Well I played the 500k Championchip tonight
Andyfothershops
I'd decided pretty close to bubble having never been deep that cashing was
about all I could aim for. Even folded AA to a raise that would have put me
all in with a minimum of two opponents. I think I did the right thing. Would
anyone lese have folded AA here , or would you go for glory. ( I pretty much
knew the way things were going that I would cash , but doubling wouldn't
have helped THAT much)
Well I made it. I cashed for $679 in 144th of about 1500. It was 3000 chips
(deep) and 20 minute blinds It cost me $5 to enter.
A
CheckRazor
Good job, Andy. I'm sorry more people don't respond to actual poker
posts, but we (USA people) seem to be mired down in a very nasty
election cycle
It will be over soon, and hopefully we can start discussing important
things like poker, dammit.
As far as folding Aces, yeah I'd do it if I were that close to
bubbling. To me, bubbling is the absolute worst thing you can do in a
tournament.
On a side note, are you skiing this year? It snowed last night here in
the high country of Colorado. The dollar's down, might be a good time
to pay us a visit.
kevinan...@gmail.com
The dollar isn't down
RussGe...@aol.com
All players of multiple table tournaments are capable of cashing or
winning. Simply by following my first lesson you have a chance. But,
Houston, we do have a problem .... Many of you are playing far above
your comfort zone. You let the gradually increasing monetary
compensation for finishing a step or so higher than your last
position
affect your overall rationale.
Cashing is better than losing, but not that much. I'd much rather
make
a big play when I'm supposed to and go out on the bubble, than skip
this play in order to cash.
A simple tournament many of you can understand is the WSOP. This
event
costs $10,000 to enter yet if you are a low level casher, you receive
$15,000 or so, if I'm not mistaken. At least in this one, you get a
50%
reward (compared to buy-in) for cashing, something you don't get with
many online tournaments. Another way to look at it - Are you a
horseplayer happy to bet $1000 to cash in on the horse who pays
$2.10?
It's still a horserace, no guarantees. Look at the reward for winning
$5,000,000. 499x the buy-in, compared to .5% of the buy-in for low
level cashing. Do you see what I getting at? If you're letting the
money scare you, you're not playing good poker.
Obviously my examples are the most extreme, and money this size can
change people's lives. The reality is the majorities of these events,
players win their entries through small buy-in satellites and parlay
up
for a chance at the gold mine. But, if you can't adjust, you're
throwing your chance away.
Most players can't afford big buy-in events and money does affect
them.
Many are happy just cashing as they have a very small monetary
interest
invested. (This is important information for certain other players.
Many know this and use it against you.)
Lately PM site discussions have revolved around the concept that
moving
up a notch or two in the standing would bring the person an extra
$1,000 or $2,000. If you're letting this affect your play, you're
already playing badly. No matter what anyone says, we all know luck
is
the greatest determining factor in tournaments.
Winning one of these events is better than cashing at the bottom-end
of
hundreds of them. It's worth repeating. Winning one of these events
is
better than cashing at the bottom-end of hundreds of them. Even final
table finishes are nothing to brag about in most events. Casey Kastle
either had the most cashes or final table appearances in the WPT the
first 2 years, and it didn't do him any good.
I know Casey Kastle very well. He's a great guy and a great player
and
as honest a person as you could meet. His defining moment came when
he
was medium-stacked at the final table and one player went all-in with
a
low stack. This move was immediately followed by two other players
doing the same with stacks close to if not more than Casey's.
Casey, using judgment, laid down KK. I have told you I will never lay
down KK or AA in any tourney except if I have about 3 chips left and
a
player or 2 could be knocked out. This was not applicable for Casey.
He
was about mid-size with a whole table to conquer.
Results, 2 players had QQ and the first all-in was bluffing because
he
was short-stacked. Casey would have knocked out 3 players and been
chip
leader with a big chance for the big money. Instead, a small stack
was
knocked out followed shortly by Casey. I promise you, Casey will
never
forget this hand. And I guarantee you I would have called in an
instant. If someone put a gun to my head and said, "Lay the hand
down",
I would have asked to see the bullets.
