|
bigboy5540
|
03-19-2006, 01:31 AM
Post subject: the long run. overated?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: california
Posts: 253
|
|
i think the long run is overated to many poker players. when i play poker, i maximize on the short run. repeated short run plays put together is my long run. discuss?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
yep in the short run when I started NL50 for the first time, I ran 35ptbb/100 for 2000 hands. Now that I have about 6000 hands in I am averaging 10bb/100.
The long run is not overrated. Ignoring this fact is the hallmark of a degenerate gambler (no offense intended).
If you cash 50k in a $1000 buy-in tourney, you didn't win 50,000 actually. From a professional poker player standpoint you really earned like $4000-$5000, because pro tourney players run at most 400-500% ROI.
|
|
|
|
Greedo017
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: wearing the honors of honor and whatnot
Posts: 1,461
|
|
i don't think you understand the reason for distinguishing between the two. the short run is primarily luck, the long run is primarily skill. you're saying, ignore skill, let's focus on being as lucky as possible?
how do you evaluate how well you played in each of those short runs? $$ made? that's a recipe for being a long term loser.
|
|
i betcha that i got something you ain't got, that's called courage, it don't come from no liquor bottle, it ain't scotch
|
|
bigboy5540
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: california
Posts: 253
|
|
appreciate the opinion renton, but what i mean is poker is different in every single circumstance. people who depend on the long run too much may miss out on many opportunities to maximize profit.
not that long run is not important, but sometimes the best play is not always the best play in the long run but because of a certain player or image, the implied or expected odd make a play ok or even more profitable.
an example of this would be to call an over aggro maniac with almost any two hole cards because if you hit the possibility of doubling up is there. I am a big winner at the 1/2 and 2/4 nl tables and this strategy works well along with other strategies that involve short term consideration over long term consideration.
|
|
im good at poker
|
|
Greedo017
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: wearing the honors of honor and whatnot
Posts: 1,461
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigboy5540
appreciate the opinion renton, but what i mean is poker is different in every single circumstance. people who depend on the long run too much may miss out on many opportunities to maximize profit.
not that long run is not important, but sometimes the best play is not always the best play in the long run but because of a certain player or image, the implied or expected odd make a play ok or even more profitable.
an example of this would be to call an over aggro maniac with almost any two hole cards because if you hit the possibility of doubling up is there. I am a big winner at the 1/2 and 2/4 nl tables and this strategy works well along with other strategies that involve short term consideration over long term consideration.
|
you're not using the term long run correctly. if it is the most +EV thing to do to call a maniac with any 2, then that's the best thing to do in the long run and short run. The difference is, in the long run it will for sure pay off, but today against this maniac, you could lose big.
|
|
i betcha that i got something you ain't got, that's called courage, it don't come from no liquor bottle, it ain't scotch
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
I think people pull the 'variance' card way too much when they lose money, but other then that, poker is all about the long term.
This might seem like a contradiction to what I wrote above, but poker is a terrible short term game. I often feel like I played a great session and came out down, and likewise, sometimes I'll feel like I played miserable, donked some hands miserably, and came out on top.
|
|
|
|
bigboy5540
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: california
Posts: 253
|
|
the mistake you are making is assuming all maniacs play the same way. my example involves a maniac who i have studied and determined that calling with any two cards is +EV. To say call all maniacs with any two cards as you have said is a HUGE mistake on all levels. This is why you can not base this type of play on the long run because if you make it a habit whenever you see a maniac it can and will be a huge leak in your game.
Your point of +EV in the long run also does not make sense because it is never +EV to call with any two cards in the long run against any opponent. My point is sometimes decisions depend on the now, not long run. You can try to make the arguement that you can use the strategy anytime you see a maniac, but the arguement can not stand because you don't know if the maniac is truely a maniac or just a good lag. Short run does not only mean luck, short run means now.
|
|
im good at poker
|
|
bigboy5540
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: california
Posts: 253
|
|
yes lukie poker IS all about the long term but what I am saying is the long term for me is based on short term decisions when I see a +EV opportunity. Foundation for any beginning player is to build habits based on longterm +EV but once the foundation is built I think it is more +EV to stray from the "established" long term +EV moves and play in a different way that may be +++EV.
|
|
im good at poker
|
|
Greedo017
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: wearing the honors of honor and whatnot
Posts: 1,461
|
|
long run takes into account each situation. it is saying, if i am in this exact same situation against this exact same player, what is the best move I can make. i don't really see why i would have to ignore reads, for example why the long run has to ignore that this player might be a maniac or a good lag. given the sum total of all the information I have about a player, there is a move that I should make every time from now until eternity, that is the best move. short/long run really has nothing to do with that decision, except for causing $$ won to equal out with actual equity.
