principle is one of gamblers ruin. Which you are running > > into over and over again. Where you are favorable, sometimes massively, > > but because you put it on the line so often, that instead of winning > > your are "paradoxically" losing.
> > Lastly your poker skills may be dramatically hampered from growth by > > your exploitation of this mistake of your opponents. It could very > > well be that at this level the mistake most being made is that your > > being overcalled in these situations, where the times that you are not > > busted you're overly rewarded.
> > That when you go up in level, that you will find that you are getting > > very little value out of your big hands, because your not being called. > > So not only are you a covered small stack much of the time, that > > you're on top of that, not able to take advantage of the "retards", and > > that you will lose DRAMATICALLY because you never learned the next level > > of skills going forward, because you think you have the game solved.
> > Just asking. Is it possible?
> Oh Johnny, such a well written and eloquent response, utterly wasted. I'm > actually mourning for the time you've spent posting this well thought and > to-the-point post. I'd like to thank you for posting it because it's a > valuable insight to tournament poker that many people overlook and I > appreciate a small reminder of it.
> However, for any of it to mean anything to Beldin, he would have to admit > that he was wrong or even made a mistake in the hand. The odds of that > are far worse than 4 to 1, and consequently, your intelligent post is > wasted on the brick wall of learning, inflicted us by the name of "Beldin."
> Follow :)
Once again, the predicted response was not a disappointment.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
>> > Is it possible to improve you overall win rate, if you were to bet less >> > than all in? For tournaments.
>> > The underlying theory is that the last chips are more valuable than the >> > chips before that etc... A survival strategy.
>> > The other part of the equation. How many 80-20% shots should you take >> > with your whole stack in a tournament? If you are taking too many, >> > are >> > indeed on a tournament level resigning yourself to luck whether you are >> > winning, and indeed the luck may be as pervasive as any other form of >> > luck in the game.
>> > And that indeed, practicing pot control on top of what you are doing >> > would help mitigate the all-ins that you are taking, especially when >> > you >> > are being covered.
>> > The underlying principle is one of gamblers ruin. Which you are >> > running >> > into over and over again. Where you are favorable, sometimes >> > massively, >> > but because you put it on the line so often, that instead of winning >> > your are "paradoxically" losing.
>> > Lastly your poker skills may be dramatically hampered from growth by >> > your exploitation of this mistake of your opponents. It could very >> > well be that at this level the mistake most being made is that your >> > being overcalled in these situations, where the times that you are not >> > busted you're overly rewarded.
>> > That when you go up in level, that you will find that you are getting >> > very little value out of your big hands, because your not being called. >> > So not only are you a covered small stack much of the time, that >> > you're on top of that, not able to take advantage of the "retards", and >> > that you will lose DRAMATICALLY because you never learned the next >> > level >> > of skills going forward, because you think you have the game solved.
>> > Just asking. Is it possible?
>> Oh Johnny, such a well written and eloquent response, utterly wasted. >> I'm >> actually mourning for the time you've spent posting this well thought and >> to-the-point post. I'd like to thank you for posting it because it's a >> valuable insight to tournament poker that many people overlook and I >> appreciate a small reminder of it.
>> However, for any of it to mean anything to Beldin, he would have to admit >> that he was wrong or even made a mistake in the hand. The odds of that >> are far worse than 4 to 1, and consequently, your intelligent post is >> wasted on the brick wall of learning, inflicted us by the name of >> "Beldin."
>> Follow :)
> Once again, the predicted response was not a disappointment.
Is it my fault you idiots all apparently failed math class?
Seriously Raider, how do you play that hand?
Bet out on the flop? Check raise then lay down if the pressure comes? How much -EV are you paying to play the hand on further streets out of position against people you can't put on a hand?
Seriously. You love to espouse bullshit. Put up or shut up.
What's your results this year again? You've cashed for $3319.... and won $422 I've cashed for 3773 ... and won $1488 More than a grand ahead of you on the profit front. And more cash paid to me. Is it remotely possible, Raider, my method is superior to yours?
> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:knpds6xab9.ln2@recgroups.com... > > On Nov 6 2009 1:46 AM, Follow wrote:
> >> On Nov 5 2009 11:34 PM, johnny_t wrote:
> >> > Is it possible to improve you overall win rate, if you were to bet less > >> > than all in? For tournaments.
> >> > The underlying theory is that the last chips are more valuable than the > >> > chips before that etc... A survival strategy.
