elvida
Forum Replies Created
-
I think that is pretty close. I think a slight tweak is closer to the theory. He must have an 8, I can’t fold AA. Dissonance. He COULD be bluffing. I can’t fold AA, no dissonance. Bad decision. He must have an 8. I CAN fold AA. No dissonance. GOOD decision.
Cognitive dissonance doesn’t have to be resolved in a negative way, it is just the most salient example.
-
Hey Keith,
Interesting question.
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a response to a traumatic event where an individual’s life or bodily integrity is threatened in some way. It is characterized by very specific features of maladaptive behaviors and cognitions and includes hyperarousal, intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, sense of shortened lifespan, guilt, nightmares, the perception that the world is a dangerous place, and others. It further is specifically characterized by the avoidance of stimuli or thoughts about the event itself, or the experience of things that remind of us that event are endured with horror or severe anxiety. People with the disorder often report significant reduction in activities owing to their avoidance and irrational fears about the dangerousness of the world around them. It is important to note that the circumstances don’t have to be “insane” but instead are related to death or bodily integrity.
Cognitive dissonance occurs in normal functioning and can be in the presence of mundane situations. For instance, if you are a health-conscious person who eats doughnuts for breakfast every day, dissonance will exist between the two beliefs. 1) I am a health-conscious person 2) Doughnuts are not good for me. In that situation, dissonance exists. Your brain may provide you with the means to resolve that dissonance (I.e., it is healthy to have one bad habit as it increases my happiness to eat doughnuts, happier people are healthy). Nothing insane, but it was “stress” inducing as it caused concern that one was not living up to your beliefs.
I think your point that stress can lead to cognitive dissonance is a good one and provides a reason why we would be more likely to take action (i.e., change a belief) to reduce that dissonance. I also (although I have not looked it up today to see the specific literature) believe that increased stress over the issue will lead to increased experience of dissonance and lead to increased belief change (e.g., I am anti-abortion but got pregnant with a child for which I do not believe that I can adequately care). However, PTSD specifically deals with trauma and does not require belief change in the way that cognitive dissonance does. Thus, I don’t think that I would say cognitive dissonance is PTSD-lite. But I am a stickler…
Let me know if you want to talk more about this concept.
-
A good question. I will have to look back at the study to see if that was addressed in the methods…
-
So looking back at the study, there were subjects could refuse, but the procedures were appeared to suggest that they cajoled people pretty strongly. But still some rebellion occurred…These subjects were dropped from the analysis (11/71) leaving 3 conditions of 20. (Control: not hired to tell the next subject the experiment was fun; $1 payment to do so; $20 payment to do so). Bolded addresses your question directly.
1. Five 5s (three in the One Dollar and two in the
Twenty Dollar condition) indicated in the interview
that they were suspicious about having been paid to
tell the girl the experiment was fun and suspected that
that was the real purpose of the experiment,
2. Two 5s (both in the One Dollar condition) told
the girl that they had been hired, that the experiment
was really boring but they were supposed to say it
was fun.
3. Three 5s (one in the One Dollar and two in the
Twenty Dollar condition) refused to take the money
and refused to be hired.
4. One S (in the One Dollar condition), immediately
after having talked to the girl, demanded her phone
number saying he would call her and explain things,
and also told the E he wanted to wait until she was
finished so he could tell her about it.
-
-
He has an A and a back door. It’s a low stakes tournament. The range bet on the flop (you could go smaller) should be to keep dominated hands like this in. He just sucked out in you. Most of the time he won’t spike that 7. Players in low stakes don’t like to fold A’s.
-
Poker is poker, but the games are different particularly in the ranges people play and the lack of antes. I think there are benefits to the playing online cash for postflop play improvement, but practicing the different stack sizes can be difficult. Further, no ICM pressure in tournaments changes things, even if not every player is aware of ICM. I think that playing a single table SNG would be better (those can be time limited depending on the structure) and is likely a bet analogue to MTTs if that is what you are trying to work on.
-
So in addition to Chris’ comments, I would add one thing. You should think not about your performance in terms of hand outcomes, but rather, how comfortable you were in making your decisions for each hand. This avoids the variance/lack of hand reveal trap. The more times you know what you are supposed to do and comfortable with whatever action your opponent takes, then you have an idea you are doing well. The more often you are in a blender or have no idea how you should respond to the board or your opponent’s actions, or what the bet size should be, then the the less well you are doing. It is not an absolute measure, but you will be able to compare your performance over time. You will probably never be entirely comfortable, but hopefully less uncomfortable ….
Hope that helps!
-
The OR is questionable given that your friend here is fold equity. It is compounded by the big size. I think that the call of the 3b! is not advisable as you have reduced the SPR to ~1 and will cripple your stack, seemingly to set mine, if you don’t hit. It is unlikely that you will have top pair or an overpair on the flop, so your decisions will all be tough. On the flop you call a tiny bet, leaving you pretty much nothing (4 bb/27% pot) on Turn. So you have committed yourself. The question is, what do you beat? Just semi bluff flush draws (8 outs), 22-44 (2 outs), overcards (6 outs) and air (may still have two live cards). I think that BChip got it right, this should be a jam as an open, or if you want to try to induce a larger pot with a strong hand then you should jam over the top of the SB. Collect the fold equity pre, but recognize that you are in deep trouble most of the time you are called and give yourself the opportunity to see all 5 cards post.
