Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ivey posting strategy

  • 05-10-2008 1:04pm
    #1
    paler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭


    ZOMG!!! Barry, Ivey, brunsen, negraneu and other pros posting strat on a forum.

    http://www.pokerroad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=621

    "Would all you 3 bettors please meet me at the Bellagio tomorrow?" Doyle owns the thread :D


Comments

  • #2
    cuterob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭cuterob


    yea thats a good forum.. its only pros discussing hands


  • #3
    TommyGunne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,771 ✭✭✭TommyGunne


    Some of the advice and thinking in that forum is pretty funky.
    Barry Greenstein wrote:
    the concept of making a -EV call that would be +EV if the hand stopped there, but then you will be forced to make +EV calls on later streets.

    Am I missing something here? EV + EV + EV + EV = -EV????


  • #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    TommyGunne wrote: »
    Some of the advice and thinking in that forum is pretty funky.



    Am I missing something here? EV + EV + EV + EV = -EV????

    I think what Greenstein is trying to say there is that when a player makes an initially -EV decision and picks up a card on the flop/turn/river that makes his next call a +EV decision that he is making an overall mistake in the hand. I am not saying I agree, I am just saying that is his point.


  • #5
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think what Greenstein is trying to say there is that when a player makes an initially -EV decision and picks up a card on the flop/turn/river that makes his next call a +EV decision that he is making an overall mistake in the hand. I am not saying I agree, I am just saying that is his point.

    No, he is saying that if the betting stopped when a player called the call would be plus EV, but because there are future rounds of betting to consider that are -EV the call itself is -EV.

    A nl holdem example would be an aggressive player raising on the button. You call with 33, and the flop comes 9T5. You check and he bets. Calling here is probably slightly + EV if the betting stops there, but out of position with no idea of what cards you need to fade or if you are behind already is - EV, because it is so easy to fold the best hand, or call down with the worse one. The odds you are being offered on the flop are in fact illusionary, because there is more action to consider.


  • #6
    TommyGunne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,771 ✭✭✭TommyGunne


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think what Greenstein is trying to say there is that when a player makes an initially -EV decision and picks up a card on the flop/turn/river that makes his next call a +EV decision that he is making an overall mistake in the hand. I am not saying I agree, I am just saying that is his point.

    This may be what he is saying but I thought "would be +EV if the hand stopped there" suggested that the initial call would be +EV not -EV.
    Hectorjelly wrote: »
    No, he is saying that if the betting stopped when a player called the call would be plus EV, but because there are future rounds of betting to consider that are -EV the call itself is -EV.

    A nl holdem example would be an aggressive player raising on the button. You call with 33, and the flop comes 9T5. You check and he bets. Calling here is probably slightly + EV if the betting stops there, but out of position with no idea of what cards you need to fade or if you are behind already is - EV, because it is so easy to fold the best hand, or call down with the worse one. The odds you are being offered on the flop are in fact illusionary, because there is more action to consider.

    This is not what he is saying. He says the call now is +EV. All future calls are also +EV. What you said may be what he meant. Probably just a mistype.

    If you imagine this hand being against a guy where calling each street here with 33 being definitely +EV then you have the situation he mentions. Probably a mistype somewhere.

    Basically +EV + +EV + +EV + +EV can never = -EV, which is what Greenstein says. If it is a mistype its kinda funny given how anal he is on that forum.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    Yeah, Im pretty sure he meant that the last +EV to be - EV


  • #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    TommyGunne wrote: »
    This may be what he is saying but I thought "would be +EV if the hand stopped there" suggested that the initial call would be +EV not -EV.

    I re-read the thread and I see now what you mean. It is an interesting pov. Cheers for the explanations lads.


Advertisement