ATo in the BB [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

dfscott

03-26-2005, 11:20 PM

I hate getting these marginal hands in the BB.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t30 (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

CO (t1050)
Button (t650)
Hero (t775)
UTG (t975)
UTG+1 (t1225)
MP1 (t1505)
MP2 (t1145)
MP3 (t675)

Preflop: Hero is BB with A/images/graemlins/club.gif, T/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
1 fold, UTG calls t30, 4 folds, Button calls t30, Hero checks.

Flop: (t120) 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif (3 players)
Hero bets t100, UTG folds, Button calls t100.

Top pair, decent kicker. No one raised pre-flop, so I might have the best hand. I considered check-raising all in, but with the flush draw out there, decided instead to just throw out a good-sized bet here and if it's called, I'd be done with the hand.

Turn: (t320) 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)
Hero bets t150, Button raises to t520 (All-in), Hero folds.

For some reason, I convince myself that the 2 couldn't have helped him, so a bet here should take it down. (I guess I forgot the part about being done with the hand.) The all-in convinced me that he was either slow-playing a set, had a 2, or had paired his kicker with a weak ace.

I'm nearly pot-committed here, but I felt like it was early enough that I could fold and still play.

RicP

03-27-2005, 12:51 AM

I would have played it the same way.

I'm interested in how others would have played it.

Irieguy

03-27-2005, 01:15 AM

This hand presents a good opportunity to discuss betting impetus.

Betting impetus is acquired preflop by the last player to raise; or in an unraised pot, by the last player to voluntarily put money into the pot (besides the SB).

Betting impetus is a weapon. In fact, other than hand values, it is the only weapon we have. Furthermore, since everybody, on average, gets the same hand values... betting impetus is the ONLY weapon anybody truly has. It's what poker is all about.

But betting impetus is a dangerous weapon. In unskilled hands it will more often harm the possessor than help him. Poker decisions are all about figuring out whether betting impetus should be acquired or surrendered. So let's look at this hand as an example:

The button is the last player to VP$IP, so he sees the flop with betting impetus. You flop TPGK, out-of-position, in an unraised 3-handed pot. You rate to be ahead.

So, if you rate to be ahead under these circumstances; where would you prefer that the betting impetus lie? Do you want it? Why? If you assume betting impetus and lead at this flop, you will become very vulnerable to a player that decides to re-acquire betting impetus with a raise. It is much more difficult to play a poker hand when impetus shifts several times within the hand than it is to play a hand where one player maintains the impetus throughout. Would you prefer that this hand play easily, or are you prepared to play a difficult hand?

You should allow the button to maintain betting impetus on the flop. If somebody bets, you can decide whether or not you should value call or capture the impetus with a raise.

But, you didn't do this. You decided to capture betting impetus on the flop, and you were called.

Then the turn comes an innocuous card. The problem is that you are stuck with a dangerous weapon in your lap and you don't know what to do with it. I'd surrender it. Let your opponent shoot himself with it... or at least allow him to show you whether or not he's serious about trying to shoot you.

But you didn't do this either. Now, your opponent decides that the hand will end with betting impetus in his possession. Now you only have 2 choices, call or fold.

You made the wrong choice.

Imagine how much easier your decisions would have been if you checked the flop.

Irieguy

dfscott

03-27-2005, 01:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine how much easier your decisions would have been if you checked the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the part that confuses me. Is it easier because I can fold? Let's look at a few situations that might've happened if I had checked the flop.

1) Button checks. Assuming a blank comes on the turn, I bet now, correct? If a spade comes, I check/fold?

2) Button bets a pot-sized bet. Now I have to decide if my kicker is good.

3) Button makes a smaller bet, looking like a probe bet or a trapping bet. Now what?

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't seem that much clearer to me when I check.

microbet

03-27-2005, 02:10 AM

subtitle - Did I do this right?

(I guess the hand converter doesn't like the hard drive HHs - I have some manual repairs but it might not be perfect)

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (7 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

MP2 (t2100)
CO (t1440)
Button (t970)
Hero (t580)
BB (t985)
UTG (t1695)
MP1 (t230)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gif.
UTG calls t50, 2 folds, CO calls t50, 1 fold, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: (t200) 8/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif (4 players)

Hero just read about 'betting impedus' and sees that eventhough CO didn't raise, he has 'betting impedus' and decides to let him keep it.

