RR, Since you know all about poker there is nothing I care to add. RG On 2/19/2013 4:02 PM, Ron Ristad wrote:
RG, Really? What exactly is the difference? What is the difference in play between $300 and $3,000? Between $3,000 and $30,000? Between $30,000 and $300,000? I played for much higher stakes when I was younger but I don't do it anymore because if I should lose a lot I don't have anyway of making it back now that I am retired. If you think there is a big difference in play between low stakes and the medium stakes game you are playing in then you probably should not be playing in it unless you don't mind being a "fish". -RR -----Original Message-----From: Ron George <xgeorge@xxxxxxx> Sent: Feb 19, 2013 2:01 PM To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Revenge RR, I have news for you, there is a BIG difference between betting $3 and betting $300. I will listen to your advice after you have a couple of years of medium stakes cash games under your belt. RG On 2/19/2013 11:26 AM, Ron Ristad wrote:RG, It makes no difference if the stakes are $300 or $3 the principles are the same. If you are playing with scared money then you shouldn't be playing at all because it means that you are playing at a disadvantage. I enjoy winning, but not as much as I hate losing, which is why I only play in low stakes games. I don't know what you mean when you say that implied odds don't figure into your play because poker is not a slot machine. Slot machines are for chumps. Poker is the only game in a casino that is possible to consistently win at because it's the only game where you can put the odds on your side if you understand the game. If you don't then you might as well be playing the slot machines. -RR -----Original Message-----From: Ron George <xgeorge@xxxxxxx> Sent: Feb 19, 2013 11:42 AM To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Revenge RR, I am aware of implied odds but they don't figure prominently in my decisions. This is because it has been my experience that poker is NOT a slot machine due to dozens of variables. It's easy to think you have the game figured out but sit down at a $300 max bet cash game and then tell me how to win. RG On 2/18/2013 2:15 PM, Ron Ristad wrote:RG, Just one comment. With a hand like you had you need to consider the implied odds, which is just not the odds of you hitting a full house but the amount of money you could win if you do. In this case most likely anybody who is betting or calling has a flush, quite possibly the nut flush, and they would never expect you to have a full house, meaning that hitting your full house would give you a hand that could break them. So even though your odds of making a full house was 22% the potential pay off is much greater. In other words it's not a 22% or 1-5 odds that you will make your hand, but betting $60 to win $600 or more, which changes the odds to 2-1 in your favor. This why a good poker player never thinks about winning or losing, but only how they play the game, because if you play well then no matter how bad your luck is, in the long run you will always win money. In this case you will only win that hand approximately 1 out of 5 times, but when you do win you more than make up for all the times you lost. -RR"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford