p****r
发帖数: 9164 | 1 明知道可以find better game, 但输了个match， 总是想把他赢会来。特别是自己
被suck out 后， 总是不服气。 自己也明白， suck out是part of game, 但打起game
来，总是控制不自己。
在poker上,真的没有必要有不服输的精神。 毕竟， poker 的主要目的是 money. | s*********f
发帖数: 155 | 2 "poker 的主要目的是 money. "
This seems like the wrong reason for playing poker.
Even at 5 BB/100 hands, a very good ROI, won't get you very far, especially
in live game. Let's say you play $500 max, with $5 BB. 30 hands per hours
and you play 12 hours a day. That will be 360 hands, and you make ~$90 per
day. Even if you play 365 days a year, you only make a meager ~$33000 per
year, at the expense of your health, relationship and other pursuits and
interests.
In the big picture of life, playing for fun while losing money you can
afford is not too bad. | f*****g
发帖数: 15860 | 3 he's a pro so poker 的主要目的是 money is right, lol.
especially
【在 s*********f 的大作中提到】
: "poker 的主要目的是 money. "
: This seems like the wrong reason for playing poker.
: Even at 5 BB/100 hands, a very good ROI, won't get you very far, especially
: in live game. Let's say you play $500 max, with $5 BB. 30 hands per hours
: and you play 12 hours a day. That will be 360 hands, and you make ~$90 per
: day. Even if you play 365 days a year, you only make a meager ~$33000 per
: year, at the expense of your health, relationship and other pursuits and
: interests.
: In the big picture of life, playing for fun while losing money you can
: afford is not too bad.
| p****r
发帖数: 9164 | 4 for live game, I would not measure winning rate by bb/100, since there
are so many factors that are different from online cash game,usually live
cash game are mcuh deeper. I saw a 78k pot in a 5-10 no cap game. hourly
winning rate is more appropriate. 2/5, 500 max game is too small to make a
living, you are right.
for a decent 2/5 , or 5/10 no max buyin cash player, winning 80-100$/
hour is normal. for a lots of 10/20 reg in commerce, their winning rate is
over 200$/hour after all the cost.
still , playing online is more profitable for majority players.
【 在 fryking (赤道企鹅) 的大作中提到: 】 | W********m
发帖数: 7793 | 5 "playing online is more profitable for majority players. "
This statement is inaccurate. There are way too many variables for different people. | s*********f
发帖数: 155 | 6 i c.
But the fluctuation is probably a lot more than online poker, because of
fewer number of hands (hence lack of averaging and convergence to EV). Got
to have nerve of steel..., especially the money in the pot is your
livelihood.
$200/hour is really not a bad way to make a living. I wonder how many live
pro player can sustain such win rate for long periods of time.
hourly
【在 p****r 的大作中提到】
: for live game, I would not measure winning rate by bb/100, since there
: are so many factors that are different from online cash game,usually live
: cash game are mcuh deeper. I saw a 78k pot in a 5-10 no cap game. hourly
: winning rate is more appropriate. 2/5, 500 max game is too small to make a
: living, you are right.
: for a decent 2/5 , or 5/10 no max buyin cash player, winning 80-100$/
: hour is normal. for a lots of 10/20 reg in commerce, their winning rate is
: over 200$/hour after all the cost.
: still , playing online is more profitable for majority players.
:
| y********n
发帖数: 2063 | 7 $200/hour
-----sounds very strange.
1) live game means only one tabling, generally you will be dealt 40 hands per
hour. I guess only 8-10 hands is playable. If you play all 10 hands, then it
is 25% vpip, which is a lot.
I still make the assumption of 10 hands.
2) $200. Supposing you play 5/10, it is 20BB. Even we do not count the all
other factors in, such as the tips, the commute fee, it is still a lot.
If we calculate the win rate, it is 20BB/40 hands, which is equals to 50BB/
100 hands, I do not believe that result is sustainable.
I guess the super hero at 5/10 level online can only achieve 4BB/100.
Even phil galfond plays 10/20 level online, I doubt he can achieve 6BB/100 at
10/20 level online.
【在 s*********f 的大作中提到】
: i c.
: But the fluctuation is probably a lot more than online poker, because of
: fewer number of hands (hence lack of averaging and convergence to EV). Got
: to have nerve of steel..., especially the money in the pot is your
: livelihood.
: $200/hour is really not a bad way to make a living. I wonder how many live
: pro player can sustain such win rate for long periods of time.
