DeathMatch for 10K: paisiello v. anonimuss (split from Betting When Small Blind)
Quote: Mission146He can get me cheaper than that, for $20, calling a suited 54 in this situation sucks.
How much will it cost for you to admit that folding has an EV=0?
As I said before I have no doubt you could find 10 pros that will back your opinion. We can also find 10 scientists that will say the world is flat and Big foot is in existences.You said, I was trying to con you. What you are proposing with your terms of the bet would clearly suggest you are trying to con people.Quote: paisielloIt's possible that the majority of good players happen to agree with the majority of bad players on this point. I would argue that you would need to weight their opinions based on years of experience and profitability. It's an academic point since it would be very difficult to do this.
Not sure it would mean anything to you if I did. These guys are strictly cash players well below the radar for tax purposes. But for $10,000 i'll find 10 of them for you.
I'm not misunderstanding anything. I don't have any of the books in front of me but they generally discourage calling the blinds with weak hands.
I doubt he would recommend calling the blinds with a weak hand. But even if he did, it would be one guy's opinion which doesn't automatically invalidate someone else's opinion.
Yep you are right one pro would prove nothing. That's why 10 was suggested.
NEVER MIND THE BET. What would it take to convince you are wrong or right?
Quote: paisielloHow much will it cost for you to admit that folding has an EV=0?
One million dollars, that position isn't even remotely defensible.
Quote: AxelWolfAs I said before I have no doubt you could find 10 pros that will back your opinion. We can also find 10 scientists that will say the world is flat and Big foot is in existences.
It's hardly the same thing.
Quote: AxelWolfYou said, I was trying to con you. What you are proposing with your terms of the bet would clearly suggest you are trying to con people.
Except I didn't purpose the bet. Anon did. And then you came along and tried to continually change the terms despite me telling you over and over and over that I'm not interested
Quote: AxelWolfYep you are right one pro would prove nothing. That's why 10 was suggested.
10 wouldn't prove anything either.
Quote: AxelWolfNEVER MIND THE BET. What would it take to convince you are wrong or right?
You yourself could never convince me since I don't consider you as credible.
However, if some of the credible players that I know were to change their minds then I might change mine also.
Quote: Mission146One million dollars, that position isn't even remotely defensible.
I suppose this is where I say, "Wanna bet?" But I would be accused of trying to con you.
Seriously you should read a book or two on the subject before you make such erroneous statements.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNot one person person has agreed with you. Are you saying that you are the only credible one here?
If you bothered to read the posts you would know that there were others who agreed with me. I can only say I don't consider someone credible who has to resort to personal insults and ad hominen attacks.
Quote: paisielloI suppose this is where I say, "Wanna bet?" But I would be accused of trying to con you.
Seriously you should read a book or two on the subject before you make such erroneous statements.
I already know you don't want to bet on anything, you won't play a player you consider inferior in a "Best of," series with a three game advantage to start.
Quote: Mission146I already know you don't want to bet on anything...
Not true. I already said I would take Anon's bet. So you are wrong once again.
Great can we get some names please?Quote: paisiello
However, if some of the credible players that I know were to change their minds then I might change mine also.
Quote: paisielloNot true. I already said I would take Anon's bet. So you are wrong once again.
Yeah, you may have SAID that, doesn't mean you had any intention of doing it. That's pretty obviously the case because, you know, you haven't done it.
Quote: AxelWolfGreat can we get some names please?
Of course, by all means:
1.) Paisello's brother-in-law who only plays high stakes cash games and wants to fly under the radar for tax purposes.
2.) Paisello's third cousin who only plays high stakes cash games and wants to fly under the radar for tax purposes.
3.) Paisello's best friend and college roommate who only....
The list continues, please ignore any last name similarities as they are strictly coincidental.
Quote: Mission146Yeah, you may have SAID that, doesn't mean you had any intention of doing it. That's pretty obviously the case because, you know, you haven't done it.
No one accepted the terms of the bet. They just keep trying to change the terms or challenge me to something else despite me telling them I am not interested in anything else.
Only now I have noticed for the first time, there is no flag button under your post.
NO FAIR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote: Mission146Of course, by all means:
1.) Paisello's brother-in-law who only plays high stakes cash games and wants to fly under the radar for tax purposes.
2.) Paisello's third cousin who only plays high stakes cash games and wants to fly under the radar for tax purposes.
3.) Paisello's best friend and college roommate who only....
