Ask a MSNLer - Page 8

let's see the hand :D

(although having a laggy/spewtard image and trying to get toto to fold JACKS sounds like it could be ugly )

On August 13 2008 18:22 sawseech wrote: that everybody already understands to one degree or another

i'm beginning to think i have to disagree

although i guess in baal's defense the 2 best poker players i know have never done an explicit EV calculation in their entire life

Submitted by : Baalim

PokerStars Game #19190609383: Hold'em No Limit ($3/$6) - 2008/07/29 - 07:17:12 (ET)
Table 'Kalyke' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: ExB1983 ($1162.90 in chips)
Seat 2: Hero ($982.45 in chips)
Seat 3: PiS.ToTo ($864.05 in chips)
Seat 4: sizzlinbetta ($600 in chips)
Seat 5: funfect39 ($619.50 in chips)
Seat 6: needfood ($609 in chips)
Hero : posts small blind $3
PiS.ToTo: posts big blind $6

Holecards(Odds)
Dealt to Hero
sizzlinbetta: folds
funfect39: folds
needfood: folds
ExB1983: raises $12 to $18
Hero : raises $46 to $64
PiS.ToTo: calls $58
ExB1983: calls $46

Flop(Odds) (Pot : $192.00)

   
Hero : bets $110
PiS.ToTo: calls $110
ExB1983: folds

Turn(Odds) (Pot : $412.00)

   
Hero : bets $150
PiS.ToTo: raises $150 to $300
Hero : raises $508.45 to $808.45 and is all-in
PiS.ToTo: calls $390.05 and is all-in
Uncalled bet ($118.40) returned to Hero

River (Pot : $1,792.10)

   

Showdown
Hero : shows (high card Ace)
PiS.ToTo: shows (a pair of Jacks)
PiS.ToTo collected $1789.10 from pot
Hero said, "oh"

Summary
Total pot $1792.10 | Rake $3
Board  
Seat 1: ExB1983 (button) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: Hero (small blind) showed and lost with high card Ace
Seat 3: PiS.ToTo (big blind) showed and won ($1789.10) with a pair of Jacks
Seat 4: sizzlinbetta folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: funfect39 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: needfood folded before Flop (didn't bet)

although in myth's defense if asked they could probably do it more accurately than anyone i know

On August 13 2008 18:34 RiKD wrote: although i guess in baal's defense the 2 best poker players i know have never done an explicit EV calculation in their entire life

if neither of them is pooruser, then i don't think he has either

in fact a lot of the best players haven't. but they are def NOT playing by a set of rules like "don't squeeze with AQ if you don't plan to call a shove." they are playing with logic that knows when it's ok to squeeze/fold with AQ and when it's not

which is what this whole myth-spectacle is about anyway

also i really hope people don't think i'm bashing this book. i didn't read it and it may be excellent (and i think it probably is pretty good)

i'm just saying that a lot of pieces of advice, including what was quoted from the book (apparently) need to be re-worded so that you understand the game correctly

On August 13 2008 18:20 [vital]Myth wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2008 17:44 Baal wrote: i think your ability to play is far exceeded by your ability to theorize and teach. that's definitely true and you are making a huge general statement about me ("myth can't see beyond the equity equation") based on one argument we had about one specific hand. like i told you on msn, when you already know what the guy has and he only has one particular hand, but you think he folds it and he doesn't fold it, then it's irrelevant whether he took his whole timebank. i don't think i made myself very clear. i never said that people play their whole range exactly the same 100% of the time. of course sometimes people will fold middle hands but other times call with those same hands. being on tilt is a primary and EXTREMELY clear example to support that idea. what i DID say is that if you misjudge what mindset they are in (e.g. you think they are going to fold to you right now, but they aren't), then that's your fault (with the minor exception of like...them all of a sudden being tilty due to something that happened on other tables you didn't see). i definitely argue that i think YOU are responsible for knowing how somebody will play the hands in their range RIGHT NOW, and if you don't know that then you can make mistakes. i also think that EVER having the particular read that pis.toto would want to fold JJ to you in that hand you played is bad, because of who he is and who you are. so yeah, in the hand you played i think it's meaningless that pis.toto used his whole timebank before calling, because you should NEVER think he folds JJ there but if it was some sick nit who just decided to tilt all of a sudden then whatever who cares. i like your play against like...teddyKGB (i think), even if he does bank/call with JJ, because i think it's a lot more feasible that KGB might be in the mood to fold JJ there and if he does call you can legitimately be like O_O. but against pis.toto if you are EVER surprised to see a call with JJ then lol

Yes the "cant see beyond the equation" was exagerated and a bit pulling ur leg but u love to diminish my skill to so fuck it :D