> >> > The other part of the equation. How many 80-20% shots should you take > >> > with your whole stack in a tournament? If you are taking too many, > >> > are > >> > indeed on a tournament level resigning yourself to luck whether you are > >> > winning, and indeed the luck may be as pervasive as any other form of > >> > luck in the game.
> >> > And that indeed, practicing pot control on top of what you are doing > >> > would help mitigate the all-ins that you are taking, especially when > >> > you > >> > are being covered.
> >> > The underlying principle is one of gamblers ruin. Which you are > >> > running > >> > into over and over again. Where you are favorable, sometimes > >> > massively, > >> > but because you put it on the line so often, that instead of winning > >> > your are "paradoxically" losing.
> >> > Lastly your poker skills may be dramatically hampered from growth by > >> > your exploitation of this mistake of your opponents. It could very > >> > well be that at this level the mistake most being made is that your > >> > being overcalled in these situations, where the times that you are not > >> > busted you're overly rewarded.
> >> > That when you go up in level, that you will find that you are getting > >> > very little value out of your big hands, because your not being called. > >> > So not only are you a covered small stack much of the time, that > >> > you're on top of that, not able to take advantage of the "retards", and > >> > that you will lose DRAMATICALLY because you never learned the next > >> > level > >> > of skills going forward, because you think you have the game solved.
> >> > Just asking. Is it possible?
> >> Oh Johnny, such a well written and eloquent response, utterly wasted. > >> I'm > >> actually mourning for the time you've spent posting this well thought and > >> to-the-point post. I'd like to thank you for posting it because it's a > >> valuable insight to tournament poker that many people overlook and I > >> appreciate a small reminder of it.
> >> However, for any of it to mean anything to Beldin, he would have to admit > >> that he was wrong or even made a mistake in the hand. The odds of that > >> are far worse than 4 to 1, and consequently, your intelligent post is > >> wasted on the brick wall of learning, inflicted us by the name of > >> "Beldin."
> >> Follow :)
> > Once again, the predicted response was not a disappointment. > Is it my fault you idiots all apparently failed math class?
> Seriously Raider, how do you play that hand?
> Bet out on the flop? > Check raise then lay down if the pressure comes? > How much -EV are you paying to play the hand on further streets out of > position against people you can't put on a hand?
> Seriously. You love to espouse bullshit. Put up or shut up.
Top 2 against a straight board and a tiny pot? I MIGHT call the 150 and see if I fill up on the turn. Otherwise, I fold. Most of the time I check fold that flop. Now if it was top set instead of top 2 pair, I'd take the same exact line you did.
What really cracks me up about this hand is you are so sure you made the right play and will defend yourself to the bitter end. Guess what RGP? If Beldin's crazy overbet got called by a made straight or a set, we never would have had this discussion. He'd shake it off as a cooler and he didn't do anything wrong.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
----- * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> On Nov 6 2009 8:51 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:knpds6xab9.ln2@recgroups.com... >> > On Nov 6 2009 1:46 AM, Follow wrote:
>> >> On Nov 5 2009 11:34 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>> >> > Is it possible to improve you overall win rate, if you were to bet >> >> > less >> >> > than all in? For tournaments.
>> >> > The underlying theory is that the last chips are more valuable than >> >> > the >> >> > chips before that etc... A survival strategy.
>> >> > The other part of the equation. How many 80-20% shots should you >> >> > take >> >> > with your whole stack in a tournament? If you are taking too many, >> >> > are >> >> > indeed on a tournament level resigning yourself to luck whether you >> >> > are >> >> > winning, and indeed the luck may be as pervasive as any other form >> >> > of >> >> > luck in the game.
>> >> > And that indeed, practicing pot control on top of what you are doing >> >> > would help mitigate the all-ins that you are taking, especially when >> >> > you >> >> > are being covered.
>> >> > The underlying principle is one of gamblers ruin. Which you are >> >> > running >> >> > into over and over again. Where you are favorable, sometimes >> >> > massively, >> >> > but because you put it on the line so often, that instead of winning >> >> > your are "paradoxically" losing.
>> >> > Lastly your poker skills may be dramatically hampered from growth by >> >> > your exploitation of this mistake of your opponents. It could very >> >> > well be that at this level the mistake most being made is that your >> >> > being overcalled in these situations, where the times that you are >> >> > not >> >> > busted you're overly rewarded.
>> >> > That when you go up in level, that you will find that you are >> >> > getting >> >> > very little value out of your big hands, because your not being >> >> > called. >> >> > So not only are you a covered small stack much of the time, that >> >> > you're on top of that, not able to take advantage of the "retards", >> >> > and >> >> > that you will lose DRAMATICALLY because you never learned the next >> >> > level >> >> > of skills going forward, because you think you have the game solved.
