[2-4]: Should you always size up on the Turn in multiway pots?
In this hand, Hero is dealt A♠A♣ UTG+2 (9-handed table). UTG+1 limps. Hero bets 14. HJ calls. BN calls. UTG+1 calls.
All th
Yeah it’s the same outcome but for people trying to learn I think we can make it much simpler.
I mean, saying it's not how you would choose to teach a student in your first few lessons with them is different from saying it's "backwards."(You said a mean thing to me and now all productive conversation has to come to a halt until you apologize 😒)
To expand on this, I'll say most of these concepts we're talking about, and indeed poker concepts in general are language's best attempts of describing curve shaped and saddle shaped functions where different factors reach a point where they're in tension with each other and then decelerate or even peak. Implied odds become reverse implied odds at some point; value becomes protection becomes bluffs; tide goes in, tide goes out.
Talking about x, y, and z in terms of which is "causing" the graph to bend isn't terribly meaningful from an algebraic perspective. It can be practical to say that, statistically speaking, most NLHE scenarios fall within a certain distribution where the distance between different x values has more of an effect on y than the distance between different z values. But many times there's a tail-point where z takes off and causes your usual presumptions about its value to get you very far from the correct answer.
I used to consider the risk of Streisanding the important parts of my training materials, but I've found the number of people who actually try out putting an equal sign between some numbers and variables to be so minimal that frankly if anyone actually takes it for a spin, then I'm happy for wherever it takes them; they deserve it.
To expand on this, I'll say most of these concepts we're talking about, and indeed poker concepts in general are language's best attempts of describing curve shaped and saddle shaped functions where different factors reach a point where they're in tension with each other and then decelerate or even peak. Implied odds become reverse implied odds at some point; value becomes prot
All your posts are very Matt Berkey-esque where it just becomes a complete word salad without saying anything of substance.
You did the same thing in the other two threads where you tried to obfuscate (I used a big word for you) your incorrect advice by some grandiose post.
To anyone who actually knows how to play poker it is a very transparent and tedious style.
Hopefully the people on this forum don't conflate big words and length of posts with quality.
ETA: I'm being colorful, obviously. You can be a good poker player and have a lot of wisdom to impart on others without being a wonk on every aspect of the game, and I wish you and yours the best. It's just I personally wouldn't actively go around public forums *bragging* about how you don't understand the basics of finding minimax strategies.
Yeah, I think my coach probably wouldn't have much of an idea what you're talking about either, but he's probably still a stronger player than me, he just has a killer intuition even if he can't explain everything. And there are people who talk vague/gibberish to sound smart, so if you don't know math, it will pattern-match to look like that. It's not really bragging to not understand something, it's more genuinely thinking there's nothing there.
But yea I can confirm it's not gibberish. (It's essentially saying that there are always a large number of inputs going into an EV calculation (like how much you should bet), that singling out a specific factor like range advantage if always a simplification because it ignores that all other factors, that this simplification often works out because in many cases the one factor happens to be doing more work than the others, but that this assumption can stop being true and suddenly another factor becomes more relevant, and then speaking as if it's still about range advantage will lead you astray.) Although tbh this is a pretty general argument against how most people discuss poker, and people can get pretty far discussing poker that way, so clearly the abstract/lossy-compression-via-high-level-concepts way is often viable. You also don't have to talk about curves and slopes to make this point, you can just say that at this point, maybe different factors each play a role.
BTW, is a "pot-sized" bet 3-way just B76 and 4-way just B50? I was looking for something more complicated but maybe there's no need.
