You need to win every dollar on the table to show more of a profit than the 3 way all in. How often will that happen?

Doesn't that tell you something about your profit/loss situation when less than 900bb goes into the pot?

The point is you have a better chance of someone connecting with the flop. An ideal situation is someone flopping tp. Whether that be a K,Q,J,10. Depends on board texture. Look at it like this. The odds of flopping greater than AA is very slim. You lose value by pushing out fish who will call a smaller raise over a huge raise.

Like venice said you are losing value by doing that.

I have already addressed these points in previous posts. based on this post you either did not read them or did not understand them.

If you get called by 8 random hands, somebody will flop a hand that beats you 2 out of every 3 flops.

Also, I have not said a single ****ing word about varying raise size, so please stop telling me I lose value by doing something I don't ****ing do, and have argued strenuously against doing for a year now. JFC. My comparisons upthread were identical raise sizes that just happened to be called by 3 and 8 players respectively.

Math is skewed like I said last night. No way we get outflopped 66% of the time.

Math is overrated. It is 3rd on the list of importance. You can't just make statements with math problems and equity behind it. Phil Galfond has changed the game.

The reason the above statement tilts me like a F***ing tilt-a-world is because it just isn't true. The principle reason why majority of players are not winners is because they play in a mathematically incorrect manner. If you play in a mathematically correct +EV manner you will be a winner longterm. That is not opinion that is a statement of fact.

The reason the math is important is that it is the ONLY metric that you can hold up against your play and figure out if it was the correct play or not. And yes, this incorporates "reads" as well.

If I read that my villain is likely bluffing 75% of the time in a certain spot, I can then use math to figure out what my correct play is vs pot size vs street vs eff stacks...

most rec players believes that the "math doesn't matter". They believe they have magical poker powers that enable them to crush the game.

Sure, a small percentage of players have talent and intuition that enables them to naturally play in the mathematical correct manner... but these are a small minority of players. I'd guesttimate less than 5% of players have this talent.

If you are part of the 5% then good for you. But realize that the vast majority of us are not and that when you make statements like the above, it does more harm than good.

lol.

You're not even making the right argument against me.

You're supposed to be making the argument that Venice and Masarkash are making: "I am a soul reading expert, and a value extraction machine; I'll always stack them when I'm ahead and I'll always check/fold the flop when behind."

I never said math was not important @Digi. It is not the most important. Which I always knew. But nobody else would confirm until now. The reason is we play against other opponents. Idk about you but its hard to input a math problem using all the variables of poker. That's when deductive logic and psychology comes into play.

Poker math is simple you can look at all the databases you want to. The database doesn't account for tilt, how people are affected at the moment, table dynamics, who is winning or losing and how people are adjusting to you or the dynamics of how people are affected.

Sorry digi

FYP, and that's exactly what I'm saying.

(A) have you actually run any equity calculations of AA vs a given number of random hands, or do you just want to believe that AA is going to hold up more often than it actually does?

(B) Not sure why you tossed Galfond's name into the mix, but I'm pretty sure he believes in math...

(C) I agree that math shouldn't be the only tool in the toolbox, but for crying out loud, one of the biggest advantages that good players have over their opponents is having a solid understanding of odds, ranges and equity. And that's true whether we're talking about Tom Dwan, Phil Galfond, or good old Doyle Brunson who used to spend hours dealing out hole cards and running out board just to see how different starting hands fared against other ones.

So, going back to one of the earlier discussions, if I could have a 30% shot at a 900bb pot or an 60% shot at a 400bb pot, then I'm taking the 30% shot... But since we're not talking about an AIPF situation, and because all of those guys in the 9 way pot aren't all actually going to stack off post flop, I'd rather focus on extracting value from one or two opponents than ranging a whole bunch of them...

And we're saying (a) we don't think you are and (b) we know that we aren't...

The reason Galfond identifies math as the 3rd most important attribute of a winning player is because he considers poker math to be easy, and masterable by most anyone.

He's right, but a large percentage of the people who can't master poker math are posting in this thread that they want to be a 2:1 dog with a made hand.

Ivey once said "Everyone in highstakes knows the math". What I took from this and every other highstakes reg is that math is not the most important factor of a winning player. It leaves out many important factors.

The fact that you guys argue against this. Baffle's me, like I said math is important. But its not the top priority of winning players. You can't argue against wisdom from top players. Especially phil and phil.

Can't do it, won't do it and you shouldn't try and do it.

^^^^see my post above. same argument.

You think Ivey is saying math isn't important, but he's not. he's saying it is easy and a basic skill. Which is precisely why you guys ****ing it up ITT is irritating the crap out of me. Because I have been making this argument to you guys for a year now, and you still can't get it.

I'm not saying math is not important which you guys are trying to say I am.

I agree with your statement. The poker math is easy. The other variables of poker are not. Its a reason why some people resort to math as their only train of thought. It makes them think they are wizards. If poker was all about math and nothing else I wouldn't play this game. You have to take into account how people play the game. The math can't tell you that.

You can't name one person not knowing all the hole cards who wouldn't pick AA AIPF vs <Insert amount of players>