Yes my judgement about PiS.ToTo folding there was wrong obviously, he called... i thought he folded enough to be good, u say he wont but thats different reads or opinions and that is not the point here, the point is that the fact that he called to his last second of the timebank says my read on him folding wasnt as terrible, and my read would have been much worse if he snap called in an instant and you said it makes no difference at all, and i know in equity it doesnt, but it hints that he considered seriously for a long time folding which makes my read less inacurate.

no it doesn't it means he was summoning over all his little poker minions in his pro poker grinder house to watch 'the master' as he made an 'unreal call'

and if thats not true, you're still wrong baal....you shoved in a spot where you think you're getting a fold from the exact type of hand that you put him on. the fact that he was thinking about it means that the play you made puts that single type of hand in peril enough to think about it

the fact that he was thinking with the one possible hand he can actually fold there but then called anyways means only that you played the hand wrong and had the wrong read, there are no degrees of wrong decisions in poker, there are only wrong and right decisions

Fwiw I don't think any of those PiS guys are folding any overpair after calling the flop. I also would caution from leveling yourself with the timebank information as it's my opinion he's a lot more likely to have been acting on decisions at other tables (or fapping) than actually contemplating a fold here. That said if your read of this villain is broad enough to include villains who will fold here enough then sure you can always broaden your range to justify a plays EV - but after the fact the correctness of a bluff loses a lot of its ambiguity (PoorUser's singularity of a bluff article talks about this in depth). That said, after this hand, you very possibly have a good point that villains who timebank this call may actually make this fold a %age of time, but I'm not sure if even that's true. Even if he may have used all his time searching for a fold, no amount of time was going to allow him to find one in this spot.

lol myth you just wrote a book just to say "I think beginners should get the reasoning/math behind stuff we're recommending for them right away"

why is it so important to u? it really barely matters at all.. I actually think it's better to botgrind without knowing the reasoning first and then learn the reasoning later because it increases the chances of said botgrinder "staying the course" instead of trying to make retarded monster laydown/bluff/calls.. staying the course with simple "rules" starts him off winner which in turn motivates him to learn more whereas someone with a deeper understanding is more likely to start off loser and lose interest

to be honest and this is gunna sting I think you just started with the idea "I want people to start with a deeper more intelligent understanding of how to play" because that sounds good/idealistic and then built the rest of your reasoning to support that instead of just trying to find whats most likely to get ur students to become good players

On August 13 2008 11:41 [vital]Myth wrote: "here's the equation you need in order to make the correct decision EVERY time."

assuming that u have a perfect read on your opponent's strategy choices in infinite situations... ez


see the thing that irritates me about your approach to poker is that you obsess about this one thing, endlessly pointing out how "flawless" and "perfect" and "100% correct for sure" your equation is

It is, we get it, but who cares? your decisions are what make up your results and they will always be dependant on your flawed assumptions which puts you right back in there with the rest of us trying to make the best guesses you can

this differentiating between "math players" and "intuitive players" is so overdone.. you're just doing the same thing as everyone else

On August 13 2008 21:28 Rekrul wrote: no it doesn't it means he was summoning over all his little poker minions in his pro poker grinder house to watch 'the master' as he made an 'unreal call' and if thats not true, you're still wrong baal....you shoved in a spot where you think you're getting a fold from the exact type of hand that you put him on. the fact that he was thinking about it means that the play you made puts that single type of hand in peril enough to think about it the fact that he was thinking with the one possible hand he can actually fold there but then called anyways means only that you played the hand wrong and had the wrong read, there are no degrees of wrong decisions in poker, there are only wrong and right decisions

Yes, the fact he called means i played the hand wrong and hand a wrong read, we agree to that point, but how cant there be no degrees of wrong, lets put on a more obvious example.

shoving against a loose fish super calling station and getting snap called by middle pair

and now the same board bluffing on the same board against a tight weak nit and he thinks for 5 minutes and then he says "ok whatever i wanted to leave anyway" and calls.

i know the results are the same but you think the QUALITY of the play is exactly the same?

you're all nits and you all suck

/thread

On August 14 2008 02:44 Jelle wrote: lol myth you just wrote a book just to say "I think beginners should get the reasoning/math behind stuff we're recommending for them right away" why is it so important to u? it really barely matters at all.. I actually think it's better to botgrind without knowing the reasoning first and then learn the reasoning later because it increases the chances of said botgrinder "staying the course" instead of trying to make retarded monster laydown/bluff/calls.. staying the course with simple "rules" starts him off winner which in turn motivates him to learn more whereas someone with a deeper understanding is more likely to start off loser and lose interest to be honest and this is gunna sting I think you just started with the idea "I want people to start with a deeper more intelligent understanding of how to play" because that sounds good/idealistic and then built the rest of your reasoning to support that instead of just trying to find whats most likely to get ur students to become good players

what i'm saying is just that you're wrong here.

