<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0"
xmlns:rawvoice="https://blubrry.com/developer/rawvoice-rss/"

	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Making Quick Reads in Poker Tournaments	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/04/making-quick-reads-in-poker-tournaments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/04/making-quick-reads-in-poker-tournaments/</link>
	<description>Weekly poker podcast hosted by Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis featuring interviews with famous and behind-the-scenes figures from the poker world as well as an in-depth poker strategy segment.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Apr 2010 02:29:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: spritpot		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/04/making-quick-reads-in-poker-tournaments/#comment-915</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[spritpot]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/wordpress/2009/04/making-quick-reads-in-poker-tournaments/#comment-915</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I meant to say too - classifying players into &quot;types&quot; is a kind of version of this, but fairly inefficient in comparison to what I&#039;m suggesting. I think that executing this project correctly would result in at least some surprises that would go against traditional conceptions of player types.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I meant to say too &#8211; classifying players into &#8220;types&#8221; is a kind of version of this, but fairly inefficient in comparison to what I&#8217;m suggesting. I think that executing this project correctly would result in at least some surprises that would go against traditional conceptions of player types.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: spritpot		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/04/making-quick-reads-in-poker-tournaments/#comment-914</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[spritpot]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/wordpress/2009/04/making-quick-reads-in-poker-tournaments/#comment-914</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[lol! Sorry, not trying to be nit-picky - I comment because I think your articles and posts are worth reading carefully, and reading carefully often leads to finding points of discussion. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Nice article - I think one of the next big breakthroughs in poker stats analysis will be analyzing the correlations between different traits, and thereby allowing you to infer much more from small pieces of information. For instance, correlation between cbet% early in the tournament when deep-stacked and steal% from the CO when 10 bbs deep late in the tourney. The same analysis would be useful in cash games, but perhaps a little bit less so because 1) it&#039;s easier to get a bunch of hands, so making the most out of a little information is relatively less useful, and 2) there are fewer situations in cash games, since the structure never changes, so you have less &quot;variables&quot; to estimate, so fewer hands gets you more direct information about the current situation you face compared to a tourney.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;-bruechips]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>lol! Sorry, not trying to be nit-picky &#8211; I comment because I think your articles and posts are worth reading carefully, and reading carefully often leads to finding points of discussion. </p>
<p>Nice article &#8211; I think one of the next big breakthroughs in poker stats analysis will be analyzing the correlations between different traits, and thereby allowing you to infer much more from small pieces of information. For instance, correlation between cbet% early in the tournament when deep-stacked and steal% from the CO when 10 bbs deep late in the tourney. The same analysis would be useful in cash games, but perhaps a little bit less so because 1) it&#8217;s easier to get a bunch of hands, so making the most out of a little information is relatively less useful, and 2) there are fewer situations in cash games, since the structure never changes, so you have less &#8220;variables&#8221; to estimate, so fewer hands gets you more direct information about the current situation you face compared to a tourney.</p>
<p>-bruechips</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