Hero checks, BB checks, UTG checks, CO bets t150

perfect, everyone checks to CO, who bets again

HERO PUSHES, BB folds, UTG folds, CO calls t380.

Turn: (t730) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)

River: (t730) 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 players)

Final Pot: t730

curtains

03-27-2005, 02:27 AM

Microbet I would bet at this pot on the flop. One key difference between this hand and the previous hand is that free cards can be killer for you here. Meanwhile you are likely to have the best hand, and the chips in the pot represent over one third of your current stack.

If the flop is checked around it could be disastrous for you here, however when you have AT and the flop is A62, it's not as big of a deal.

This isn't to say that checking is terrible, but the two hands are very different situations, and I would lean towards betting with the A8o.

Umass1985

03-27-2005, 02:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This hand presents a good opportunity to discuss betting impetus.

Betting impetus is acquired preflop by the last player to raise; or in an unraised pot, by the last player to voluntarily put money into the pot (besides the SB).

Betting impetus is a weapon. In fact, other than hand values, it is the only weapon we have. Furthermore, since everybody, on average, gets the same hand values... betting impetus is the ONLY weapon anybody truly has. It's what poker is all about.

But betting impetus is a dangerous weapon. In unskilled hands it will more often harm the possessor than help him. Poker decisions are all about figuring out whether betting impetus should be acquired or surrendered. So let's look at this hand as an example:

The button is the last player to VP$IP, so he sees the flop with betting impetus. You flop TPGK, out-of-position, in an unraised 3-handed pot. You rate to be ahead.

So, if you rate to be ahead under these circumstances; where would you prefer that the betting impetus lie? Do you want it? Why? If you assume betting impetus and lead at this flop, you will become very vulnerable to a player that decides to re-acquire betting impetus with a raise. It is much more difficult to play a poker hand when impetus shifts several times within the hand than it is to play a hand where one player maintains the impetus throughout. Would you prefer that this hand play easily, or are you prepared to play a difficult hand?

You should allow the button to maintain betting impetus on the flop. If somebody bets, you can decide whether or not you should value call or capture the impetus with a raise.

But, you didn't do this. You decided to capture betting impetus on the flop, and you were called.

Then the turn comes an innocuous card. The problem is that you are stuck with a dangerous weapon in your lap and you don't know what to do with it. I'd surrender it. Let your opponent shoot himself with it... or at least allow him to show you whether or not he's serious about trying to shoot you.

But you didn't do this either. Now, your opponent decides that the hand will end with betting impetus in his possession. Now you only have 2 choices, call or fold.

You made the wrong choice.

Imagine how much easier your decisions would have been if you checked the flop.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]Intresting post, but I don't see the point in giving your opponent a free card if he just checks.

curtains

03-27-2005, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]

1) Button checks. Assuming a blank comes on the turn, I bet now, correct? If a spade comes, I check/fold?

2) Button bets a pot-sized bet. Now I have to decide if my kicker is good.

3) Button makes a smaller bet, looking like a probe bet or a trapping bet. Now what?

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't seem that much clearer to me when I check.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I often bet the flop here, because to me it makes decisions easier for the rest of the hand, however there is obviously merit to checking instead.

dfscott, one comment you made was way off however.

In point 1 you say - If it's checked around, I bet the pot if a blank comes, and I check/fold if it's a spade. I see this kind of scared thinking a lot, and it's really a major misunderstanding. Your opponents are very unlikely to have a flush draw on this flop, especially since it was checked around. I'd say the chance that someone makes a flush if a spade comes is under 10% (Maybe this is a bad estimate, but it should be close to this number)

It's very important not to be scared of every scare card. There is simply no reason that a spade should help your opponents. It may often give them a one card spade draw to a flush, but very rarely will it make one of them a flush, so to check/fold in this scenario is very weak and passive play.

faquewdikhed

03-27-2005, 02:31 AM

This is the part that confuses me. Is it easier because I can fold? Let's look at a few situations that might've happened if I had checked the flop.