:
: hourly
| p****r
发帖数: 9164 | 8 dude, you are comparing different things. online cash game and live cash
game are quite different. you do not see online cash game has over 200BB
stack often. for live middle-high stakes game w/o ante, 500BB is usually
middle stack. you get higher edge in live game by physcial tells etc as well
.
Do not have to believe me on this , go 2p2 high stakes NL board and
find out yourself. :) there are a few chinese guys in commerce live game
who make over a million last few years. I know a Chinese Pro in Commerce
even pay 10k$/month to Bao er nai. lol.
per
it
【在 y********n 的大作中提到】
: $200/hour
: -----sounds very strange.
: 1) live game means only one tabling, generally you will be dealt 40 hands per
: hour. I guess only 8-10 hands is playable. If you play all 10 hands, then it
: is 25% vpip, which is a lot.
: I still make the assumption of 10 hands.
: 2) $200. Supposing you play 5/10, it is 20BB. Even we do not count the all
: other factors in, such as the tips, the commute fee, it is still a lot.
: If we calculate the win rate, it is 20BB/40 hands, which is equals to 50BB/
: 100 hands, I do not believe that result is sustainable.
| p*******p
发帖数: 13670 | 9 live和online完全不一样的，拿online的那套来套live会吃大亏，而且live一小时也就
撑死20手， 要是按照你的算法，最牛逼的也就4bb/100, 那么玩5/10里面最牛的人也就
能赚8块钱一小时？ 想想这个还要扣除tip，扣除差旅费， 谁会干啊
per
it
【在 y********n 的大作中提到】
: $200/hour
: -----sounds very strange.
: 1) live game means only one tabling, generally you will be dealt 40 hands per
: hour. I guess only 8-10 hands is playable. If you play all 10 hands, then it
: is 25% vpip, which is a lot.
: I still make the assumption of 10 hands.
: 2) $200. Supposing you play 5/10, it is 20BB. Even we do not count the all
: other factors in, such as the tips, the commute fee, it is still a lot.
: If we calculate the win rate, it is 20BB/40 hands, which is equals to 50BB/
: 100 hands, I do not believe that result is sustainable.
| W********m
发帖数: 7793 | 10 you can have more bb/100 hand live than on-line only if you have more edge,
no matter it is reading live tells or better understanding of the game. It
is the same game with 54 cards, where you are dealt AA 1 out of 220 times.
So if someone can really win 50bb/100 hand live 5/10 game. It is either 1)
he is god. 2) the rest of players suck really really bad.
As for deep stack, it does increase your win rate a little, but how often do
you really put in all of your stack? I suppose mostly will be in cooler
situation where you could land either side of the beat or your opponents are
really really bad who can't even observe that people who pot control have a
very narrow stack off range when deep.
On a side note, i would not trust too much on what people claim on 2p2.
People often over-estimate their winrate, because they have short memory of
losses and like to claim their winrate from a hot run. This is true for fast
on-line games. Now for slow live games where sample size is usually small
and variance is much larger for extensive period of time, this is even more
true. I suspect many of live player do not keep a good track of their
winrate accurately even without considering the variance aspect of live
games.
it is true that live game is much softer. but to achieve 50bb/100 hand, you probably need to have at least 3-4 whales in the game at all time who likes to play deep stack. If you can find this kind of games all the time, we all envy you.
【在 p*******p 的大作中提到】
: live和online完全不一样的，拿online的那套来套live会吃大亏，而且live一小时也就
: 撑死20手， 要是按照你的算法，最牛逼的也就4bb/100, 那么玩5/10里面最牛的人也就
: 能赚8块钱一小时？ 想想这个还要扣除tip，扣除差旅费， 谁会干啊
:
: per
: it
| | | f*****g
发帖数: 15860 | 11 the same game with 54 cards
----------------------------
lol, no wonder you have big edge on us, haha.
,
do
are
a
【在 W********m 的大作中提到】
: you can have more bb/100 hand live than on-line only if you have more edge,
: no matter it is reading live tells or better understanding of the game. It
: is the same game with 54 cards, where you are dealt AA 1 out of 220 times.
: So if someone can really win 50bb/100 hand live 5/10 game. It is either 1)
: he is god. 2) the rest of players suck really really bad.
: As for deep stack, it does increase your win rate a little, but how often do
: you really put in all of your stack? I suppose mostly will be in cooler
: situation where you could land either side of the beat or your opponents are
: really really bad who can't even observe that people who pot control have a
: very narrow stack off range when deep.
| d*****0
发帖数: 1500 | 12 左边袖子里藏一张ace of spade， 右边袖子里藏一张king of diamond
人生完整了 | p****r
发帖数: 9164 | 13 dude, no offesne, but you are talking about things that you do not have
much experience with. It does not make any sense to measure winning rate
with bb/100 in live no cap cash game. I agree with Li Shu.
no. You do not need to be super good to win 200$/h in no cap 10-20
NL or 100$/h in 5-10 no cap NL. I play a lot of no cap cash game myself.
