Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Queenlimp, post: 4853387, member: 346229"] Theoretically, I like the responses as I think they fit the paradigm of poker. The relative strength of a starting hand is offset by the measure of response to any given hand. Example: A large stack has more risk tolerance to calling a stronger starting hand. A x3 big blind wager is more likely to be called by a big stack knowing a pot win is eminent to a short stack. A continuation bet against any paired flop is likely to be behind unless the raiser is holding a larger pocket pair. Variance becomes a greater risk to the pre-flop optimal holder, unless they tightly play the flop. It's sobering to understand that basic probability makes logic and the estimation of starting hands more predictable. A mathematically 10% favorite will not yield the expected return over time against a good poker player. How much does the over-exaggeration of math cause many people in context to become weak poker players? [/QUOTE]