[scrawnybob]

hi

ok so bear with me - as I'm not quite sober - so therefore as a responsible webmaster should therefore leave posting until the morning

but this is an interesting thread and I've had a nice night and it seems a shame to not post something I would probably want to delete in the morning

GT etc will probably put you right on you maths - I'm guessing its all correct

but the thing is ... IMHO this ... if everyone plays by perfect numbers / stats etc poker is a net equal game

ie. over a decent amount of hands ... say 100,000 you, me, the dog and old tom cobbly an all will get a similar if not identical number of good, bad and indifferent hands ...

and I'm not totally talking out my a** (skylansky said simthing about this too)

therefore if everyone played either text book poker or strictly speaking played face up poker then no one would win or lose

therefore the skill ... and profit is not in being able to play text book (in effect breakeven) poker but in being able to play better than textbook poker ... exploiting the less than perfect play of "perfectionists" whilst also exploiting the less than skill play of " gamblers"

the margin of profit is in the skilled imaginative yet not stupid poker player who can figure out who is what at the table and play accordingly ... optimal poker playing is NOT playing perfect text book poker but knowing who to play and how to extract the extra margin over being able to play as if the cards were turned over

probably makes no sense - so will look over this again in the morning

anyway this could be useful or could be worthless - its the approach I take pi**ed or sober

happy brithday to the missus

cheers scrawnybob

ps. short answer it doesnt suprise me if the maths says an ultra tight group 1 only approach will not net a net profit ... thats why poker is such an absorbing game ... there is not hand in hand out magic fromula ... "it depends" is the bottom line of poker and you have to love it for that