The deeper stack does not only improve the edge a little, it actually a
major factor of your edge. Also, there are actually some rich businessman/
lawyer/dcotor etc fish in live cash game, while most online high stakes game
are mostly pro/reg. Our edge is much bigger against fish than Pro. Watch
Pokerstars's big game on poker stars tv http://www.pokerstars.tv/, see how rich guy Bill Perkins dump money
also you do no need some really cooler to win a big pot or get
better edge in live cash game. You can push your opp out of a hand with a
deep stack, also get tons of implied odd with strong made hand, or make
better decision by reading the situation.
When a good Chinese reg from commerce played 5-10 NL at Vegas,
he CALLED a over 3k river shove with AQ high, that is more than 300BB, he
was against lower Ace high with missed Nuts flush draw. That is not kind of
edge you can get from 100bb online cash game often. See last season of
High stakes poker, the Rolex watch dealer shoved with KQ high on a 6 high
flop , with 3 betting preflop from Jonnny Chan. Chan snap called with AA. I
would not say holding K high with no draw against AA is a super cooler.
,
do
are
a
【在 W********m 的大作中提到】
: you can have more bb/100 hand live than on-line only if you have more edge,
: no matter it is reading live tells or better understanding of the game. It
: is the same game with 54 cards, where you are dealt AA 1 out of 220 times.
: So if someone can really win 50bb/100 hand live 5/10 game. It is either 1)
: he is god. 2) the rest of players suck really really bad.
: As for deep stack, it does increase your win rate a little, but how often do
: you really put in all of your stack? I suppose mostly will be in cooler
: situation where you could land either side of the beat or your opponents are
: really really bad who can't even observe that people who pot control have a
: very narrow stack off range when deep.
| d*****0
发帖数: 1500 | 14 player is real player，我坦白了，我就是你粉丝 | p*******p
发帖数: 13670 | 15 哎，无知者无畏啊
,
do
are
a
【在 W********m 的大作中提到】
: you can have more bb/100 hand live than on-line only if you have more edge,
: no matter it is reading live tells or better understanding of the game. It
: is the same game with 54 cards, where you are dealt AA 1 out of 220 times.
: So if someone can really win 50bb/100 hand live 5/10 game. It is either 1)
: he is god. 2) the rest of players suck really really bad.
: As for deep stack, it does increase your win rate a little, but how often do
: you really put in all of your stack? I suppose mostly will be in cooler
: situation where you could land either side of the beat or your opponents are
: really really bad who can't even observe that people who pot control have a
: very narrow stack off range when deep.
| W********m
发帖数: 7793 | 16 I don't know what you mean by "does not make any sense to measure winning
rate
with bb/100 in live no cap cash game."
It does not make sense to measure it because the sample size is too small or
the variance of the sample itself is too big that your estimate is not
reliable? or do you not have any idea of what I am talking about?
You do have some information, certainly more than I do, but the accuracy of
the information still need to be verified. (so and so claimed it on 2p2
sounds retarded). Either way, I suspect that your way of deriving conclusion
is not exactly accurate based on your conclusion alone. Just like the
example you give, someone called a 300bb push and caught the bluff, you say
that is an edge. But did you considered how big that edge is in terms of ev?
In a way this can be estimated over long run based on his % of bluff and
his range of hand. The actual estimation is probably not possible, but at
least you should try to think that way so that you can factor in when you
make a decision. Then you can simply realize that the ev of that call is not
as big as you think. The fact that the stack is really deep make this high
variance play on its own, which make it even harder to try to calculate the
real ev and it could even be a losing play over long run.
I do data analysis for living. People who are expert on certain areas come
to our kind to ask for advise on how to interpret their data even though i
might not know shit about his field. Having not played in any high level live cash game does not affect me stating the obvious based on some information that you provided.
20
game
【在 p****r 的大作中提到】
: dude, no offesne, but you are talking about things that you do not have
: much experience with. It does not make any sense to measure winning rate
: with bb/100 in live no cap cash game. I agree with Li Shu.
: no. You do not need to be super good to win 200$/h in no cap 10-20
: NL or 100$/h in 5-10 no cap NL. I play a lot of no cap cash game myself.