>> >> > Just asking. Is it possible?
>> >> Oh Johnny, such a well written and eloquent response, utterly wasted. >> >> I'm >> >> actually mourning for the time you've spent posting this well thought >> >> and >> >> to-the-point post. I'd like to thank you for posting it because it's >> >> a >> >> valuable insight to tournament poker that many people overlook and I >> >> appreciate a small reminder of it.
>> >> However, for any of it to mean anything to Beldin, he would have to >> >> admit >> >> that he was wrong or even made a mistake in the hand. The odds of >> >> that >> >> are far worse than 4 to 1, and consequently, your intelligent post is >> >> wasted on the brick wall of learning, inflicted us by the name of >> >> "Beldin."
>> >> Follow :)
>> > Once again, the predicted response was not a disappointment. >> Is it my fault you idiots all apparently failed math class?
>> Seriously Raider, how do you play that hand?
>> Bet out on the flop? >> Check raise then lay down if the pressure comes? >> How much -EV are you paying to play the hand on further streets out of >> position against people you can't put on a hand?
>> Seriously. You love to espouse bullshit. Put up or shut up.
> Top 2 against a straight board and a tiny pot? I MIGHT call the 150 and > see if I fill up on the turn. Otherwise, I fold. Most of the time I > check fold that flop. Now if it was top set instead of top 2 pair, I'd > take the same exact line you did.
I knew noone had a pair. I knew they'd play any draw
I knew I was way ahead.
> What really cracks me up about this hand is you are so sure you made the > right play and will defend yourself to the bitter end. Guess what RGP? > If Beldin's crazy overbet got called by a made straight or a set, we never > would have had this discussion. He'd shake it off as a cooler and he > didn't do anything wrong.
A straight would have raised the initial bet. And the guy betting out there doesn't do that with a straight.
> On Nov 6 2009 8:51 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> Is it remotely possible, Raider, my method is superior to yours?
> There's definitely more than one way to play this game. I've mentioned > several times that your overbets work well for you. I can't play that > way.
It isn't always an overbet.
I posted an entire tournament that I won. How many overbets were in it?
On Nov 6 2009 11:09 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:rosds6xmef.ln2@recgroups.com... > > On Nov 6 2009 8:55 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> >> Making idiotic pronouncements of finality without considering the field > >> mentality, like you and Follow did.... THAT makes you shitheads.
> > Going broke into a 450 pot with top 2 on a straight flop and defending > > yourself all the way makes you a shithead. So there! > Raising all in way ahead into a 600 chip pot is a fine play.
SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + 150 = 450 all day long. How you determine that's 600 is Beldin and/or Popinjay math!
> When you can count the pot correctly, let me know.
I'm letting you know now dumb ass!
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
______________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> Once again, the predicted response was not a disappointment.
> "This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a > fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
Reading his actual response to Johnny was absolutely hilarious. I'm amazed by the inability to read demonstrated by Beldin there. The standard "fuck you, I'm a genius" attitude was hidden with a few sugary coats, but in the end, his sugar coat is as transparent as Hollywood sugar glass.
Follow :)
_____________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
> > Once again, the predicted response was not a disappointment.
> > "This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a > > fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
> Reading his actual response to Johnny was absolutely hilarious. I'm > amazed by the inability to read demonstrated by Beldin there. The > standard "fuck you, I'm a genius" attitude was hidden with a few sugary > coats, but in the end, his sugar coat is as transparent as Hollywood sugar > glass.
What really cracks me up is the FACT that if his donk shove into that tiny pot got called by a straight or a set, we'd never see the hand. I wonder how many of them are lying out there in the weeds. LMFAO!
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
> Is it possible to improve you overall win rate, if you were to bet less > than all in? For tournaments.
> The underlying theory is that the last chips are more valuable than the > chips before that etc... A survival strategy.
> The other part of the equation. How many 80-20% shots should you take > with your whole stack in a tournament? If you are taking too many, are > indeed on a tournament level resigning yourself to luck whether you are > winning, and indeed the luck may be as pervasive as any other form of > luck in the game.
> And that indeed, practicing pot control on top of what you are doing > would help mitigate the all-ins that you are taking, especially when you > are being covered.
> The underlying principle is one of gamblers ruin. Which you are running > into over and over again. Where you are favorable, sometimes massively, > but because you put it on the line so often, that instead of winning > your are "paradoxically" losing.