The list continues, please ignore any last name similarities as they are strictly coincidental.
I will cross them off the list if you want. Any other exclusions other than someone who actually knows what they are talking about?
One thing I don't like about Bovada is the no name for the player thing. for tournaments you do get a number that lasts during the entire tournament. People could post up in the chat window who they are.
I would have to think the WSOP has some kind of free thing on Facebook or whatever.
Quote: paisielloYes, the pot odds are 11:1 but what kind of hand are you trying to hit?
Some probabilities of hitting the flop with suited connectors:
Two pair 2.00%
Trips 1.30%
Straight 1.30%
Flush 0.80%
Full house 0.10%
Total 5.50% = 1 in 17.2 probability
Furthermore, in a cash game there's a rake so this actually reduces the pot odds considerably. So it's a bad bet.
Now you talk about implied odds: first, why would you expect them 100% of the time to pay you off? It won't happen nearly enough to make it worth playing. Secondly, with multiple people in the hand there is a good chance that they will still out flop you even if you hit something.
Late to the party, but this thread is pretty great. Some thoughts:
Implied odds don't necessarily mean that you you get paid 100% and you will have the best hand 100%. It's just a simple math problem. If you have to call a bet for a flush draw and you think it will be good 75% of the time and you will get paid a pot size bet 50%, and lose your whole stack 25% of the time you can calculate the maximum bet size you can call in relation to the pot very simply.
Almost no cash game of any significant stakes will be raked in a US casino.
I assume that this will be an autocall except if you think it is very likely the big blind would raise. While it's true that the hand can be difficult to play, making correct decisions is part of playing poker. I could poll several NL players with each over $1M in cash game winnings and post their unedited responses here tomorrow, if that would be relevant.
qualifications: I won a lot of money in a poker tournament once
Also, folding has an EV of 0 because the small blind is a sunk cost, so that is true. A random thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/folding-always-0-ev-982112/
Quote: tongniLate to the party, but this thread is pretty great.
Yes, you are late. And this thread is not that great. Mainly we are a bunch of arrogant bastards all convinced that we hold the secret to the one true and only way to play this game.
Quote: tongniImplied odds don't necessarily mean that you you get paid 100% and you will have the best hand 100%. It's just a simple math problem. If you have to call a bet for a flush draw and you think it will be good 75% of the time and you will get paid a pot size bet 50%, and lose your whole stack 25% of the time you can calculate the maximum bet size you can call in relation to the pot very simply.
What you and the other great posters on this thread seem to not think is significant is the simple logic of implied odds and reversed implied odds. You're justifying spending $1 because of implied odds: "I'm getting 11:1 odds! Instant call!" But now after the flop, if you happen to hit your 20:1 long shot, you have 3 more betting rounds to face out of position. Your bottom two pair or trips might not be as good as you think it is especially with 5 other people with hands better than yours pre-flop.
But even if you happen to have the best hand post-flop, the other 5 players now have implied odds to call your bets! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It started out costing you only $1 but now you are risking your entire stack with a weak hand on 3 rounds of betting where you act first. Can you really be that good of a player if you want to put yourself in this position every time?
Quote: tongniAlmost no cash game of any significant stakes will be raked in a US casino.
The OP stated it was a $1-$2 cash game so there will be a significant rake which greatly reduces the pot odds.
Quote: tongniI assume that this will be an autocall except if you think it is very likely the big blind would raise. While it's true that the hand can be difficult to play, making correct decisions is part of playing poker.
And what about the BB raise? Happens a lot, too. Are you going to say you are now pot committed and call this too? You can justify any play you want based on implied odds.
Quote: tongniI could poll several NL players with each over $1M in cash game winnings and post their unedited responses here tomorrow, if that would be relevant.
Probably not relevant unless they are professionals with over 10 years experience but go ahead if you want. And, in case I haven't been absolutely clear to everyone on this in my many other posts, I'm not interested in betting on this.
Quote: tongniqualifications: I won a lot of money in a poker tournament once
Are you Chris Moneymaker?
Quote: tongniAlso, folding has an EV of 0 because the small blind is a sunk cost, so that is true. A random thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/folding-always-0-ev-982112/
Well it looks like the legit moron was right about this one at least.
Above is paisello statement that I copied. So let say I'm in the SB with the 4-5 suited and I hit the best hand. I lead out and make a pot sized bet. Can you explain now how the other 5 have implied odds to call my pot sized bet?
