Is this a mistake or do I miss something ?

I don't think he means that either. (He shouldn't.) Losing when check-raised typically costs 2 bets. There is an old rule of thumb saying that in position one needs to have the best hand 60-65% of the time when called. The margin is there to compensate for the risk of being check-raised. This all, of course, applies to (thin) value betting in position when checked to. Out of position the story is completely different.

There are logical errors in that article. I wrote a mile about it (quite) some time ago. Standard Lines: Advanced River-play

For instance when value betting OOP, you shouldn't give a damned about pot odds.

I thought the article was good read anyway, but the math is flawed.

Originally posted by YohanN7
I don't think he means that either. (He shouldn't.) Losing when check-raised typically costs 2 bets. There is an old rule of thumb saying that in position one needs to have the best hand 60-65% of the time when called. The margin is there to compensate for the risk of being check-raised. This all, of course, applies to (thin) value betting in position when checked to. Out of position the story is completely different.

There are logical errors in that article. I wrote a mile about it (quite) some time ago. Standard Lines: Advanced River-play

For instance when value betting OOP, you shouldn't give a damned about pot odds.

I thought the article was good read anyway, but the math is flawed.

why is this?

Originally posted by JLeitmotiv

Originally posted by YohanN7
I don't think he means that either. (He shouldn't.) Losing when check-raised typically costs 2 bets. There is an old rule of thumb saying that in position one needs to have the best hand 60-65% of the time when called. The margin is there to compensate for the risk of being check-raised. This all, of course, applies to (thin) value betting in position when checked to. Out of position the story is completely different.

There are logical errors in that article. I wrote a mile about it (quite) some time ago. Standard Lines: Advanced River-play

For instance when value betting OOP, you shouldn't give a damned about pot odds.

I thought the article was good read anyway, but the math is flawed.

why is this?

yohans usual statements that makes no sense.

Originally posted by JLeitmotiv

Originally posted by YohanN7
I don't think he means that either. (He shouldn't.) Losing when check-raised typically costs 2 bets. There is an old rule of thumb saying that in position one needs to have the best hand 60-65% of the time when called. The margin is there to compensate for the risk of being check-raised. This all, of course, applies to (thin) value betting in position when checked to. Out of position the story is completely different.

There are logical errors in that article. I wrote a mile about it (quite) some time ago. Standard Lines: Advanced River-play

For instance when value betting OOP, you shouldn't give a damned about pot odds.

I thought the article was good read anyway, but the math is flawed.

why is this?

Read the link (and the article if you can get to it somehow). In short, it is mainly because you are betting for value. You need, for instance, to assess the chances that the opponent will bet a worse hand. This does only very indirectly depend on the size of the pot. You will find that dats agrees with what I wrote there in relation to the standard lines article.

Originally posted by Avataren

Originally posted by JLeitmotiv

Originally posted by YohanN7
I don't think he means that either. (He shouldn't.) Losing when check-raised typically costs 2 bets. There is an old rule of thumb saying that in position one needs to have the best hand 60-65% of the time when called. The margin is there to compensate for the risk of being check-raised. This all, of course, applies to (thin) value betting in position when checked to. Out of position the story is completely different.

There are logical errors in that article. I wrote a mile about it (quite) some time ago. Standard Lines: Advanced River-play

For instance when value betting OOP, you shouldn't give a damned about pot odds.

I thought the article was good read anyway, but the math is flawed.

why is this?

yohans usual statements that makes no sense.

Avataren, I think that you are the wrong person to assess the correctness of what I write. For one thing, you have't read the Standard Lines Article because you haven't been allowed to read it. For another thing, even if you could read the article, I don't think you would understand it. Nor would you understand my posts about it. Not because they are wrong, but simply because of your attitude. Don't bother to reply. Ah, well reply once and get the final word if you want to. It's on me.

To explain as shortly as possible:

Premises from an example in the article:

• If I check, my opponent will bet only if he has a better hand
• I will not fold if my opponent bets when I check

In this situation, betting and folding is better than checking and calling.

You may notice that the two premises are internally inconsistent. If the first one is true then checking and folding is the best play.

In reality, people bluff. This is not included it the discussion in the article, and hence not in my reasoning above. The premises exclude bluffing.

The pot size enters, as you can see nowhere. The article reaches quite different conclusions where the inverse pot size enters in a (note derived) formula.