This lesson focuses on your train of thought when you're playing
these
events. If you need money and each position means quite a lot to you,
play smaller events and grind your way higher. When the money starts
clouding your judgment, you're not making the right decisions.
Cash players rule because most have some type of discipline and play
at
levels they can afford. Why play these mega tourneys when you're
broke?
..... If it's desperation, you have to know that you will get into
more
trouble the longer it goes on. Once in a while it will bail you out,
but if you're in this position all the time, it will catch up with
you.
Play smaller, grind, and accumulate. No excuses. We are not playing
to
see who lasts longer, but to see who wins. If you can't make the
right
play and gamble properly when the situation arises, drop to a smaller
level.
Many of you are here hoping to become great players and live a life
like they show on TV. (Hey, I'm not on TV, but I live the life. Few
of
those on TV actually do.) Many of you have adequate resources and
want
to improve your game while others just want good information. I thank
all of you for joining PokerMafia, whatever your reasons. But please
follow my directions especially in my lessons. Yes, gambling is
exciting and the gambler has a reputation (true or not) of having a
better, faster, more fulfilling life. Didn't you want to be Maverick?
The reality? Winning is boring. "Not possible!" you say. Let's talk
again when/ if you're a winning gambler over the long run.
My advice, stop taking shots and get down to business if you want to
be
professional players. To the amateurs with money I say, "Play your
hardest and don't let the money cloud your judgment." If you have
paid
$250 for a year's membership, most of you don't need $500-$1000 that
badly to let it affect your play.
Remember, in the end, tourney winners get to be tourney winners
because
they are on the good side of many coin-tossing situations. Your goal
is
to get into a position where you can toss the coin. It's very simple
-
no chance to toss, no chance to win.
Keep practicing all the lessons. I'm going light on you this week.
Think of it as learning to drive a stick shift all over again - many
factors need your attention. Part of my job is to make sure you can
stop and start again going uphill. If this lesson is too light for
you
remember that my 'ASK RUSS' forum is worth more than any book ever
written about poker.
Russ Georgiev
www.pokermafia.com
www.pokerunchecked.com
www.russgeorgiev.com
Andyfothershops
<RussGe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b9e9cb2c-a64a-4337...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Cash or Win
Russ Georgiev
www.pokermafia.com
www.pokerunchecked.com
www.russgeorgiev.com
Thanks for the long reply (what would they say on 2+2?-- TLDR)
Actually I did read it though.
Let me explain the situation.
I entered a $5 rebuy as I often do when I want a rest from 50c/1 ring games.
I usually don't enter qualifiers, but I thought what the hell as it was the
next MTT to start and the next low buy in one was 1/2 hr later. The first
place paid a $385 ticket to the monthly deep stack long level 500K at Poker
Room. Second and third paid smaller tickets and some cash.
Well I won it without rebuying, which was an achievement in itself. As it is
way over my usual buy in I asked here if anyone would coach me through it
for a %. I would have accepted the coaching from you Russ if you'd offered.
No one offered.
So it comes to yesterday, and I just thought to myself, be disciplined and
play super tight until you have a decent stack. The best I got was 20K. And
for most of the tournament I hovered between 5 and 15 K.
4 Hours in and I was way short and went all in with Jacks to get called by
Queens.a nd A9 . I thought I was going to be out 50 places from the money. I
sucked out and trebled with ace on flop and J on river. From there on in I
didn't get dealt any playable hands. Even with position my only move would
have been all in as there was always a raise before me which would have been
priced in to call my all in with virtually ATC. I had my blinds relentlessly
stolen. Again I couldn't do much about it as I couldn't raise enough to not
get called and never had a hand that would have stood a showdown. I decided
20 from the money, that I just about had enough to cash without playing a
hand.. $679 represented 1/3 of my current roll and 135 x my investment.
When I got AA, I had 5 x BB (20 minute levels and just gone up) and there
were 7 more to go out, and 25 with less chips than me. There were a lot of
big stacks one raised 3 x bb, another reraised 3. My decision was do I want
to get in a minimum 3 way pot with AA and potentially bubble, or do I want
$679 for a significant boost to my BR. I chose the latter. The tournament
paid to 160 , but there were now significant cash jumps till about 70th. A
friend of mine cashed in 44th for 2.5K. If I had called and trebled, I
wouldn't have been THAT much better off, I would still have been shortish
and potentially bubbled. If I played at this level all the time, of course
it would have been a snap call. The thing is I don't and won't be anytime
soon.
