yeah i'm already min raising...

yeah! i was going to post about the gaping holes in his strategy, but you're right i'm better of not. i'm absolutely amazed that multiple high stakes players fail to see the gaping holes in that strategy.

edit: not that i necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but there have been a lot of great contributions in this thread that i've enjoyed reading. just feels wrong bringing this up in this specific thread.

the gaping holes in the ss strategy? please enlighten me with a pm...

lol wow just read all of this

HAH HAH IM LAUGHIN TO THE BANK RIGHT NOW!

Wouldnt raising 100% btns to a knowing opponent just be the same thing as playing a game with higher bb's everytime ur in the BB (thinking of the challenges proposed earlier in the thread)?

Like when durrrr and illari played w a forced 3bet preflop in the 1k-2k PLO. It just raised the stakes (without having FTP start a 4.5k-9k PLO table which probably wouldve been too high even for them nosebleederz, if present every day).

I wonder why xorbie or bobbo didnt play someone like durrr or cts and play the button everyhand and pay them back anymoney won with the top 85% of hands.

Then if they were losing money opening the bottom 15% cts or durr or whoever would win money, and if not then bobbo or xorbie would.

That woulda been pretty sick to see happen.

/thread

Sorry for bumping but just read it again as part of the day of procrastination.

If this is the case he could the very same adjustment vs us if we don't raise 72off and still profit from it (assuming this adjustment allows us to play 72off profitably). Which is kind of obvious I hope. So by not raising 100% if we know he will fold enough anyway to make every hand profitable we are basically betting on him being a retard.

I just want make a point : "If we know that he will fold enough to make every hand profitable we should ALWAYS raise 100%" If every hand is profitable against given Villain we bette rraise every hand unless he has very strange mental block. There are no magic adjusments which somehow lower our overall EV still allowing to play 100% of hands profitably.
The conclusion is clear : is someone believes that optimal strategy of the button is different than raising 100% he/she must also believe that optimal strategy of BB is such that 72off is not profitable. (which probably means defending 50%+ and 3betting like 25%+)

It's not clear to me that everybody agrees on this point, anybody wanna challange this ?

EDIT : btw I am pretty sure that button can't win more than 0.2bb (0.1ptbb) / hand if he is raising 100% of hands to 3bb.

Double and triple barrel more. His call pf and flop only tell you he has 2 cards so turn bet is almost mandatory.

lol no

with all due respect, it's just really hard/realisticly impossible to quantify stuff like that

not to mention it's an answer to the wrong question. nobody cares about the EV of 72o in a vacuum

23o HU = 27o Multiway

(bump)

70 % mr is the new 100 % 3x

opening anything less than 100 percent of buttons is pussy **** and belongs in SSNL HU Button Raising thread

Posts from Durrrr itt without rebuttal, didn't post above etc.
Doubt I can take it, but I am interested in action . and wants to be first in line for the offer if he hasn't changed his mind.

"if he'd sell any i'd take any % of daves action for 50-100k hands with a 50-100k sidebet where we lay 2-1 that he ends up at least 1$ at any stakes between 5-10 and 50/100... at least 4tbls vs anyone who posted above me in this thread. You need to raise 100% of hands, and he will raise 50% or less. "

"i really didnt mean to make this a hu for rolls challenge yo kindv thing, and i just saw dave already made a challenge in the thread (i only read the 1st 1/2 before posting), but anyway the bet still stands obv/ someone please take it etc, but ill still make a discussion post in a few minutes b/c i hate when ppl try to end discussions on something w/ blah blah past results, and think it causes ppl to gain far less intelligence than they should/could.

-tom "