If you're advocating skipping thinv +EV spots when you are losing because it's tough for some people to deal with the downswings and thing spots tend to be high variance spots that can lead to big short term down swings then I agree.
If you are advocating it because some thin spots require bankrolls that are too big for the average player and we just can't sustain enough trials of them esp when we are on a losing streak and our BR is low because of it, then ok.

But, if you are advocating skipping thin +EV spots just because you are on a down swing and for no other reason then that's insane. If it's +EV it's +EV.

Why would I advocate skipping +EV spot besides reasons that would keep us from collecting future +EV spots?

And what would those be if such reasons exist, Cpt. Obvious?

Which is exactly what people advocate when suggesting short stacking on a short bankroll. It's not the short stack that reduces variance, it's passing on the thin spots that does.

You're just as much of an ass in this form as you were in your old form.
At least some things never change.

It doesn't reduce long term variance, and in fact, it increases it, because by definition, +EV spots add to your win rate.

Here's a tool that calculates variance in poker: http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/

However, skipping thin spots will likely help our human emotions, and in turn, keep us in the game.

Bottom line, if you are not in the game, you can't win (assuming you're a winning player).

What are you talking about?

Do you have other obvious things to add to a discussion?

You can't tell me that folding a hand and losing $2 every single time is higher variance than shoving a stack in on a 51% edge for a +$2 EV spot. That's just crazy talk.

You keep harping on this win-rate ****, when the standard deviation term is just as important and much easier to manipulate significantly.

Calm down...

Forget the petty semantics, my points are there.

Clearly if you are super emotional about what I said, you could benefit in avoiding "high variance" spots that would stir up emotion.

Damn I love when people equate a few ****'s to "super emotional".

When you look at a single spot, you can take lower EV lines with significantly less variance than the best EV lines. That's pretty well known and fairly obvious. String a bunch of these together and you can have a low variance, lowish win rate strategy. Is it in any way optimal? No. But it's a good way for a new player on a short roll to build up some cash and some confidence. That's why people recommend it to them.

I don't know. I'm not sure my logic will stand up to a water test theoretically, but in practice, if Chip can focus on squeezing as much value as he can out of every value hands while also never putting an extra dollar in when he suspects he's behind villain's range, then I think we both know his P&L will improve

But what does it mean when you say "behind villain's range"?

In order to squeeze every dollar out of value hands, you cannot avoid any +EV spots, and +EV doesn't always mean ahead of villain's range.

? Do you mean 'cannot avoid - ev spots'?

Huh? To maximize winning, you cannot avoid +EV spots.

+EV doesn't always mean ahead of your opponent's range, because the spot can still be profitable even if you have less than 50% equity.

The big disagreement here lies between one side thinking EV refers to each hand and another that thinks EV refers to what I call a "flow"

I agree with both but have done a lot of work to steer my game towards the flow of EV

Raptor, who is one of the biggest spew monkeys of all time, passes on +EV spots often in his videos. +EV in reference to the hand, not the flow.

Sounds like "Shania"


Sent from my DROID RAZR using 2+2 Forums

I believe Shania refers more so to the concept of range balancing though alot of what it says (about thinking in totality) goes with what I am saying.

I just came to the conclusion of "the flow of EV" after watching many videos with Raptor and Green Plastic both sometimes "waiting for better spots", notably in heads up play but still very applicable to 6max/FR poker, especially live poker.

There can be EV of a session. EV when villain is on tilt. EV when villain is stuck a buy in. EV when we are tilting. Etc.

An example:

You are 6 handed in a live 2/5 game. Villain has been spewing hard, you are on his direct left. He's in for $2K, currently $1k in front of him. You cover.

You know he has several more $K and that he will unload it all while stuck. He also keeps muttering under his breath "one more double up then I can go sleep"

He opens $25 UTG+1. You 3bet $80 with AsKs. He jams. While you are tanking he flips up his hand and shows you red JJ.

If we call we have a positive expected value of ~$5. Should we call?

Ava, are you secretly Alan Schoonaker?

The writing style of your example is a match.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using 2+2 Forums

I don't like using the word variance when discussing essentially up/down swings and how likely we are to encounter them.
However playing nit to TAG has had more "variance" than playing sLAG to LAG over the past years of playing. That is, if you only consider a swing greater than 2 (or maybe 3) buyin either way. The reason is as a tight player when a big pair gets cracked, it is half a session before you pick up another pair and MAYBE double up to get even. As a LAG you get many more playable hands and +ev spots to win $. I think it was in a Harrington book where he describes the extra hands LAG plays as a hedge that reduces swings.

This.

Quick "next game up" bankroll question from me : Where I play, the highest NLHE games that go regularly every night are 2/5 games (100-500 BI) where most players buy in at a $100-300 clip. Games are nice and soft, typically little light raising & almost no light 3-betting going on there. Deep money situations are infrequent. It's a very "bread and butter" type of game where solid ABC play can kill it.

The "next game up" is a 5/5 NL (300-1K buyin) that gets going on weekends/holidays. In general, this game brings out the better 2/5 NL players (and even some great players that wouldn't bother coming for lower games). It also plays shorthanded much more than the other game. There's much more aggression & 3-betting.

What kind of roll would I want to play this 2/5 game? Where would I want to be at to shot take this 5/5 game, or should I even bother with it when I can just play a suddenly even more talent sapped 2/5 if it is running?

10k for 2/5 maybe 15k for full ring 5/5 and 20k+ for short handed vs other good aggressive players

Winrate prob roughly the same unless you're one of the top players

LAGs also play smaller pots.

However, when the dynamics are such that you don't have much fold equity (such as when you're really stuck), you're primarily playing marginal hands to speculate or get thin value, which isn't particularly low-variance.

Sounds good to me, Duke. Will probably stay away until I'm more built up and my game is stronger.

not everyone lives near a room that offers 2/5+ regularly

as a rec player I have ~850 hrs at 1/2 with a 4+1 and I am at $29.50 an hr.
I am also a decent tipper