Quote: BeardgoatSo let say I'm in the SB with the 4-5 suited and I hit the best hand. I lead out and make a pot sized bet. Can you explain now how the other 5 have implied odds to call my pot sized bet?
Well, that's easy: suppose the flop came 4,5,A with the A and the 4 suited. One of the five players could have something like K-10 suited giving them a flush draw = 8 outs (discounting the 5). They might call expecting that you will call any of their bets on the turn and/or river just in the same way you were expecting pre-flop that someone would call you if you hit your longshot.
Or another scenario is that for the same flop they have 7-6 unsuited giving them an open ended straight draw = 8 outs. So are you going to bet or call if the flush card comes or the straight card comes on the turn? That's actually a total of 16 outs which is practically straight pot odds forget about implied odds. But they might only have A-J unsuited and betting only their top pair and when you are up against 5 other players almost anything can happen.
Of course they might all fold to your bet anyway in which case you didn't get your implied odds paid off which in this case means it was technically a bad call that you made pre-flop to begin with.
And of course you don't even know that you have the best hand anyway. You could easily be up against a set or another two pair. As a wise man once told me, " A piece of #%$@ is a piece of @#%& is a piece of @#$%."
Quote: BeardgoatDo you literally only play AA and KK and AK suited then ?
Why would you get that idea? We're talking about one specific hand in one specific situation: 5-4 suited in the small blind with 4 limpers.
You might want to read the through the previous thread from which this thread was broken off. A lot more was discussed there that can answer all of your questions.
What limits and games do you play?Quote: paisielloWhy would you get that idea? We're talking about one specific hand in one specific situation: 5-4 suited in the small blind with 4 limpers.
You might want to read the through the previous thread from which this thread was broken off. A lot more was discussed there that can answer all of your questions.
How often do you play?
I Still would like to know some names of people you think qualify for answering this question properly.
??? 30/60 Ameristar raked in Blackhawk.
Quote: AxelWolfWhat limits and games do you play?
How often do you play?
I Still would like to know some names of people you think qualify for answering this question properly.
Who wants to know?
I'm curious.Quote: paisielloWho wants to know?
Quote: AxelWolfI'm curious.
I said who, not why.
I thought the word "I'm" covered that. please elaborate at what you are getting at.Quote: paisielloI said who, not why.
But he kept up the "only if we use anons terms" nonsense.. Because he knew anon was long gone. His goal obviously being to continue SAYING he's willing to bet hes right, but at the same time making sure no bet is ever made.
+10 I'm sure we can get many +1-10's on this. He wont commit to anything that may prove him wrong. That's his story and hes sticking to it. At least he backed off on the the limit game aspect of this.Quote: michael99000Lol so paisello tries to come off like johnny high roller and raises the stakes to 10k on a bet backing his argument, then when someone offers to take him up on it he slowly weasels out. Its obvious he was never willing to put a single DIME of his money on this, most likely because he long ago realized he was wrong..
But he kept up the "only if we use anons terms" nonsense.. Because he knew anon was long gone. His goal obviously being to continue SAYING he's willing to bet hes right, but at the same time making sure no bet is ever made.
Perhaps one day he will have enough confidence to take me up on a heads up match. And I'm not bluffing. Just a few weeks ago I played HE/NL at PH I played heads up 1-2 and 2/5 Nl Holdem and a few other times, nothing great to talk about.
Prior to that I played 2/5 NLH and pot limit OH with a WSOP bracelet winner(No, not a top pro and he did not the main event, I wont say his name unless he will allow me to).This was the same night of the Mission nuggets challenge after we got done hanging out.
Min buy in was 3k this seemed to be half of what he had on him. More could be added anytime and was. No rule was made about how long you had to stay. However, it was implied no running out after a big hand.
I have some of the details documents by the floor and dealers. At one point I won over 32 hand in a row(Hard to believe I know, but it was counted and verified, because we had a side bets going on as well). Unfortunately, he folded most hands Pre flop or immediately after the flop(apparently he didn't play 45ss either).
Lots of Drinking was involved.The Game started @ Golden Nugget when he started talking trash in a ring game after I crippled his stack with Q8ss when he limped with JJ. The Pot was around $800.
The game moved from Golden Nugget ( he got tossed out of GN for the night. due to bad behavior after many, many warnings) We then went To Binions and continued, the game was Crazy and full of more bad behavior(trash talking mostly) . The floor shut it down due to lack of dealers, this game was documented as well.