Call me a pussy if you want, but I' a pussy who is slightly better off.
That $679 could be the difference between Whistler and Andorra at Christmas.
A
Andyfothershops
"CheckRazor" <Luv2skib...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6f093bf-a84d-458d...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Hopefully Whistler at Christmas, We tend to follow the best snow and the
best deals. Where in Colorado are you?
A
Will in New Haven
> Without any coaching.
>
> I'd decided pretty close to bubble having never been deep that cashing was
> about all I could aim for. Even folded AA to a raise that would have put me
> all in with a minimum of two opponents.
<vomiting sound>
Die in a Grease Fire
--
Will in New Haven
Andyfothershops
"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:a42ee40c-e250-45cc...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> I'd decided pretty close to bubble having never been deep (in chips in
> this tounament I mean) that cashing was
> about all I could aim for. Even folded AA to a raise that would have put
> me
> all in with a minimum of two opponents.
<vomiting sound>
Die in a Grease Fire
--
Will in New Haven
Read the follow up to see the whole situation. I still contend that it was
the correct thing to do. I have bubbled with AA too many times, which is
fine if all it costs is a 2 x buy in cash. This was for 135 x effective buy
in.
Also find your own lines, you aren't the only 2 + 2 reader. I notice that
wishing death on people is a favourite of yours. Touchy subject - death,
when you are getting on in years.:)
A
Andyfothershops
<kevinan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8df3abcf-1114-4e0a...@v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Not exactly a tower of impenetrable strength though is it?
A
Will in New Haven
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in messagenews:a42ee40c-e250-45cc...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 5, 7:23 pm, "Andyfothershops" <a...@dfr.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Without any coaching.
>
> > I'd decided pretty close to bubble having never been deep (in chips in
> > this tounament I mean) that cashing was
> > about all I could aim for. Even folded AA to a raise that would have put
> > me
> > all in with a minimum of two opponents.
>
> <vomiting sound>
>
> Die in a Grease Fire
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
>
> Read the follow up to see the whole situation. I still contend that it was
> the correct thing to do. I have bubbled with AA too many times, which is
> fine if all it costs is a 2 x buy in cash. This was for 135 x effective buy
> in.
Let's petend that it was right. I can concede that there are
situations where it is.
Then _don't look at your cards_ Why make it harder for yourself. I
might have folded Aces or Kings in a sattelite yesterday. They were
paying sixteen places and there were seventeen left and I had a big
stack. So I didn't look at my cards for a few hands and then got my
entry. I _did_ just to keep it interesting for others, pretend to look
but I don't know what I had in any situation.Why give yourself the
agida when you know that you are going to fold?
> Also find your own lines, you aren't the only 2 + 2 reader.
We were using DiaGF on CardPlayer forums before they used them on
Four.
I notice that
> wishing death on people is a favourite of yours. Touchy subject - death,
> when you are getting on in years.:)
At least I haven't killed anyone for over twenty years. :-,)
RussGe...@aol.com
down. Yes, I saw your post, but the EV wasn't worth the time. No
attack, as I wish you the best. Next time, play a $5 tourney where if
you win, you get the cash.
On Oct 6, 4:35�am, "Andyfothershops" <a...@dfr.co.uk> wrote:
> <RussGeorg...@aol.com> wrote in message
RussGe...@aol.com
You can try to defend your laydown, but it's 100% wrong.
On Oct 6, 9:10�am, "Andyfothershops" <a...@dfr.co.uk> wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in messagenews:a42ee40c-e250-45cc...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Andyfothershops
If I could have not looked, I probably would have (??) When you have to
click a button on the screen to fold, it's kind of hard not to. I can see
aces out of a squint in my eye, I genereally have a few beers when playing
at home, so have learnt to spot aces from some distance when coming back
from the bathroom(as you gyys so quaintly refer to a toilet). Keep up the
not killing people thing it seems to be working for you.
