Originally Posted by breathweapon

How do you deal with some one who 3Bets you, or some one who is a light 3Better? Do you even bother trying to deal with them, or do you just walk away?

Originally Posted by Fnord

If I think someone is 3-betting light, then I just increase my push range.

3-betting light doesn't work as well because hands like AK/AQs/JJ are easier to play.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

Pushing the big cards isn't the problem.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Per hand histories people post, it is.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

I'm still at a loss for PP vs 3Bet OP, do you have the odds to call to set?

Originally Posted by Fnord

Being 100-200ish deep doesn't solve this problem. You need to fight back.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

Being that deep gives you the implied odds to call to set

Originally Posted by Fnord

You're assuming the other guy will stack off every time and not give up on the flop or after a flop bet.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

Obviously, but the results aren't relevant, all you can do is put your cards in position to do the most damage and pray.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

Being that deep gives you the implied odds to call to set and the folding equity to fold your hand if you miss. Being shallow doesn't necessarily give you the implied odds to call to set, and if you miss, it's 36 to 48$ in the pot and 82 to 76$ behind you, which doesn't necessarily give you the folding equity to fold.

I think you can still call to set, and I think you can bluff at the pot, but it's not clear how being shallow effects calling in 3Bet pots. Not that it's going to happen that often, but when it does ... bleh.

It gets even more interesting at 25BB in 200NL. You can terrorize the table and get your stack in by the turn every time. I think the more extreme this strategy is, the better it works. At least that's what I'm finding out for myself.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

We're getting off track, do you think calling to set in a 3Bet pot at 50BB is worth it?

Originally Posted by breathweapon

..I do know that suited connectors and small pocket pairs are my most profitable hands over time...

Originally Posted by Warpe

O RLY?

Post some PT stats to back this up pls. Otherwise I call bullshit.

Originally Posted by Warpe

O RLY?

Post some PT stats to back this up pls. Otherwise I call bullshit.

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

Was this split from the half-stack thread?

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

lol for real. if anything is more profitable than AA you are doing something very very wrong.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

Just because AA is the most winningest (sp?) hand doesn't make it the most profitable hand. If I compared the number of times I've stacked some one with a re-raised AA to the number of times I've stacked some one cold calling with SC or TT-22 the returns from AA would be lower. It's one 3Bet hand compared to an entire range of cold calling hands, if you're making more money off of AA than an entire range, then you're the one that's doing something very wrong.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

I just realized breath may be saying that his sc's and small pp's all combine for more profit than AA.

Originally Posted by Warpe

That makes the argument even dumber.

Originally Posted by Silly String

Forget the broadways: I will give you JTs ---> 32s and I will out earn you everyday with AA. Find me a PT database that says otherwise over a large sample and I'll Xfer you $50 on Pstars. I don't care how well you play SC's. Small PP's are a different story. That is why you don't see any Suited Connector Hunters.

Oh yeah, and since when does profit not equal winningest hand?

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I can't help it:
lol

Originally Posted by breathweapon

If you can count on something winning more often than not, then you can expect to make less money off it than something you can't count on winning.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

I just realized breath may be saying that his sc's and small pp's all combine for more profit than AA. If so then that just shows how awesome AA if it takes that many hands to out-profit it. All I'm saying is that if you sort your individual hands by total profit and AA isn't #1 over a reasonable sample size then you are doing something very very wrong.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

@Warpe, I think I've been patient/gracious enough explaining this, so is there a particular reason why you think comparing one hand against a range (which is what I compared it to in the first place) makes the argument "stupid?" How does AA vs TT or 99, or AA vs JTs or J9s differ (much)? It doesn't make sense to compare a single hand against AA, so wouldn't that be the "stupid" argument?

Originally Posted by Warpe

Adding up your winnings from every winning sc/small pp hand in your database and comparing that number to your AA winnings is like comparing a box of oranges to an apple. It is statistically meaningless.

Originally Posted by Warpe

breath, you understand the stock market about as well as you understand poker.

Commodities as a stand alone investment are generally considered be an inherently higher risk investment than other traditional asset classes. You are correct, however, in saying that they reduce volatility in a portfolio, but not for the reason stated. They reduce volatility because they generally have a low to negative corellation (do not move in lockstep/move in the opposite direction) to the movement of other asset classes.

This is true in the stock market (higher risk = higher potential gain/loss) but risk in poker is an entirely different animal. Compare getting a/i preflop with AA and getting a/i preflop with JTs (you wouldn't, but we'll use your example). Your risk (potential for loss or gain) is exactly the same in monetary terms, even though the former can be expected to win much more often than the latter.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Adding up your winnings from every winning sc/small pp hand in your database and comparing that number to your AA winnings is like comparing a box of oranges to an apple. It is statistically meaningless.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Don't miss my post above, the thread already ended.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

breath will just say you don't play sc's and small pp's the right way.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

@Spoonitnow

If you get rid of broadway, add gappers and weight it by position it's actually not that bad.

Point taken tho'.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

I'm not going to get into an argument over the stock market, but when I think of commodities I think of unrewnewable resources like Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, Precious Metals, Raw Materials etc. I think your thinking of commodities in the sense of futures i.e Sugar, Salt, Spices, Wheat, Rice, Corn, Apples, Oranges, Pairs etc. or renewable resources.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

/thread

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Get on AIM so we can do important math shit.

And those values can't be argued with since all hands are from the same sample of players.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

Just going to repost this,

"Uncle"

If you cut broadway (JT down), you add 1 gappers, you cut SCs with a 3 or 2 and you weight AA and SC by the last 4 positions do you know what you actually get?

@Martin

Don't be a dick, I never used add hominem in this thread once, the least you can do is return the favor. If that's what PT's database says, with the adjustments I mentioned, I'll believe it whole sale regardless of my personal experience with the hands.

Originally Posted by Warpe

No, I'm not.

Reference:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...=327641#327641

Agree.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Source: http://www.tightpoker.com/hands/ev_position.html


From UTG, AA scores 2.49bb

From the button, TT-22 score 1.3bb combined.

From the button, T9s-32s score 0.10bb combined.

From the button, J9s-42s score 0.27bb combined.

1.3 + 0.1 + 0.27 = 1.67 < 2.49

You done yet?

Originally Posted by breathweapon

Almost, so that accounts for using AA in all positions

Originally Posted by breathweapon

doesn't account for TT-22 OP (does it make sense to cut that entirely from the CO/Blinds?)

Originally Posted by breathweapon

and includes the negatives from 43s, 32s, 53s, 42s.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

Even 2.49*2/3 in 6Max

Originally Posted by breathweapon

with out removing the SCs with a 3 or a 2 in them and accounting for PP OP, results in about 1.67 > 1.66 if you weight AA for the positions SC can't open from, so it looks like they're breaking even?

Edit: You keep beating me to the post, I'll look it up for myself.

Originally Posted by breathweapon

Alright, I'll consider myself PWNed for the moment. It's an interesting thread and I'm going to read it in full before I comment further. But off hand, since when has Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Coal and Timber, Building Materials and Titanium/Platinum/Gold/Silver ever hit a down turn since the 80s? I have never thought of these investments as high risk, since I started investing in 98. Considering the geo political issues for oil and gas, the rise of third world industrial powers and the IT consumption of precious metals, they seem like one of the safest/lucrative places to put your money. I've never regretted, and I'm not going to stop by any means, but I'm always interested in pointers from any one older than me in investing.