Midlife Crisis? What Midlife Crisis?

Originally posted by EmanuelC16
Hmmmm... There's gotta be a way to piss on your parade. I'll get back to you on that tomorrow.

Well, there is one unsatisfactory area at the moment. Spurs. I try not to think about them too much. Or the England cricket team. Apart from that it's all good.

"Overall, I'm reasonably happy with life at the moment. "

nh sir.

If only been that good here seems every december is diy. Spending a good portion of my roll on building a big wall around our house. So, in spite of my expressed request to slow down on the poker, I am still on duty.

I just received in the post today my copy of 'Education of a Modern Poker Player', and am enjoying it so far - it even somehow motivated me to, for the first time in months, go cycling (if you can call a lot of unlooked-for sliding through knee-deep mud inches from a precipitous slope cycling), which unfortunately means I'm too fatigued and ache-ridden to read much more today. A slight niggle is the use of some Internet-isms in the text which to me are slightly distracting and might lead to its becoming dated more quickly, but the writing style so far is clear and conversational. I see this book as akin to 'Steve Davis Plays Chess' (which hopefully you'll take as a compliment).

I'm less motivated to play poker - is it just me, or has six-handed NL100 on PokerStars become much tougher over the last year? How are the full-ring games, anyone? I take it Zoom is generally even more reg-infested. For now I've moved down to NL50, and have spotted at least one former NL400 player.

Originally posted by mineriva

If only been that good here seems every december is diy. Spending a good portion of my roll on building a big wall around our house. So, in spite of my expressed request to slow down on the poker, I am still on duty.

Is the wall intended to keep family members from escaping or monsters from entering?

Originally posted by Flashman1849
I just received in the post today my copy of 'Education of a Modern Poker Player', and am enjoying it so far - it even somehow motivated me to, for the first time in months, go cycling (if you can call a lot of unlooked-for sliding through knee-deep mud inches from a precipitous slope cycling), which unfortunately means I'm too fatigued and ache-ridden to read much more today. A slight niggle is the use of some Internet-isms in the text which to me are slightly distracting and might lead to its becoming dated more quickly, but the writing style so far is clear and conversational. I see this book as akin to 'Steve Davis Plays Chess' (which hopefully you'll take as a compliment).

I'm less motivated to play poker - is it just me, or has six-handed NL100 on PokerStars become much tougher over the last year? How are the full-ring games, anyone? I take it Zoom is generally even more reg-infested. For now I've moved down to NL50, and have spotted at least one former NL400 player.

It was thinking about Steve Davis Plays Chess that partly gave me the idea for the book in the first place. Sorry about the Internet-isms, but sadly I have been assimilated into the internet generation, despite my age, which is certainly a mixed blessing. Motivating you to cycle in knee-deep mud wasn't my intention, so apologies for that. I'm not playing much myself at the moment, but I can certainly believe that the games are getting harder.

It was actually a good thing to be motivated to exercise, discovery of novel forms of cramp notwithstanding, so thanks! And your book must be a thought-provoking one to have that motivating effect - I like the humour, and particularly liked the very first hand in which Twice T advises against three-betting in position with AJo or continuation-betting with second pair, in that specific situation and for specific reasons.

"Internet-isms" was probably not the right term, on reflection. I'm coming off as a pompous pedant and all-round prat for even alluding to this sort of thing, but for example I remember being surprised to see "$$$" used within a sentence to mean money or dollars. (I already regret mentioning it.) I can imagine informal language does suit the tone of the book and the intended audience, and in any case all such criticism is inconsequential (I've heard that even academic papers are now increasingly informal?). I'll take the foot out of my mouth now, if only to swap feet.

Excellent to know that the spirit of 'Steve Davis Plays Chess' lives on!

Luckily, I'm not ginger.

I'm further into your book, and am rather impressed - you and the other two have done an admirable job. (Have they both now quit poker?) As always my lazy mind enjoys hand examples the most, but the theoretical material is also engaging and I've implemented a couple of your favourite stats - painstaking, interminable, and only slightly obsessive tweaking of one's HUD is a must!