A
Will in New Haven
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in messagenews:a83c919a-fb0a-475b...@e17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I used to think that you couldn't not look at your cards online but a
friend of mine showed me that you could. She was in a satellite and
was a cinch to make the cut, so she put a a little square of cardboard
in a spot where she could see her buttons to click but not the cards.
She said folding Aces would annoy her, so she saved herself the
annoyance.
By the way, I haven't gone over stack sizes, blind sizes, etc, to see
what I think of your decision and I would bet if I did I wouldn't
agree with it. However, there must be a point, depending on the player
and the event, where folding Aces might be right. Once you have
reached that point, unless you _enjoy_ folding Aces (and telling us
about it) why not avoid knowing. .
XaQ Morphy
> about all I could aim for. Even folded AA to a raise that would have put me
> all in with a minimum of two opponents. I think I did the right thing. Would
> anyone lese have folded AA here , or would you go for glory. ( I pretty much
> knew the way things were going that I would cash , but doubling wouldn't
> have helped THAT much)
If you're playing at a level where a minimum cash would mean a significant
score for you, and you would do anything to make that, then sure, fine,
whatever, fold whatever you want. However, if that was your plan going in
you should never have asked for coaching because I can't imagine anyone
other than Russ recommending to do whatever it takes to make the bare
minimum.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Andyfothershops
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:bccsr5x...@recgroups.com...
I didn't go in with that intent. At the time I had 5 x BB and I was around 7
from the money, I had button, and was pretty certain bubble would pop within
next two orbits. Blinds had just gone up and we were on 20 minute levels. I
had made the decision to cash at all costs about 1 orbit before.
If I had accepted a coaching deal, I would have followed orders providing
that good resoning was given.
A
Robert Ladd
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:bccsr5x...@recgroups.com...
>
>> about all I could aim for. Even folded AA to a raise that would have put
>> me
>> all in with a minimum of two opponents. I think I did the right thing.
>> Would
>> anyone lese have folded AA here , or would you go for glory. ( I pretty
>> much
>> knew the way things were going that I would cash , but doubling wouldn't
>> have helped THAT much)
>
> If you're playing at a level where a minimum cash would mean a significant
> score for you, and you would do anything to make that, then sure, fine,
> whatever, fold whatever you want. However, if that was your plan going in
> you should never have asked for coaching because I can't imagine anyone
> other than Russ recommending to do whatever it takes to make the bare
> minimum.
>
Guessing what someone will say before they say it is somewhat risky, since
they could change it to make you look bad.
But when someone posts their advice to a question in the same thread that
you're posting in, and they do it one and two days ahead of you, you really
should look at what their advice is before trying to characterize what they
might suggest. It really makes you look stupid when you're wrong.
Robert Ladd
XaQ Morphy
> Guessing what someone will say before they say it is somewhat risky, since
> they could change it to make you look bad.
>
> But when someone posts their advice to a question in the same thread that
> you're posting in, and they do it one and two days ahead of you, you really
> should look at what their advice is before trying to characterize what they
> might suggest. It really makes you look stupid when you're wrong.
Based on Andy's previous posts, it's fairly obvious that he's the kind of
person who would fold into the money. Sorry if you were too busy with
your political rants to notice this.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Robert Ladd
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Oct 8 2008 1:16 AM, Robert Ladd wrote:
>
>> Guessing what someone will say before they say it is somewhat risky,
>> since
>> they could change it to make you look bad.
>>
>> But when someone posts their advice to a question in the same thread that
>> you're posting in, and they do it one and two days ahead of you, you
>> really
>> should look at what their advice is before trying to characterize what
>> they
>> might suggest. It really makes you look stupid when you're wrong.
>
> Based on Andy's previous posts, it's fairly obvious that he's the kind of
> person who would fold into the money. Sorry if you were too busy with
> your political rants to notice this.
I'm talking about this comment of yours.
> However, if that was your plan going in
> you should never have asked for coaching because I can't imagine anyone
> other than Russ recommending to do whatever it takes to make the bare
> minimum.
