Originally Posted by luckychewy
ben, when you say you think people play exploitatively too often i don't see why it's such a stretch to assume tom thought eli was playing such a style in this spot. i understand tom can be playing 'bad' and his opponents worse, yielding him profit. good and bad are only relative terms assigned by us based on our interpretations of them and his opponents are playing worse(he wins from them long term) than him it seems like he's playing 'good' to me. i think your argument is mostly, in terms of optimal play neither of these are acceptable, which i totally understand. i just think it's difficult to apply that high a level of what's right/wrong/good/bad to a situation where we can be relatively certain neither player is even attempting to play in such a way. i suppose i may just be biased by results though and as much as i try to be objective i'm not certain i can be.
maybe i'm in the minority but i don't think you've come off in any way 'poorly' in this thread(as i think the word pompous would indicate). i think it's an awesome trait to be knowledgeable and opinionated and i don't think sharing those opinions should ever make the one sharing them feel any negativity because it's only the interpretation of the opinion by each individual exposed to it which causes an emotional reaction.
Ok, let's take another step back then. Name a reasonable set of conditions such that isolating with T3cc and calling a 3bet and calling two bets and jamming river is maximally exploitative of the table. How will Tom be able to know whether or not a sufficient set of conditions holds at every marginal decision point in the hand (ie the preflop isolation, the call of the 3bet, the turn float and the river bluff)? What is the approximate EV of the marginal decisions if Tom's reads are correct? What is the approximate EV of the decisions if one or more of Tom's reads are incorrect?