Said the guy who made fun of religion.

anybody who thinks this thread is mocking religion in some sort of mean spirited way has no sense of humor

Check this out: http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/a...-of-a-tag.html

What stage are ->you<-?

You know, it occurs to me reading that link that in live poker, the stages are all mixed up compared to the online game that the author assumes we're playing.

ILCD: You may call yourself whatever you deem appropriate. You have infinite power in this respect.

I teach literature and this is definitely poetry in both the classic and modern sense.

I'm protestant.
in poker, and otherwise...
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blo...ith-the-greys/
gambling, and cards (which was new at the time) were big in tudor England among aristocrats, who were also quite religious.



the bible says 'be not a drinker of water only, but take a little wine...' (timothy)
but i still can't find anything in there about gambling or games[?]

There is a lot more TAGfish than actually scary/intimidating/good TAGs

Why is it okay to make fun of bad poker players who make decisions based upon bad maths and gut feelings, yet somehow offensive to make fun of religion?

Surely the only intelligent response from both groups is to wonder why others find it funny?

Religion is generally for the proletariat

ultimately, once we grow up, we don't follow rules because they are rules.
we follow them because we know they are right.
at that point, the rule itself becomes superfluous.
anytime you make a correct decision, you are prolly following some rule somewhere without knowing it??

Moral rules function the same as poker rules. Without context and the ability to discern the purpose, they can't possibly be applied effectively. Religion in the hands of an imbecile is incredibly dangerous. QQ facing a 3 bet in the hands of an imbecile is incredibly dangerous in it's own context.
In my home gambling was greatly discouraged. Ironic how poker can mirror real life in so many ways.

The OP isn't about religion and this thread shouldn't be either. Please don't derail it guys. It's a great topic presented in a clver way. Think of it like a guy parodying Shakespeare or some other famous writer because that's what it truly is. It's certainly not malicious.

It's a creative OP and obviously well thought out. I enjoyed reading it. Made me laugh and it brings up some excellent points.

Commandments = rules to live by

This OP has nothing to do with religion. FFS.

I'm going to TAG heaven.

And mpathybridge did say: " The Table of TAG is like this: 'Berate not the donkey who succedes against thee with his gutshot or two outer. For he is like the man who looks at the sky in early winter and says, 'It will surely not snow today!' and with each correct prediction, becomes more certian in his folly. Soon, the snow will come, his confidance will feeze, and his chips will fall. Verilly I say unto you, though your outrage maybe great, his wisdom is meager; he knows not what he does. Rest easy in his victory for he will surely magnify yours.

Do not let yourself be troubled for TAG, thy God, with all of his Probable Hosts, is with you."

Religion has to do with authority.
worship is attributing worth (ie. equity) to the authority.

I disagree that religion is dangerous in the hands of an idiot, and think it's quite the opposite. religion makes it safer to be an idiot. some people apparantly need an authority to tell them how to behave and what the difference between wrong and right is, because they don't have the instincts to feel it for themselves in their bones.

what does this rant have to do with poker?
well, we go on authority a lot as poker players, which can be a double edged sword.
if one isnt big on math, it might be nice for an authority to tell you 'don't limp UTG w/ 72'. On the other hand, if we are blindly following a line of authority, [do this, don't do that] and that authority doesnt know the details of the specific situations 1] the villians and their tendancies 2] game conditions 3] our image ect..
then what good is it? it may well do more to mess us up than show us the way, if we
misapply the voice of authority.
thats why time spent on 2+2 and real coaching are 2 different things, and should be treated as such. the better someone knows you and your game the better authority they can be on what you need to work on, and in what order. reading/posting threads is always going to be a random exercise as far as what we can learn. In any case, it does keep you thinking about poker, which is a good thing...

In poker, math is probably the final, and ultimate authority that we should go on, and look towards...
math is our lord and master, and it makes our decisions for us, and we become slaves to it when we are playing optimally. the odds dictate it.

or, maybe math is idiotic??

Then math becomes your religion and does all your thinking for you, its binding just the same. Here are examples where math sucks in, my opinion:

You're at the turn with a $1000 pot. Your villian bets $30 and you know you only have 2 outs. Pot odds tell you to call but honestly Id rather keep those chips than chase a 1 in 23 hit.

Same situation but this time he scratches his nose before betting $300, a tell that shows he is bluffing. Math tells you to fold because you dont have the odds but you clearly need call as the guy has nothing.

Insted of blindly relying on (or rejecting) a system, use thier virtues and apply them situationaly as needed.