If you'll look at the posts in the thread that were made well in advance of
when you posted, you'll see that Russ recommended that Andy's folding was
absolutely the wrong thing to do. So when you were saying, effectively that
Russ would recommend doing "whatever it takes to make the bare minimum", he
had already, twice, said that Andy should not have folded.
I'm sure you understood that, and you were just getting in another shot, at
Russ. But then again, your stupidity seems to be boundless, so maybe you do
just jump into the middle of threads and mischaracterize someone's opinion,
which they posted, even more than once above in the thread.
Pretty stupid when it's right there for everyone to see. Hell, they don't
even have to open a different thread to see your mischaracterization. My
guess is your next gaffe will be to take someone's quote intact and say they
said the opposite within the same message. Allowing the reader to see your
mischaractization without having to even open another message.
Robert Ladd
Raider Fan
>
> If you'll look at the posts in the thread that were made well in advance of
> when you posted, you'll see that Russ recommended that Andy's folding was
> absolutely the wrong thing to do. So when you were saying, effectively that
> Russ would recommend doing "whatever it takes to make the bare minimum", he
> had already, twice, said that Andy should not have folded.
>
> I'm sure you understood that, and you were just getting in another shot, at
> Russ. But then again, your stupidity seems to be boundless, so maybe you do
> just jump into the middle of threads and mischaracterize someone's opinion,
> which they posted, even more than once above in the thread.
>
> Pretty stupid when it's right there for everyone to see. Hell, they don't
> even have to open a different thread to see your mischaracterization. My
> guess is your next gaffe will be to take someone's quote intact and say they
> said the opposite within the same message. Allowing the reader to see your
> mischaractization without having to even open another message.
>
> Robert Ladd
Robert,
Maybe you weren't around when Russ had a highly discussed wager with
multiple RGP'rs that he could get into the cash in a big tourney. I was
on the phone with Russ and he told me what to do. Many people railed the
tourney and there were numerous posts afterwords.
Morphy was very vocal about the playing style Russ employed in that event.
That is what he is talking about in this thread.
I guess you had to be there (or here).
_____________________________________________________________________
XaQ Morphy
> If you'll look at the posts in the thread that were made well in advance of
> when you posted, you'll see that Russ recommended that Andy's folding was
> absolutely the wrong thing to do. So when you were saying, effectively that
> Russ would recommend doing "whatever it takes to make the bare minimum", he
> had already, twice, said that Andy should not have folded.
>
> I'm sure you understood that, and you were just getting in another shot, at
> Russ. But then again, your stupidity seems to be boundless, so maybe you do
> just jump into the middle of threads and mischaracterize someone's opinion,
> which they posted, even more than once above in the thread.
>
> Pretty stupid when it's right there for everyone to see. Hell, they don't
> even have to open a different thread to see your mischaracterization. My
> guess is your next gaffe will be to take someone's quote intact and say they
> said the opposite within the same message. Allowing the reader to see your
> mischaractization without having to even open another message.
Read Raider's post to describe where my comment to Russ came in.
As far as Russ's post in this thread, I have him killfiled, so I didn't
see it.
Don't you have some place to vanish to for a few years? That way when
Russ releases his 2nd book you can come back out of the woodwork and
praise it again for him.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Robert Ladd
"Raider Fan" <raidersgo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kd2vr5x...@recgroups.com...
Yes Raider, I was around for that, but I think from what was discussed, that
it wasn't a case, as you got close to the bubble that he recommended folding
a premium hand like AA to just hang around to make the cut. I believe from
what you said, that you would have played more aggressive, but folding with
mediocre hands and jamming with premium hands approaching the bubble is a
whole different world.
With the first situation, you are risking throwing away cashing with a
mediocre hand that is probably up against a good hand. In the second case,
you are looking at a situation that has the potential to turn your stack
into a weapon where you can vie for a big cashout rather than just taking an
"above the bubble cashout".
I don't know if Russ' bragging got into the way and made him play a little
less aggressive that day with you just to make the cut, but from what I saw
at the time it appeared legitimate that you really didn't have the cards to
justify taking the chance to get past the bubble. I've seen Russ play and
he's tight/aggressive. If the cards don't come he isn't the type to try to
force it.
