Texas Hold Em

[cardcounter0]

:laugh:
tell me again about how these low limit games are harder to beat than higher limits
:laugh:

What is your 100 hour win rate against bad players again?

If you have any problems with the concepts in "Small Stakes Hold 'em: Winning Big With Expert Play by Ed Miller,,David Sklansky,Mason Malmuth" post your questions here, I will be glad to help.

First, I would break the habit of focusing in on the meaningless. Although you keep trying to JAM "LOOSE" into my mouth, I was more in agreement with your use of the word "passive". You beat these donkey limp fests not on their "loose" tendency, you beat them because of their "passive" nature. You can beat a loose-passive just as easily as a tight-passive. You would apply a different strategy to a loose-aggressive or tight-aggressive, the loose/tight doesn't matter, it is the aggression/passivness you have to exploit, unless they are so aggressive to be deemed MANIAC, at which point you would adjust to a 3rd strategy.

Even if they are limping in with 72o against AA, the percentage advantage/disadvantage you have AFTER THE FLOP WHEN THE BETS DOUBLE far outweighs the initial two card hand selection.

When do you pump the pot on a draw, when do you induce bluffs, when do you fold to a river check/raise? Worrying about that will make you a lot more money than worrying about how many hands those guys limp in with (hint: it is probably any two. forget about it, even a play every hand player gets dealt AA just as often as you do).

 

[callipygian]

First, I would break the habit of focusing in on the meaningless.

You show up at a $4/$8 table and bet $16 on the turn and see how meaningless it is. :laugh:

You're right in that it's not a life-changing distinction. As a matter of fact, had you just posted, "oops, sorry, that should be $8 instead of $16" things would have turned out very differently. It's an honest mistake, especially for people who play a lot of no-limit, where the two numbers do actually refer to the blinds, rather than the bets.

Instead, you posted:

sorry, but if you don't realize that a BB refers to "Big Bet" and not "Big Blind", then I think YOU need to step back and get a grip. In a $4/$8 game, 1 BB = $16.

What this does, then, is uncorrelate your certainty with your probability of being right. Sure, you may be certain that you can make 10 BB/hr in the long run. But you were also certain that $16 is a big bet in a $4/$8 limit game. And you were also certain that weak-tight was the hallmark of a $4/$8 limit game. In both cases, you were not only certain enough to post it, but attach an insult along with the statement!

That's why I :laugh: - not because I think I'm a better poker player than you or because my sample of 1,000,000 hands proves you wrong, but because your posts have consistently shown that you don't put more than a second of thought behind them. If you couldn't take the second to realize that a big bet in $4/$8 was $8, what gives the reader any confidence that you've taken the minute (or hour) it takes to calculate an EV correctly?

You agreed with my model initially, but then as soon as it was used to prove that 10 BB/hr was impossible, you declared:

I'm really not going to debate your imaginary scenarios, when you don't even have the basic terminology of the game down.

Again, this just smacks of intellectual laziness. You were fine with agreeing with the model when it sounded right in the first second you had after reading it, but the second it doesn't do what you want, you trash it. Maybe you erroneously agreed to it in the first place; maybe you erroneously discarded it later; either way, you were very confident of both and was wrong at least once - uncorrelating certainty with rightness yet again.

 

[cardcounter0]

I see you are still focused on the meaningless. I typed $16 instead of $8, not once, but twice!!! OMG WTF BBQ!!!!

And yes, since NL is specified by the blinds, and the common terminology of Big Bets is 2x the big blind, the $16 instead of $8 is an honest mistake, so let's pound it into the ground, pound pound pound --- typeing $16 instead of $8 is the most important thing in this thread!!!!

And I never agreed with your mathematical model, it stinks. My consistent win rate with the typical bad low limit player is greater than your model predicts. In fact I went out and exceeded that model's win rate that very weekend in two consecutive sessions. One rate exceeded something you said you had never seen happen --- impossible, even if I had esp or something and won every hand, I could not win at that rate --- obviously your math is wrong.

Of course you are so focused on $16 instead of $8, you missed the part where I said IF YOU LIMP IN, PLAY TIGHT, ETC. THEN YES, YOU ARE GOING TO ONLY WIN 2 BBS /HR -- I POINTED OUT YOU NEED TO "LOOSEN UP", YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY RAISE PREFLOP WITH A LOT OF HANDS YOU NORMALLY WOULDN'T EVEN PLAY, YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON BETTING FOR VALUE, AND PUMPING POTS WITH DRAWS -- THAT IS HOW YOU WIN MORE THAN 2 BBs.

But nooooooooooooo!!!! I type $16 instead of $8, OMG!! HOW CAN BETTING FOR VALUE OR INDUCING A TURN BLUFF BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN IF THE PLAYERS ARE "LOOSE" OR "TIGHT"?

SO continue to win 2 BBs per hour against the worse players in the casino, and worry about their loose or tight, and know that in a $4/$8 game you bet $8 on the turn. When you move up in limits, you will see some moves that make your eyes spin because you didn't learn the proper lessons against the bad players.

 

[BlodiaInc]

don't even bother with this guy...

he's stuck in his own alternate reality.

