Do you agree with this article?

[kinboshi]

Where is the debate?  Even I instacall here. 

[RED-DOG]

 

[bolt pp]

Snap call.

People who are folding here clearly aren't comfortable with playing a big tournament if they declare they're there for the 'experience'. If you're that sort of person, I honestly believe you'd better off selling the seat and buying yourself something nice with the money.

yep yep, though different people consider different things to be "nice" so if he's gonna buy crack or a gun or something instead i wouldnt support that(unless i know him and he's in a sharing mood)

What about if he was going to buy a fluffy rabbit but there was like a 50/50 chance that said fluffy rabbit would be used as a cricket bat at some point?.

I would seriously question the judgement of someone who wanted to use a fluffy rabbit as a cricket bat, it's just too soft, you wouldnt be able to hit anything very far with it.

[MC]

im kinda torn. if im rolled for 10k tournaments (obv never gonna happen) then i snap coz i like money. Obv assuming equal ability its a snap. but i do think i can find so many better places to make chips risk free. I feel like a mug for saying that but sigh its true.

^I agree with this.

What if you are in the same situation, but you have pocket sixes and are about 52%. Do you still all snap? Cos 2% extra equity in this particular spot doesn't seem all that relevant to me. If someone did this every tournament, then perhaps yes it would be relevant. But I think it's okay to be results orientated here right? And lets face it, half the time you double up, half the time you're felted.

I would argue that 20,000 chips in the first 3-4 levels of a tournament plays very similar to 10,000 chips because you have so many big blinds. I guess dependant on who else at the table accumulates chips. 3-4 levels is a reasonable amount of time to accumulate chips more traditionally. My point is, I'm not sure you gain sufficient edge on the tournament to make this worthwhile.

If I'm sitting on the table with 5 famous pros and 3 Scandi's wearing expensive watches, I'm happy to call all day with QQ. But if there's a bunch of satellite players and such on my table, there's every chance I'd muck...

[gatso]

If I'm sitting on the table with 5 famous pros and 3 Scandi's wearing expensive watches, I'm happy to call all day with QQ. But if there's a bunch of satellite players and such on my table, there's every chance I'd muck...

...and then cry when 2 hands later they move you to the table with the 5 pros and 3 scandis

[GreekStein]

im kinda torn. if im rolled for 10k tournaments (obv never gonna happen) then i snap coz i like money. Obv assuming equal ability its a snap. but i do think i can find so many better places to make chips risk free. I feel like a mug for saying that but sigh its true.

^I agree with this.

What if you are in the same situation, but you have pocket sixes and are about 52%. Do you still all snap? Cos 2% extra equity in this particular spot doesn't seem all that relevant to me. If someone did this every tournament, then perhaps yes it would be relevant. But I think it's okay to be results orientated here right? And lets face it, half the time you double up, half the time you're felted.

I would argue that 20,000 chips in the first 3-4 levels of a tournament plays very similar to 10,000 chips because you have so many big blinds. I guess dependant on who else at the table accumulates chips. 3-4 levels is a reasonable amount of time to accumulate chips more traditionally. My point is, I'm not sure you gain sufficient edge on the tournament to make this worthwhile.

If I'm sitting on the table with 5 famous pros and 3 Scandi's wearing expensive watches, I'm happy to call all day with QQ. But if there's a bunch of satellite players and such on my table, there's every chance I'd muck...

So what do you do if the three scandi's arent even wearing watches?

[NoflopsHomer]

Snap call.

People who are folding here clearly aren't comfortable with playing a big tournament if they declare they're there for the 'experience'. If you're that sort of person, I honestly believe you'd better off selling the seat and buying yourself something nice with the money.

yep yep, though different people consider different things to be "nice" so if he's gonna buy crack or a gun or something instead i wouldnt support that(unless i know him and he's in a sharing mood)

What about if he was going to buy a fluffy rabbit but there was like a 50/50 chance that said fluffy rabbit would be used as a cricket bat at some point?.

I would seriously question the judgement of someone who wanted to use a fluffy rabbit as a cricket bat, it's just too soft, you wouldnt be able to hit anything very far with it.

If we could find a reasonable taxidermist, you'd change your tune.

[AlexMartin]

im kinda torn. if im rolled for 10k tournaments (obv never gonna happen) then i snap coz i like money. Obv assuming equal ability its a snap. but i do think i can find so many better places to make chips risk free. I feel like a mug for saying that but sigh its true.

^I agree with this.

What if you are in the same situation, but you have pocket sixes and are about 52%. Do you still all snap? Cos 2% extra equity in this particular spot doesn't seem all that relevant to me. If someone did this every tournament, then perhaps yes it would be relevant. But I think it's okay to be results orientated here right? And lets face it, half the time you double up, half the time you're felted.