learning rules without learning reasoning is a good way to get off track. learning reasoning and then understanding some rules of thumb that simplify that reasoning is a good way to keep an open mind and expand your skill over time.

i have a lot of experience coaching, and i've also helped many people who weren't technically my students, and by FAR the most common problem i observe is that people never really learned how to THINK, they just learned that poker is a game where you have a bunch of rules you follow, so they come to me looking for more rules and refined rules. the problem that they have is that they've never taken the time to ask "why?"

i find it pretty ridiculous that you'd presume to know anything about how i coach or about the success i have in coaching. furthermore...ask people who have learned from me what they think. did their first conversation with me really open their eyes? i think you'll find that the majority of people (if not 100%) answer in the affirmative. and the reason it opened their eyes is because it clarified for them that they have been missing the whole point all along. and they wish somebody had told them when they first started learning..."hey, here's how to properly think about what you're doing. now that you understand that, let's figure out what to do and why"

do enough teaching and you'll see it too. you (and some others) are saying that i'm obsessing over something everyone already understands, but that's just not true. the vast majority of beginners seeking help are WAY off track, asking me questions like "yo wut do you do wit JJ?"

which is a horrible question to ask. they expect me to answer with some rule or guideline about playing JJ, but i don't. i tell them that if they find themselves in one type of scenario, they should play it one way, because of a, b, and c. if they find themselves in another scenario, they should play it another way, because of d, e, and f. and so on and so forth. and then, once they understand, THEY can give ME a description of the scenario they are in, and use their OWN reasoning to determine the best way to play. and from then on, they have a much easier time figuring out how to play other hands. and if they don't know what type of scenario they are in, i can help them figure it out from my own experience, and i tell them to build THEIR own experience keeping all their reasoning in mind

it makes no sense that you take this insolent tone with me, especially when you've done no research whatsoever about the success of my teaching/thinking style with the very beginners i'm hoping to help.

On August 14 2008 02:57 Jelle wrote: this differentiating between "math players" and "intuitive players" is so overdone.. you're just doing the same thing as everyone else

for the record i am never making any distinctions between different types of players. i'm saying that every good player is a "math" player, whether he thinks with numbers or not (that is, there's no such thing as anything but a math player when you get down to it). and struggling beginners are often "rules" players, who don't really think in some form of appropriate mathematical/logical manner (that is, sure, "rules" are a form of math, but they're a horrible simplification and, while useful in some cases, are a hindrance when unaccompanied by some simple theory).

and also for the record, no, i am not at all doing the same thing as everyone else. some people are thinking incorrectly and making decisions that they don't really understand how to justify - they are just doing what somebody else suggested would be good, but they have no reasoning to support it. that's a terrible habit and it can be a difficult one to break. the reason i know this is because i've spent many hundreds of hours coaching dozens of different beginners.

loooooooooooooool insolent, forgive me my liege

On August 14 2008 05:16 [vital]Myth wrote: i'm saying that every good player is a "math" player, whether he thinks with numbers or not. and struggling beginners are often "rules" players, who don't really think in some form of appropriate mathematical/logical manner.

well obviously experienced players as a group think differently than beginners as a group, it doesn't mean that beginners should immediately try to copy everything experienced players do and how they think.. there are intermediate steps that are useful to take and following rules and guidelines to grind & win at micro stakes may be the most useful one of all - no worries or thinking needed, just a whole bunch of tables and mindless grinding and you get a basic feel for how strong hands are and how most other people play

and following rules and guidelines isn't "a hard habit to break", it's something that everyone keeps doing forever to some extent and switching from the phase where u rely on them completely and the phase where u only use them minimally is very easy and even a gradual natural process... I also find it hard to believe that tons of people hired you and then asked questions like "how do I play AK" but if that's really true then it's interesting and does explain alot about why u feel so strongly about this subject

do i think people who just learn some rules from some beginners' guide and start botgrinding won't make money?

of course not. tons of people are random unintelligent botgrinders who make money despite having very little understanding of what they're doing.

but if one person started out as a botgrinder and another started out with some proper theory and the subsequent creativity, who would be the better player after a year?

i think the latter in the huge majority of cases, and i don't think it's even close. i say "huge majority" because some people who begin as botgrinders are really smart and naturally figure it out, so they'll be great players regardless.

On August 14 2008 05:52 Jelle wrote: I also find it hard to believe that tons of people hired you and then asked questions like "how do I play AK"

that's the type of question everyone asks

95% of questions i get from beginner students are things like

"how do you play AQ?"
"how do you play small pp?"
"how do you play oop?"

etc

and most students who are already winners at, say, 1/2 are asking the same type of questions