1) Button checks. Assuming a blank comes on the turn, I bet now, correct? If a spade comes, I check/fold?

2) Button bets a pot-sized bet. Now I have to decide if my kicker is good.

3) Button makes a smaller bet, looking like a probe bet or a trapping bet. Now what?

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't seem that much clearer to me when I check.

I'm ready to get flamed to death here, but how else am I going to learn?

1.) If a blank comes, I bet. If a spade comes, and villain makes a non-all-in bet, I semi-bluff check-raise trying to represent the flush.

2.) If I have any sort of read, I try and use it. If not, I really don't know what to do.

3.) Push

microbet

03-27-2005, 02:34 AM

Yeah, my standard policy has been to always bet this, for the reasons you mentioned. But, I just thought, CO had the impetus, and hoped, and maybe just got lucky, that CO would bet with virtually nothing.

RicP

03-27-2005, 02:44 AM

Wouldn't another difference be that you are comparing

TPGK with TPTK?

I agree I would keep my fire superiority (betting impetus) here... but then again I keep it w/ TPGK (apparently incorrectly).

faquewdikhed

03-27-2005, 02:48 AM

Anybody raise preflop here? If villain comes over the top(you fold) or calls, it makes your postflop decision much easier.

curtains

03-27-2005, 02:48 AM

I'm sorry RicP, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. Instead of saying how you'll keep your betting impetus, just say whether you'd bet or check or whatever, the new terminology that gets coined daily on 2+2 can sometimes confuse me.

curtains

03-27-2005, 02:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody raise preflop here? If villain comes over the top(you fold) or calls, it makes your postflop decision much easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to raise ATo from the blind against an UTG limper and another limper.

RicP

03-27-2005, 02:57 AM

Sorry I was referring to your response to microbets hand.

[ QUOTE ]

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (7 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

MP2 (t2100)
CO (t1440)
Button (t970)
Hero (t580)
BB (t985)
UTG (t1695)
MP1 (t230)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gif.
UTG calls t50, 2 folds, CO calls t50, 1 fold, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: (t200) 8/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif (4 players)

Hero just read about 'betting impedus' and sees that eventhough CO didn't raise, he has 'betting impedus' and decides to let him keep it.

Hero checks, BB checks, UTG checks, CO bets t150

perfect, everyone checks to CO, who bets again

HERO PUSHES, BB folds, UTG folds, CO calls t380.

Turn: (t730) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)

River: (t730) 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 players)

Final Pot: t730

[/ QUOTE ]

You said you where inclined to bet here but not necessarily on the hand posted by the OP. My question to you is if the difference between TPTK and TPGK along with stack size affects your decision.

curtains

03-27-2005, 02:58 AM

Well I would usually bet both times. However I'd be more likely to bet with the A8, because a free card is disastrous. Any K-9 could kill your hand.

With AT on an A62 board against two opponents, there are very few free cards that will kill your hand, so this is one reason why checking is more appealing there, however I still usually bet.

RicP

03-27-2005, 03:01 AM

Well now that I think about it for a second of course it would.

faquewdikhed

03-27-2005, 03:02 AM

If you bet this, how much do you bet?? 3/4 Pot size? You want villain to fold, but how much of your folding equity do you give up in this spot if Villain decides to come over the top?

curtains

03-27-2005, 03:04 AM

I bet about 2/3-3/4 of the pot here. This is the kind of flop where people will usually just fold if they don't have anything, thus a pot sized bet I find to be a tad unneccessary.

faquewdikhed

03-27-2005, 03:06 AM

So if Villain comes over the top, you are folding, no?

I'm not sure what buy-in this is, but at the 12/1's where I play, coming over the top when there is an A on the board, and no preflop raises will *usually* take down the pot.

curtains

03-27-2005, 03:09 AM

I would often fold, but I'm sure I've been giving away all my money to sheisty players that move allin on any unraised pot that flops ace high.

faquewdikhed

03-27-2005, 03:11 AM

I don't disagree with the fold... It's a very tough call to make, and very read-dependent.

