Quitting when ahead.

[arcimede$]

Rob, can't you stop?

Oh let him continue to ramble. All he is doing is demonstrating he doesn't have a clue about a topic that would be a slam dunk for a decent high school math student. If he wants to make a fool out of himself it is just fine with me.

[Rob.Singer]

Bob Dancer claimed to have a huge edge in that South Point slot machine promotion, yet that "edge" only made him look like a fool. In fact, he was so enthralled with this imaginary "edge" after losing the first day that he came back a second for more personal "advantage player" abuse. But that's what he gets for trying to justify the Wizard's make believe tag line that it doesn't matter if you win or lose--"it only matters if you can justify it as being a good bet". And people wonder why these two pretenders have always been afraid of debating me or witnessing my strategy being played on a bet? Charlatans....both of them, more interested in how much they can make off of other gamblers than how much their phoney claims hurt those others.

[arcimede$]

Another thread another example of robki's jealousy of successful APers. You just have to laugh at at him. So much envy built up over the years.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

It amazes me how you are so selective in the information you present to make an argument. You point out the win rate for 99, but you didn't mention the win rate for pocket tens, pocket jacks, pocket queens, kings or aces. Is there a reason you overlooked that information?

I told you that the other player made a raise that was five times the big blind -- and that is indicative that the player had a big hand. I watched that player in previous hands and when he made big bets, he had big cards. A bet of five times the big blind indicated to me that he had a hand that was stronger than my pocket 9s. Continuing to play put my win goal and loss limit in danger.

Part of having an edge at poker, and part of having an advantage at poker, is knowing when to fold -- just like the song says. My edge and my advantage will still be around the next time I play... and the next hand that I play. Folding a hand is not a sign of a lack of an edge or a lack of an advantage or ability. To the contrary, it's a sign of skill -- a skill you don't have to employ in video poker because in video poker you are not playing against another player holding cards that are unknown to you.

As far as the "extraneous factor" of win goals and loss limits go... it's a very big factor in poker. What you can't understand Arc, because you play against a machine, is that your table image is vital to your future success. Eight players saw me get up from that table and leave with $900 including $700 of their money which was my profit. That image will stick with them the next time we meet. Your video poker machine will not remember you. But leaving as a big winner will leave the impression that in the future when I play my hand, I play winning hands. Put the "image quotient" in your video poker strategy book and see how far it gets you with your one-eyed jacks machine.

You continue to quote gambling gospel with no regard for reality of play. You have no concept of poker strategy, betting strategy, table image, reading competitors and what their hands might be, yet you continue to preach some gambling pablum that is supposed to tell me that you -- someone who has never played live poker in his life -- knows more than what I know about playing and bankroll management.

Do what redietz suggested to me: consult a professor or two.

[Rob.Singer]

As with all his other lost opportunities in life, arci can only theorize about live poker play without having any real knowledge. I don't comment on what Alan says because we all....all except arci....know he's more of an expert at that game than the rest of us.

It's more than obvious why arci hasn't played at the poker tables and instead opts to sit at a vp machine for 6 hours at a time: he fears interaction with others, he brings absolutely no personality to the table, and he knows there are people much smarter than him that he has to face. With the vp machine, his being a loner with a boring monotone voice image can live up to expectations without any embarrassment.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I wouldn't claim to be an expert at poker. I have won some small to mid sized tournaments, and nothing to brag about. But I am a damn good cash game player. While I do not have a history of annual wins at video poker or craps, I do have a history of being a net winner at cash poker games. And I have a very good reputation for being a good player at cash games.

I tend not to play tournaments anymore, because tournaments involve more luck than skill. You must get the good cards and you can't make any mistakes in the late stages of a tournament when blinds and antes can quickly gobble up your stack. At cash games you can make mistakes and survive. In tournaments, your "tournament life" is at stake in every hand you play.

[arcimede$]

It amazes me how you are so selective in the information you present to make an argument. You point out the win rate for 99, but you didn't mention the win rate for pocket tens, pocket jacks, pocket queens, kings or aces. Is there a reason you overlooked that information?

Because that is what you were holding. The other don't matter in this situation. You can only make decisions based on the cards you are holding. You stated you would have called against one other better. Looks like that was the proper choice without additional knowledge since you would have been favored to win.

I told you that the other player made a raise that was five times the big blind -- and that is indicative that the player had a big hand. I watched that player in previous hands and when he made big bets, he had big cards. A bet of five times the big blind indicated to me that he had a hand that was stronger than my pocket 9s. Continuing to play put my win goal and loss limit in danger.

The win goal made no difference. If you really believed he had a strong hand then the right play was to fold no matter what the win goal/loss limit was. That's my whole point. You tried to make this about your win/loss goals when they really should not be a factor in the middle of a hand. Before or after the hand was complete is the time to analyze those goals.

Part of having an edge at poker, and part of having an advantage at poker, is knowing when to fold -- just like the song says. My edge and my advantage will still be around the next time I play... and the next hand that I play. Folding a hand is not a sign of a lack of an edge or a lack of an advantage or ability. To the contrary, it's a sign of skill -- a skill you don't have to employ in video poker because in video poker you are not playing against another player holding cards that are unknown to you.

Alan, I have played poker before and I have watched lots of holdem on TV. You aren't stating any revelations, calling or folding is not the issue. The issue is you let an extraneous factor influence your play.

As far as the "extraneous factor" of win goals and loss limits go... it's a very big factor in poker.