Robert Ladd
XaQ Morphy
> I don't know if Russ' bragging got into the way and made him play a little
> less aggressive that day with you just to make the cut, but from what I saw
> at the time it appeared legitimate that you really didn't have the cards to
> justify taking the chance to get past the bubble. I've seen Russ play and
> he's tight/aggressive. If the cards don't come he isn't the type to try to
> force it.
Russ had a prop bet that he would cash. He played exactly the way one who
was trying to win said prop bet would play if all they were interested in
was to win the prop bet.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Robert Ladd
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
I've got a lot of things I can do, but pointing out your inconsistencies is
a hell of a lot more fun.
If you have Russ killfiled I can understand why you didn't see his comments.
Personally, I think killfiling any real poster is somewhat a waste. Just
don't open their posts when you see them. But that is just my opinion, and
I reserve the right to change that opinion if someone annoys me too much.
See, if you just hadn't read MY post we wouldn't be having this discussion
(or if you...oh no...killfiled me).
Robert Ladd
XaQ Morphy
> I've got a lot of things I can do, but pointing out your inconsistencies is
> a hell of a lot more fun.
Ok I'll see if I can plant a few more for you to follow around, since
doggystyle doesn't seem interested in playing chase your tail with me
anymore.
> If you have Russ killfiled I can understand why you didn't see his comments.
Now we're getting somewhere.
> Personally, I think killfiling any real poster is somewhat a waste. Just
> don't open their posts when you see them. But that is just my opinion, and
> I reserve the right to change that opinion if someone annoys me too much.
> See, if you just hadn't read MY post we wouldn't be having this discussion
> (or if you...oh no...killfiled me).
Russ rarely if ever posts in threads that he doesn't start, and every few
days/weeks he posts 10+ threads which are merely links to 5+ year old
google groups posts. He has offered RGP nothing of value as far as I'm
concerned, and his latest personal attacks and requests from his so-called
friends for me to lay off him made the decision to killfile him much
easier.
So yes, I agree that any real poster should not be killfiled. I don't
consider Russ a real poster.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
----
Robert Ladd
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Oct 8 2008 3:41 PM, Robert Ladd wrote:
>
>> I don't know if Russ' bragging got into the way and made him play a
>> little
>> less aggressive that day with you just to make the cut, but from what I
>> saw
>> at the time it appeared legitimate that you really didn't have the cards
>> to
>> justify taking the chance to get past the bubble. I've seen Russ play
>> and
>> he's tight/aggressive. If the cards don't come he isn't the type to try
>> to
>> force it.
>
> Russ had a prop bet that he would cash. He played exactly the way one who
> was trying to win said prop bet would play if all they were interested in
> was to win the prop bet.
>
If you believe that he played that way because of the prop bet, then why did
you, in this thread, make a characterization that ONLY Russ would recommend
doing "whatever it takes to make the bare minimum."?
The point is that you threw that in as a shot at Russ, which is your right,
but you did it using an illogical argument. And it especially looked silly
since most people's newsreaders probably displayed, many directly above your
post in the thread list, Russ' actual comments that were just the opposite
of what you claimed he would recommend.
If I'm in a thread and I posted that "I think the sky is blue", and you post
right after that, "everyone other than Robert Ladd believes the sky is
blue", wouldn't you think that makes you look rather silly?
This is just a suggestion, but the next time you characterize what someone
will or won't say in a situation, you might want to check with what they're
on record as saying about that situation.
Robert Ladd
XaQ Morphy
> If you believe that he played that way because of the prop bet, then why did
> you, in this thread, make a characterization that ONLY Russ would recommend
> doing "whatever it takes to make the bare minimum."?
Good question.
> The point is that you threw that in as a shot at Russ, which is your right,
> but you did it using an illogical argument. And it especially looked silly
> since most people's newsreaders probably displayed, many directly above your
> post in the thread list, Russ' actual comments that were just the opposite
> of what you claimed he would recommend.
>
> If I'm in a thread and I posted that "I think the sky is blue", and you post
> right after that, "everyone other than Robert Ladd believes the sky is
> blue", wouldn't you think that makes you look rather silly?
