dogmeat
10-30-2004, 01:35 PM
First, the weekly stuff - WSOP 2005 Quest is 24 weeks from done. $170 a week put into fund. The schedule is out, and I will be playing in events #2 NL $1.5k, #4 Limit HE $1.5k, #7 NL w/rebuy $1k and #8 7-stud $1.5k If my schedule permits, I'll also play in the $2k NL the next day. Then, at the end of the month I'll be on a family vacation at Lake Tahoe for 10-days, and with hope I'll be able to come back for the $10K Supe satellite's on July 6th if I have not won a seat in an online tourny. That's the plan. Hope to see you there.
Now, for the question about whether you are crushing the low limit games yet or not. Firstly, there is a great deal of good information here on the 2+2 forums. When you are reading something from the very smart and successful players like Schneids, Gonnores, Johnnyboomboom, Clarkmeister, Homer, Dynasty, Mason, Ed Miller etc. you will get pretty direct advice. You can trust it. But just because a person has a long post about their play, and has a few hundred posts to their credit, does not mean they always know what they are talking about. Be careful with what/who you read/believe here.
You will read posts from people like Tosh, Joetall, MS Sunshine, and especially Davidross who post their thinking, but still ask if it seems reasonable, and accept others input as possibly being valid. Believe them.
There are others that demand that we cow to their thinking, and these are the scarry ones, because they are not always right. They have their heart in the right place, but often their logic is flawed. Be very careful about these posters.
This group of "demanders" includes David Sklansky. David is without a doubt, the best math poker mind around. He demands that you see things from his point of view - and his view is based on math. And he is the exception to the rule. Believe what David says, but always remember that YOU may not be able to translate his math and decision making to your play. If everybody played the same, a computer (or a brain like David's) could always beat their competition. However, sometimes you need to exploit the way the other players are playing, and this starts with math, but ends with psychology.
Now a reason some of you may still not be crushing the low-limit games is because of your game selection. David (again, and it pisses me off) was way ahead of the curve here, stating 30-years ago that you should find the weakest game around and play in it. This is even more true today with the multi-game ability of the internet.
When you select a game based on pot-size, you are making a mistake if this is the only way you critique a game! If you select a $2/$4 game because it has a $52 pot size, wait on a 5-player list and then get seated, what do you think you will then find? A table full of weak players? Maybe, but probably not.
The game has probably attracted several good players. That pot-size may have already shrunk, and you may be the biggest fish in the game now. If you go into the game thinking you can play an ABC game of poker, you are probably wrong.
Suppose with all that action you figure you can play your pair of pocket three's for a raise in MP, and by the time it gets back to you it was raised again, so you are in for three bets - well, it's an action game, and these guys are gambling. Again, you are probably wrong. You need to play those weak pocket pairs against at least 3 opponents who will go to the river - but you may find that these guys have real hands, like KK, TT and AQ suited. So, should you want to be in there for 3 bets?
NO. Your hand is only going to hold-up 15% of the time, and even if everybody were to go to the river everytime, this had is a big dog. You will be putting in 25% of the money, and only be getting back 15%.
Suppose you get AQo. Do you like it now? NO, you are only going to win 19% of the time. You want to play the AQo heads-up or against two opponents, and you don't want to be stuck playing it for a raise or two where you will almost certainly be dominated by someone with AK.
Make sure you recheck the stats on your game after a few orbits - things change. Know whether you are in a game with loose, passive players (stay forever), or whether those pots are being made by strong, tight-aggressive players (consider leaving). If you stay, adjust your play according to the other players.
If you get to choose your game by the site's listing of % to the flop, understand that you will play considerably differently in a 35% to the flop game than a 65% to the flop game. If you don't understand what hands you want to limp with and play for EV in multi-hand flops, then you really need to read something like 2+2's SSH by Ed Miller.