: The deeper stack does not only improve the edge a little, it actually a
: major factor of your edge. Also, there are actually some rich businessman/
: lawyer/dcotor etc fish in live cash game, while most online high stakes game
: are mostly pro/reg. Our edge is much bigger against fish than Pro. Watch
: Pokerstars's big game on poker stars tv http://www.pokerstars.tv/, see how rich guy Bill Perkins dump money
| d*****0
发帖数: 1500 | | t********t
发帖数: 5415 | 18 我不厚道的笑了...
【在 f*****g 的大作中提到】
: the same game with 54 cards
: ----------------------------
: lol, no wonder you have big edge on us, haha.
:
: ,
: do
: are
: a
| s*******o
发帖数: 4896 | 19 什么做的二奶这么贵
well
and
【在 p****r 的大作中提到】
: dude, you are comparing different things. online cash game and live cash
: game are quite different. you do not see online cash game has over 200BB
: stack often. for live middle-high stakes game w/o ante, 500BB is usually
: middle stack. you get higher edge in live game by physcial tells etc as well
: .
:
: Do not have to believe me on this , go 2p2 high stakes NL board and
: find out yourself. :) there are a few chinese guys in commerce live game
: who make over a million last few years. I know a Chinese Pro in Commerce
: even pay 10k$/month to Bao er nai. lol.
| p****r
发帖数: 9164 | 20 I do not know the 二奶 market value in LA, but I heard that is a very cute
mm...
【在 s*******o 的大作中提到】
: 什么做的二奶这么贵
:
: well
: and
| | | p****r
发帖数: 9164 | 21 Poker is not a card game played by people, poker is people game played
with card.
Data anaylysis does not work well in live game since it is mainly
a people game, not a math game.
I talked to him after he made that 300BB river call with AQ high, he
said that was a pretty easy call. Just like doly Brunson called a pot size
river bet with JT high when he was against T9 high with both missed str
draw. Phil Galfond called river shove with TT on a KQQ82 board, when he was
against J9. He said in his vid" lot of ppl are waiting for better spot to
put money in, then do not wait anymore , this IS great spot to put money in"
. These call/play are huge +EV based on read , logic and how opp played.
For these accuracy of winning rate, it is indeed very hard to
measure since there are so many variables in live game. But many make 10-20k
/month, or more in 5-10 or 10-20NL no cap game. Of course, there are some
variance ,but many good reg do not have losing month. Commerce game is
generally much profitable than Vegas since many non-reg/pro there.
or
of
conclusion
【在 W********m 的大作中提到】
: I don't know what you mean by "does not make any sense to measure winning
: rate
: with bb/100 in live no cap cash game."
: It does not make sense to measure it because the sample size is too small or
: the variance of the sample itself is too big that your estimate is not
: reliable? or do you not have any idea of what I am talking about?
: You do have some information, certainly more than I do, but the accuracy of
: the information still need to be verified. (so and so claimed it on 2p2
: sounds retarded). Either way, I suspect that your way of deriving conclusion
: is not exactly accurate based on your conclusion alone. Just like the
| d*****0
发帖数: 1500 | 22 不得不发表自己的两分钱了 强顶player大大
其实个人也没打几次live（home game不算），总的感觉是fish和shark的edge相差巨大。
打个简单的比方，当一桌人由2个pro 4个fish 4个伪pro组成（这种情况应该很常见吧
），可以反过来算pro的win rate，那就是其他人的lose rate减去rake。你说光算fish
的lose rate，会不会只有－10bb/100 hands？我强烈的怀疑！
所以个人觉得live的侧重点在于选对桌子以及即时离桌，exploit fish，如果是为了赢
钱的话，不必死磕pro们，找准fish，又轻松来钱又快。 | p*******p
发帖数: 13670 | 23 奔片片吧
cute
【在 p****r 的大作中提到】
: Poker is not a card game played by people, poker is people game played
: with card.
:
: Data anaylysis does not work well in live game since it is mainly
: a people game, not a math game.
: I talked to him after he made that 300BB river call with AQ high, he
: said that was a pretty easy call. Just like doly Brunson called a pot size
: river bet with JT high when he was against T9 high with both missed str
: draw. Phil Galfond called river shove with TT on a KQQ82 board, when he was
: against J9. He said in his vid" lot of ppl are waiting for better spot to
| p****r
发帖数: 9164 | 24 我都没见过， 不过听说向你这样的神医包二奶的很多。。。。
【在 p*******p 的大作中提到】
: 奔片片吧
:
: cute
| W********m
发帖数: 7793 | 25 I don't know how we can communicate really, because you don't really have
much knowledge of statistics. Statistics is not Math. I always like to say
this: 学习统计不仅仅是学习一门科学， 更是学习一种人生观。 Once someone can
think like a statistician, then he will change many views in his daily life.