-
There are so few turn cards that will lead to increased betting that wouldn’t call a 1/3 pot bet. What card do you want to see? You don’t really want pocket pairs greater than yours to see another card for free and be given the opportunity to cause you to lose a lot of money set over set. 98 and 87 are good possibilities for two pair. However, they will probably float a small bet as well. Ax is the most rational target but is Ax folding to a small bet? I don’t think so. Just one of those unlucky situations where you big hand, they have nothing and you can’t get them to put money in the pot with nothing. At least you didn’t have QQ. You would have lost for sure…
-
I think there are a lot of factors to consider not the smallest of which is relative stack size and tournament format. If you are a big stack you don’t really want those small stacks to necessarily bust b/c then you can be more aggressive with other small stacks. Further, there is no guarantee that passive play will not lead to the triple up you everyone fears. Finally, the composition of the side pot (is it dry) goes a long way in determining how aggressive to play. Bluffing into a dry side pot is not worth it. A “wet” side pot? Tharr be chips in that pot!
The term “no honor among thieves” comes to mind. Too often collusion falls apart when the money comes into view. I try not to count on it. As such, “collude” if it is to your advantage. Play aggressively if it is to your advantage. Don’t get angry with people if they don’t help you. Roll your eyes (at least on the inside) at people who get mad at you for not helping them.
-
Sounds like an approach that will help moving forward. One psychological thought I had is that the reviewing of the notes (i.e., ranges, lines, etc.) can help you get into the “frame of mind” to play and help prime your mind to focus on the important things that are in front of you, as opposed to say the rude shirt the guy is wearing next to you, or the number of people in the poker room, or any of the myriad of things related to the play of poker that can steal your focus. Furthermore, while obviously cashing/winning the tournament is ideal, consider having a plan for each tournament for a specific improvement you are going to make (i.e., 3b! more, bluff more, try different bet sizes, etc.) that will allow you to put into play the specific skills that you are learning about in your book reading time. Humans retain lessons that are rewarded or punished most effectively. So don’t let those opportunities go to waste! You will then “cash”every tournament, even if you bust early if you were trying to use the hands to apply what you have been reading about.
Good luck at the tables!
-
I am very much in favor goal setting for the year, but I would humbly suggest that you have set goals that will not actually lead to better play. A better approach may be to set what are known as SMART Goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time Bound) which are often used in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy research and treatment (some models use slightly different words for some letters). The TLDR; bottom line is that you want to set goals for your behavior (i.e., the things you do) rather than outcomes (things that happen to you). If you increase behaviors (that lead to higher EV decisions) you will have better outcomes. Maybe not all the time, but in the long run. These behaviors should also be achievable and realistic in the time frame you have, and you should be able to quantitatively measure them. This will give you the best idea if you have made progress towards your goal of improving your poker game.
This can be harder than it seems. Appropriate goal setting will at times take some creativity and focus of its own. Some examples (though not an exhaustive list) are as follows: Instead of focusing on the wins (out of your control) set up goals concerning the number of videos you will watch or events on RecPoker in which you will participate. As stated by Aceragoff, set play frequency goals rather than winning rates. Create a means to MEASURE how frequently you are paying attention. Count the number of hands that you reached showdown with the range of hands that a villain had when you are NOT in the pot. Set goals for how frequently you will 3b, cbet, double barrel, and other behaviors that incrementally increase aggression in your play. Set a goal for the number of poker podcasts you will listen to (Everybody needs more Jim Reid in their lives). If you can afford it, use of PT4 or other poker tracker is invaluable in setting goals for poker play behaviors. Highly recommended.
Finally, the biggest problem with “New Year’s Resolutions” often is that the “feedback loop” is too long (to quote Nick Howard and give this posting a “Poker Feel”). To decrease the feedback loop timeframe, set up SHORT term goals (days or weeks) that indicate your progress to the longer goal (year). This will increase your accountability to your goals as well as allow you to measure whether your goals are now achievable in the time frame. It will also reinforce your good behavior! This will likely lead to a further increase in “good poker behaviors,” which will likely lead to better poker outcomes. Further, you can modify goals if you are coming up short and remain motivated even if life jumps in the way of your poker goals.
Good luck in your quest of poker development. We all will be watching and hope for your success towards your goals!
-
If he is that good and you are happy with folding JJ and potentially blinding out after mincashing, then it is an “easy” fold. However, I think there is SOME fold equity to be had, partly because villain may be thinking of bigger than just cashing given his stack size and the presence of the microstack on the SB. Picking up this pot puts you in contention for some pay jumps I assume.
I ran it through ICMIZER and it is a jam…
-
Why are you assuming you have no fold equity? I could see that MP opens with a modestly strong hand that he/she doesn’t want to go all in on the bubble and SB may just hope that you get called and fold if you jam. You don’t want to get called (obviously) but you are not in terrible shape if you do.
-
Personally, in were I in Eric’s position, I think that a Raise on the Flop is beautiful. With front door flush, back door straight (in fact back door royal flush), and a pair already (albeit third pair), there is SO much equity if you are behind (quick count says ~52% against single pair hands, ~36% against sets). By calling, Eric will lose action on any flush card (unless Rob has a smaller flush). It is less likely that Eric is ahead when the board has two broadway, so a fold is not the worst thing. But in Eric’s shoes, I want Rob to have a tough decision and a raise will put the screws on. I am somewhat hard pressed to determine a Turn card that doesn’t make Rob’s decision easier…
-
Take him at his word. Sometimes we have to drive a car to the hills to bring him back to the table…
-
Ahh live poker will save Poker because the discrepancy between the majority of the users is SO much larger than online.
-
Sounds like you got them (Sorry if it felt I was telling you something you already knew). I look forward to your tournament victories!! On the nights I am not playing!!!
-
So I used the ranges from ICMIZER in the analysis. Is this range just your experience or is this drawn from Dara’s book?