Poker Video: Misc/Other by Tommy Angelo (Micro/Small Stakes)

that was a long fortnight of waiting

Fantastic video.

I just scored a big reciprocaly advantage over my oppenents, by being mindfully aware of reciprocality in poker and life?

By EP 8, im gonna convert to buddhism for sure, hehe.

excellent video!

those piano interludes are just fantastic!

Für Elise sounds terrible backwards imo.

I'm a mini mum, sitting still, not moving for hours and keeping quiet while playing 30 hands an hour is just not my world. I believe that you can totally separate your demeanor at the table from what is happening in the hand.

I haven't commented a lot about the poker stuff in the series, but I'm really proud of this episode. Not the laugh content, as this is the one which has the fewest one-liners, but the overall content is stuffed, imho.

This episode also has my only important contribution--folding reciprocality--of which I'm particularly proud. I'm still not sure I was able to get the point out of my mind and into the series. I'm hoping so.

I became a big fan of Tommy's urging us to anticipate, and this is where my little contribution becomes important. If you realize that by folding more than the player who doesn't, you can anticipate the inevitable bad beats using folding reciprocality. You make money when you fold and he doesn't. This is where it comes into its own.

There's just a ton of info in EP4. I still get a lot out of it, even after hearing it a dozen times.

I'll go back to cracking jokes, now. Do what you do best, right?

(Tommy is on vacay this week, so he'll be answering when he returns sometime during the weekend.)

Wayne

great video. really enjoyed it

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

I thought the same whilst listening to the betting reciprocality. It's the same problem with the theory of poker, with which you compare it to. In fact if the cards were reversed and i felt villain would make more money playing my hand, I could still feel i 'won' more money in this situation if my play vs his range was more profitable, rather than against just that specific hand.

As contract bridge deals with such unknown information, aren't their similar range issues? Where you make a decision that's the most +EV when considering the potential distributions of the cards in each of the other players' hands?

Tommy, Wayne,

Do u guys think playing bridge is a good way to get a better card sense in general?

there is a local bridge club down my street, I have never played there because there is no cash to be won and never considered it useful, but now I think maybe it would be good to get a better general card sense... your take on this would be great

Thanks

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

That's why Galfond>Sklansky

Very good episode and a useful analytical tool.

The big problem (as far as pure poker decisions go) I suppose is that we are already doing things in what we believe to be the best way (given our skill, knowledge and information) which can make it hard to objectively evaluate the actions of others. Also it may be hard to estimate what someone else would do in a reverse situation, if their thinking is different than ours.

But thinking about it in terms of what I did and what he did definitely will open the mind to other ways of handle situations. Sometimes it is hard to switch lanes when it comes to poker thinking, especially when what you are doing is working 'well enough'.

Evolution, relativity, poker, reciprocality...

Sounds familiar.

Time Link to 00:14:29

Here's a link to the article Tommy was referring to:

http://tommyangelo.com/articles/reciprocality.htm

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

I agree and had a loooong arguement with Tommy about this a few months ago. He kept talking about relative truth and other none constructive stuff. So if u want my advice, it's a complete waste of time to argue with him. His buddhist style probably keeps him happy but it also makes it impossible to question him in any way which is pretty scary and in my mind extremely dishonest.

The way he performs this technique is horrible and a really bad and missleading way to think about poker.