Above all, you will know not to be result oriented. Because in most of the
cases, the results we see daily are only outcomes sampled from a population.
Sample is never the truth. Population is the truth but we can rarely see it
, but the population MUST be there. Most of the time, the sample might not
even make any accurate conclusion at all of the population.
Like Phil Gorfond's call, look at this way, consider all his read, board
texture and previous action fixed factors, there is an underlying population
existing that tells us how much % that we are actually ahead or behind. The
population has a distribution (say binomial). All we see is one sample out
of that population. This sample by itself means nothing for us to conclude
population. Again, I am not trying to conclude this is right or wrong,
because I don't know. But I can tell you one thing, to conclude anything
about the population from 1 call is very dumb, from 10 calls is probably not
very wise either. There is a possibility that the population of this call
of his is not even a +ev move. The reason you believe it is a +ev move is
because phil Gorfond is a proven winning player. His winning record is based
on samples out of the true population. Let us assume this sample is big
enough to be close to the true population. That only means that he has an
overall +ev move with a combined population of all his decision. It does not
mean that the true population of this call is +ev move at all. But many
will believe that this conclusion is the correct one. How ridiculous?
Look, I am not trying to say this is a good or bad move. I am just trying
show a way of thinking not to be result oriented. To be a good poker player,
we need to be observant and try to get a grasp of the true population of
each move we make. Even if sometimes we can't really get the true population
due to too many factors. This way of thinking alone can make you a better
player. And let me emphisize this again, the underlying true population is
always there of each move.
What I write here has nothing to do with math. It is a concept, a way to
understand the world around you. Maybe this can be the first step for
someone not to be result oriented anymore.
played
mainly
he
size
was
【在 p****r 的大作中提到】
: 我都没见过， 不过听说向你这样的神医包二奶的很多。。。。
| l*****g
发帖数: 1128 | 26 Agree. Never sit there and just wait for a good spot. Take actions when you
know you are ahead even if you don't hold a good hand. Last weekend I won a
lot of money with my bottom pairs or second pairs because I bet a lot and I
knew they were chasing. In addition, being able to spot a bluff IS a big
edge. Phil and Doly called the bluffs was not because they were lucky or
something else, it was because they were able to analyze correctly and make
the right decisions, which is an edge.
played
mainly
he
size
was
【在 p****r 的大作中提到】
: 我都没见过， 不过听说向你这样的神医包二奶的很多。。。。
| l*****g
发帖数: 1128 | 27 Since the population is too big to measure, then we can only draw conclusion
from the sample. If you think most samples are wrong, then what other
methods can you suggest? The most important thing to statistics is evidence.
Without any solid evidences, how could you conclude the sample is not
representative or wrong? You think his sample is also too small because he
only gave a few examples, but that does not mean there is no more examples.
He cannot list all the hands here, but we know there are much more examples
like that out there. Don't assume everybody is wrong except you. No offense,
but I think your problem really fits his post title: 发现自己还是不能克服
ego这一关.
say
can
life.
the
population.
it
【在 W********m 的大作中提到】
: I don't know how we can communicate really, because you don't really have
: much knowledge of statistics. Statistics is not Math. I always like to say
: this: 学习统计不仅仅是学习一门科学， 更是学习一种人生观。 Once someone can
: think like a statistician, then he will change many views in his daily life.
: Above all, you will know not to be result oriented. Because in most of the
: cases, the results we see daily are only outcomes sampled from a population.
: Sample is never the truth. Population is the truth but we can rarely see it
: , but the population MUST be there. Most of the time, the sample might not
: even make any accurate conclusion at all of the population.
: Like Phil Gorfond's call, look at this way, consider all his read, board
| p****r
发帖数: 9164 | 28 lol. 妹妹ego大战后， 好久不出现了。 Actually, sometime , second pair or
bottom pair can make lot of money based on what opp have and his play
tendancy
Talking about catching bluff, also being able to make big laydown is
a also big edge. In a limit game, doly laid down AA on A224 board on the
turn. Three way action on the flop, they capped on the flop. The turn is a 2
, doly led out , somebody raised , he knew that the only hand that guy can
raise on the turn is quad 2's. so he let his Aces full go.
It is not about what your have, it is all about what you think
your opp have and what he does in certain situation.
conclusion
evidence.