>
> This is just a suggestion, but the next time you characterize what someone
> will or won't say in a situation, you might want to check with what they're
> on record as saying about that situation.
I think the big problem is that most old people, yourself included, don't
seem to understand simple sarcasm. The term invented for people like you
is sarchasm.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
_______________________________________________________________________
Robert Ladd
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
Thanks, I'll look up the word sarchasm. How is that spelled?
Robert Ladd
Rob
XaQ Morphy
> Thanks, I'll look up the word sarchasm. How is that spelled?
You just proved my point, thanks.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
_____________________________________________________________________
Andyfothershops
stack so short that the only option would be to go all in again with any ICM
position push hand (mediocre hands at this M). Ok doing that and winning
again would have put me in a much better situation, but still below the
median chip holding.
I do concede that were it a normal $5 buy in tournment I wouldn't have
considered folding. Imagine a player who normally plays $380 MTTS suddenly
finds himself near the money in a $30,000 buy in tournament he knows that if
he folds he will cash for $60K.. Lets say that player is you , would you
still play the aces?
It was the risk/reward instinct that kicked in. Whilst I can't argue that it
was the correct poker decision, it was the correct decision for me in that
situation. I don't bet on long shots on the horses either.
A
XaQ Morphy
> In this siuation, If I had played the Aces and won, I still would have had a
> stack so short that the only option would be to go all in again with any ICM
> position push hand (mediocre hands at this M). Ok doing that and winning
So you're saying the aces were a clear fold, but if you would have doubled
up to more chips than any hand in position that's +EV you would push with?
Uhh, ok.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
-------
Andyfothershops
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Oct 11 2008 8:43 AM, Andyfothershops wrote:
>
>> In this siuation, If I had played the Aces and won, I still would have
>> had a
>> stack so short that the only option would be to go all in again with any
>> ICM
>> position push hand (mediocre hands at this M). Ok doing that and winning
>
> So you're saying the aces were a clear fold, but if you would have doubled
> up to more chips than any hand in position that's +EV you would push with?
>
> Uhh, ok.
>
> ---
No, I'm saying it would have taken at least a double up twice possible three
times to have an amount of chips to actually play a hand of poker. If I had
made the decision to go for glory, playing and winning with those aces
wouldn't have got me anywhwere near out of the shit.
A
XaQ Morphy
> No, I'm saying it would have taken at least a double up twice possible three
> times to have an amount of chips to actually play a hand of poker. If I had
> made the decision to go for glory, playing and winning with those aces
> wouldn't have got me anywhwere near out of the shit.
Ok so two questions:
1) At what point in the tourney should you just give up?
2) When you do give up, why not just close it down or walk away from the
computer and come back later to see how you did?
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
---
Andyfothershops
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Oct 11 2008 3:00 PM, Andyfothershops wrote:
>
>> No, I'm saying it would have taken at least a double up twice possible
>> three
>> times to have an amount of chips to actually play a hand of poker. If I
>> had
>> made the decision to go for glory, playing and winning with those aces
>> wouldn't have got me anywhwere near out of the shit.
>
> Ok so two questions:
>
> 1) At what point in the tourney should you just give up?
No hard and fast rule. But for me in THIS tournament, it was at the poit at
which I relised I wasn't going deep, but could definitely make the money.
>
> 2) When you do give up, why not just close it down or walk away from the
> computer and come back later to see how you did?
>
> ---
At poker room there is a chat lobby where many regs get to know each other
as well as you can on line. There were 6 lobby regs still in it around the
bubble. Two of them were deep and all regs were railing. If nothing else I
wanted to see how the deep guys did. One of them finished 24th having never
played anything bigger than a $ buy in before. He qualified through a
freeroll.and his name is Pooker Man. His OPR stats look well funny.
The other guy, Puggy ( his nick ends in a number) ended up winning it. he
is number one on the on game network now or was last week.
In all it was a fun night for lobby regs. There is a lot of camaraderie at
poker room, which is one of the reasons I play there. They organize nights
at UK casinos etc. I was congratulated genuinely by a good number of people,
which was nice after 5 hours or more of tournament play.
Call me sentimental - maybe I'm just a people person
A