I was trying to simplify as much as possible. Perhaps I simplified too much. If you understand ICM better than I do, or if anyone else reading this thread does, perhaps you can explain where my feeble explanation went wrong.

Merely stating ICM is "way more dynamic" than I explained does not sound like you understand ICM yourself.

I'm sorry I did. The LOL was for an insult you directed at another poster that struck me as amusing. But then that got deleted in the interest of keeping peace... and subsequently, from my response to your post, I deleted the insulting remark that had already been deleted from your post. I should have deleted the "LOL" too... no offense was intended.

Buzz

I think you are right.
Things have gotten pretty sticky several times in this thread.

I am not capable to explain it exactly how it is because it way more complicated then just play tighter and dont put money in the pot if you do not win enough. And because i know nobody in o8 understand anything from it because in o8 it way more difficult.
There is no point for me to explain anything here i think i already add a lot here on 2+2 by just calling the people out who just have no clue. And still there will be 80% who reading your post and mine will agree with yours because you can say it more nicely and simplified then me. But the 20% who think they can better lissen to guy who crush online then mod who does not even play online will probably at the end be the better players.

I revere all of OmyBike and Amok posts, and put me in the camp that thinks cash players are much better than tourney players... I crush the Bovada MTT's, but then I try to run over the 1/2 and 2/4 plo8 cash games and get slapped right back in my place.

I also think no one has any idea how to play Tournament O8 and the fish instinctively gravitate to Buzz's style, so it is best to just keep my mouth shut and keep beating the tournaments and bringing all that beautiful money to the OmyBikes of the world.

Smart, but btw dont revere to much on my post sometimes i am joking around like in this topic because it is lol that is so clear what to do in the hand OP posted.

This.

I'm pretty sure there's a significant number of players who are quietly crushing O8 in its various forms who occasionally check this sub-forum and fist pump each time when they realize that Buzz is still active in every strategy thread.

+1

Maybe. I wonder similar things about many different posts I have read over the years.

But obviously you are not fist pumping. Otherwise why would you post this. Either you are truly trying to help other players or something else. Your tone implies something else. Who knows. Who ever knows.

Fair enough.

I don't think ICM necessarily advises playing tighter. I believe it computes prize dollar equity for folding, calling, or raising... and then you can see for yourself which is optimal. Sometimes folding will be optimal, but other times calling or raising will be optimal. That part makes sense to me.

But there are some snags in the assumptions leading to the calculations that bother me.

That's just my perspective. I'm interested in your perspective if you're able to express it and if you're willing to share it with us.

But, as I say, there are some snags in the assumptions leading to the calculations that bother me.

I do think ICM advises folding rather than putting money in the pot if folding is the optimal play.

I don't believe it's true that nobody who plays O8 understands ICM theory. I do think the calculations are more complex than for Texas hold 'em.

That's actually not much help. Readers of the forum need to read what different posters have to say about Omaha-8, perhaps post their own ideas, and form their own opinions about who has worthwhile ideas.

I'd rather read a clue from you than read who you think has no clue.

It doesn't feel like that from here. But I do try to get things right.

I believe whoever can listen to different points of view and form his/her own intelligent opinion will become a better player than someone who closes his mind to new ideas and who is only able to listen to one of us.

Consider posting your ideas instead of insulting Billy (or anyone else). In formulating your ideas is writing I believe you'll gain a clearer understanding of what you think. You might give up a bit of edge in one way, but I believe you'll gain it back in another.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

Honestly I was just kind of getting a chuckle out of it, while making a relevant point.

But, I think the dynamic of strategy forums in the current poker environment is pretty interesting. And, I think it's especially interesting in the non-NLHE arena, which have always been a bit different than Holdem.

From my occasional viewings of the O8 and Stud sub-forums over the past several years, it seems that the current environment is this:

- A crop of relative newbies going through their "lets read and post on the 2p2 strat forums" phase, trying to advance their game.

- People who probably haven't been a winning player at any reasonable level in years (if ever), but who love envisioning themselves as an expert at a certain "niche" of poker because that game suited their idiosyncratic limitations years ago. They tend to be overly-wordy and thorough in their answers, even though they're completely wrong most of the time.

- People who had some success at some point in the past, and are really smug about it, and reply just enough and with just enough condescension to maintain their status as resident gurus.

- People who are currently winning in the games, who enjoy talking strategy and helping others, who are currently going through a "post for awhile before I realize I'm wasting my time arguing with self-proclaimed experts and giving away whatever edge I have left in this game" phase.

Most of the latter group just leave quietly but you occasionally get someone who is crazy blunt about it like in this thread.

The days of it being +EV to share cutting edge strat in a public forum because the 'fish pool' was so large and made up of people who'd never heard of 2p2 is pretty far in the rear view mirror, so these sub forums have devolved to being borderline useless except as a place for ultra-new players to get some decent info, and for others to circle jerk about how their ABC knowledge of the game gave them a huge ego because they crushed Party Poker for 2 years.

^when has this ever not been the case.. even in the old days it was like that

perhaps it was 'cutting edge strat' to YOU because your skill level was lower than the 'ABC circle jerkers'?

Or maybe you were born a crusher.. idkntbhidc.. thanks for the negativity tho :/

But if you're playing optimally (aggressive and fearless) you will cover whoever you're coinflipping with more often than not. So usually the risk of busting isn't there while it very much is for them and can cause them to make bad decisions. It pays to steal pots and get it in when you can. This is why we don't just sit around waiting for premium starting hands to connect with flops while letting the aggressive players run us over.

*sigh*

Classic Buzz misinterpretation. How you could possibly think that sentence was a specific reference to the OP and not a general statement about proper tournament strategy is beyond me. If you're thinking the two are unrelated, the point is that people who fold blinds too often are the same people who fold aces preflop when shoving is an obvious play. Also known as the nits.


