There'll be action guaranteed but I personally don't consider this a genuine HSP line up without more of the old school names. Ivey and Dwan are the least of what I expected on ep 1. Just my thoughts.

+1

Sent fra min SM-G981B via Tapatalk

High Stakes Poker was great because of Gabe, AJ, and also Doyle, Barry, Eli, all those old school cats.

Watching Phil and Tom mix it up with them was fantastic.

Without that vibe it's not HSP.

I think the solver would be winning though, right.

AK & Gabe made the show for me but they'd probs be no good now it's a different time. Sad to think, the original HSP was fkn epic.

Looking forward to this though - to give it the best chance need to try not compare to the old one too much, I'm happy they're giving it a go so won't be complaining too much of it isn't replicated, it's probably the case is just impossible to replicate

Yes.

If OP thinks that folding every hand except AA pre would cause him to "not lose" to solvers then LOL.

Essentially what PokerGo has done is bought the HSP brand but without the original setting, things like cash bricks, Gabe and AJ, and a bunch of the old school guys.

For those who don’t know Schwimmer is one of the founders of an incredibly shady Sports Betting Tout service named Jambos. Hope he gets smashed to dust.

Old school would rather be D Alaei, S Farha and Ted Forrest.

No love for Gus? HSP legend, like when he coolered Daniel with quads.

Obviously over a large sample the solver would destroy someone with such a strategy. That is not really the issue here though, the issue is how would someone who studies a solver and tries to replicate it do against random opponents.

Of course anyone with a sound understanding of the game should win, but it all depends on how well they can exploit and adjust from the solver solution in game. If you arrive at a studied spot on the river with 100 bb in the middle and your opponent bets 100 bb a solver may decide that there should be 25 combos of value and 25 combos of bluffs, thus it is a profitable call, since you only need to win 33% to be break even, but you are winning 50%. However, if in reality the opponent shows up with 25 combos of value and only 10 bluffs, but you still call based on the solvers incorrect assumption that there are enough bluffs, you are obviously losing money as you are only winning 28.6% of the time.

If the player can not properly adjust to their opponents in game they will be at least losing EV if not losing altogether. Or when they are studying, if they are not putting in the proper inputs they will be arriving at solutions that are incorrect against the field/pool that are playing against and once again they will at least be losing EV in those spots if not losing altogether.

You're assuming that someone studying a solver isn't capable of thinking independently. Pretty much every pro I know would approach that spot thinking:

A: This is what theory dictates
B: This is what this player/pool shows up with
C: This is how I deviate

I think this is the exact process pros have been using for years, even pre solver. What the solver gives us is an exact answer to A, when we never had that before. The solver also gives us an exact answer to C with nodelocking. It is up to the player to figure out B.

The solver takes pretty hard exploits on rivers. In your example, if the pool or player type doesn't come up with enough bluffs on average (B), fold your bluffcatchers and only call with dominating value (C). If you don't know player/pool tendencies in this exact spot, then making a theoretical call down doesn't lose much money overall (A). That's the entire idea.

I really don't think you wanna feel that.

Solver still wins. since V doesn’t have enough bluffs, we get to win with hands we shouldn’t.

Can't wait to see a table full of scarf wearing autistic 22 year olds tanking for 25 minutes over every decision.

I thought Hellmuth was joining one group, he's got personality at least.

The greatest player in the world etc.

You guys realize that the old poker boom guys you liked are mostly broke right? If you're saying you want Matusow and Farha and Benyamine on the show you are basically asking for these guys to somehow find a stake and then play super nitty cuz their liferolls are smaller than the buyin.

This lineup looks great to me. I agree in a perfect world it would be awesome to get Jamie Gold and Farha etc on there, but part of the reason those guys were good for the game was that they were not going to be keeping their money very long. It would be painful to see them nit it up and trying to eek out a few K win (which would be meaningful to them these days).

I dont think Farha could be a nit under any circumstances

So you're saying Farha went broke within the past few years? Details?

Is pokergo releasing one ep per week ? If so, how many eps is there?

This is the first lineup. Looks like you will be disappointed

Because all the old school guys are broke except Dwan, Ivey and Antonio. Hellmuth isn't broke but you can see how nitty he is he's holding onto his money for dear life.

Hellmuth is not remotely CLOSE to being broke, with sponsorships and a regular home game consisting of Silicon Valley billionaires (Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis etc).

Doyle, dnegs, Greenstein broke?

Why are homes being for closed on him then?