![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, I made it back to the gym after a couple of weeks' "holiday". A gentle session. I should have more of these. I'm not young any more, you know. Perhaps it would be better if I focused on keeping the weight down, rather than building the muscle up.
+++++++
Flynn Mehta Miller's Professional No Limit Holdem arrived this morning, along with Phil Gordon's Little Blue Book. No time to look at any of them yet, but the Stoxtrader stuff has been so entertaining that FMM will have their work cut out to live up to it. Although Limit plays very differently to No Limit, fundamentally the only change is in the pricing. In this sense, limit is a subset of no limit (there is no bet that you can make in limit that you cannot make in no limit). From there, you ask yourself, how does this change in pricing (the amount you can "charge" your opponent) change things?
The most significant factor is that in NL you or your opponent can run out of cash at any point, whereas in Limit it is unlikely that you will run out of cash at all. In NL you have more options on charging, but so has your opponent. With the increased popularity of the check-raise by a blind on a rag-flop to a button raiser (head-to-head) you can see that somne things transfer over from limit more quickly and easily than do others.
But a number of the assumptions on the changed ranks in hands in NL rest on other assumptions -- one of them being that your implied odds are greater. As Greenstein points out in Ace on the River, this is often an error in blind defense in No Limit, because usually the implied odds that you think you are getting, (say, if your 5-2 hits a miracle straight on the flop) turn out not to be implied odds at all, because no-one pays you off.
+++++++
It was nice to see that the front page of the FT Companies & Markets this morning caught up with what I wrote on Saturday ("Investors' safety obsession driving drama") ... about the flight last week to short-term treasuries. This would seem to indicate that the crisis has not gone away. The fun thing about it is that there is really no way to see how things will move forward, because so much of it depends on sentiment rather than rationality.
_____________
+++++++
Flynn Mehta Miller's Professional No Limit Holdem arrived this morning, along with Phil Gordon's Little Blue Book. No time to look at any of them yet, but the Stoxtrader stuff has been so entertaining that FMM will have their work cut out to live up to it. Although Limit plays very differently to No Limit, fundamentally the only change is in the pricing. In this sense, limit is a subset of no limit (there is no bet that you can make in limit that you cannot make in no limit). From there, you ask yourself, how does this change in pricing (the amount you can "charge" your opponent) change things?
The most significant factor is that in NL you or your opponent can run out of cash at any point, whereas in Limit it is unlikely that you will run out of cash at all. In NL you have more options on charging, but so has your opponent. With the increased popularity of the check-raise by a blind on a rag-flop to a button raiser (head-to-head) you can see that somne things transfer over from limit more quickly and easily than do others.
But a number of the assumptions on the changed ranks in hands in NL rest on other assumptions -- one of them being that your implied odds are greater. As Greenstein points out in Ace on the River, this is often an error in blind defense in No Limit, because usually the implied odds that you think you are getting, (say, if your 5-2 hits a miracle straight on the flop) turn out not to be implied odds at all, because no-one pays you off.
+++++++
It was nice to see that the front page of the FT Companies & Markets this morning caught up with what I wrote on Saturday ("Investors' safety obsession driving drama") ... about the flight last week to short-term treasuries. This would seem to indicate that the crisis has not gone away. The fun thing about it is that there is really no way to see how things will move forward, because so much of it depends on sentiment rather than rationality.
_____________