He was determined to get his money back, we called the Orleans and they set up the same game for us, again this game was also documented. It was a repeat of GN, this time security was called to escort him out, after he slammed his hand on the automatic shuffler for the 2nd time, right in front of the floor.
Poker manager told me, don't bring him in again. This time it was not worth the time and effort. I had to pay off the floor and tip well each time, just to keep the games going as long as possible.
Quote: Mission146I'm pretty confident that a three game head start would bring me up to having about a 50/50 chance against him, even if he is an outstanding player...which I'm sure he is.
I'm not commenting on this. I have no clue how well you play poker and I wouldn't want to play 25 matches. I have no ambition to take peoples money that I like ;) Sure I might like getting you for a few bucks here and there on some prop bets, but that's not about the money.
Aside from that, When you do come to Vegas, we should get a few people together and play some 1-2 NL and have fun.
Quote: michael99000Lol so paisello tries to come off like johnny high roller and raises the stakes to 10k on a bet backing his argument, then when someone offers to take him up on it he slowly weasels out. Its obvious he was never willing to put a single DIME of his money on this, most likely because he long ago realized he was wrong..
But he kept up the "only if we use anons terms" nonsense.. Because he knew anon was long gone. His goal obviously being to continue SAYING he's willing to bet hes right, but at the same time making sure no bet is ever made.
No, you're wrong on all counts. I never said I was willing to bet I was right. Anon is the one who proposed the bet, not me. Everyone else has been trying to change the terms of the bet which I am not interested in. Maybe you should actually read the previous posts.
Quote: tongni
Also, folding has an EV of 0 because the small blind is a sunk cost, so that is true. A random thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/folding-always-0-ev-982112/
Does Surrendering to the dealer in Blackjack have an EV of zero because the bet is a sunk cost?
Does folding in 3CP have an EV of zero because the Ante bet is a sunk cost?
Quote: paisielloWhy would you get that idea? We're talking about one specific hand in one specific situation: 5-4 suited in the small blind with 4 limpers.
After the stuff you've said to other people, "Players that call with bad cards a majority of the time," how can you invoke that defense?
Quote: AxelWolfI'm not commenting on this. I have no clue how well you play poker and I wouldn't want to play 25 matches. I have no ambition to take peoples money that I like ;) Sure I might like getting you for a few bucks here and there on some prop bets, but that's not about the money.
Aside from that, When you do come to Vegas, we should get a few people together and play some 1-2 NL and have fun.
Maybe a tournament, or did you mean 2-4 Limit? I don't play NL cash games, too conservative, know the right play and never make it.
Quote: Mission146After the stuff you've said to other people, "Players that call with bad cards a majority of the time," how can you invoke that defense?
I am not using that as a defense. I was trying to explain to the poster that he should read through the previous posts to have his questions answered.
Quote: AxelWolf+10 I'm sure we can get many +1-10's on this. He wont commit to anything that may prove him wrong. That's his story and hes sticking to it. At least he backed off on the the limit game aspect of this.
I won't commit to anything and I am not interested in anything where you change the terms of the bet. Thought I made that clear before but maybe if I repeat it another 20 or 30 times you'll get it eventually.
I changed my mind on the Limit game in the original thread over 2 weeks ago now, but not because of anything you said. You didn't start harassing me until this thread was broken off one week ago now. Everybody agreed then, however, we were discussing No Limit, not Limit.
Quote: AxelWolf+Perhaps one day he will have enough confidence to take me up on a heads up match. And I'm not bluffing. Just a few weeks ago I played HE/NL at PH I played heads up 1-2 and 2/5 Nl Holdem and a few other times, nothing great to talk about.
I am not interested in playing with someone who is rude to me and personally insults me.
Quote: Mission146Does Surrendering to the dealer in Blackjack have an EV of zero because the bet is a sunk cost?
Does folding in 3CP have an EV of zero because the Ante bet is a sunk cost?
You're confusing the EV based on the overall strategy you choose to play the game versus the individual EV's of each specific decision you make in a specific situation. The EV's of a number of specific situations will all add up to contribute to the overall EV of the strategy you have chosen.