 

[callipygian]

the $16 instead of $8 is an honest mistake

Was it? If so, why is it that it took you from post #16 (August 29th) to post #35 (September 2nd) to admit your honest mistake? Is that how long it took you to realize your error, or just how long it took you to admit your error?

My consistent win rate with the typical bad low limit player is greater than your model predicts.

Unverifiable.

This is why the distinction between verifiable and unverifiable is so important. You've been wrong on essentially all the verifiable statements you've made. But you want us to believe that you make honest mistakes with all the verifiable statements and that people are idiots if they don't believe your unverifiable statements.

One rate exceeded something you said you had never seen happen --- impossible, even if I had esp or something and won every hand, I could not win at that rate --- obviously your math is wrong.

Read more carefully. You do not win every hand in the psychic model. You know which hands you are going to win so you only play those.

Again, this can be an honest reading mistake. Or it could be sign of premeditated, deliberate deception.

you missed the part where I said IF YOU LIMP IN, PLAY TIGHT, ETC. THEN YES, YOU ARE GOING TO ONLY WIN 2 BBS /HR

Actually, in post #16, I not only quoted it, but I also responded to it.

Poor reading comprehension or outright lie?

You can add "reading comprehension" to the list of things I plan to hammer you about. This is then the third time in the thread that your post has responded to a mischaracterization of mine. I was pretty nice about the first time, but obviously this is a complex web of idiocy and not a simple mistake.

1. (emphases added to differentiate from 2.)

Let's say that you were somehow able to forsee every hand; you only entered when you were 100% sure you were going to win. You'd win 10% of the pots, with say 7 people to the flop, 3 to the turn, 2 to the river, and 2 to showdown. That's 9 BB per pot, 8 BB minus the rake and tip, and a net win of 5 BB. At 40 pots/hr, that's a win rate of 20 BB/hr. It'll actually be about 18 BB/hr when you subtract the blinds.

Now, let's assume you're only psychic after the flop comes out: you only play the top 15% of hands pre-flop, but that those capture 75% of all the hands that you will eventually win. So you actually win half of all the pots you enter (7.5% entered and won, 7.5% entered and lost, 82.5% not entered and would have lost, 2.5% not entered and would have won). Your win rate is now +15 BB/hr from entering and winning, -3 BB/hr from entering and losing, -2 BB/hr from the blinds. That's the 10 BB/hr you're claiming.

Twice in your calculations, you subtract the blinds. With so many limpers, what are you folding in the blinds?

Because in that scenario you are psychic and folding every hand you know you're not going to win. And that means 90% of the time, you give up your big blind, and 90% of the time, you give up your small blind.

I would suggest reading more carefully

2. (emphases added to differentiate it from 1.)

Let's say that you were somehow able to forsee every hand; you only entered when you were 100% sure you were going to win. You'd win 10% of the pots, with say 7 people to the flop, 3 to the turn, 2 to the river, and 2 to showdown. That's 9 BB per pot, 8 BB minus the rake and tip, and a net win of 5 BB. At 40 pots/hr, that's a win rate of 20 BB/hr. It'll actually be about 18 BB/hr when you subtract the blinds.

Now, let's assume you're only psychic after the flop comes out: you only play the top 15% of hands pre-flop, but that those capture 75% of all the hands that you will eventually win. So you actually win half of all the pots you enter (7.5% entered and won, 7.5% entered and lost, 82.5% not entered and would have lost, 2.5% not entered and would have won). Your win rate is now +15 BB/hr from entering and winning, -3 BB/hr from entering and losing, -2 BB/hr from the blinds. That's the 10 BB/hr you're claiming.

One rate exceeded something you said you had never seen happen --- impossible, even if I had esp or something and won every hand, I could not win at that rate --- obviously your math is wrong.

3.

A good win rate for the game you describe is 2 BB per hour.

So we agree, more or less (I contend 2 BB/hr is still high, I'd say 1 BB/hr is more accurate, but for the time being, we'll treat 2 BB/hr as the "agreed" figure).

you missed the part where I said IF YOU LIMP IN, PLAY TIGHT, ETC. THEN YES, YOU ARE GOING TO ONLY WIN 2 BBS /HR

 

[callipygian]

don't even bother with this guy...

he's stuck in his own alternate reality.

I think the more he writes, the more he has to hang himself with. As a matter of fact, if he keeps up the whole writing in caps bit, I'm going to start quoting the post where he told you to post with proper English punctuation or be ignored.

Ah, what the hell, it's bound to come up sooner or later.

I think writing things here in proper English is also a resonable request. That is the primary means of communication here. You could write here in Romanian, as I also understand that language, but I don't think any of the other readers here would understand. As they say at the poker tables, "English only, please".

 

[cardcounter0]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Here I will bold it for you.

SO continue to win 2 BBs per hour against the worse players in the casino, and worry about their loose or tight, and know that in a $4/$8 game you bet $8 on the turn. When you move up in limits, you will see some moves that make your eyes spin because you didn't learn the proper lessons against the bad players.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Have fun, I'm done.

But feel free to continue to search for meaningless "inconsistent" statements. That is a sure way to learn how to really profit from the game.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[callipygian]

Have fun, I'm done.

You were done a long time ago, kid. You just didn't realize it.