> Lastly your poker skills may be dramatically hampered from growth by > your exploitation of this mistake of your opponents. It could very > well be that at this level the mistake most being made is that your > being overcalled in these situations, where the times that you are not > busted you're overly rewarded.
> That when you go up in level, that you will find that you are getting > very little value out of your big hands, because your not being called. > So not only are you a covered small stack much of the time, that > you're on top of that, not able to take advantage of the "retards", and > that you will lose DRAMATICALLY because you never learned the next level > of skills going forward, because you think you have the game solved.
> Just asking. Is it possible?
This is a great post Johnny and thanks for contrbuting! Beldin only has 2 gears. If he thinks he's ahead, he shoves. If somebody calls, we get a retard post when he gets knocked out if he really was ahead. If he got called by a better hand, we don't see it.
He'll pull his stats out and say nobody has any business questioning his play. So what you have to ponder is why he posts these hands in the first place. He's obviously decided that he's the poker expert and we're all just donkeys.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
> On Nov 6 2009 11:09 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:rosds6xmef.ln2@recgroups.com... >> > On Nov 6 2009 8:55 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> >> Making idiotic pronouncements of finality without considering the >> >> field >> >> mentality, like you and Follow did.... THAT makes you shitheads.
>> > Going broke into a 450 pot with top 2 on a straight flop and defending >> > yourself all the way makes you a shithead. So there! >> Raising all in way ahead into a 600 chip pot is a fine play.
> SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + > 150 = 450 all day long. How you determine that's 600 is Beldin and/or > Popinjay math!
No, it's actual poker player math. I'm not folding. To CALL is 150 more to me, so I'm trying to take down a 600 chip pot with my RAISE.
>> When you can count the pot correctly, let me know.
> I'm letting you know now dumb ass!
And showing you can't think about the pot size correctly in the process.
>> Once again, the predicted response was not a disappointment.
>> "This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives >> a >> fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
> Reading his actual response to Johnny was absolutely hilarious. I'm > amazed by the inability to read demonstrated by Beldin there. The > standard "fuck you, I'm a genius" attitude was hidden with a few sugary > coats, but in the end, his sugar coat is as transparent as Hollywood sugar > glass.
Follow, you fuckhead, the only one who can't read is you. You're too fucking stupid to understand that Jon's errors are his assumptions about my options.
>> > Once again, the predicted response was not a disappointment.
>> > "This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan >> > gives a >> > fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
>> Reading his actual response to Johnny was absolutely hilarious. I'm >> amazed by the inability to read demonstrated by Beldin there. The >> standard "fuck you, I'm a genius" attitude was hidden with a few sugary >> coats, but in the end, his sugar coat is as transparent as Hollywood >> sugar >> glass.
> What really cracks me up is the FACT that if his donk shove into that tiny > pot got called by a straight or a set, we'd never see the hand. I wonder > how many of them are lying out there in the weeds. LMFAO!
None. A set has to raise there. So the only possibility is the opening bet. It's extremely unlikely. Even more so given my holdings.
Your unstated assumption, that I'd only get called there by a better hand, is of course, laughably wrong, as I got called by a complete retard hand, and this is so often the case, being afraid of a set when the flop is played like that is insanely stupid.
> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:0q3es6xqf3.ln2@recgroups.com... > > On Nov 6 2009 11:09 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> >> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:rosds6xmef.ln2@recgroups.com... > >> > On Nov 6 2009 8:55 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> >> >> Making idiotic pronouncements of finality without considering the > >> >> field > >> >> mentality, like you and Follow did.... THAT makes you shitheads.
> >> > Going broke into a 450 pot with top 2 on a straight flop and defending > >> > yourself all the way makes you a shithead. So there! > >> Raising all in way ahead into a 600 chip pot is a fine play.
> > SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > > guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + > > 150 = 450 all day long. How you determine that's 600 is Beldin and/or > > Popinjay math!
> No, it's actual poker player math. > I'm not folding. > To CALL is 150 more to me, so I'm trying to take down a 600 chip pot with my > RAISE.
You're so fucking stupid. I won't argue with you. The pot is 450 before you act.
> >> When you can count the pot correctly, let me know.
> > I'm letting you know now dumb ass! > And showing you can't think about the pot size correctly in the process.
The pot has 450 chips before you act. That is the pot. I won't argue about this.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
_____________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
>> Is it possible to improve you overall win rate, if you were to bet less >> than all in? For tournaments.
>> The underlying theory is that the last chips are more valuable than the >> chips before that etc... A survival strategy.