.
examples
offense,
【在 l*****g 的大作中提到】
: Since the population is too big to measure, then we can only draw conclusion
: from the sample. If you think most samples are wrong, then what other
: methods can you suggest? The most important thing to statistics is evidence.
: Without any solid evidences, how could you conclude the sample is not
: representative or wrong? You think his sample is also too small because he
: only gave a few examples, but that does not mean there is no more examples.
: He cannot list all the hands here, but we know there are much more examples
: like that out there. Don't assume everybody is wrong except you. No offense,
: but I think your problem really fits his post title: 发现自己还是不能克服
: ego这一关.
| W********m
发帖数: 7793 | 29 Maybe read and understand before you post? where did I make any conclusion? I am merely explaining a way to assess one's game.
"Look, I am not trying to say this is a good or bad move. I am just trying to show a way of thinking not to be result oriented. "
Too bad you are not getting anything from any of my post. For a live only player whose experience is limited. What I wrote here is especially important to see through the results because of the large variance and limited samples in live games.
and yes. not making any conclusion or wait for more samples to make one is better than making the wrong conclusion.
conclusion
evidence.
.
examples
offense,
【在 l*****g 的大作中提到】
: Since the population is too big to measure, then we can only draw conclusion
: from the sample. If you think most samples are wrong, then what other
: methods can you suggest? The most important thing to statistics is evidence.
: Without any solid evidences, how could you conclude the sample is not
: representative or wrong? You think his sample is also too small because he
: only gave a few examples, but that does not mean there is no more examples.
: He cannot list all the hands here, but we know there are much more examples
: like that out there. Don't assume everybody is wrong except you. No offense,
: but I think your problem really fits his post title: 发现自己还是不能克服
: ego这一关.
| s*******o
发帖数: 4896 | 30 我还是坚定的相信那个never lay down a full house(牌面只有一个对子)的理论
很难很难把对方放到特定的一手牌，特别是online的时候，我绝对不会啊
is
2
【在 p****r 的大作中提到】
: lol. 妹妹ego大战后， 好久不出现了。 Actually, sometime , second pair or
: bottom pair can make lot of money based on what opp have and his play
: tendancy
:
: Talking about catching bluff, also being able to make big laydown is
: a also big edge. In a limit game, doly laid down AA on A224 board on the
: turn. Three way action on the flop, they capped on the flop. The turn is a 2
: , doly led out , somebody raised , he knew that the only hand that guy can
: raise on the turn is quad 2's. so he let his Aces full go.
: It is not about what your have, it is all about what you think
| | | p*******p
发帖数: 13670 | 31 deep stack，bottom full是有一些情况可以easy lay down， 俺们这里就有人不肯lay
down这个明显的，一把牌输了800个bb （3way action，pot 2000bb，牌面AQ9Q3,3
hearts）
【在 s*******o 的大作中提到】
: 我还是坚定的相信那个never lay down a full house(牌面只有一个对子)的理论
: 很难很难把对方放到特定的一手牌，特别是online的时候，我绝对不会啊
:
: is
: 2
| s*******o
发帖数: 4896 | 32 恩，我的意思是网上基本不会有足够这么深的stack来fold
我觉得player这个例子举得不好。。那不是limit holdem吗？stack也不会太深吧
lay
【在 p*******p 的大作中提到】
: deep stack，bottom full是有一些情况可以easy lay down， 俺们这里就有人不肯lay
: down这个明显的，一把牌输了800个bb （3way action，pot 2000bb，牌面AQ9Q3,3
: hearts）
| p*******p
发帖数: 13670 | 33 恩，那个我不评论，不过有时候，你live打多了，对一个人足够了解的话，你是可以
100%确定他的牌的
【在 s*******o 的大作中提到】
: 恩，我的意思是网上基本不会有足够这么深的stack来fold
: 我觉得player这个例子举得不好。。那不是limit holdem吗？stack也不会太深吧
:
: lay
| p*******p
发帖数: 13670 | 34 而且lay down bottom full (or buttom set on no pair flop)其实不需要这么深，
multi way的时候很容易看出来的，hu另说
【在 s*******o 的大作中提到】
: 恩，我的意思是网上基本不会有足够这么深的stack来fold
: 我觉得player这个例子举得不好。。那不是limit holdem吗？stack也不会太深吧
:
: lay
| l*****g
发帖数: 1128 | 35 最近忙晕了，所以很久都没去玩。直到上周末才挤出时间去玩了一个晚上。战绩还不错
，给自己的表现打70分吧。不过也有一手牌玩错了，主要是高估对手了。这里和大家分
享一下：
I was at MP with AQ off suit. Stack size $800. EP raised to $15. He was an
old white man who just came to the table. He hadn't played a hand yet. The
guy next to him called, and I called. Flop Q 2 7 rainbow. The old man
immediately bet $65. Folded to me. I tanked. It was a tough decision. That
was the first hand he played and I didn't know his style at all. $65 on the
flop is a really big bet. He looked very confident too.So I put him on AQ or
higher. I asked him how much he got left, and he had about 300 left.I
thought about raising just to see where I was at, but I didn't pull the
trigger. I then decided to call,hoping for him to shut down on the turn if
he just had AQ or QK. Turn was a small card. He hesitated for a second and
then bet $90. I knew if I called here then I had to call the river, which
would be too much. The best result for me was chopping the pot if he only
had AQ, so I thought it wasn't worth for me to call all the way to river. I
then showed my AQ and folded, and he showed his QK. I was very surprised to
see that considering the way he played. He also told me he thought his QK
was definitely good. I think I should've raised him on the flop.