|
|
i betcha that i got something you ain't got, that's called courage, it don't come from no liquor bottle, it ain't scotch
|
|
bigboy5540
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: california
Posts: 253
|
|
and btw if you are a beginning player ignore this thread. I am an advanced player trying to discuss advanced concepts that beginning players should not try to emulate.
|
|
im good at poker
|
|
bigboy5540
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: california
Posts: 253
|
|
Even though every player is different and every situation depends on the previous situations that have already occurred, if that is your definition of the long term, then fair enough. I will accept that arguement. Although it seems to me you are defining the long term as, "play good poker in the short term and put it together for the long term" which is what I was originally saying.
|
|
im good at poker
|
|
Pelion
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,206
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigboy5540
my example involves a maniac who i have studied and determined that calling with any two cards is +EV.
|
You are talking about EV. EV is a longterm concept. EV does not exist in the short term. If you play against a maniac who you decide is pushing PF with any 2 and you call with JJ and he turns over 23o and sucks out on you that play is +EV. If he turns over AA but you know he is pushing any 2 then it is still +EV to call. The point is that looking at the short term you would think calling with JJ was incorrect since he turned over AA.
In poker you often will only play the same person for a short period of time (especially if he is a maniac pushing any 2). In this case you cannot measure your results against this player over the longterm or even take a sample of their pushing range over the longterm. You need to make a short term decision but you do that by thinking about your experience with other maniacs who play in the same sort of way. You compare your JJ with his estimated long term hand range and you call.
When you take reads into account you are not ignoring the long term. You are saying, "this guy raises any 2 cards. In the short term it may be incorrect to call because he may have AA, however he may also have 23o so I know that over the long term calling would make me money even if he turns over AA this time and even if I dont get to play him for the long term."
In your example of calling a maniac with any 2 because you think he will pay off when you hits, you also must recognise that you might lose a little when you dont hit. This is a case of losing in the short term, by folding so many missed hands, because you realise that over the long term a small fraction of those hands will double you up and yield a net profit.
I didnt say that very clearly but basically I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by the long term. Long term doesnt mean you treat all opponents as equals. It means you chose the play that will maximise your profits (or minimise your losses) if that particular situation were to be repeated a million gazillion times.
|
|
gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.
bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
|
|
bigboy5540
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: california
Posts: 253
|
|
well it sounds like you are just saying make the right decisions in the short term to add up to the long term, which is what i was originally saying. So you all agree with me but are just using my words as the definition of long term. Fair enough.
And yes obviously I know EV is a long term concept but +EV can apply to a certain hand if doing tha move makes money in the long term. I didn't say I will win for sure if I call with any two cards so it was assumed that you would know what I was talking about.
You are talking to a winning player in the 200nl and 400nl stakes so you dont need to define EV to me. Sorry if this sounds rude but damn my discussion was not for people to define basic poker terms to me. lol
|
|
im good at poker
|
|
Pelion
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,206
|
|
I just think you are misunderstanding what we mean by longterm. The best short term decisions are the ones that maximise the long term outcome just like you said.
I wasnt defining EV for you I was just pointing out that it is a long term concept since your post made no sense talking about EV in the short term.
|
|
gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.
bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
|
|
bigboy5540
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: california
Posts: 253
|
|
dahhh that was what i was saying the whole time. pay attention buddy. read my first post. You just define long term as short term+short term+ short term...., which is what i was saying. Anyway thank you for your response but now we are arguing definitions, which is not what i intended when i posted this. I have found that you guys do agree with what I am saying.
|
|
im good at poker
|
|
pgil
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,103
|
|
the reason everybody seems to agree with you is because your original post was meaningless. no offense, but it was the equivalent of saying 'red cars are red, discuss'.
|
|
"If you can't say f*ck, you can't say f*ck the government" - Lenny Bruce
|
|
bigboy5540
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: california
Posts: 253
|
|
not really... thanks anyway im done with this post.
|
|
im good at poker
|
|
pgil
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,103
|
|
ok. how else can you define the long run other than as a series of short runs??? do long runs just magically appear? what exactly was there to discuss in the original post?
|
|
"If you can't say f*ck, you can't say f*ck the government" - Lenny Bruce
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigboy5540
the mistake you are making is assuming all maniacs play the same way. my example involves a maniac who i have studied and determined that calling with any two cards is +EV. To say call all maniacs with any two cards as you have said is a HUGE mistake on all levels. This is why you can not base this type of play on the long run because if you make it a habit whenever you see a maniac it can and will be a huge leak in your game.
