Misclick leads to tough descison.....

[gmatical]

888 sir.

Some of the regs at 100NL up are just crazy, it's a goldmine for me.

Short lived reg's i guess!

Or money pits.

[BionicMike]

888 sir.

Some of the regs at 100NL up are just crazy, it's a goldmine for me.

Yeah, you're right, those games are juicy. I had a great run there for a while in March but then copped a week of beat after beat (right after I cashed out for all you conspiracy theorists) and just haven't reloaded my account.

[Garth Kay]

Garth (and co.) i fully understand the maths - but it is my opinion that the extra zero is is very relevent. He would have to be a sick sick sicko to shove his stack with worse then Jx in this spot. We are behind (and know it) from the get go.

I get hated on in this forum, and thats cool, but my game is based on playing situational poker based on LIKELY holdings & actions. Often stretching things out to the mathmatical nth degree does not take into account important factors (such as the impact of loss).
But heck, I love debates too and find all poster input relevent and informative.

Sorry Glenn, but the extra 0 should never really come into it, nor should the impact of loss if you are playing correct poker within bankroll management rules. In the same situation you should be making the call whether it is $20 or $2000, as long as it's start stacks and we are properly rolled for this game (of course $2,000 at 20NL might be a bit ridiculous).

None of the above was "stretching" anything out to the nth degree. It is actually very basic and simple poker maths and strategy. And I do say very basic, because it is the minimum required knowledge for any profecient (winning) poker player to understand.

A 7% range is 88+, AQo+ and AJs+ at this range there are no Jx hands, I just used the JT suited as an example to mike how wide some BB players will re ship to a button raise.

Yes we know we are behind, hence why we are putting a villain on a range, but if you lay down every time you believe you are behind there is a fundamental flaw and leak in your game.

If you can describe to me a situation/s where the maths indicates a call should be made but the correct play is to fold (in a ring game environment) I will retract my previous statement.

I think you will be VERY hard pressed to present a valid argument to the above scenario.

[Des]

but it is my opinion that the extra zero

So what levels do you actually play at.

It you stick to proper bankroll management then the zero's should never ever matter!

[Garth Kay]

888 sir.

Some of the regs at 100NL up are just crazy, it's a goldmine for me.

Short lived reg's i guess!

Or money pits.

No some very effective LAG plays. If you know the button raises only pocket pairs but will fold all pairs below 99 to a re raise what do you do from the Big blind when holding a marginal hand and facing a three or four bet pre in perfect squeeze situations?

But not enough players are good enough at these levels to assign wide enough ranges to decent LAGGY regs at these levels.

[gmatical]

If you can describe to me a situation/s where the maths indicates a call should be made but the correct play is to fold (in a ring game environment) I will retract my previous statement.

When you misclick with Jx

[Garth Kay]

If you can describe to me a situation/s where the maths indicates a call should be made but the correct play is to fold (in a ring game environment) I will retract my previous statement.

When you misclick with Jx

Sorry Glenn, I thought this game might be a bit too much for you. Thanks for playing anyway.

We can always get out the connect four or battleship board game?

[gmatical]

If you can describe to me a situation/s where the maths indicates a call should be made but the correct play is to fold (in a ring game environment) I will retract my previous statement.

When you misclick with Jx

Sorry Glenn, I thought this game might be a bit too much for you. Thanks for playing anyway.

We can always get out the connect four or battleship board game?

We are playing the same game, just different weight divisions.

My title is unified, yours is interim.

P.s. I sunk your battleship

[Garth Kay]

I'm not going to go back and forth on this, and throwing around comments doesn't make either of us look like sensible adults.

I tried to have a logical discussion on poker strategy and I don't appreciate the throwback comments when you hit an obstacle in your argument that you have trouble elaborating or solving.

As I stated, if you can describe to me ONE situation where the maths does not dictate the correct +EV play then I will gladly retract my comments, apologise and agree with you and change completely everything I know and believe about poker.

I then I ask that if you cannot find an example for me then please feel free to perhaps retract your statement and agree with the knowledge imparted in this thread and perhaps try and learn from those who may be slightly more knowledgeable than you.

I will gladly evolve my thinking and knowledge base when my logic or comments are proven wrong. I do not see myself as been a weaker human if I say "I was wrong, but I have learnt from this."

Otherwise there isn't much else to be said on this matter.

[Garth Kay]

Poll now added for the peoples.

Let the general pub poker playing masses speak!

Please vote after reading the arguments put forward.