Find a better spot later, right?

lastchance

03-27-2005, 03:13 AM

You know what, this is the point where SS poker postflop is real different of big stack poker. Getting called on the flop makes your decision harder, not easier. Information is useful, but you want to bet at pots where you can drop it right after you call. I don't think that's the case here with TPGK.

I think I'm going for the check-raise all-in. There aren't enough scare cards out there for checking around to be disastrous, and your stack size is at the point where CRing all-in is best.

microbet

03-27-2005, 03:13 AM

Ok, well, I should add that in this case the table, and CO in particular, were aggressive as hell. Perhaps it wouldn't have mattered and if I had made a standard 2/3 pot or so bet he would have reraised and I would have called.

Anyhow, it is something else to think about and I'm sure I have bet at a pot and taken it down plenty of times when I might have really scored with a check/raise.

It doesn't sound like there is anything new here, but I wouldn't have thought of the CO as having any special impetus to bet the flop, just because he was the last to make a full bet preflop. But from his point of view, he made the strongest move preflop, and had incentive to make what was essentially a continuation bet, eventhough he hadn't raised.

Irie, it's your concept, do you think it was +$EV, or was I just lucky it didn't check around? Or are you still sore about that crack I made about Heinekin?

Scuba Chuck

03-27-2005, 03:19 AM

Hey Irieguy, will you turn your avatar on, so I can watch them towel dry their balls while I read your awesome posts? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

eastbay

03-27-2005, 03:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I see this kind of scared thinking a lot, and it's really a major misunderstanding. Your opponents are very unlikely to have a flush draw on this flop, especially since it was checked around. I'd say the chance that someone makes a flush if a spade comes is under 10% (Maybe this is a bad estimate, but it should be close to this number)

It's very important not to be scared of every scare card.

[/ QUOTE ]

A strong second to this concept.

eastbay

dfscott

03-27-2005, 03:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
dfscott, one comment you made was way off however.

In point 1 you say - If it's checked around, I bet the pot if a blank comes, and I check/fold if it's a spade. I see this kind of scared thinking a lot, and it's really a major misunderstanding. Your opponents are very unlikely to have a flush draw on this flop, especially since it was checked around. I'd say the chance that someone makes a flush if a spade comes is under 10% (Maybe this is a bad estimate, but it should be close to this number)

It's very important not to be scared of every scare card. There is simply no reason that a spade should help your opponents. It may often give them a one card spade draw to a flush, but very rarely will it make one of them a flush, so to check/fold in this scenario is very weak and passive play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is one place where my limit experience actually hurts me. Limping suited aces is SOP at limit (and it took me a while to stop doing it at NL), since people have only a certain amount of control in how expensive your draws can be, and implicit collusion with the fish makes it even more profitable to play them. As a result, you always have to be aware -- anyone smooth calling is likely on some sort of draw, and a flush draw is the most likely from a good player.

I'll stop being so jumpy about the flushes.

Jason Strasser

03-27-2005, 07:16 AM

Dfscott good job picking a good hand.

For me, I think that you can make good arguments (as seen in this thread) for both checking and betting the flop, but that the positives of checking the flop far outway the positives of betting the flop.

First of all, when its my turn to act on the flop, one of the last things in my head is the damn flush draw. I'm in no way concerned with pricing anyone out with the flush draw, and I dont care if someone is drawing to a flush. At this point, I have a decent hand, but one I can definitely lay down, and only want to play when I feel like Im ahead.

If I bet, and a flush draw raises me, I'm helpless. The reason is that a flop with a flush draw generally encourages people to raise their made hands 'in fear' of the flush or whatever. So if an aggressive player raises my flop bet, I'm probably going to fold because I can only beat a flush draw, and on the flop im not that far ahead of a flush draw.

Secondly, if I check, I will have much more information before I put more money in the pot (or choose to fold). It is miserable betting at this flop and then getting called, because your turn play becomes extremely difficult regardless of the card.