Your point of +EV in the long run also does not make sense because it is never +EV to call with any two cards in the long run against any opponent. My point is sometimes decisions depend on the now, not long run. You can try to make the arguement that you can use the strategy anytime you see a maniac, but the arguement can not stand because you don't know if the maniac is truely a maniac or just a good lag. Short run does not only mean luck, short run means now.
|
I would argue that, with enough of a skill edge, and deep enough stacks, it would make logical sense that playing any 2 cards would be +EV against some players.
Other then that though, your entire argument just confuses me.
For the sake of simplicity since I already scrolled through this thread and largely did not understand what point you were trying to get across, what is it?
|
|
|
|
jackvance
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,910
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigboy5540
yes lukie poker IS all about the long term but what I am saying is the long term for me is based on short term decisions when I see a +EV opportunity. Foundation for any beginning player is to build habits based on longterm +EV but once the foundation is built I think it is more +EV to stray from the "established" long term +EV moves and play in a different way that may be +++EV.
|
I think this comes mostly from reading the players and the flow of the game etc. Ie your "theory" tells you you have good odds to do this, but it "feels" wrong now, because of your read of the table or the specific player you are up against.
I think that's the only parameter that justifies a 'short term adjustment' of your game..
|
|
|
|
biondino
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
Posts: 3,170
|
|
I am a big winner at the 1/2 and 2/4 nl tables
I am an advanced player trying to discuss advanced concepts that beginning players should not try to emulate.
BANKROLL: Probably bigger than yours.
You're pretty damn full of yourself for someone who doesn't understand fundamental poker concepts, bigboy.
|
|
|
|
Fnord
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck
Posts: 19,333
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
You're pretty damn full of yourself for someone who doesn't understand fundamental poker concepts, bigboy.
|
...why the games are so good.
|
|
|
|
vqc
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,427
|
|
Question to the OP
u wouldnt happen to go to UCSD would you?
|
|
|
|
Pelion
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,206
|
|
Quote:
I am a big winner at the 1/2 and 2/4 nl tables
I am an advanced player trying to discuss advanced concepts that beginning players should not try to emulate.
BANKROLL: Probably bigger than yours.
|
Yea those made me laugh 
|
|
gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.
bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
|
|
Miffed22001
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Marry Me Cheryl!!!
Posts: 8,181
|
|
Quote:
|
i think the long run is overated to many poker players. when i play poker, i maximize on the short run. repeated short run plays put together is my long run. discuss?
|
Long term= fold flush draw when opp 3 bets you all in.
short term= call and gambOOL?
or
Long term= chasing for bad odds = -ev
short term= player who loves top pair and thinks your a bluffing idiot will call your river all in when the flush hits making it +ev to chase.
perhaps were just discussing implied odds in reference to my two nonsense ideas above?
So essentailly are u suggesting that calling with any two preflop against certain players (TAGGS/ROCKS) creates +ev in itself because these players fold without a hand worthy of playing with once the pot gets bigger or you play back?
|
|
|
|
sejje
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 883
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigboy5540
You are talking to a winning player in the 200nl and 400nl stakes so you dont need to define EV to me. Sorry if this sounds rude but damn my discussion was not for people to define basic poker terms to me. lol
|
Well, if you understood the terms you were talking about you wouldn't need them defined to you. You're the one looking like a fool in this thread.
The guy defined EV for you because you were talking about it and calling it something else.
|
|
|
|
Surf_Thug
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 215
|
|
Bigboy, You're an idiot.
You don't listen, and you talk far too much.
If you don't turn that around you are never going to be half the player you THINK you are..
|
|
Currently Playing 8 Tables of 25NL 10-Max.
Or
2 Tables of 100NL 10-Max
Current Bankroll: $625
Goal: To stop pulling $$$ out of my bankroll and build it up to 1k.
|
|
Rondavu
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,053
|
|
I'm not even going to give my own version of why this poster has no idea what he's talking about. It's just way too silly. Bigboy is getting BWNED by an entire thread. I think he's a smart guy who is confused.
I think his whole point is that it's correct to parce decisions to a very fine level as your skill edge increases. It really has nothing to do with long and short term. It has to do with reads and moves.
|
|
It's not what's inside that counts. Have you seen what's inside?