I would argue that 20,000 chips in the first 3-4 levels of a tournament plays very similar to 10,000 chips because you have so many big blinds. I guess dependant on who else at the table accumulates chips. 3-4 levels is a reasonable amount of time to accumulate chips more traditionally. My point is, I'm not sure you gain sufficient edge on the tournament to make this worthwhile.

If I'm sitting on the table with 5 famous pros and 3 Scandi's wearing expensive watches, I'm happy to call all day with QQ. But if there's a bunch of satellite players and such on my table, there's every chance I'd muck...

So what do you do if the three scandi's arent even wearing watches?

sigh at how they now have a truly communal telepathic brain network, where only the king scandie antonius has to wear one. world domination is near.

[NoflopsHomer]

im kinda torn. if im rolled for 10k tournaments (obv never gonna happen) then i snap coz i like money. Obv assuming equal ability its a snap. but i do think i can find so many better places to make chips risk free. I feel like a mug for saying that but sigh its true.

^I agree with this.

What if you are in the same situation, but you have pocket sixes and are about 52%. Do you still all snap? Cos 2% extra equity in this particular spot doesn't seem all that relevant to me. If someone did this every tournament, then perhaps yes it would be relevant. But I think it's okay to be results orientated here right? And lets face it, half the time you double up, half the time you're felted.

I would argue that 20,000 chips in the first 3-4 levels of a tournament plays very similar to 10,000 chips because you have so many big blinds. I guess dependant on who else at the table accumulates chips. 3-4 levels is a reasonable amount of time to accumulate chips more traditionally. My point is, I'm not sure you gain sufficient edge on the tournament to make this worthwhile.

If I'm sitting on the table with 5 famous pros and 3 Scandi's wearing expensive watches, I'm happy to call all day with QQ. But if there's a bunch of satellite players and such on my table, there's every chance I'd muck...

So what do you do if the three scandi's arent even wearing watches?

sigh at how they now have a truly communal telepathic brain network, where only the king scandie antonius has to wear one. world domination is near.

Antonius is not a Scandie. He's Finnish.

[doubleup]

call, then hopefully you lose and you can gtfo of live poker and play online.

Is this 9th level analysis?

no sir, i play tournaments, we dont think above level 1.

If you read the original Sklansky thing you'll find that there is a level zero for you to think at if you want.

 

[LeKnave]

call, then hopefully you lose and you can gtfo of live poker and play online.

Is this 9th level analysis?

no sir, i play tournaments, we dont think above level 1.

If you read the original Sklansky thing you'll find that there is a level zero for you to think at if you want.

 

siiiiiiiiick gonna have to try tht out.

[KarmaDope]

im kinda torn. if im rolled for 10k tournaments (obv never gonna happen) then i snap coz i like money. Obv assuming equal ability its a snap. but i do think i can find so many better places to make chips risk free. I feel like a mug for saying that but sigh its true.

^I agree with this.

What if you are in the same situation, but you have pocket sixes and are about 52%. Do you still all snap? Cos 2% extra equity in this particular spot doesn't seem all that relevant to me. If someone did this every tournament, then perhaps yes it would be relevant. But I think it's okay to be results orientated here right? And lets face it, half the time you double up, half the time you're felted.

I would argue that 20,000 chips in the first 3-4 levels of a tournament plays very similar to 10,000 chips because you have so many big blinds. I guess dependant on who else at the table accumulates chips. 3-4 levels is a reasonable amount of time to accumulate chips more traditionally. My point is, I'm not sure you gain sufficient edge on the tournament to make this worthwhile.

If I'm sitting on the table with 5 famous pros and 3 Scandi's wearing expensive watches, I'm happy to call all day with QQ. But if there's a bunch of satellite players and such on my table, there's every chance I'd muck...

So what do you do if the three scandi's arent even wearing watches?

sigh at how they now have a truly communal telepathic brain network, where only the king scandie antonius has to wear one. world domination is near.

Antonius is not a Scandie. He's Finnish.

When I put Scandinavia into google, all sources bar Wikipedia say Finland is in Scandinavia, albeit only Northern Finland.

I would therefore contend that a Finnish man is Scandinavian.

[Claw75]

im kinda torn. if im rolled for 10k tournaments (obv never gonna happen) then i snap coz i like money. Obv assuming equal ability its a snap. but i do think i can find so many better places to make chips risk free. I feel like a mug for saying that but sigh its true.

I'm with you Alex

[MC]

If I'm sitting on the table with 5 famous pros and 3 Scandi's wearing expensive watches, I'm happy to call all day with QQ. But if there's a bunch of satellite players and such on my table, there's every chance I'd muck...

...and then cry when 2 hands later they move you to the table with the 5 pros and 3 scandis

lol exactly...

I was under the impression Scandinavia was Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland?

[thetank]

What about the Åland Islands?

They need some love in this debate.