It seems best to check/call the flop, and go from there. If it checks around, who cares? If a flush draw in position bets the flop, who cares? Sure he will likely see a free river card, but again, who cares? You can still check/call the river and watch many flush draws flail at the river and have plenty of equity. I love putting players in spots where they feel forced to bluff. IE, check a hand to a player who you think may be on a draw that missed. It's a great spot.

In general, I tend to play hands like this very passively. More aggression means more money put in the pot without an idea if you are ahead, and it also means you will scare off many hands you are ahead of. If you get outdrawn, you get outdrawn, its part of the problem with paying the hand passively. But betting and getting raised by a bluff/flush draw and having to fold, or betting, getting called, and checking the turn very confused is much worse IMO then checking the flop.

The key idea with this hand and with marginal hands in general, is that the value of them largely comes from other players who are bluffing. You arent going to get into many best hand vs second best hand situations with ATo like here (IE win big pots off of A9). So you want to get people bluffing, and you want to get to showdown. In that sense, IMO, AT has a lot more value on a flop like this with draws abound, then it would have say on a board like A22 rainbow. Sure your hand is 'better' on a board like that, but it has much move value on a draw filled flop because you will definitely be able to get money in as a favorite.

Betting out at the flop is better for hands like total bluffs or huge hands (where checking is not good for your reverse implied odds). If you are against many regulars, you can keep them off balanced by leading at flops with a combinations of bluffs and monsters, you wont need to mix in marginal hands like this. Im not sure if any of that comes into play at a 10 dolla sng, but its something to think about.

Jason

dfscott

03-27-2005, 04:40 PM

Jason, I like this line, however I'm not sure how you decide when to call and when to fold. If you check the flop and he goes all in, you gotta release this, right? OTOH, a 1/3 pot bet on the flop seems like an easy call.

It's the in-betweens that are tricky. Let's say he bets 3/4 pot on the flop. Now what?

If he puts in a small flop bet, but then a larger turn bet, continue to call? I know it has a lot to do with reads and chip stack, but I'm just trying to figure out what parameters to use.

eastbay

03-27-2005, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The key idea with this hand and with marginal hands in general, is that the value of them largely comes from other players who are bluffing. You arent going to get into many best hand vs second best hand situations with ATo like here (IE win big pots off of A9). So you want to get people bluffing

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice insight, Jason. I agree with it and see it as an important concept in this hand. I think it may also be another way of expressing Irieguy's "betting impetus" idea.

eastbay

Costanza

03-27-2005, 06:35 PM

This thread reminds me of this thread. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=1462692 &fpart=&PHPSESSID=)

mcpherzen

03-27-2005, 06:40 PM

Irie's post is right on the money here and Strassa's elaborates perfectly. I really wish you two would ZIP-IT sometimes.

Curtains and I seem to disagree on everything, so it definitely doesn't surprise me you bet this flop here much of the time, which, IMO, is a terrible play for all of what Jason just wrote about.

Look, your typical on-line low-level-SNG monkey opponent is WAY TOO AGGRESSIVE, almost all the time (and ironically, only until he gets in to heads-up play, when he doesn't play nearly as aggressively as he should). He's generally new to the game, and he's read or heard somewhere that you need to be "tight and aggressive" to win. He also watches a decent amount of WPT poker on TV, which is correctly played by very good players at a very aggressive pace, and is also edited for TV to appear even more aggressive than it really is. So, all new players are going to go way overboard on the whole aggression thing, and as a good player, you need to make them pay for that. Check to the monkeys and let them come to the banana. And they will. Over and over, in fact.

dfscott, I love your questions here (what bets do you fear and what bets do you like?) because I had the exact same ones not very long ago myself. The key here is pattern recognition, because most average players at these levels make the exact same bet amounts, based on what they have, every single time. I'm not saying that each opponent plays in the same manner when it's his decision to make, I'm saying that ALL opponents play in much the same manner. Learn what that manner is and you can then make the same decision in response every single time, regardless of the particular opponent. You're right most of the time, and you're wrong occassionally, and at the end of the month, you're way ahead for it. I'll let you do the discovery here, but I can tell you that if anyone goes all-in when I check this flop to them in a $11 or $22 SNG, I'll beat them to the pot with my call (when was the last time you saw A-Q play a hand this way???). The key to learning all these betting patterns over time is watching a whole bunch of hand histories in the Freeshell replayer (http://teamfu.freeshell.org/replayer.html).