Internal organs. And they're getting uglier by the minute.
|
|
bigboy5540
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: california
Posts: 253
|
|
sorry if people who don't understand this post are mad that they don't understand what I am talking about. I probably need to discuss my ideas with people that actually are capable of understanding instead of a bunch of players with bankrolls of less than 1g. I myself have a bankroll of more than 50x that and it was all won in cash games. the theory i am presenting is probably just too complicated for you guys to understand. I am done argueing definitions and having basic concepts defined to me. If you guys are not willing to learn and discuss politely I would rather not discuss at all.
|
|
im good at poker
|
|
arkana
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,109
|
|
LOL
|
|
|
|
mcatdog
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,654
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigboy5540
I probably need to discuss my ideas with people that actually are capable of understanding instead of a bunch of players with bankrolls of less than 1g.
|
|
|
|
|
Pelion
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,206
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigboy5540
sorry if people who don't understand this post are mad that they don't understand what I am talking about. I probably need to discuss my ideas with people that actually are capable of understanding instead of a bunch of players with bankrolls of less than 1g. I myself have a bankroll of more than 50x that and it was all won in cash games. the theory i am presenting is probably just too complicated for you guys to understand. I am done argueing definitions and having basic concepts defined to me. If you guys are not willing to learn and discuss politely I would rather not discuss at all.
|
The theory you are talking about is incredibly simple. The long run takes a long time and you can fit alot of short times into a long time. Well done !
It isnt that its too complicated its just that you dont understand the terms you are using. Its a little tricky for us to understand your tactics if you talk about them using random words thrown into the middle of your sentences.
If you are not willing to learn and discuss politly then farewell. Im sure we could all learn something from you, but im also sure you could learn something from alot of the people here. However, if you are so sure that you are the most "advanced" poker God here then it probably isnt worth your time hanging around.
|
|
gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.
bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
|
|
Murd0c
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 169
|
|
Anytime Bigboy makes a post God kills a kitten.
Just thought you all should know.
|
|
Currently at UB playing $50 NLHE 6max.
Bankroll: ~$1900 (Almost BR'ed for 100NL.)
|
|
Rondavu
|
|
03-23-2006, 05:17 PM
Post subject: Re: the long run. overated?
|
#34 (permalink)
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,053
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigboy5540
i think the long run is overated to many poker players. when i play poker, i maximize on the short run. repeated short run plays put together is my long run. discuss?
|
There are no such things as short run and long run decisions. There are only good and bad decisions. There are short run and long run results, which are effected differently (through the existence of variance) by that same group of impartial good/bad decisions. Cool? Therefore you don't play differently in either case. Your short run decisions are your long run decisions. They are one and the same. Your short run results however, are NOT your long run results.
To say the longrun is overrated, is to say the most accurate measure of your skill sans variance, is invalid.
I truly believe you had something worth while to discuss when you first created this thread, but the point was lost somewhere between "Create new post" and "Submit". I'm not even one of the mean ones around here. Check yourself bigroll. You might learn something. You can't come around here and make wildly illogical statements, expecting people not to challenge it. Never gonna happen.
|
|
It's not what's inside that counts. Have you seen what's inside?
Internal organs. And they're getting uglier by the minute.
|
|
Rondavu
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,053
|
|
So show me a decision you might make that is a good short term decision, but somehow not a good long term decision. Can you do that sir? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's an illustration impossible to present.
|
|
It's not what's inside that counts. Have you seen what's inside?
Internal organs. And they're getting uglier by the minute.
|
|
Warpe
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canuckistan
Posts: 3,905
|
|
I have my doubts that bigboy is going to re-engage, Rond. Too bad, cause this thread had potential.
|
|
|
|
Rondavu
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,053
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warpe
I have my doubts that bigboy is going to re-engage, Rond. Too bad, cause this thread had potential.
|
I wish he would, but something tells me undeniable logic is not his cup of tea. Probably a waste of breath anyway.
|
|
It's not what's inside that counts. Have you seen what's inside?
Internal organs. And they're getting uglier by the minute.
|
|
siknd
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 359
|
|
"Anytime Bigboy makes a post God kills a kitten.
Just thought you all should know."
lol. funny because, its just funny. not cause of you bigboy.
i run plays like this frequently in HU or shorthanded play when reads are at a premium. for example, yesterday i called the pot with an openender HU because i knew if i caught my card i could break this player RIGHT NOW. i did, and i did. but accepting 2:1 odds on a 4:1 shot is definitely a long term loser.
|
|
'If you think a weakness can be turned into a strength, I hate to tell you this, but that's another weakness. '
|
|
Rondavu
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,053
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by siknd
I run plays like this frequently in HU or shorthanded play when reads are at a premium. for example, yesterday i called the pot with an openender HU because i knew if i caught my card i could break this player RIGHT NOW. i did, and i did. but accepting 2:1 odds on a 4:1 shot is definitely a long term loser.
|
Your odds weren't 2:1. You have to include implied odds.
|
|
It's not what's inside that counts. Have you seen what's inside?