Anyway, I'm sorry I got long winded, but selecting a game based on pot-size can put you in a game with a bunch of tough, aggressive players, because that is what they do, push their edges with multiple raises. Understand what you are getting into, and don't be afraid to keep looking for better games. When you find that game of mostly passive players with a % to the flop of +50%, understand that your big hands (like AA) against four or five mediocre hands will get beat from 65-75% of the time. You need to protect it with raises early, but be willing to back-off or even fold by the turn because you will be drawing dead. If you can understand this concept and act accordingly, then the fact that they win only 25-35% of the time won't bother you.
Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif
Now, for the question about whether you are crushing the low limit games yet or not. Firstly, there is a great deal of good information here on the 2+2 forums. When you are reading something from the very smart and successful players like Schneids, Gonnores, Johnnyboomboom, Clarkmeister, Homer, Dynasty, Mason, Ed Miller etc. you will get pretty direct advice. You can trust it. But just because a person has a long post about their play, and has a few hundred posts to their credit, does not mean they always know what they are talking about. Be careful with what/who you read/believe here.
You will read posts from people like Tosh, Joetall, MS Sunshine, and especially Davidross who post their thinking, but still ask if it seems reasonable, and accept others input as possibly being valid. Believe them.
There are others that demand that we cow to their thinking, and these are the scarry ones, because they are not always right. They have their heart in the right place, but often their logic is flawed. Be very careful about these posters.
This group of "demanders" includes David Sklansky. David is without a doubt, the best math poker mind around. He demands that you see things from his point of view - and his view is based on math. And he is the exception to the rule. Believe what David says, but always remember that YOU may not be able to translate his math and decision making to your play. If everybody played the same, a computer (or a brain like David's) could always beat their competition. However, sometimes you need to exploit the way the other players are playing, and this starts with math, but ends with psychology.
Now a reason some of you may still not be crushing the low-limit games is because of your game selection. David (again, and it pisses me off) was way ahead of the curve here, stating 30-years ago that you should find the weakest game around and play in it. This is even more true today with the multi-game ability of the internet.
When you select a game based on pot-size, you are making a mistake if this is the only way you critique a game! If you select a $2/$4 game because it has a $52 pot size, wait on a 5-player list and then get seated, what do you think you will then find? A table full of weak players? Maybe, but probably not.
The game has probably attracted several good players. That pot-size may have already shrunk, and you may be the biggest fish in the game now. If you go into the game thinking you can play an ABC game of poker, you are probably wrong.
Suppose with all that action you figure you can play your pair of pocket three's for a raise in MP, and by the time it gets back to you it was raised again, so you are in for three bets - well, it's an action game, and these guys are gambling. Again, you are probably wrong. You need to play those weak pocket pairs against at least 3 opponents who will go to the river - but you may find that these guys have real hands, like KK, TT and AQ suited. So, should you want to be in there for 3 bets?
NO. Your hand is only going to hold-up 15% of the time, and even if everybody were to go to the river everytime, this had is a big dog. You will be putting in 25% of the money, and only be getting back 15%.
Suppose you get AQo. Do you like it now? NO, you are only going to win 19% of the time. You want to play the AQo heads-up or against two opponents, and you don't want to be stuck playing it for a raise or two where you will almost certainly be dominated by someone with AK.
Make sure you recheck the stats on your game after a few orbits - things change. Know whether you are in a game with loose, passive players (stay forever), or whether those pots are being made by strong, tight-aggressive players (consider leaving). If you stay, adjust your play according to the other players.
If you get to choose your game by the site's listing of % to the flop, understand that you will play considerably differently in a 35% to the flop game than a 65% to the flop game. If you don't understand what hands you want to limp with and play for EV in multi-hand flops, then you really need to read something like 2+2's SSH by Ed Miller.
Anyway, I'm sorry I got long winded, but selecting a game based on pot-size can put you in a game with a bunch of tough, aggressive players, because that is what they do, push their edges with multiple raises. Understand what you are getting into, and don't be afraid to keep looking for better games. When you find that game of mostly passive players with a % to the flop of +50%, understand that your big hands (like AA) against four or five mediocre hands will get beat from 65-75% of the time. You need to protect it with raises early, but be willing to back-off or even fold by the turn because you will be drawing dead. If you can understand this concept and act accordingly, then the fact that they win only 25-35% of the time won't bother you.
Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif