Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
A few more random poker things.

So Ev is EXPECTED VALUE - how much you can expect to get out of your opponent. I don't know what the figures mean, or how they are arrived at, but essentially that is EV, correct? If you bet too large you can scare him off, if you bet too small then you aren't getting maximum payoff.
EV, as i understand it, is more akin to "equity share." to me, that means if i have an 80% stake in a pot...i will see an $.80 return on all monies I put into the pot. i will also win 4 out of 5 times, and lose once...over the long haul. i have no idea the EXACT amount i will win since i dont know how much aggression my villain will put up with. that becomes the secret, if you will....getting your villain to put in money w/o scaring them off. if you have two pair (say, AK) and i have a set (say, 333), i think i am going to have an easy time getting your stack in the middle. but if i flopped a boat, and you have only the pair on the board, i doubt i will get you to do too much before you fold. point is: in either scenario...i have a large "equity share" or EV on the outcome. how much, in terms of money, is up to me to extract. i dont think there is a way to quantify it to the dollar...thats why the percentages.

Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
As TAGG is the defacto play recommended these days, and such a play involves NOT flat calling the blinds or giving free cards, then why do so many pros do it? We've all heard about not giving the blinds a free flop, that you need to limit the opposition and that if you think your hand is good enough to call with then it's good enough to raise with. And as for giving free cards.....
sounds like someone is watching TV again. no offense, but their play is so far above and beyond the online player's ability, its almost a detriment to watch. especially, final tables at the WSOP. sure, its good fun to watch big bluffs with air, ala Moneymaker 2003, but its hardly "recommended" play for anything but higher stakes...with lots of regular opponents. these "pros" are not trying to play "fancy/tricky" poker...they are so far inside the opponent's head, it would make you sick. they are thinking, "if i bet this, he will think that, but if i check, he did that last time, so...i think i should do that because he will think this...ok, what is the most he will raise me with when i do this, and will that give me the odds to call profitably?" thats too much thinking, but thats the idea. now, with a Jamie Gold, i dont think he was doing that, and i dont think the amatuers are either, but when you watch a GSN HSP episode, some of those guys are most certainly doing that to each other. they are thinking on three and four levels of thought.

and, yes, TAG poker works. but, the best? i am not so sure. when there are so many TAGs out there, LAG works best. right now, my own evolution is taking me more towards "TAG lite" or STAG (semi-tight) poker. but, someone like Dan Harrington is more or less a standard TAG and is forever better than i can dream of. so, its more a factor of inserting your own "style" into your poker, imo. as long as you do two things: 1) stay fundamentally sound, and 2) stay aggressive.

sorry, that one is about a dime, not .02

remember, that dime still wont buy you a cup of coffee or get you a phone call, though.