Nonsense. Every hand is independent. Quitting at some magical time in poker is no difference than it is in VP. It's an illusion.

What you can't understand Arc, because you play against a machine, is that your table image is vital to your future success. Eight players saw me get up from that table and leave with $900 including $700 of their money which was my profit. That image will stick with them the next time we meet. Your video poker machine will not remember you. But leaving as a big winner will leave the impression that in the future when I play my hand, I play winning hands. Put the "image quotient" in your video poker strategy book and see how far it gets you with your one-eyed jacks machine.

So, you're saying you create a good image winning $700 but not winning $688. More nonsense. And, if you continued to play you might have walked away with over $1000. Would that create a better image?

You continue to quote gambling gospel with no regard for reality of play. You have no concept of poker strategy, betting strategy, table image, reading competitors and what their hands might be, yet you continue to preach some gambling pablum that is supposed to tell me that you -- someone who has never played live poker in his life -- knows more than what I know about playing and bankroll management.

Once again, this is not about playing poker, it's about letting an extraneous factor affect your play. You are so stuck on win/loss goals that you are letting them affect you. While you may claim to be a good poker play, comments like these say you are missing some capabilities. For example, if another player realized you took these goals into consideration they just might throw in some big raises at times to take advantage of your poor thinking.

[Alan Mendelson]

You see Arc, you don't understand live poker at all.

First mistake was referencing the statistics about pocket nines which are over the long term. But you have to look at what the other player might have in that particular hand and forget the statistics. The statistics mean little here. The other player made a big bet signalling he had cards better than pocket 9s. Pocket 9s are not strong cards.

And in live poker, as I explained to you, extraneous factors are a major issue because it is a game of psychology as much as many other factors and keeping to a win goal and leaving with a stack of chips you just took from your opponents at that table increases your position and image and strength for future play. Your machine doesn't care if you won or lost. But in live poker you shudder when a big, profitable player comes to your table.

The very first big tournament I played in was a World Poker Tour tournament at the Commerce about seven years ago. I took my seat at the table... and who was at my table: Daniel Negreanu, Tony G (Antanas Guoga), Carlos Mortenson, and a couple of other big names. I took my seat and said to myself "I am the sacrificial lamb." I sat there, folding what would otherwise would have been winning hands because psychologically I felt if the big guys were betting they must have the winning cards. (After the first two hours of play I wised up and I actually outlasted Daniel and Carlos, and Tony G complimented me -- called me a "poker genius" when I folded two pair Ace and Jack to his set of queens.)

Arc your other ridiculous comment was "this is not about playing poker, it's about letting an extraneous factor affect your play. You are so stuck on win/loss goals that you are letting them affect you." Well, Arc, when you play poker its all about playing poker which is different from playing video poker. And every hand you play in live poker actually has a win/loss goal. You want to maximize your win in every hand of live poker, and in every hand of live poker you want to minimize your loss. Think about that carefully because that really sums up the game of live poker.

Arc you also wrote: "So, you're saying you create a good image winning $700 but not winning $688. More nonsense. And, if you continued to play you might have walked away with over $1000. Would that create a better image?" Arc, the player making the raise had more than $100 in front of him... I think about $125 so my potential loss to him was $125. There were other players with more chips -- I could have lost as much as about $300 in that hand had I stayed in. $300 would have been almost half of my profit on the night and one third of my stack lost in one single hand, and those things happen all the time in live poker.

[arcimede$]

You see Arc, you don't understand live poker at all.

First mistake was referencing the statistics about pocket nines which are over the long term. But you have to look at what the other player might have in that particular hand and forget the statistics. The statistics mean little here. The other player made a big bet signalling he had cards better than pocket 9s. Pocket 9s are not strong cards.

Which means you should fold no matter what the loss limit was. However, you stated earlier that if you faced with the same situation on the first hand of the day you would have called. You keep yo-yoing back and forth. The point still remains, the win/loss limit should not have been a factor.

Arc your other ridiculous comment was "this is not about playing poker, it's about letting an extraneous factor affect your play. You are so stuck on win/loss goals that you are letting them affect you." Well, Arc, when you play poker its all about playing poker which is different from playing video poker. And every hand you play in live poker actually has a win/loss goal. You want to maximize your win in every hand of live poker, and in every hand of live poker you want to minimize your loss. Think about that carefully because that really sums up the game of live poker.

Not the same goals. You are making things up as you go along.

Arc you also wrote: "So, you're saying you create a good image winning $700 but not winning $688. More nonsense. And, if you continued to play you might have walked away with over $1000. Would that create a better image?" Arc, the player making the raise had more than $100 in front of him... I think about $125 so my potential loss to him was $125. There were other players with more chips -- I could have lost as much as about $300 in that hand had I stayed in. $300 would have been almost half of my profit on the night and one third of my stack lost in one single hand, and those things happen all the time in live poker.

Still scrambling. You're back to doing what ifs ... what if you stayed in and won $300? It works both ways. And, even if you called the $12 raise you could still have folded with a bad river, you didn't have to stay in to the bitter end.

Alan, you are out in left field on this one. The session ending win/loss goals should not affect your play. Every decision should be independent of extraneous stuff.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc I stopped reading when you brought up the question about playing 99 on the first hand. Well Arc on the first hand I only had bought in with $100 and I had not reached any win goal and I had no stack of $900 to protect. Are you obsessed over this or what?