Dibs

Did Easley play today?

Maybe he is purposefully designing a QB controversy for the Jets?

He's only had one good game......this is his 4th stinker.....the rest were mediocre.

I think we might need to draft another QB in the 1st next year.

I think all of the anti-EJ threads might die down a tad this week.

We'd still pull a penalty today.

Yep

1st half: EJ Manuel 11-15-114-1-0 1 sack Geno Smith 3-9-44-0-1 3 sacks, 2 fumble(1 lost)

Yep.....baffling that the commentators mentioned it.

They really don't want to overturn the call.

:lol:

Stop the whinging......he looks 10 times better than last week.

The way I see that situation is that any good player has had 2.5 extra hours to find ways to improve their stack size......and every player entering the tourney is adding the same money as those that have had that extra 2.5 hours of play.....and any player who enters that late will have a lower than average stack size. The good player has missed out on 2.5 important hours of play and is definitely hindered......and quite likely most of the bad players entering that late will donate it to the good players within their first half hour on the tables. It may feel like it is unfair......but I'd want it to happen as much as possible every time.

I really like the wording of that....as I very much agree with it. IMO there is no room for emotion in poker. If you have a good process.....and have the ability to learn and improve your process....the results will eventually occur. It is one of the reasons why I prefer cash over tourney play. In tourney play, when something goes wrong you usually can't just get straight back on the horse. In a cash game, when something goes wrong you can simply put some more money on the table and continue.....particularly good after a donkey has tried his hardest to give you his money and accidentally taken yours instead. Hehe.....I've had many hands where I genuinely thank the person who has just full stacked me, for trying to give me his money.

I'm assuming that the 600 plus preflop call was well past the players potential odds........because 56 suited is a great hand to have in a cash game if your opponents have high pockets & you both have a massive chip stack sitting in front of you.

In my experience, this is only somewhat true when playing online. When playing at a casino however there seems to be little correlation to level of stakes and looseness of play......unless perhaps if you play high stakes(which I don't know as I haven't played high stakes). I have played $200 entry tournaments and found there was just as many crazy players as a $30 tournament. The tournaments that one should definitely avoid are the re-buy tournaments as it seems to encourage the muppets to shove early.....and re-buy if they get knocked out. Cash tables work similarly at the casinos that I have played at. I would typically play on the $2/$3 tables which were pretty much the best for non-maniac play. The $0.50/$1 tables had a higher crazy percentage......but so too did the $5/$10 tables. My thoughts on casino poker breaks down as such..... 1) Most people go to a casino to gamble.....and that is exactly what most people do on casino poker tables. 2) Some people have more money than others so gambling on a $10 blind table is the same as a person with less money gambling on a $1 blind table. 3) Most people who play cash tables or small($200 or less) tournaments at a casino don't really have much idea about how to play poker.....thus there is always a large number of crazy decisions made by fellow casino poker players.

Though cash tables suit my game far better than tournament play, I have a very good understanding of tournaments as I organized and ran them for 5 years for a living. I am also not a pro player, though until my illness took a turn for the worst I was about to become semi-pro at the cash tables. (Kept track for multiple years with a 95% success rate of leaving the tables with a very good hourly rate). Enough about my credentials.... Unless a tournament has been structured in an extraordinarily unusual way, your assessment is spot on about tournaments becoming about coin flips once entering the money. This is due to stack size/blind size ratio. Math is often the key to understanding the situations in poker. If there are 48 people left in the tourney and you have average stack size.....you will need to double up to remain steady before there are 24 people left.....then double up again before there are 12 left etc, etc. Winning blinds has benefits, but unless you continually double up you leave the tournament. My advice is to pay close attention to other players stack size. If you enter a hand with a player who does not have enough chips to comfortably 'play poker' through the hands entirety, leaving them with enough chips to continue if they lose the hand(which will be most players at that point)......they will most likely push all-in early(usually before the turn and/or river cards)......or be pot committed to the point where bluffing of any kind becomes irrelevant. It is also most likely at that point that you yourself have committed too many chips into the hand and end up having to call. The trick IMO(if there is one) is to be fully aware(based upon stack sizes) of the likelihood of having to commit all of your chips on a hand before you enter into it......and have a good understanding of how your bets will effect your opponent(based upon stack size). Going up against the short stacks is ONLY beneficial if you can easily afford to lose the chips. You know you will be in a coin toss.....and you know that the small stack will go all-in. If you do win the pot, you don't even double up......but if you lose the pot you will likely be crippled and need another coin toss very soon. Going up against the big stacks is far more beneficial at this point in the tourney. Apart from the concept that you might still be able to bluff or push them out of the hand(largely dependent on your stack size)......if you end up in a coin toss situation you get the maximum benefits(doubling stack size).....and get to have your coin toss situations less frequently. Mathematically it is simple. Against big stack.... Double up.....double up....equals 4 times stack size for two 50/50 coin flips(25% chance). Against stacks 2/3rds of your stack size.... 1.66 increase.....1.66 increase....equals 2.78 times stack size for two 50/50 coin flips(25% chance). Thanks for the opportunity to talk poker again. Edit: BTW....Crown in Melbourne(where I live) has one of the best poker rooms in the world!

Me too, but I'll let you know circlethewagons87 when I do(not that I watch a lot of commercial TV).

Yep, this thread has all of a sudden become interesting. <reclines back, reaches for popcorn>

Heh, that's remarkably close to the stats he got two weeks ago against the Saints. 8-19-115-0-2

Upon further reflection, it seems to me that the analytics are likely very flawed and seem to only look at one statistic line when multiple different ones would be needed to assess the situation. Ignoring the concept that some teams will have a vastly different percent chance to move the ball and score(Broncos compared to Jaguars)..... Using the statistics from the video....and he was a little ambiguous.... Teams will score a TD 92% of the time from the 5 yard line. Teams will score "anyway" 77% of the time from the 45 yard line(he says around the 40 but the diagram shown puts things at the 45 & the NFL rough average is 40 yards net punt). Assuming he is talking about TDs in both situations......and even ignoring the concept of FGs........and using a 50% 4th down conversion rate.......and also ignoring the concept that the percentages would be largely changed if punting from a better position the your own 5 yard line.... This means that to even out your average, when you do convert your 4th down you will need to be able to, on average, drive the ball down field to a point on the field that gives only a 62% chance for the other team to score. [50% chance of 92% and a 50% chance of 62% = 77%] Even considering the concept that the average drive will be longer due to going for every 4th down conversion....and ignoring any future failed 4th down attempt in the drive......the average drive length needed to be obtained after succeeding on your 4th down conversion would be 40 yards(the length of the punt) plus the extra distance needed(to get to the 62% mark). I have no idea what that extra distance would be so I'm putting a very small(and generous) 10 yards on it. This would bring the average drive needed to 'even up the averages' to be 50 yards. According to this link: http://www.footballo...tats/drivestats ....the NFL average drive appears to be in the low 30s Yards(I'm not going to do the actual math on it.....highest was 40.2 with half the teams being under 30 yards). Clearly punting on every down would not give a statistical advantage as your offense would need to be good enough to average 50+ yards on every drive after you have stalled and attempt to convert your 4th down. Edit: For easy summary.... If you fail on your 4th down conversion you hinder yourself. If you succeed on your 4th down conversion you won't gain any benefit unless you can (on average) move the ball to well past the point of where you would have punted to.

In the video linked by the OP they claimed the average percent was 18% and that they were running at 20%.......lower than your estimate. It's pretty clear that the 'always onside kick concept' wouldn't be statistically beneficial in the NFL.

Thanks