Quitting when ahead.

[Vegas Vic]

Of course, he could've dragged his wife along with him so they both could play further into that "advantage", but the thought of possibly having to look into the eyes of a loved one unable to move at will because of it, was likely too much for any decent person to fathom.

[arcimede$]

Arc, this is the most ridiculous thing you ever wrote: "My comment has nothing to do with the game. It's all about gambling in general."

Wow, are you messed up.

Hilarious. You make a complete fool out of yourself and I'm "messed up".

You didn't respond to the issue I raised. Of course, I know why ... you have no response.

[arcimede$]

No Arc, the facts are I had a stop loss limit to preserve a large win. I didn't have to call the $3 big blind with my pocket nines. I could have folded and left the game right then and there before the next hand which was my big blind. You see Arc, in poker, you can look at your cards for free until you are a blind -- big or small. In video poker, you have to pay to see every hand.

Now, with pocket 9s I had the option of deciding to see a flop. $3 was a fair price to pay to see a flop with 99. So I called the big blind. If I got lucky, the flop would have been very favorable for pocket 9s. But another player raised to $15. When a player raises to $15 the value of my 99 drops dramatically -- he is signalling that he has a strong hand which could be anywhere from another pair to AA or KK or QQ or even AK and pocket 9s is at a disadvantage to all of those.

Because I was at the table with this player, I knew he was loose but at the same time I knew he only raised with strong hands. And at that point I didn't want to gamble with my 99 anymore and leave with a solid win intact.

So, it sounds like your admitting you would have folded no matter what since your nines weren't a very good hand and "he only raised with strong hands". It had nothing to do with the loss limit. Your entire reasoning is full of huge holes.

We've gone over this before in other threads. There is more thinking in live poker than in video poker. Video poker is a one dimensional game. There are many dimensions in live poker -- including, believe it or not, win goals and loss limits and bankroll preservation and there are books written about the math of just betting and pot odds. You never even played the game, and you are trying to show me and everyone else that your "video poker strategy" applies to live poker? You're giving me a big laugh.

This has nothing to do with VP strategy. What a ridiculous strawman. Just admit that I am right (which is obvious to anyone with a brain) and we can move on.

I suggested this to you once before and I am going to suggest it to you one more time: go play some live poker. Don't make any bets. Just pay your blinds in a small game -- say a $40 buy in no limit game, or a $20 limit game with $1 and $2 blinds -- and watch the action and just think about what you would do with the cards you are dealt. It's a whole new world you never imagined.

All of your principles and strategies from video poker will fly right out the window.

Silly nonsense. The question is not the game, it is whether allowing a win goal or loss limit to affect your play is good idea. And it applies to any gambling as my blackjack example made obvious. Alan, you are violating the rule of holes ... quit digging.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I have tried to be polite with you but you are really pushing the limits. You are clueless how to play poker. I suggest you do some reading, and I suggest you play yourself. Poker is a more complex game than you can ever imagine. And frankly it goes beyond the math that rules video poker. You can have the best hand in poker but lose to a bluff, or lose because of your own insecurity. And, you can have the worst hand -- or not even a pair -- in poker and win. It is a game that goes beyond what cards you have in your hand and what cards are on the table. It is a mind game. It is a complex game. And you would fail at it.

You might believe you have the best hand, but as the chips are taken away from you you would be calling out "but the math says I should have won!" And when you did have the best hand you would be saying to yourself, that guy cheated me by bluffing!

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay Arc, here is your BIG question:

The question is what would you have done if you weren't sitting at that win/loss limit? If you would ahve folded then what you did is just fine. If not, then you let the a non-poker factor drive you and that is not smart.

My answer is this: If I wasn't sitting where I was, with a win goal, and not wishing to lose any more chips, I would have called the extra $12 to see the flop, and I would have risked that another player would have re-raised because after the player who raised there were still two more players left to act. It is very possible that the next player could have re-raised to $30 and the player after him could have re-raised to $60 or even all-in.

At some point, Arc, you have to make a decision about just how valuable your cards are.