So for NL Texas Hold'em if your overall strategy is to play one full round and always fold every hand no matter what then your overall EV for using this strategy is guaranteed to eventually be (9*$0) + (-$2 - $1) = -$3 every round. However, if you are now talking about the specific situation of being dealt two cards in the SB where you look at the different options available to you, each option has an associated EV with it. In this specific case, folding is always EV=0 and therefore does not contribute to the overall EV of the strategy you have chosen (whatever that might be).
In your BJ reference, choosing to surrender in a specific situation would actually have a +ve EV because you automatically get money back from this decision. However, in the context of the overall strategy where the game has an overall -ve EV all it does is reduce the overall -ve EV.
I am not familiar with 3CP but the same explanation would apply.
I never changed anything, I basically said, I was willing to be very flexible and let you come up with some legitimate terms(not weaselly ones). My last bet offer had nothing to do with the other bets being made. Quit dwelling on that, and using it to avoid legitimately answering every question.Quote: paisiello
I am not interested in playing with someone who is rude to me and personally insults me.
Agian, I was not talking about the bet anymore. I have moved passed that but you keep bringing it up. I would agree for 10k you could find 10 pros who would agree with you. So what, I could find 50 that would agree with me.
I was saying you won't commit to any names of people, books, legitimate references that you think will agree with your thinking in this hand (I'm not asking in regards to the bet). Bet or no bet, I cant imagine any REAL pros that would agree with you. I'm interested in knowing, just to know at this point. However, I don't think you want to come up with any names because this would add way more evidence against you. I seriously doubt any successful player ever told you they don't play ss connectors in the small blind or that its -EV.
Show me where I insulted you? From what I can remember you crossed a line with being rude when you called me a con.
You still seem avoid any questions pertaining to how often you play and what limits. Are you avoiding this question simply because you don't play anything other then online for penny's?
No tournaments, I don't really like them that much anymore, I really never did. I do play them sometimes and if you were to set up a WoV tournament i would participate. Or if enough guys wanted to play one in Vegas.Quote: Mission146Maybe a tournament, or did you mean 2-4 Limit? I don't play NL cash games, too conservative, know the right play and never make it.
No 2/4 limit I cant stand low limit, limit games.
If you like 2/4 limit you can get into a 1/2 Nl game for the same price. You can easily pump that up.
Quote: AxelWolfI never changed anything, I basically said, I was willing to be very flexible and let you come up with some legitimate terms(not weaselly ones).
Here is a quote from your very first post in this thread:
Quote: AxelWolfFebruary 25th, 2014 at 1:34:28 PM
AxelWolf
If I define the the details and lay out the terms of the bet is this open to me as well?
We can come up with a long list of pros we both agree on, If we get a large number of responses we can put names in a hat and draw 10. this way you would have to pay off a lot of people and have no clue who you really have to pay off. We can verify they are the real people who responded. Via Facebook twitter and some in person.
Sounds like to me you were trying to change the terms that Anon offered me.
Quote: AxelWolfMy last bet offer had nothing to do with the other bets being made.
And you keep trying to challenge me with different bets despite me saying over and over that I am not interested.
Quote: AxelWolfQuit dwelling on that, and using it to avoid legitimately answering every question.
I am not the one bringing it up, you and the other posters in this thread are.
Quote: AxelWolfAgian, I was not talking about the bet anymore. I have moved passed that but you keep bringing it up.
Again, I'm not the one bringing it up. You and the other posters are bringing it up non-stop. Here is your post from earlier this morning:
Quote: AxelWolf
Quote: michael99000
Lol so paisello tries to come off like johnny high roller and raises the stakes to 10k on a bet backing his argument, then when someone offers to take him up on it he slowly weasels out. Its obvious he was never willing to put a single DIME of his money on this, most likely because he long ago realized he was wrong..
But he kept up the "only if we use anons terms" nonsense.. Because he knew anon was long gone. His goal obviously being to continue SAYING he's willing to bet hes right, but at the same time making sure no bet is ever made.
+10 I'm sure we can get many +1-10's on this. He wont commit to anything that may prove him wrong. That's his story and hes sticking to it.
Sounds like you and the other poster are the ones goading and bringing the bet up again, not me.
Quote: AxelWolfI was saying you won't commit to any names of people, books, legitimate references that you think will agree with your thinking in this hand (I'm not asking in regards to the bet). Bet or no bet, I cant imagine any REAL pros that would agree with you. I'm interested in knowing, just to know at this point. However, I don't think you want to come up with any names because this would add way more evidence against you. I seriously doubt any successful player ever told you they don't play ss connectors in the small blind or that its -EV.
