Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="zachvac, post: 668359, member: 26306"] I saw several people recommending the book, and I got a used copy for $8 including shipping and handling at Amazon. It's got some interesting stuff, haven't run across anything I hadn't really known before, but it puts it in a much different perspective, can't tell if it's just forcing it or whether this is going to truly lead somewhere. But I can't help but be a bit put off by this section. For those who have the book it's rule #51, it says that when you are hot you should play more hands, and when you're cold play tighter. Quoting directly from the book: "Mathematicians tell us that each hand takes place independently of all others. This is good advice to ignore... you may be playing in a game closer to your bankroll than your opponents are (or the experts), and thus cannot afford to test out the theory" Theory? It went on for a while about it being a game of statistics, and the fact that the outcome shouldn't matter. It emphasized the need to detach yourself from the results and know that in the long run (which is longer than you think, according to the book) the correct play overall is rewarded. Then it comes back and calls the fact that each hand is independent of every other a theory??? Continuing, "Don't go home from a cardroom with a horrendous loss just because you read somewhere that mathematically 'every hand is independent of every other,' so you just kept betting away, despite the fact that you were losing every hand, one after the other. For [i]your[/i] purposes the hands weren't operating independently of each other". Honestly, that's like me saying "don't go home from a cardroom with a horrendous loss just because you read somewhere that AA is the best hand and decided to play them. Despite the fact that they were cracked the last 3 times, you insisted on tempting fate and you lose again AA vs. QJo going all-in preflop. You just had to trust the so-called experts". This is on the level of Brunson talking about ESP in his book, but Brunson doesn't pretend to be anything but a great poker player with a great poker sense. Brunson meant trust your read sometimes, although I still lost respect for him with that comment. This on the other hand is basically saying to ignore math and the fact that the odds don't change and the cards have no memory. It's not a theory, it is a testable hypothesis which has been tested time and time again. You know what they call a poker room where you have a worse chance of winning during cold runs? RIGGED. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us