I will say it again: at that point, wanting to protect my $700 profit, I was willing to bet $3 hoping to see a "cheap flop" (which is the poker term) for the chance that my pocket 9s would win.

The situation would have been much different if instead of pocket 9s I had pocket kings or pocket aces. You are clueless.

[Alan Mendelson]

Silly nonsense. The question is not the game, it is whether allowing a win goal or loss limit to affect your play is good idea.

The silly nonsense is that you don't know that protecting your stack is every bit as much a part of the game as knowing when to bet and when to fold and when to raise. Especially in tournament play which has another drastic change in poker strategy.

Arc, when you sit at a poker table and you waste chips on weak hands, you are losing "chip strength" for later when you have to bet with stronger hands. I know these concepts are foreign to you, because you don't have this in video poker. In video poker every hand is played with the same coin in. You really are clueless about poker.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I have tried to be polite with you but you are really pushing the limits. You are clueless how to play poker. I suggest you do some reading, and I suggest you play yourself. Poker is a more complex game than you can ever imagine. And frankly it goes beyond the math that rules video poker. You can have the best hand in poker but lose to a bluff, or lose because of your own insecurity. And, you can have the worst hand -- or not even a pair -- in poker and win. It is a game that goes beyond what cards you have in your hand and what cards are on the table. It is a mind game. It is a complex game. And you would fail at it.

I would likely be very successful, but it would take some time. However, the game is not the issue as I have pointed out to you several times already.

Alan, it is your rudeness in not addressing my responses that leads to my less than polite responses. If you want me to be nicer to you then start reading and addressing the issues I state. If you continue to avoid the points I make and repeat points I have already debunked I will continue to call you a fool.

You might believe you have the best hand, but as the chips are taken away from you you would be calling out "but the math says I should have won!" And when you did have the best hand you would be saying to yourself, that guy cheated me by bluffing!

Silly nonsense. Anyone familiar with the math realizes you don't win every hand even when you have an advantage. That's true in all gambling not just live poker. You are trying to avoid my points because they make it obvious you are wrong. Suck it up, Alan. Admit you are wrong so we don't have to continue to watch you scramble.

[arcimede$]

Okay Arc, here is your BIG question:

"The question is what would you have done if you weren't sitting at that win/loss limit? If you would have folded then what you did is just fine. If not, then you let the a non-poker factor drive you and that is not smart."

My answer is this: If I wasn't sitting where I was, with a win goal, and not wishing to lose any more chips, I would have called the extra $12 to see the flop.

So, you admit you gave up a perceived advantage simply due to your loss limit. My point exactly, thank you.

No, it doesn't mean you would have won that hand. It simply means (if your analysis was correct) that you would win more of these situations than you would lose. That is the goal of smart gamblers.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I'm not wrong. I know it's hard for you to accept that. I'm sorry. And the game is the issue. The game defines how you play and what strategies you use. For heaven's sake, Arc, would you use the same video poker strategy at both Jacks or Better and Deuces Wild?

Well, you can't use the same strategies at blackjack and poker and video poker.

[Alan Mendelson]

So, you admit you gave up a perceived advantage simply due to your loss limit. My point exactly, thank you.

NO!!!!!!! Pocket Nines does not have an advantage!!!! Pocket 9s is a relatively weak hand that needs to have a "good flop" in order to win.

[arcimede$]

The silly nonsense is that you don't know that protecting your stack is every bit as much a part of the game as knowing when to bet and when to fold and when to raise. Especially in tournament play which has another drastic change in poker strategy.

No, you have no idea what I know. And, this strawman has no bearing on the situation you found yourself at. Sorry Alan, making up hypothetical situations is truly nothing but silly nonsense.

Arc, when you sit at a poker table and you waste chips on weak hands, you are losing "chip strength" for later when you have to bet with stronger hands. I know these concepts are foreign to you, because you don't have this in video poker. In video poker every hand is played with the same coin in. You really are clueless about poker.

No, it's not foreign to me. It would be like playing a negative VP game and wasting "chip strength" (better known as money) that could be used playing a positive game. You are simply clueless about the big picture of gambling and how certain principles relate to ALL forms of gambling.

[Alan Mendelson]

The beauty of the Internet is that everything you wrote is here for everyone to see... and everything I wrote is here for everyone to see.

[arcimede$]

NO!!!!!!! Pocket Nines does not have an advantage!!!! Pocket 9s is a relatively weak hand that needs to have a "good flop" in order to win.

Then why did you say you would have called? If you did not have an advantage then calling would have been stupid, right? Come on, Alan, you are running around in circles.

[arcimede$]

The beauty of the Internet is that everything you wrote is here for everyone to see... and everything I wrote is here for everyone to see.

Yup, one of uses simple logic and other keeps running around in circles. I also see that as "beauty".

[Alan Mendelson]

I wrote:
NO!!!!!!! Pocket Nines does not have an advantage!!!! Pocket 9s is a relatively weak hand that needs to have a "good flop" in order to win.

And Arc responded:

Then why did you say you would have called? If you did not have an advantage then calling would have been stupid, right? Come on, Alan, you are running around in circles.

If that were the case Arc, you would sit at a poker table and do nothing until you were dealt pocket aces. And then, you still have no guarantee that your pocket aces would win. Because pocket aces lose about 20% of the time.

[arcimede$]

I wrote:
NO!!!!!!! Pocket Nines does not have an advantage!!!! Pocket 9s is a relatively weak hand that needs to have a "good flop" in order to win.

And Arc responded:

"Then why did you say you would have called? If you did not have an advantage then calling would have been stupid, right? Come on, Alan, you are running around in circles."

If that were the case Arc, you would sit at a poker table and do nothing until you were dealt pocket aces. And then, you still have no guarantee that your pocket aces would win. Because pocket aces lose about 20% of the time.

Nope, if you believe it takes pocket aces to have an advantage at live poker you are not a very good player.

However, I repeat yet again, this has nothing to do with the game. It's all about letting win/loss goals affect your play. You admitted above you would have made a different play had you not been at your loss limit. Since I'm not a poker player and I have no need to spend the time to look up the best play, I'll take you at your word. The right play was to call is what you said. Thus, you proved my point. You let the situation of a loss limit change from what you perceived was the proper play to what you perceived was a poor play.

That is not smart gambling.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, please take a look at the charts on this page: http://www.beatthefish.com/poker-str...ker-hands.html

Consider the various ranks for pocket pairs, how 99 ranks and how other hands rank.
Then consider that win goals and loss limits are more important in live poker than you could ever imagine.
There comes a point in the game of poker when you lay down good hands. The familiar quote is "even winners know to fold."
I now fold in this discussion.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm enjoying watching arci get totally undressed (on second thought....) as he makes a fool of himself again with confused poker ramblings leading to his mounting insults. And I'm partially responsible, because it's obvious my few posts have zinged him enough to set him off with the all-effective "chippping away process", and he knows exactly how and where that is And a shout out to Vic for the visual assist!

Alan, you have to know by now that all arci's doing is prolonging the discussion with Internet look-ups that he doesn't quite understand, just to give him something to do. After all, how would ANYBODY feel when all they can do besides this is have a blank stare on their face that's a million miles away from reality, because that's where living is located for him.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, can't you stop?

[arcimede$]

Arc, please take a look at the charts on this page: http://www.beatthefish.com/poker-str...ker-hands.html

Consider the various ranks for pocket pairs, how 99 ranks and how other hands rank.
Then consider that win goals and loss limits are more important in live poker than you could ever imagine.
There comes a point in the game of poker when you lay down good hands. The familiar quote is "even winners know to fold."
I now fold in this discussion.

Let's see the odds gave you a 72% win rate against one opponent and still over 50% with 2 ... however, that doesn't matter. You stated you thought holding the 9s was the best play. You did not hold them because you allowed an extraneous factor to influence you. That is not smart gambling. You can hem and haw all you want. I suspect the vast majority of good poker players would agree.

As for win/loss goals being important ... I have to cringe when I see you say something that demonstrates you still don't get it. They could be a good thing and they might not. If you are playing with an advantage then they are not good. If you are at a disadvantage then they can be good. It gets down to your competition. Tougher call with live poker ... easy call in VP.