is
2
【在 p****r 的大作中提到】
: lol. 妹妹ego大战后， 好久不出现了。 Actually, sometime , second pair or
: bottom pair can make lot of money based on what opp have and his play
: tendancy
:
: Talking about catching bluff, also being able to make big laydown is
: a also big edge. In a limit game, doly laid down AA on A224 board on the
: turn. Three way action on the flop, they capped on the flop. The turn is a 2
: , doly led out , somebody raised , he knew that the only hand that guy can
: raise on the turn is quad 2's. so he let his Aces full go.
: It is not about what your have, it is all about what you think
| s*******o
发帖数: 4896 | 36 multi way肯定要小心
hu,200bb以内我不太能够lay down bottom full
【在 p*******p 的大作中提到】
: 而且lay down bottom full (or buttom set on no pair flop)其实不需要这么深，
: multi way的时候很容易看出来的，hu另说
| s*******o
发帖数: 4896 | 37 this is a typical result oriented analysis.............
我记得CR上看过某个著名教练说的，尽量不要为了信息去raise，raise either for
bluff
or build up pot， AQ on Q27 rainbow if you raise for information, the only
hands
can call you are the hands beat you.
the
or
【在 l*****g 的大作中提到】
: 最近忙晕了，所以很久都没去玩。直到上周末才挤出时间去玩了一个晚上。战绩还不错
: ，给自己的表现打70分吧。不过也有一手牌玩错了，主要是高估对手了。这里和大家分
: 享一下：
: I was at MP with AQ off suit. Stack size $800. EP raised to $15. He was an
: old white man who just came to the table. He hadn't played a hand yet. The
: guy next to him called, and I called. Flop Q 2 7 rainbow. The old man
: immediately bet $65. Folded to me. I tanked. It was a tough decision. That
: was the first hand he played and I didn't know his style at all. $65 on the
: flop is a really big bet. He looked very confident too.So I put him on AQ or
: higher. I asked him how much he got left, and he had about 300 left.I
| l*****g
发帖数: 1128 | 38 "For a live only player whose experience is limited"_________ are you
talking about yourself or me? At least the post is about live play. I think
I have the right to speak anyway, even if I were not a poker player.
OK,I don't fully understand your post if you think so, but that's because I
didn't even finish reading it.
我也只是就你其中的一部分观点提出异议，难道不可以吗？你凭什么说通常样本都是不
正确的？又凭什么说2＋2上面的信息不准确？又凭什么认为你说的都是对的别人的就是
错的？即使是对的，我们也可以发表不同观点，这也是论坛的用处。
conclusion? I am merely explaining a way to assess one's game.
to show a way of thinking not to be result oriented. "
player whose experience is limited. What I wrote here is especially
important to see through the results because of the large variance and
limited samples in live games.
is better than making the wrong conclusion.
【在 W********m 的大作中提到】
: Maybe read and understand before you post? where did I make any conclusion? I am merely explaining a way to assess one's game.
: "Look, I am not trying to say this is a good or bad move. I am just trying to show a way of thinking not to be result oriented. "
: Too bad you are not getting anything from any of my post. For a live only player whose experience is limited. What I wrote here is especially important to see through the results because of the large variance and limited samples in live games.
: and yes. not making any conclusion or wait for more samples to make one is better than making the wrong conclusion.
:
: conclusion
: evidence.
: .
: examples
: offense,
| l*****g
发帖数: 1128 | 39 I don't agree. It is not like I didn't have a good hand. TPTK is good enough
to raise on that board. I didn't raise because I don't know much about the
player. If I did raise, I don't think he would bet on the turn. If he
reraised me, then I would have enough information to fold.
