[sparkscoffee] Re: Revenge
- From: Ron Ristad <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:02:52 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
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
Other related posts:
