People love to brag. Like convicts in prison, they always out themselves.

well ur defo one of the guys ITT that also has 1st hand understanding of the changes in the game. I'm sure u've been as frustrated as me at times. Not sure if thee is much to analalyse in the stats there but as long as know how to adapt ur game to different styles of play you should easily make profit. Although obv not as much as before BF.

It's no wonder that guys like humans prey made so much profit before.

I think i've said too much in general ITT already. not +ev

although it seems that other posters don't agree with what i say i bet u there are i hell of a lot of lurkers in threads like this.

nah but they balance has changed considerably

I still don't see how more Aggro spewtards is a bad thing, but whatevs.

your variance goes way up.

Meh... I'm inclined to say you're just doing it wrong.

my inclination is that not everyone means the same thing when they use the term variance.
but its the nature of discussions involving generalities rather then specifics



the hand was cited as an example of adjusting to loose preflop villians.

vs. 2 tight players (for simplicity the ranges are ppt top 7% and top 15%)
hero would have 33% equity: scoop 16%, 3/4 7%, half 15%, 1/4 10%, brick 47%
vs 2 loose players (the ranges are ppt top 40% and top 60%)
hero would have 38% equity: scoop 21%, 3/4 3%, half 25%, 1/4 5%, brick 45%
*edit
vs 2 very tight(top 3% and top7%)
hero would have 31% equity: scoop 14%, 3/4 7%, half 12%, 1/4 11%, brick 48%

My question: is that 5% equity really what this discussion is about? is that 5% hot/cold equity really a significant difference maker? especially when it is just a 2% difference in bricking?
*edit
the equity difference equates to a profit potential on the hand, whereas the brick equates to busting if you get in this confrontation with the shorter stack

ps. just my opinion, but if you are going to call villian's "**** horrid spewtards" you should convert hh so that it uses position's rather then s/n's

Some ITT are using the technical, statistical definition of variance, based on mathematical models, and I can't really dispute that. All I know is that in practice, my variance or "likelihood of multiple, long, downswings for no apparent reason" seems to be a lot higher. This is complicated by not being able to play much for over a year, so not in practice... minimal SNG experience until recently... adjustment to new demographic of players and new MTT dynamics (esp. mid-stakes).

I can understand your skepticism. In a vacuum, more bad = more good for us.

First, I'm not really sure how much better/worse villains are these days. They often seem worse, but it may be that they just play highly unorthodox, high variance style (many Russians/Europeans, most Brazilians, etc.). In theory, the player pool should actually be better, because the US was the majority of players before... and only the better players are going to make the efforts necessary to keep playing after BF. Additionally, because many seem to have found ways to get new SNs, those of us who followed the rules are "known" and those who didn't are "unknown", which is significant in a non-HE game. This makes the re-adjustment process all the more difficult.

Second, there are much smaller fields, esp. at mid-stakes (I would say 20% to 1/3 of pre-BF, varying by MTT)... this means much smaller prize pools... and much different dynamics in the latter levels of MTts, which then can affect how earlier levels are/should be played.

So to recap, after BF:

- much, much smaller prize pools
- player pool may be better/worse, may depend on perspective
- much more variance due to PF aggression by villains (due to different demographic, not nec. skill level)

Yes, I think it is. I think you are pointing out often being committed PF with a small edge PF does not really compensate for the potentially much larger edge post-flop. I think that's exactly one of the points some of us were trying to make.

Yeah, those aren't the same thing, but they're similar enough that people use them interchangeably, which is sort of unfortunate. If your mean result is a million dollars an hour, but your standard deviation is $900k an hour, your variance (square of SD) is $810 billion an hour, but you'll almost never have a prolonged downswing.

I would prefer keeping these concepts clearly separate, because the actual statistical concept of variance is too important to poker to erode its meaning. Variance itself is a little harder to grasp intuitively than probability of downswings, but other poker concepts are complex too.

I still think its a matter of incorrectly adjusting to aggro spewtard players. In the hand above, a willingness to get it in PF with a somewhat marginal hand because of your perception of their ranges is just taking away your skill edge.

I think that spewtards comprise a way higher % of fields now (and granted, I've only returned to online games in the prior two months after moving out of the US) but ROI's in general are going to be way lower. A huge advantage for a smart aggressive player pre-black friday is that you would constantly be facing people that would never realize their equity in hands, so you could chip up way more easily. The aggrotards probably don't understand why what they're doing is actually difficult to deal with, but even garbagey o8 hands often have 40-45% equity against good o8 hands.

So if you're up against people that will fold too much, it's way easier to win tournaments than if you're up against people that don't fold often enough. Give me a table full of nits who play "properly" and I'm a happy happy camper, but a table full of aggrotards and I know I'm not gonna win nearly as often.

Also, yeah I miss those days (wistful face)

No. I keep the LMGTFY link in mind because people who expect others to find information for their benefit, without willing to expend any effort on their own, really frustrate me. Upon reflection I realized that wasn't really the case and that the link was just needlessly confrontational. I apologize.

It is helpful when people share efforts they've made to locate information so that those of us who want to help can fine-tune those search terms. I get a lot out of this forum and try to give back, but no one's obligated to share information or justify their efforts to share info.

These are all valid points -- but they're comparing two different kinds of opponents who play pretty badly! That may have been the point of the original wistful discussion, but it's also important to not to confuse this point with laments that players don't play well enough.

Also note that O8 tourneys don't start round the clock so it's not like you can just buy into another one when you bust out and keep 12 tourneys open at once.

That said, playing for stacks at 38% all-in three ways is a pretty significant edge. That one hand alone would give you an ROI of 3.6% above a standard 10% vigorish, which is a pretty good ROI for 2 minutes of play. You'd need to have a bigger edge by remaining in the tournament, which requires both bad opponents and somewhat deep stacks.

This guy nsinger is telling the truth

Also AllInNTheDark keeps mentioning small prize pools, but that's a red herring. All else being equal, as mentioned above, smaller fields reduce variance. Getting smaller fields by eliminating bad players also reduces EV, possibly leading to as many or more prolonged downswings.