Nice thread, all.

--Zen

Jason Strasser

03-27-2005, 06:50 PM

Im more scared here of a small bet than an all in bet.

I do not usually equate bet amount with strength. In fact, often there is sometimes an inverse relationship here. Your thinking needs to be re-examined. Try to put people on hands or types of hands instead of evaluating bet amount. Good players will crush you and manipulate you with that thinking.

microbet

03-27-2005, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Curtains and I seem to disagree on everything

[/ QUOTE ]

This scares me, because I almost always agree with Curtains.

lastchance

03-27-2005, 07:00 PM

What limit is this at? I believe at the Party lower-limits, people will call with a whole bunch of second best hands (tens, ace lower kicker, flush draw), which negates a lot of Jasonstrassa's very good commentary. And people are somewhat passive at lower limits too.

curtains

03-27-2005, 07:04 PM

Check to the monkeys and watch them come for the banana? Why do so many people on here make such long posts where they manage to say almost nothing while doing so?

I understand very well the benefits of checking, and I think it's fine, however I just prefer to bet these flops a good percentage of the time. Also I disagree that the typical Low limit player is much too aggressive, I actually find that they are the opposite and that higher limit players are much more aggressive on average. It's much more likely that the last player to act preflop will bet this more often in a higher limit game than in a $20 sit and go. This is not an opinion either, this is simply a fact.

Also, if we are palying games in which image is important (Of course it isn't important in low limit sit and go's), it becomes important to bet with real hands here, as this is a perfect flop to steal on, and you will surely want to do so every now and then with any 2 cards. Thus it's important for your opponent's to know that there is a decent chance you will actually have something when you bet out here.

Poker is not so simple and easy as you make it sound, and betting is definitely not a TERRIBLE play here.

Irieguy

03-27-2005, 07:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This thread reminds me of this thread. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=1462692 &fpart=&PHPSESSID=)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there was some good discussion in that thread, too. I would argue that if you read and understand everything that everybody says in these two threads, you will learn more about SNG poker than you would if you read every book ever written on poker theory and tactics.

It's the point-counterpoint nature of these gem-threads that really helps us develop our poker intellect.

It's too bad you have to read 300 Is my 40% ROI sustainable?, and Should I fold the nuts?, threads for every one of these...

Irieguy

pooh74

03-27-2005, 07:33 PM

Irieguy

03-27-2005, 07:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also I disagree that the typical Low limit player is much too aggressive, I actually find that they are the opposite and that higher limit players are much more aggressive on average. It's much more likely that the last player to act preflop will bet this more often in a higher limit game than in a $20 sit and go. This is not an opinion either, this is simply a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you played a lot of low-limit SNGs, Curtains? Mcpherzen has played over 2000 in the past few months. He has a very good understanding of how these players play and where they tend to make errors.

I find it fascinating that you two disagree so much, because apparently you are both killing the games. I always assumed it was because you were comparing apples to oranges (higher buy-in vs. lower buy-in), but maybe you've played thousands of low limit SNGs, too. If that's true, then the counterpoints become even more interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is not so simple and easy as you make it sound, and betting is definitely not a TERRIBLE play here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suspect that most people reading this thread do not find the concepts simple and easy. I don't.

Irieguy

curtains

03-27-2005, 08:06 PM

I play plenty of low limit sit and go's. I teach a lot of people to play, and constantly am watching them play in $5-$30 sit and gos. I've analyzed every single sit and go my sister has played as well.

Also I'm playing a lot of them now while learning to 8 table. I should be playing them for a while too, as I have some long convoluted system created that tells me when to 8 table higher limit games instead of the low ones, however if I revealed the precise details of this, everyone would think I was insane. But I have played over 200 $20s and $30s in the past week.

Also I am not arguing whether checking is correct or betting is correct. I think they are pretty situationally dependant, and I think it's very hard to say that either of these plays is TERRIBLE.

Also I would be more likely to check in a multi table tournament.