>> The other part of the equation. How many 80-20% shots should you take >> with your whole stack in a tournament? If you are taking too many, are >> indeed on a tournament level resigning yourself to luck whether you are >> winning, and indeed the luck may be as pervasive as any other form of >> luck in the game.
>> And that indeed, practicing pot control on top of what you are doing >> would help mitigate the all-ins that you are taking, especially when you >> are being covered.
>> The underlying principle is one of gamblers ruin. Which you are running >> into over and over again. Where you are favorable, sometimes massively, >> but because you put it on the line so often, that instead of winning >> your are "paradoxically" losing.
>> Lastly your poker skills may be dramatically hampered from growth by >> your exploitation of this mistake of your opponents. It could very >> well be that at this level the mistake most being made is that your >> being overcalled in these situations, where the times that you are not >> busted you're overly rewarded.
>> That when you go up in level, that you will find that you are getting >> very little value out of your big hands, because your not being called. >> So not only are you a covered small stack much of the time, that >> you're on top of that, not able to take advantage of the "retards", and >> that you will lose DRAMATICALLY because you never learned the next level >> of skills going forward, because you think you have the game solved.
>> Just asking. Is it possible?
> This is a great post Johnny and thanks for contrbuting! Beldin only has 2 > gears. If he thinks he's ahead, he shoves. If somebody calls, we get a > retard post when he gets knocked out if he really was ahead. If he got > called by a better hand, we don't see it.
You're a complete shit for brains, Raider. And I'm calling you out for being a total retard.
You'll see bluffs, calls, small bets, pot raises, less than pot raises, and any number of hands that aren't all in.
I've got many gears. The difference is, I know which ones to use.
> He'll pull his stats out and say nobody has any business questioning his > play. So what you have to ponder is why he posts these hands in the first > place. He's obviously decided that he's the poker expert and we're all > just donkeys.
That too ain't true.
Damn, no wonder you can't read your opponents worth shit.
> On Nov 7 2009 8:32 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:0q3es6xqf3.ln2@recgroups.com... >> > On Nov 6 2009 11:09 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> >> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:rosds6xmef.ln2@recgroups.com... >> >> > On Nov 6 2009 8:55 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> >> >> Making idiotic pronouncements of finality without considering the >> >> >> field >> >> >> mentality, like you and Follow did.... THAT makes you shitheads.
>> >> > Going broke into a 450 pot with top 2 on a straight flop and >> >> > defending >> >> > yourself all the way makes you a shithead. So there! >> >> Raising all in way ahead into a 600 chip pot is a fine play.
>> > SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You >> > check, >> > guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 >> > + >> > 150 = 450 all day long. How you determine that's 600 is Beldin and/or >> > Popinjay math!
>> No, it's actual poker player math. >> I'm not folding. >> To CALL is 150 more to me, so I'm trying to take down a 600 chip pot with >> my >> RAISE.
> You're so fucking stupid. I won't argue with you. The pot is 450 before > you act.
Is there ANY chance I'm folding? No. The pot I'm trying to grab when I RAISE is therefore 600.
>> >> When you can count the pot correctly, let me know.
>> > I'm letting you know now dumb ass! >> And showing you can't think about the pot size correctly in the process.
> The pot has 450 chips before you act. That is the pot. I won't argue > about this.
No, fuckhead. If I'm FOLDING that's the pot. If I'm calling, that's what I can win on the next street. If I'm raising, I'm doing it to win the 600 that would otherwise be in the middle if I DIDN'T raise.
Calling an all in doesn't figure like that. Raising does.
> The pot has 450 chips before you act. That is the pot. I won't argue > about this.
> "This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a > fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
When a guy is making a pot of 450 to a pot of 600 and won't for any reason at all admit that he misspoke, you know that you're not going to get anywhere with him, Raider. There is no one in the world who counts the pot after their own call with chips they haven't committed yet, no one. But Beldin loves to redefine scenarios and math to his whim, as long as it proves he isn't wrong.
These are the reasons I love reading Beldin so much.
Follow :)
_____________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> > The pot has 450 chips before you act. That is the pot. I won't argue > > about this.
> > "This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a > > fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
> When a guy is making a pot of 450 to a pot of 600 and won't for any reason > at all admit that he misspoke, you know that you're not going to get > anywhere with him, Raider. There is no one in the world who counts the > pot after their own call with chips they haven't committed yet, no one. > But Beldin loves to redefine scenarios and math to his whim, as long as it > proves he isn't wrong.
> These are the reasons I love reading Beldin so much.
Sometimes he's so wrong it's worth starting a new thread for the rest of RGP that has him killfiled. This is one of them.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
_______________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