Sorry about writing more in this forum. I can't just leave this thread without having said the above. With that said, it really doesn't matter if there are a million avatars out there saying I am wrong.

Guys stop scolding each other, all of our interest is to figure out the truth about the article.

I don't think he means that either. (He shouldn't.)

Why ? When you have above average equity (51% for ex) against the villains range that he does not fold, could there be such situation when you couldnt bet for value, cause you know that you will get x/r-d too often which you couldnt call cause you would not have the odds to call ? Or you could call it, it just would be better to x back cause it would be higher EV ? I'd like to see a few examples if there are any.

You can have 100% equity vs oponents range but if he folds his entire range there is a huge reason for a check.
Simple example... you have A3o BB vs CO limper...flop AA3 and he checks... kindda standard checkback for obvious reasons even though your equity is close to 100% but there are very few things where you can expect 3 streets of value on the other hand he can catch something on turn or he can bluff his whatever stupid holding that he may have...and if he has Ax,well in that case dont worry about fireworks on later streets

However...Dont want to discourage such theoretical debates but I personally dont see much point to it. Looking at concrete examples, understand reasoning behind moves and you will be able to draw conclusions on your own with much higher confidence than by disscussing whether 51% or 49% makes a difference. Sure I respect poker in its theoretical nature and I kindda like it because there is just so much stuff going on with it but in reality its a very very practical game... and in a practical game I doubt you will be able to conclude the exact amount of equity that you have

Originally posted by kavboj84
Guys stop scolding each other, all of our interest is to figure out the truth about the article.

I don't think he means that either. (He shouldn't.)

Why ? When you have above average equity (51% for ex) against the villains range that he does not fold, could there be such situation when you couldnt bet for value, cause you know that you will get x/r-d too often which you couldnt call cause you would not have the odds to call ? Or you could call it, it just would be better to x back cause it would be higher EV ? I'd like to see a few examples if there are any.

I misread your first post. His "not folding" range is stronger than his calling range, so that the 60-65% rule of thumb vs a calling range is probably approximately the same thing as the 50% vs a not folding range.

yohan i think you need to stop posting still. Im not sure your ready for coming back again. due to the sole fact of your response to me in multiple posts, you dared me to write to get the last word and since i haven't posted yet you decided to add my name in a sentence in the next post of yours to see if you could get me to respond in a way that would allow you to continue arguing and name calling .. please stay away from these boards until you can handle the slightest bit of resistance.. I still believe most(a lot) of us wish you wouldn't post here. If you have changed I would be happy to give you a chance to show you have changed. otherwise please stay away.

Look mister Avatar.

Who do you think you are Avataren? God? Jesus? A Moderator? (Oh You Wish)

I am not going to post much, but not because friend Avatar tells me not to. It's because I don't enjoy it anymore.

You are not going to be able to drop posts in forums whenever I happen to write in one to the effect that I am an idiot and everything I write is lunacy and expect that I silently accept it.

And you are certainly not going to be allowed (by me) to write that I can't respond to defend myself. You started this - in your first post in this thread.

You talk about "handling the slightest bit of resistance". You aren't offering resistance man. You are just offering insults.

You don't really want me to stop writing because you obviously enjoy the situation so much. Just look at your last post. You try to sound like an authoritative, but caring father.

You like to make people uncomfortable. You also like to provoke people. But you chose carefully the people you provoke. You wouldn't ever provoke anyone affiliated with PS. Instead, you quote all their posts and say "Hallelujah". It doesn't matter to you what they say. It is because you obviously have other goals than adding to the discussion. But your ultimate goals are beyond me.

Originally posted by YohanN7
Look mister Avatar.

Who do you think you are Avataren? God? Jesus? A Moderator? (Oh You Wish)

I am not going to post much, but not because friend Avatar tells me not to. It's because I don't enjoy it anymore.

You are not going to be able to drop posts in forums whenever I happen to write in one to the effect that I am an idiot and everything I write is lunacy and expect that I silently accept it.

And you are certainly not going to be allowed (by me) to write that I can't respond to defend myself. You started this - in your first post in this thread.

You talk about "handling the slightest bit of resistance". You aren't offering resistance man. You are just offering insults.

You don't really want me to stop writing because you obviously enjoy the situation so much. Just look at your last post. You try to sound like an authoritative, but caring father.

