Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWizardOfOddz
this is where the tom dwan comment comes from, do you really expect to make good decisions against a unknown in a donkament after taking this passive line ? You will just end up check calling down(which you did do) since you have no info on villains holding. Lastly balancing is pointless to do against a random in a tournament because you have no idea what level he is on. You are thinking on level 5 when villain can be a level 1 thinker. It is pointless and not needed.
i think its a little ridiculous to suggest that because im looking for the most +ev play rather than the easiest that ive got some sort of tom dwan syndrome. im sure thats how we become better at poker, because eventually the more difficult spots become easier to handle.
obviously i take your point that when i take this passive line its very difficult to assign a concrete range because in theory it will be superwide but i don't think thats enough of a reason to discredit the play. as for the balancing comment, i think you're getting a bit carried away just because the term 'balance' itself is being used and the fact that its usually associated with high level thinking and play. balance can be as simple as it wants to be, and so if when i check after raising pfr OOP it is usually to c/f, which is the case with a large proportion of players in these tournaments, that means people are going to be betting when checked to a helluva lot (and in fact far wider than they are going to call). thats a pretty standard theory to think about. it is also for sure the case.
as i said earlier, ive never argued against bet bet being a bad line, it is clearly not considering how big a range we can get value from.