I gave some references in a previous post. And I don't care what you can or cannot imagine. I know professionals who are much stronger poker players than you so your view point is not credible to me.
Quote: AxelWolfShow me where I insulted you?
Here are just some of them:
March 1st, 2014 at 2:22:59 AM
Quote: AxelWolfYou and anyone with a half of brain would realize what the bet was about...
99% of the people who have been reading this thread are wondering if you really are this ignorant...
Its very obvious you gave bad advice and you now probably realize it but are to dam stubborn to admit you are wrong...
You should find a way to get suspended, so this can all be forgotten before you dig yourself into a bigger hole and end up looking like a big time fool.
Quote: AxelWolfFrom what I can remember you crossed a line with being rude when you called me a con.
I never called you a con. I said I thought you were trying to con me when you kept repeatedly trying to change the terms of the bet. If that fits your definition of a con then you have effectively defined yourself one.
Quote: AxelWolfYou still seem avoid any questions pertaining to how often you play and what limits. Are you avoiding this question simply because you don't play anything other then online for penny's?
And I asked who wanted to know and you gave me a glib answer.
Quote: paisielloNo, you're wrong on all counts. I never said I was willing to bet I was right. Anon is the one who proposed the bet, not me. Everyone else has been trying to change the terms of the bet which I am not interested in. Maybe you should actually read the previous posts.
You're not willing to bet $10,000... Or $1000... Or 5 dollars... On ANYTHING.
and based on your poker playing strategy, I'd be surprised if you have $5
Quote: GWAEthis whole thread stinks of another one that we had when a certain person had a bet on how many posts would be made.
I agree that this whole thread does stink. Unfortunately, my name is on the title of the thread and I am compelled to respond to all the antagonists.
It is too bad because it could have been an interesting discussion where you might even learn something from someone else with different view points. However, it quickly degenerated into, "You don't know very much about it," and "I bet you are wrong", type of responses. And that predictably led to increasing rudeness and personal insults (none of it initiated by me).
This thread does not go anywhere but repeats the same thing over and over. Usually somebody stumbles in having not read all 30 pages and makes a 100% useless comment which starts the whole cycle again.
I wish the moderators would close it permanently. I tired of it back on page 5.
Quote: michael99000You're not willing to bet $10,000... Or $1000... Or 5 dollars... On ANYTHING.
and based on your poker playing strategy, I'd be surprised if you have $5
Despite you repeatedly saying it does not suddenly make it true. I already stated what terms I would accept: the ones Anon said he would give me.
So please stop goading me.
Quote: Mission146Does Surrendering to the dealer in Blackjack have an EV of zero because the bet is a sunk cost?
Does folding in 3CP have an EV of zero because the Ante bet is a sunk cost?
With all due respect to everyone involved in this discussion: this is a stupid argument; it's just about semantics.
It doesn't really matter whether you call the EV of folding 0 or negative, as long as you adjust everything else and are consistent. It's like talking about whether odds should be listed as "to one" or "for one". It makes no difference, so long as you are consistent and adjust accordingly.
To be precise you should probably talk about "the EV of the hand" or "the EV of the play" rather than just "the EV".
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt doesn't really matter whether you call the EV of folding 0 or negative, as long as you adjust everything else and are consistent.
Not true. It does matter and it's very important.
Every decision you make should be to maximize your EV whatever it might be. The problem with Mission's reasoning is that he thinks a specific play (folding in this case) is -ve EV when in fact is an EV=0 play. That should be pretty clear if you think it out correctly.
Quote: paisielloNot true. It does matter and it's very important.
Every decision you make should be to maximize your EV whatever it might be. The problem with Mission's reasoning is that he thinks a specific play (folding in this case) is -ve EV when in fact is an EV=0 play. That should be pretty clear if you think it out correctly.
It is not important. I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word "maximize". Sometimes when you maximize, all your choices are -EV and you are just picking the one that is closest to 0 (like splitting 8s vs a 10 in blackjack)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt is not important. I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word "maximize". Sometimes when you maximize, all your choices are -EV and you are just picking the one that is closest to 0 (like splitting 8s vs a 10 in blackjack)
No, I think you're wrong, it is very important otherwise you would end up losing even more money in a -ve EV game. That is just the mathematical definition of maximize. It doesn't mean the number has to be +ve.
Do you agree with Mission that folding the SB is a specifically -ve EV play?