Originally posted by Flashman1849
I'm further into your book, and am rather impressed - you and the other two have done an admirable job. (Have they both now quit poker?) As always my lazy mind enjoys hand examples the most, but the theoretical material is also engaging and I've implemented a couple of your favourite stats - painstaking, interminable, and only slightly obsessive tweaking of one's HUD is a must!

I can go with 'admirable' and 'engaging'. If only mrsjb thought the same.

We had a weekend away which involved a shitload of driving, but was worth it because we took the kids to a Christmassy thing in an arboretum, which was surprisingly good, went to Pizza Express and then on the Sunday went to Longleat.

We saw monkeys

who took a bit of our windscreen wipers, then left us something to remember them by

and porcupines (but sadly not a whole tree of them).

And poker? Well, as you can see from my status, I'm not playing much. Maybe I'll play a few hands this month. Hopefully this level of commitment can provide a welcome contrast to all those maniacs who are currently contemplating trying for SNE next year.

I played a little bit last night.

This hand troubled me. Not many hands on Villain, but he was playing about 40/30 preflop and aggressively on the flop without being very aggressive on the turn and river as far as I could see.

He can c/r loads of draws on the flop, so I decided to treat my AA as a bluffcatcher, and call him down on a lot of turn and river cards. When he checked the turn, I assumed he's probably giving up quite often so I checked it back, although I am somewhat worried about giving him a free card. I hate folding on the river, but I think he has the flush very often, and he could well decide to check/raise the turn if he filled up, although I only need him to be bluffing about 30% of the time for it to be right to call. I took the time to groan and puff out my cheeks and grumble about not betting the turn, and then folded. Fml.

PokerStars | No Limit Hold'em Cash - $0.10/$0.25 - 6 players
Hand #108033816262 - delivered by Pokeit

BTN: $43.71 (174.8 bb)
CO: $26.16 (104.6 bb)
MP: $23.69 (94.8 bb)
UTG: $10.00 (40 bb)
Hero: $43.36 (173.4 bb)
SB: $35.58 (142.3 bb)

Pre-Flop: ($0.35) Hero is BB with A♦ A♣
4 players fold, SB raises $0.50 to $0.75, Hero raises $1.55 to $2.30, SB calls $1.55

Flop: 7♣ 3♥ 4♥ ($4.60) (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $3.00, SB raises $5.50 to $8.50, Hero calls $5.50

Turn: 4♠ ($21.60) (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

River: T♥ ($21.60) (2 players)
SB bets $15.50, Hero folds

I still keep putting off finishing my new article on 3betting for our website, even though I could do it with a bit of effort. One reason is that I've finally gotten around to reading about some game theory that isn't just zero sum two player games. I can't help thinking that most of the stuff that I read about GTO play and 'game theory and poker' is based on the zero sum theory and therefore mainly bollocks. Maybe even what I've written about it is bollocks too! In anything other than play it once, zero sum games, there can be multiple equilibria, and which one might emerge in a real situation seems to be a real topic of debate. It's not enough to say 'this is GTO' - you have to discuss the environment in which a strategy that you claim is optimal might emerge, and whether it's stable. There are different sorts of equilibrium solution, and they won't all make you money against all strategy sets. I will carry on reading, but I'm worried that the poker world might be rather deluded when it comes to game theory. I will have more to say when I've made more sense of this.

it is all bollocks just like that little thingy on ur hood.

<--- dont mind him he is just in a bad place atm....

Originally posted by jbpatzer

I still keep putting off finishing my new article on 3betting for our website, even though I could do it with a bit of effort. One reason is that I've finally gotten around to reading about some game theory that isn't just zero sum two player games. I can't help thinking that most of the stuff that I read about GTO play and 'game theory and poker' is based on the zero sum theory and therefore mainly bollocks. Maybe even what I've written about it is bollocks too! In anything other than play it once, zero sum games, there can be multiple equilibria, and which one might emerge in a real situation seems to be a real topic of debate. It's not enough to say 'this is GTO' - you have to discuss the environment in which a strategy that you claim is optimal might emerge, and whether it's stable. There are different sorts of equilibrium solution, and they won't all make you money against all strategy sets. I will carry on reading, but I'm worried that the poker world might be rather deluded when it comes to game theory. I will have more to say when I've made more sense of this.

Sounds interesting. You should finish the 3betting article, then start and finish one titled 'GTO poker Bollocks'.