Internal organs. And they're getting uglier by the minute.
|
|
siknd
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 359
|
|
hey, im trying to bring both sides together here! lol
youre right. even situational plays that are right in the short term will be riht in the long run. full stop.
|
|
'If you think a weakness can be turned into a strength, I hate to tell you this, but that's another weakness. '
|
|
holdin2
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 279
|
|
LOL. This discussion is one of the funniest posts I've read here yet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigboy5540
I am an advanced player trying to discuss advanced concepts...
|
But lacking even adequate communication skills.
OP and everyone else talking about essentially the same idea but using different terms. Let me recap.
Some setting in California, a midwesterner engages in conversation with a local. The local is enjoying a can of Coca-Cola.
Midwesterner: "Where'd you get that pop?"
Local: "What? This is a soda."
Midwesterner: "No it's not. That's a pop."
Local: "Soda."
Midwesterner: "You moron!. I am smarter than you and that is most certainly a pop!"
Local: "Soda."
Midwesterner: "POP!"
Local: "Soda."
Midwesterner: "POP!"
Midwesterner: "Why do I waste my time with idiots? I'm going to look for a pop, go back to my penthouse suite, hop in the jacuzzi and drink that pop like no one else can or could even attempt to."
|
|
|
|
siknd
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 359
|
|
speaking of which, you know whats funny? i like all coke products better than pepsi. ie, barqs over mugs, sprite over 7up etc. EXCEPT coke itself. id take a pepsi over a coke. and not just because of britney spears. definitely weird...
|
|
'If you think a weakness can be turned into a strength, I hate to tell you this, but that's another weakness. '
|
|
BankItDrew
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Losing Prop Bets
Posts: 2,789
|
|
Competing in an argument over pop vs. soda is like competing for the gold medal at the special olypics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.
|
Girlfriend: Why are the werewolves more important than living life?!
Girlfriend: Are you on the forums doing the werewolves again?
Girlfriend: Soo... you forgot to run that errand, but you had time to werewolf? Wtf?
|
|
holdin2
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 279
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BankItPayette
Competing in an argument over pop vs. soda is like competing for the gold medal at the special olypics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.
|
uncool
|
|
|
|
holdin2
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 279
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BankItPayette
Competing in an argument over pop vs. soda is like competing for the gold medal at the special olypics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.
|
uncool
|
|
|
|
samsonite2100
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Your loosing, lolololololololololol
Posts: 858
|
|
Quote:
|
I myself have a bankroll of more than 50x that and it was all won in cash games.
|
Why is a high-roller like yourself wasting your obviously valuable time posting complete gibberish on websites? Probably to throw the rest of us off the money trail, eh? Well done, sir!
|
|
|
|
andy-akb
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,836
|
|
In all honesty, everybody is arguing essentially the same thing, you just have conflicting definitions. You are all saying that short term decisions, actually, before I continue with this, please tell me what decision isnt short term? Every decision happens in the moment, you may make the same play in the same situation later on, but the current decision is always "short term." This argument is simply restating the obvious and is not some breakthrough theory. But yea, anyways, everybody is making the point about making the most profitable play in a certain set of circumstances, they just disagree with the definitions of short term and long term. In a debate if all you are doing is arguing definitions, essentially semantics, then you have to explain why your definition is better than the other. How does each "side" define long term and short term? That is all you are really arguing about, unless I missed something by breifly skimming the thread.
|
|
|
|
Miffed22001
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Marry Me Cheryl!!!
Posts: 8,181
|
|
every decision is long term. It maximises ev. If your call aint ev you dont make.
Pretty simple i thought
|
|
|
|
andy-akb
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,836
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Miffed22001
every decision is long term. It maximises ev. If your call aint ev you dont make.
Pretty simple i thought
|
Again, arguing semantics, I agree that every decision affects the long term, just saying that they are made in the short term, ie. you are deciding what to do right now. You make a decision with regard to how it will pan out in the long term, but again that doesnt make a single decision long term, it makes a series of decisions long term, individual aspects of the decision can affect the long term, etc. etc. Again, all I was trying to show with that is people are simply debating semantics, they are debating definitions and not really concepts.
|
|
|
|
Murd0c
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 169
|
|
i thinker hat sometimes some people play good and sometimeser some peoples plays bad.
discuss?
|
|
Currently at UB playing $50 NLHE 6max.
Bankroll: ~$1900 (Almost BR'ed for 100NL.)
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