It's funny, I'm quite sure every person here would understand I was talking about in poker... since you know... that's what the entire paragraph was about. And yet you somehow think I meant "in every aspect of life." Your frequent inability to comprehend people's words makes me question your ability to moderate a web forum.

Thank you captain obvious. Nowhere did I state or imply that boldness was all that is needed.

I don't know where you got the idea that I sit around waiting for premium starting hands. (I do advocate playing tighter in tournaments than cash games, but not overly tightly in either... and I do advocate tight play for beginners while they learn the game).

You wrote, “The people who are wise enough to not fold coinflip equity with dead money in the pot are the ones who win O8 MTTs, far more than the guys who fold their blinds off waiting for more +EV spots.

I responded, “Hero is seated UTG+1. Thus Hero is not the big blind poster here. Thus Hero is not folding his ‘blinds off waiting for more +EV spots.’”

How is that a misinterpretation???

Where did you get the idea I think you meant "in every aspect of life"? (I didn't and don’t).

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I can read that you disagree with the way I advocate playing some hands. But what does that have to do with being a moderator of this forum.

How have I been anything but helpful to you as moderator?

Buzz

nothing wrong with buzz as mod. but i think he should go play online some 2/4 cash or so and he will understand that his style of play is bleeding money.

would be awesome if Buzz battled all his online detractors one by one and just busted us all.

There have been times in the past where it was correct for winning players to openly divulge and share information publicly with other similar players because helping each other was still beneficial vs the field.

Huh? My own skill level/win rates/experience are irrelevant to whether or not my observations are valid, which is why I didn't make any reference to them.

You can call it "negativity" all you want, but this thread is proving my point. Right after your post, a long-time winning reg in big-bet O8 online MTTs is getting frustrated out of his mind after he posted a spot-on, helpful reply to the OP and is now stuck in a drawn out and tedious debate with Buzz.

There's a decent chance he's going to decide (if he hasn't already) to give up on trying to post useful information in this subforum, which means less useful information for people in here looking to improve their game.

Because you posted it in response to my statement like it meant something in relation to it. My comment was completely unrelated to the OP's specific situation, so I have no idea why you felt the need to point out that OP isn't folding his blinds.

Because you started rambling on about things totally unrelated to the topic at hand (poker) like the stock market. Did you think it was some great revelation that fortune doesn't always favor the bold? Because it's really basic common sense.

Because when you constantly have to quote people's sentences, reword them, and ask if you're understanding them correctly (or just flat out misinterpret them which you do all the time), you're probably not fit to judge when certain posts require moderation. Just my opinion.

do u guys often have internet wars often with seventy x year old men?

Buzz does a fine job of moderating this forum imo and he enjoys talking strat whether you think he is right or wrong in his analysis but funny to see you guys getting so worked up lol.

Great job buzz!!!

Well it's a pretty well behaved forum in general, so I admit there isn't much to do.

I feel 70 mentally, so it's a fair fight.

I don't think we'll get anywhere if I try to explain. It would have better if I had ignored your statement.

I thought it was related. I still think it is related.

On those two points we are in complete agreement.
1. Fortune doesn't always favor the bold.
2. It's really basic common sense.

I didn't think it was a great revelation that fortune doesn't always favor the bold. I thought your declaring it did was an incorrect statement... and I called you on it, just like you might call me on an incorrect statement I made.

Ah.

If you think this forum needs more moderation, here's what you should do:
Please click on the "report post button" for any post you feel needs moderation and follow the directions. At least three moderators will take a careful look at the reported post. The "report post button" is an I in a triangle and it is located off to the bottom left of each post.

If you think I'm over-moderating, please give a recent (within the last year) example. I don't think you'll find anything, but maybe I'm over-moderating and am unaware of it.

In any event, I'm willing to step down as moderator if the posters to this forum don't want me. If you (or anyone else) want to get rid of me as moderator, start a poll in this forum to get rid of me. I won't vote in the poll or respond to it, and I'll abide by the majority. If you need help formulating the poll, ask and I'll help.

Same goes for my posting in the whole or part of this forum. I'm willing to not post either anything or in any pot-limit or no-limit post. Start a poll thread in this forum. I won't vote and I'll abide by the poll results.

OK?

Buzz

I'm eighty one, Billy.

Well said!

That's really all there is to it. I enjoy talking strat.

I like number problems. I enjoy solving puzzles. I like helping people. And I enjoy competition.

Thanks, Billy.

I appreciate that, Billy.

Buzz

1. 'winning players' is such a nebulous term .. and 'there have been times' is even more vague.. so yeah sure, your "maybe there might have been once" logic is going to be true... but I have been on poker forums for a long time (as many have) and NEVER has top 10 let alone top 5 players ..who all have 2p2 accts ...come on to intentionally share cutting edge strat publicly (free) ... We can go all the way back to Bax and Sheets days or Phralad Razi Jedlicka Dwan etc.. never happened.. even in the well

2. This makes no sense logically and feels like you are just typing to prove a point via pathos.. of course if you know very little ABC strat will be more valuable than if you are experienced and skilled ABC strat will seem useless... how is this even 'a thing' for you to deny?

haha yeah I would pay to see that

wow people should have more respect for elderly.
Now all the posts makes a lot of sense.

Except that wasn't the statement I made. It's once again your poor reading comprehension that lead you to believe it was. I was very clearly talking about poker at the time, not anything else. Therefore your stock market comparison is totally out of left field and bears no relevance to the discussion. You're also the only person here who could possibly read my statement as "ONLY boldness is needed, not anything else" which is what you implied when you stated that boldness alone isn't enough. In short, you have a shocking amount of difficulty with semantics. Either that or you're purposefully obtuse, I can't tell.