whoa.... whoa....WHOA!

Sizzler is my line. Granted I lifted it from a mediocre basketball comedy, but I invented Sizzler at the poker table (as in PLAYER A: "Congrats all on making the money" STEELY: "Sizzler.").

And you gotta talk to my lawyer about royalties and shit. Or WE are gonna have some real problems, Aaron.

steely

P.S. Thank you Full Tilt for the AWESOME hat I got for knocking David Grey out of the HORSE like 4 months ago. It was worth the wait.

What's with BR adding a fake little compliment everytime he posts something. It's really anoying,

eg, Dear Action Jeff, you're an asshole and i hate you. Don't get me wrong Jeff, you're a great player man, I love you.

You can't negate the insult simply by saying the guy is a great player.

P.S, fun thread to read. A lot of great information and outlook on hands from some great players. Really helps us n00bs.

I concur with the wise one.

FYI, If it had been myself in the BB and gobboboy in the SB and he pushed, I would have instacalled with my lil old weak ace, clearly believing that I was a 60-40 favorite based on what I had already determined what Gobboboy would push with, which would be anything.

I like to think that I do a pretty good job of watching the final 3 tables when it gets close to crunch time, and I pay particular attention to players when it gets shorthanded down to two tables. I do so as I know the situation will very likely repeat itself at the final table, and I want to know who is doing a lot of folding(not defending blinds), and who is subject to come over the top.

One of the things I think I do best is target/profile what players I can sustain myself on, and capitalize on that so as to not have to wait for AA....

On that subject, I made a similar call against Shaniac in the stars 150 FT one night, and was right, I was a 60-40 favorite, but Shane hit one of his outs, and I went out. I can live with that, and I knew Shane goes into warp speed overdrive when he has a monster stack, which is why I felt my weak ace was good in that spot...

The thing that miffed me was not the few chips I would have picked up had I stayed in the hand. That didn't even come into the equation. The player all in was certainly down to the felt, and he had played very well up to losing a couple of critical pots at the final table. I just think that based on the players involved, the table dynamics, and my own personal final table strategy, that it was not a good move.

What perplexes me is that many keep posting to the pure math of the equation, which I clearly understood, and have ALWAYS comprehended, but many are losing sight to the lack of benefit vs gain in the overall war of conquering a final table... that is all.

Also, my thoughts regarding Jeff have not changed. I think he is pure talent, to dispute that is rediculous. I was being an asshole when I got miffed that he was critically attacking players who are proven long term winners with his volumous negative statements as to their abilities, while at the same time throwing in some nice barbs that alluded to his genius vs their weakness.

I wanted Jeff to think twice about his comments, as he has no idea just how many tournaments these players have won... they were winning long before he arrived. Players such as Wachovia, Lucky 7, Poker Ho, all long term winners. By the way, do I understand how Poker Ho plays? Yes, somewhat, and his style completely scares the shit out of me because I can never put him on a hand. Ho has won COUNTLESS TOURNAMENTS, to knock him is ridiculous. Is he unorthodox, most certainly, but I like his chances closing out a tournament because he is fearless.

As far as the go back to 2+2 post, I have clearly stated that I was responding to his statement regarding having a 2+2 er come explain his pokerstove opinion. Subsequently, both Gamble AB and Sirio 11 posted that they thought he made the post in jest, and I immediately reposted that if that was the case then I apologize for my misunderstanding his post.

As far as 2+2 goes, I don't post there. I used to, and I stopped. I frequented the boards there a long time ago, and it was pure off topic 99% negativity. Maybe that has changed, I sure hope so... but I am not on the fence on the subject, I prefer P5's, it is my forum of choice, and it is where I choose to call my poker forum home. In no way have I ever slighted 2+2, I respect there existance, and I simply responded to a post that I thought was bashing pocket fives.

Gl,

Chris.

Dear rags,

You truly think my wise ass post about telling him to carry his ass to 2+2 was any more snide than all of Action Jeff's posts?

My post was not an action to drive Jeff away, if that indeed has happened it is ridiculous, and Jeff's choice, not mine. My post was REACTIONARY to his post that was derisive to pocket fives posters because it inferred a lack of ability to understand his thought process, that only 2+2 ers could understand him..,

Also, as you can read, when 2 other posters stated they thought he may have made his 2+2 comment in jest, I immediately stated that I apologized if that was the case...

Oh, I think I have a lot of firsts, and usually am not accused of playing to get 7th's as you stated.

Come back Jeff, I think your valuable to the forum.

GL,
Chris.

Of course not. But thats not the point.

Money + Money = Money

There is tons of money to be won online. If they feel they have the edge playing on the internet where all those poker-apps are a click away, more power to them.

Damn, If I had just referenced the link to this post everyone would have understood my reasoning a little better...

But then I would not have had as many replies... onward to 200!!!!!!!

Risk / Reward / Objective...... Means (chips) to an End (eliminating players)

I enjoyed reading the strategic angles and found merit to most... I believe
placing weight to one over or to the exclusion of the others would restrict
a players abilities and potential. Math is a great tool... but the fundimental
logic used in poker has too many variables and dynamic situations to limit
yourself to a mathmatical formula imo.

That said (and with incomplete information) I can't resolve that play as
the correct strategic tournament play.

I mean no offence to Jeff or anyone that provided mathmatical reasoning...
perhaps we can just call it a difference of opinion and agree to disagree.
I simply think eliminating that player should take a priority over the EV
equation used to justify his play. Just because a play is profitable in the
statistical long run does not mean it always increases your chances of
winning THAT particular tournament.

gl, Rich

That article was rather well informed. The reasoning and methodology discussed provide an excellent start to tournament decision making.

I think some people are confusing EV for a specific hand to EV for the entire tourney. There are ways to calculate both. Any time you have +EV relative to the entire tourney, that is always the correct play.

There is always incomplete information, so for a mathematical analysis you always have to make various assumptions in your calculations.

There are many things where people simply differ in opinion, but when it comes to things regarding math there is usually a right answer. Sometimes when people disagree, one side is simply wrong.