haha, i did miss your point. Benjamen Franklin would be as good a doctor now as any surgeon that i know, IF he was sent thru Medical School of today.

But as i know a plethra of these players, when i mention going back to learning EV cals, and combonator + pokerstoving etc, they all say "F-that".

lol

i was basically replying to venice's post i guess. see below

Lol yeah and they will be behind, shidd I have never sat down with poker stove. But I have read so many post that I feel I know poker stove and I have never used the program.

Trust me if I didn't force myself to read 2+2 for the last 2 years I would be way behind. Without the help of others I wouldn't be as good as I am. Especially when you just lurk new post all day everyday.

this all sort of reminds me of a post/discussion i had a long time ago...

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...0&fpart=1&vc=1

what do you mean

see? i'm not worried

Wow that's crazy the same stuff I'm arguing is the same stuff you was arguing in that post.

That's crazy I think like limon lmao. I'm shocked and I just learned poker 2 years ago.

Only thing time changes is more good players. More education to the fish and more exposure to the game.

much of the time i was sorta being devils advocate in an attempt to fish for information. turns out the pond was pretty empty, but it was a fun day on the water none the less.

It clearly was a level. You were arguing with everyone. They kept coming up with examples and you shoot em down.

I can tell you really respect the game and from reading and hearing you I can tell you have no pride issue when it comes to adjustments. That's the heart of a true competitor. You can't teach that its only given to a chosen few.

Respect The Game

I would argue that there isn't a new concept. Every time I read "Theory of Poker" I'm struck by the fact Sklansky covers a lot of the "fashionable" topics such as balancing ranges, thin value betting, etc., although with not the same terms that are used today.

The difference today on-line is that many of these can be performed with more precision. If you have 100k hands on a player, you can nail down their actual range in situations with tremendous accuracy. From there, you can far closer to Sklansky's 55% beating a calling range (for thin value) than you could before, for example. The edge becomes being able to get closer to that line.

Back in the Civil War days, Stonewall Jackson continually argued for night attacks, knowing the inherent advantages an attacking force will have with defenders that are tired and less able to see. The problem was that it was rarely feasible because even the attackers couldn't see most of the time. Today, the US almost always launches attacks at night with the use of night vision equipment.

It isn't that Lee was a bad general because he didn't do night attacks often, it was that he didn't have the tools to do it. Today's top poker players have tools that use things that older player didn't have, so the older players never practiced trying it. The older player often makes the mistake in not recognizing that things that weren't possible before are now possible.

Love the analogy, real talk

exactly; the other day this guy who had been bragging that he's been a prop for 20 years,
was complaining at the table that the game isn't suited to his style of play.

I chuckled inside, knowing that he would prob never consider changing his style
to suit the game, as it is now.

everybody wants to figure out their winrate. How can we? At live poker, you probably would have to play the same game for like 5 years solid 300k hands or so, in order for the earn to converge nicely. Can anyone ever do this? No.

Games change, villains change, hero changes. Its a figure out of our imagination.

The best we can do is say....example....play 5/10, knowing that if we play "jam up" that we should be earning somewhere between $45 and $100 per hour depending on skill. And $100 would be literally the superstar of the game in a casino. BUT, what does that really tell us. Nothing. Cause we could play for 2 years and be above or below that. So now what good did it do to discuss it?

Online, if a guy was dying to know his winrate at 5/10 and went on to play like a million hands in order to find out, only to see that today there are no 5/10 running at FTP, then what good did it do for him to even think about it. Games change, conditions change, and so all we can do is shoot for certain numbers and hope we are in the same galaxy after X amt. of time.

Poker is just poker. You cannot count on anything. They can say what they want, but some players just never get a "huge" break ever. Other players that i can name off just happen to play a satellite, happen to win the first tourney, then happen to stumble into extreme high juicy fish games and run good and so on. Other players who are equally talented go for a lifetime just making a decent clip, but never getting so much as one day in the limelight etc. Variance isnt just math at the table. My poker life WILL be different from yours, even if we play almost identical. Some people get cancer and others smoke for life and die at 90. We cannot make reason out of randomness, although we try every day just about.

having said all that, we canjust work hard, study hard, play hard and hope like hell that fate/variance/various life event dealings/other happenin such a way that we do ok at the end of the day.

Thats why wondering who the best player is is rediculous. The best poker player prolly doesnt play poker, because he ran bad in the beginning and quit it for good figuring it was all bull.****.

ya i see what you mean. i still think winrate is a useful number over large sample sizes.

if i have a $25 hourly at 1/2 NL over 2000 hours:

does it mean my true expected hourly is $25? no

does it mean i'm not a losing player at this 1/2 NL game? probably

the more specific our conclusion, the more uncertainty we have to associate with that number. we don't need to be 100% sure of our winrate. we just want some idea of how profitable the game we are playing is for us. games change, our play changes, and we just take that into account when we look at the numbers.

the problem with winrate is people seem to think in binary about statistics in poker. we either have a big enough sample size or we don't. we either have a 25 hourly or we don't. but in reality, these things are a sliding scale. the more hands we play, the better our information about the profitability of that game. you look at your winrate and you look at the sample size for it, and based on that determine how much uncertainty to associate with the winrate figure. and then draw you conclusions from that.

so i think considering winrate is very useful. you just have to think about it properly.

Most people ask about winrate cause they wanna know if its worth their while. Or they can make their nut etc. So in generalities, earn can be discussed obviously in vague terms. A 1/2 player cannot withstand a 75k a year nut. A 5/10 good winner shouldnt have to stay in a $650 a month rental. These are factual items that a player can count on to be accurate, however most players do over estimate their edge. Hell, most cant even define their edge. (live players anyways).

ya. i don't disagree

Nothing new, neither the probs nor the answers, all reasonable thinking people wonder exactly on the same topics and find exactly the same solutions.
Nevertheless, they are never too stressed upon and worth being recalled from time to time.

As a cliffnote: given latest edge shrinking, pay more attention to the small pots and solve the problems before they appear instead of weeping after.

Cliffnote to cliffnote: study and practice.

^^^
and game selection/ rejection.