US States
NJ Online Casinos
WV Online Casinos
PA Online Casinos
Michigan Online Casinos
Online Casino California
Online Casino Arizona
Online Casino NY
Real Money Casinos
Fastest Payout Casinos
Mobile Casino Apps
New Online Casinos
Casino Payment Methods
Sweepstakes
Sweepstakes apps
No deposit bonus
Daily login bonus
Sweepstakes games
Crown Coins
Funrize
Hello Millions
High 5 Casino
Jackpota Casino
Mcluck
MegaBonanza
PlayFame
Pulsz
RealPrize
Stake.us
Sweepstakes coins
Awards
Search forums
Free Games
Free Blackjack
Free Online Roulette
Free Slots
Bonuses
No Deposit Bonus
Crown Coins Promo Code
Funrize Primo Code
Hello Millions Promo Code
High 5 Casino Promo Code
Jackpota Promo Code
McLuck Promo Code
MegaBonanza Promo Code
Pulsz Promo Code
RealPrize Promo Code
Stake.us Promo Code
Games
Online Slots
Blackjack
Roulette
Poker
CardsChat Freerolls
How to Play Poker
Poker Hands
Poker Strategy
Free Online Poker Game
Poker Bonuses
Poker Tools
Poker Podcast
Poker School
Forum
News
Log in
Join
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Install the app
Install
Forum
Poker Discussion
General Poker
POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="quads, post: 641808, member: 18369"] [SIZE=3]I think the point of my intentions with this thread is taking on a new direction. So I’m going to try and rephrase it.[/SIZE] [SIZE=3]I particularly choose to pick on the article written by Jenifear, about the ICM theory.[/SIZE] [SIZE=3]Not that the article has no foundation of fact. Especially with the AA example Aleingenius pointed out above. If the big stack folded in this case and the other three went all-in, and then it was on me. I would muck my cards without even looking at them. The fact that I find this information obvious might be a bit sarcastic. (or showing my age)[/SIZE] [SIZE=3]Chuck, I totally understand things can get much more complicated with different circumstances. But when talking about multi-million dollar purses or a $5.00 SNG on a computer with donk-aholics, how important is the ICM factor. I know, I know, the amount technically is irrelevant. But realistically, different circumstances will always call for different actions. No one plays poker by the book of long term percentage outcomes, all the time.[/SIZE] [SIZE=3]Anyhow, what I started this post trying to get too was about all the different people that are writing about all these endless systems. Like I said earlier I read most everything. No doubt books have improved my game. People will take what they want from them, and I understand that education doesn’t just appear. Being a veteran player, I wasn’t subject to such an invasion of theories, being written by everyone that knows what their talking about, and everyone that thinks they know what their talking about. A newbie today could end up with a terrible game, or take allot longer to get competitive, getting all screwed up with all these different suggestions being written by hundreds of people. Now throw in all the software crap available today, these kids don’t even have to think anymore online, and won’t have a chance live. Doyle wasn’t reading about the ICM theory I’m sure. Just think this flooding of information can in many cases cause more harm then good.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Poker Discussion
General Poker
POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY
Top