Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Gamblers--can you make a living? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (104)	12/14/2011 4:01:46 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 113

I don't believe in luck either but it is part of our language. What I mean is Hansen (and anyone who wins a tournament) is bound to have exceeded probability expectation more than once! Perhaps his suited AK hit a straight or a flush against wired bullets or it could be anything. I've watched Brunson enter with nothing and bet bet bet until he wins or he is raised. Then he checks! Hansen is much the same. Steals a bunch of hands and keeps control and if the opponent gets interested well by that time the Brunson's nothing may by then be very nice and checking could even help build the pot. And that brings in another axiom I try to keep in mind (and this is especially true in N/L): Small hands don't matter. You just HAVE TO win the big ones. Until the stacks go in it is just a preliminary game within a game where chips get shoved back and forth. But eventually someone overrates a losing hand and sends somebody home happy. I hate maniacs in limit...but they can really help in N/L. A rock is never going to give me his stack because he is only on the river because he has a won hand. But a maniac (or a really undisciplined player) eventually gets his action in at the wrong time. You know when those guys sit down and after a few hands you KNOW they are only going to last a half hour or so. And 2 or 3 players are just in a coin toss. And you beg the poker gods to just at least let you see a flop and people are raising when you look down at your 10/7 or J/2 or whatever. And you don't get a hand for 45 minutes and suddenly the nit and the gnat have created a huge pot against a skilled player and you know that all that good money is going to now be much better protected in more capable hands. And you know damn well it could have (and really ought to have) been YOURS!! And you hope that the two new players coming in will be witless too but then you see you they are and you know the night just got harder and longer... Tournaments are different again and if we are on the bubble and a couple of reckless players have gone all in I have no problem tossing my aces into the muck. Of pot odds. Yes, I have studied them. For awhile I tried the Harrington way and I stressed out over exactly what to bet when. But you know it is really about getting the maximum profit out of a deal. And after I ensure nobody is drawing to correct odds (and that comes pretty natural with experience, as you know)...it is all about relative risk in accordance to stack size and other factors. When I am reasonably sure to win I may give him almost correct odds for the draw or I may go for his whole stack (or if he folds it is just fine, too)..if I can afford to take a bad beat. I don't think it is always wise to necessarily bet even an overwhelming hand to the limit. I will always call with such a hand but it is often more prudent to risk as little as possible in certain circumstances. It is one thing to risk your original stack when you are up 500%. It is another to risk it all when you have only doubled after struggling when you can (say) risk only your accrued profit. We don't need to let past results of a slow morning dictate a panic for immediate catch-up. Because regardless of your hand...it is very very rare when there is absolutely no risk involved with a draw to come. Needless to say, it won't be me on the draw. I like to play from on top. As you have said...there are so many variables--many of which we just intuit after awhile... I was down In Scottsdale a few months back and played a bit at the Talking Stick. I was not focussed and did not play very well. Next day when I was relaxed and more settled I took out my lap top and logged in and was told I could not play. Of course my IP address was now coming from AZ. I was furious. And believe it or not...that little bit of crap might cost the US economy a few bucks every year from me when I travel to a more poker friendly place. There are thousands of people like me. The U.S has beautiful places to travel and visit (as Canada does) and you are not always next to a casino when you are relaxing in Vermont or Cape Cod. I think your government needs to rethink this. Your brick games will not suffer by taking your share of the online pie which is worth trillions. Vegas will continue to flourish...