【在 s*******o 的大作中提到】
: this is a typical result oriented analysis.............
: 我记得CR上看过某个著名教练说的，尽量不要为了信息去raise，raise either for
: bluff
: or build up pot， AQ on Q27 rainbow if you raise for information, the only
: hands
: can call you are the hands beat you.
:
: the
: or
| W********m
发帖数: 7793 | 40 If u don't finish reading other's post, then u should stop posting comment on that particular post. Ur post means nothing to me this way.
"For a live only player whose experience is limited"_________ are you
talking about your........
★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.21
【在 l*****g 的大作中提到】
: "For a live only player whose experience is limited"_________ are you
: talking about yourself or me? At least the post is about live play. I think
: I have the right to speak anyway, even if I were not a poker player.
: OK,I don't fully understand your post if you think so, but that's because I
: didn't even finish reading it.
: 我也只是就你其中的一部分观点提出异议，难道不可以吗？你凭什么说通常样本都是不
: 正确的？又凭什么说2＋2上面的信息不准确？又凭什么认为你说的都是对的别人的就是
: 错的？即使是对的，我们也可以发表不同观点，这也是论坛的用处。
:
: conclusion? I am merely explaining a way to assess one's game.
| | | W********m
发帖数: 7793 | 41 It also reflects urself poorly to comment on something that u claim u don't
understand in such manner.
If u don't finish reading other's post, then u should stop posting comment
on that parti........
★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.21
【在 W********m 的大作中提到】
: If u don't finish reading other's post, then u should stop posting comment on that particular post. Ur post means nothing to me this way.
:
: "For a live only player whose experience is limited"_________ are you
: talking about your........
: ★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.21
| l*****g
发帖数: 1128 | 42 When I don't agree on something you said at the beginning of the post, then
it was really unnecessary for me to waste my time to finish.
I don't have to understand what all you said,because I didn't argue every
point you made, but I did read the points that I was disagree with. If you
can't accept any different opinions, then I think it is totally fine for me
not to comment since I found out there is no fun at all for doing so.
t
【在 W********m 的大作中提到】
: It also reflects urself poorly to comment on something that u claim u don't
: understand in such manner.
:
: If u don't finish reading other's post, then u should stop posting comment
: on that parti........
: ★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.21
| s*********f
发帖数: 155 | 43 精辟！
" 学习统计不仅仅是学习一门科学， 更是学习一种人生观。 Once someone can
life.
the
population.
it
Although I do feel we want to be more supportive of the only mm player here. | s*********f
发帖数: 155 | 44 I certainly believe there are people who can make >$200/hour in live game
consistently. The tougher questions are:
1. How many pros can make >$200/hour? (now do they pay tax?)
2. Are they happy playing poker day in and day out?
While I have tremendous respect for winning poker players, I would think
unless you are Phil Galfond-like, it is hard to get respect from most people
as a pro poker player, which naturally leads to Er Nan, more for your ego
than sex itself, and playing poker at non-optimal conditions.
played
mainly
he
size
was
【在 p****r 的大作中提到】
: lol. 妹妹ego大战后， 好久不出现了。 Actually, sometime , second pair or
: bottom pair can make lot of money based on what opp have and his play
: tendancy
:
: Talking about catching bluff, also being able to make big laydown is
: a also big edge. In a limit game, doly laid down AA on A224 board on the
: turn. Three way action on the flop, they capped on the flop. The turn is a 2
: , doly led out , somebody raised , he knew that the only hand that guy can
: raise on the turn is quad 2's. so he let his Aces full go.
: It is not about what your have, it is all about what you think
| p****r
发帖数: 9164 | 45 dude, that is limit holdem, no stack issue unless you are almost broke. If
he decided to call the turn and just called the river, it would only cost
him 2 more big bet.Saving two big bet based on read can help a lot over long
term winning. I think it was a 40/80$ limit game many years ago.
But he knows that person enough to make the laydown. What I am trying to
illustrate that poker is a people game, not just a card game. He played
with that person long enough to put that person on a specific hand on that
situation. He made the decisioin not by odds that his Aces full was good
enough to make the call, but based on his knowledge of opponent and the way
he played.
【在 s*******o 的大作中提到】
: 恩，我的意思是网上基本不会有足够这么深的stack来fold
: 我觉得player这个例子举得不好。。那不是limit holdem吗？stack也不会太深吧
:
: lay
| G********r
发帖数: 666 | 46 The greats realized long time ago that none of us (human) could be right all
the time about everything.
Enough said. |
|