Duco, one important thing about poker math is it doesn't tell you anything in and of itself. You always apply poker math to the guy's range to get the right play.

In your hypothetical $300 bet scenario, the math tells you it's a fist pump call because you're ahead of his range when he scratches his nose.

This is a really important point that a lot of players who learned poker by experience don't seem to get about poker math. It applies to the range you put the guy on, always and forever.

terrible post

I was using the word maths in a broad way, which includes observation and reason.
even seemingly intangible decisions in poker can be expressed in numbers, percentages.
you assign %s based on observations, and crunch the numbers to arrive at the correct play, and can do this will all manner of things; ranges, estimating implied odds, bluffing frequencies, w/e.

have you ever had someone say 'well played' when the hand pretty much played itself?
It's pretty common for a hand to play itself, and in Omaha8 after the flop it's standard.
besides your hand playing itself, all your doing is not doing anything stupid...you fold when it's not profitable mathematically to continue, and you don't have the fold equity to raise, which can also be expressed in maths regarding the actual situation, after assigning our own %s.

good 'feel' players play according to maths too, they just do it subconsciously, and according to their experience. they are still obeying the maths, whether they know it or not.

math and poker are inseperable. there are 52 cards. its hard to get around?

even if you decide to randomly call, fold, or bet without looking at your cards, and by the second-hand on your watch you are obeying the maths...

In my humble view, a multi-image-player (my new term for LAG) will use math more than a TAG. This is because TAGs are a little more risk-averse, and generally only practise aggression when they have a significant mathematical edge. These "edge" spots for a TAG are generic---e.g. calculating FE with two-overs and nut-flush draw, knowing the implied odds of calling with a combo on the turn, knowing when to call preflop with s/c in a multiway pot in position---so that brain is relying as much on memory as the cognitive process of calculation.

On the other hand, the MIP (multi-image-player), is looking for more creative spots, where the math needs to be calculated on the fly. These are, generally, floating scenarios, with back-draw equity in conjunction with FE, or leveraging spots against deep-stacks that require a four-street plan. For these types of play, math is not so much a rational discourse that determines the action; it is, rather, a logical framework that can help map out the field of possibility.

TAGs, are, in the end, generic players, hence the parody inherent in this thread. They play according to tried-and-tested formula that necessitates a feeling of faith, especially at those times when variance works against them. If they actually did the math a little bit more, then, who knows, they might realise that sacrilegious acts, on the poker table, might, in the end, result in a greater win-rate. Sometimes, a little 2+2 guilt is not so bad after all.

Too basic. MIP (a great decrip for my game) is often playing villains math more than the math of their own hand.

E.g. Knowing that draws are a large part of vil range after a flop call makes a turn bomb on safe cards **** up his math. The ability to pot the turn and win w any holdings is highly useful here; still playing the 'math' but its a diff game.

I like.

if someone is a LAG-MIP, but they are not capable of playing TAG when it is appropriate, then they are a bad LAG-MIP, and they are straying from the flock, (a heretic), because it is in essence the same style; it's a just matter of degree between TAG and LAG. (his grace Bishop Harrington has endorsed this view). A LAG-MIP just avails himself of more indulgences... (opens more hands/ plays position more)

yes, good LAG-MIPS will use more maths, and play off the maths of opponents range and tendencies, and off of opponent playing of maths of LAG-MIPS perceived ranges and tendencies.

a lot of the rules we go on are of course subject to the omnipresent 'It Depends'.
then, i like to think of them as maxims, and not so much as rules. (ie. go for max value/ don't bluff into station, ect...)
math is what rules, and it serves us at the same time. maxims help point the way to unravelling whatever situation we happen to have gotten ourselves into, and act more as guidelines, and not as rote instructions...

I have been preaching the blessed 'matter of degree' gospel since arriving among you lo these many months ago.

Amen, brother.

The Rummy, quoting R Limon, states that regardless of how loose thy wish to play: in a wild gambolthon, shalt play very tight, and when thy play, thou shalt put all thy money in the middle w a big hand.

following commandments, rules and maxims when the are appropriate and they apply doesnt preclude the exercise of our freewill, if we merge our freewill
with a full understanding, and adherence to the maths (again, used in a broad sense).
Auto-piloting the live pokers is certainly sub-optimal, while multitabling online it is standard. there are many more tangental maths to be utilized in live pokers because of so much more info being available.

it's like you should be able to explain why you make every single decision you make, and whys its profitable. 'because its a rule' isnt a good enough reason, imo. (unless its something like fold 72 UTG, but even then its easy to explain the maths there.)