You like to make people uncomfortable. You also like to provoke people. But you chose carefully the people you provoke. You wouldn't ever provoke anyone affiliated with PS. Instead, you quote all their posts and say "Hallelujah". It doesn't matter to you what they say. It is because you obviously have other goals than adding to the discussion. But your ultimate goals are beyond me.

see this is why i say you can't handle resistance Just on a note if i thought one of the guys affiliated with PS.com I would certainly let them know. You are assuming things about me you can't possibly know. Insults ? I don't insult you man, you take it as insults and react in a way that it makes it hard to have a proper discussion with you. look at my "stay away" post as an advice. and reminder of that you need to treat people who do not agree with you as people and not your personal enemy.

Originally posted by kavboj84
When you have above average equity (51% for ex) against the villains range that he does not fold, could there be such situation when you couldnt bet for value, cause you know that you will get x/r-d too often which you couldnt call cause you would not have the odds to call ? Or you could call it, it just would be better to x back cause it would be higher EV ? I'd like to see a few examples if there are any.

Yes there are. Equity is really hard to calculate in multi-street situations, cause even if it is above average on a certain street, your actions will lead to it changing on later streets.

Just think about this really simplified example. You have 51% equity on the flop vs Villain's range. On certain turns, you'll have 100% equity, on all the other you have 0% equity. Also you are aware of what these turn cards are. Do you really wanna jam the flop here? Is it higher EV than waiting for a good turn to safely put in more money or fold? Definitely not. Now of course this example is oversimplified, but along this line (and some others) you can see why your statement is not necessarily true in some cases (of course, most of the times we wanna put in money with equity edge).

Oh, and wb Yohan!

Originally posted by Avataren

Originally posted by YohanN7
Look mister Avatar.

Who do you think you are Avataren? God? Jesus? A Moderator? (Oh You Wish)

I am not going to post much, but not because friend Avatar tells me not to. It's because I don't enjoy it anymore.

You are not going to be able to drop posts in forums whenever I happen to write in one to the effect that I am an idiot and everything I write is lunacy and expect that I silently accept it.

And you are certainly not going to be allowed (by me) to write that I can't respond to defend myself. You started this - in your first post in this thread.

You talk about "handling the slightest bit of resistance". You aren't offering resistance man. You are just offering insults.

You don't really want me to stop writing because you obviously enjoy the situation so much. Just look at your last post. You try to sound like an authoritative, but caring father.

You like to make people uncomfortable. You also like to provoke people. But you chose carefully the people you provoke. You wouldn't ever provoke anyone affiliated with PS. Instead, you quote all their posts and say "Hallelujah". It doesn't matter to you what they say. It is because you obviously have other goals than adding to the discussion. But your ultimate goals are beyond me.

see this is why i say you can't handle resistance Just on a note if i thought one of the guys affiliated with PS.com I would certainly let them know. You are assuming things about me you can't possibly know. Insults ? I don't insult you man, you take it as insults and react in a way that it makes it hard to have a proper discussion with you. look at my "stay away" post as an advice. and reminder of that you need to treat people who do not agree with you as people and not your personal enemy.

Originally posted by PoincaresConjecture

Originally posted by Avataren

Originally posted by YohanN7
Look mister Avatar.

Who do you think you are Avataren? God? Jesus? A Moderator? (Oh You Wish)

I am not going to post much, but not because friend Avatar tells me not to. It's because I don't enjoy it anymore.

You are not going to be able to drop posts in forums whenever I happen to write in one to the effect that I am an idiot and everything I write is lunacy and expect that I silently accept it.

And you are certainly not going to be allowed (by me) to write that I can't respond to defend myself. You started this - in your first post in this thread.

You talk about "handling the slightest bit of resistance". You aren't offering resistance man. You are just offering insults.

You don't really want me to stop writing because you obviously enjoy the situation so much. Just look at your last post. You try to sound like an authoritative, but caring father.

You like to make people uncomfortable. You also like to provoke people. But you chose carefully the people you provoke. You wouldn't ever provoke anyone affiliated with PS. Instead, you quote all their posts and say "Hallelujah". It doesn't matter to you what they say. It is because you obviously have other goals than adding to the discussion. But your ultimate goals are beyond me.

see this is why i say you can't handle resistance Just on a note if i thought one of the guys affiliated with PS.com I would certainly let them know. You are assuming things about me you can't possibly know. Insults ? I don't insult you man, you take it as insults and react in a way that it makes it hard to have a proper discussion with you. look at my "stay away" post as an advice. and reminder of that you need to treat people who do not agree with you as people and not your personal enemy.

LOL