Not many TP posts

[Supern]

Guys it would be nice to see a some TP hands posted.
Every post seem to be about pocket pairs.

I am planning on playing 6max NL so top pair will be the main concern.

[Maulik]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys it would be nice to see a some TP hands posted.
Every post seem to be about pocket pairs.

I am planning on playing 6max NL so middle pair will be the main concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Ghazban]

Post some hands where you had TP and didn't like your line (because you lost too much or didn't win enough or folded when maybe you shouldn't have or whatever).

[Supern]

Hehe. True.

[TheWorstPlayer]

TP is the hardest hand to play in NL. It is also the easiest hand to play in SSNL. That's because you just bet the pot on the flop, 2/3 pot on the turn, and half pot on the river. You fold to any raise. There, have fun!

[Supern]

[ QUOTE ]
Just bet the pot on the flop, 2/3 pot on the turn, and half pot on the river. You fold to any raise

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you do this OOP as well?
Seems a bit too simplistic this approach.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you do this OOP as well?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes
[ QUOTE ]

Seems a bit too simplistic this approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes

[Ghazban]

At small stakes, simplistic (aka ABC poker) is profitable. Its not always optimal but the gray areas are situation-specific. TWP's line is a good default to take against an unknown in these games.

[Go_Blue88]

[ QUOTE ]
At small stakes, simplistic (aka ABC poker) is profitable. Its not always optimal but the gray areas are situation-specific. TWP's line is a good default to take against an unknown in these games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't play with a formula...there is no "good default line" in my opinion. You'll never improve if you do this.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At small stakes, simplistic (aka ABC poker) is profitable. Its not always optimal but the gray areas are situation-specific. TWP's line is a good default to take against an unknown in these games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't play with a formula...there is no "good default line" in my opinion. You'll never improve if you do this.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just not true. Your opponents are formulaic and predictable. So you should find the formula which is counter to theirs and use it. Once your opponents stop being predictable, you will have to stop being predictable, too. That point has not yet been reached by me. Except in my brutal live game, I guess. Freaking least profitable SSNL game ever. Bah.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At small stakes, simplistic (aka ABC poker) is profitable. Its not always optimal but the gray areas are situation-specific. TWP's line is a good default to take against an unknown in these games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't play with a formula...there is no "good default line" in my opinion. You'll never improve if you do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Standard lines give you a good place to start for a given hand. Knowing when to deviate from the standard play (and in what way to change the play) is what separates great players from good ones. Obviously, nobody will improve taking the exact same line with a given hand every time but knowing what the standard is and correctly identifying when to play differently is an excellent way to improve.

[Go_Blue88]

Before I respond to you guys, I want to make sure that I'm clear on something. Are you saying that you think that this "formula" is a good idea for unknown opponents, or for most opponents?

[gulebjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I respond to you guys, I want to make sure that I'm clear on something. Are you saying that you think that this "formula" is a good idea for unknown opponents, or for most opponents?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I respond to you guys, I want to make sure that I'm clear on something. Are you saying that you think that this "formula" is a good idea for unknown opponents, or for most opponents?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that for most opponents up to and including NL100 6-max that this line is not far from optimal. Obviously I will play it differently once I have seen people's betting patterns and get reads that they may be raising draws or that they will always fire the turn when checked to or that they will fold a worse hand if I fire a second barrel or if the flop is particularly scary or if a scare card hits the turn or . . . I think you get the point. I'm just saying that if you sit down at a table and get TPTK first hand and take this line you will be fine. Not that I, or anyone, should take this line every time. It's my default line, however. The bet sizes I might vary and the turn play I might vary even against unknowns but the folding to a raise I will never vary against a complete unknown.

[Go_Blue88]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Before I respond to you guys, I want to make sure that I'm clear on something. Are you saying that you think that this "formula" is a good idea for unknown opponents, or for most opponents?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that for most opponents up to and including NL100 6-max that this line is not far from optimal. Obviously I will play it differently once I have seen people's betting patterns and get reads that they may be raising draws or that they will always fire the turn when checked to or that they will fold a worse hand if I fire a second barrel or if the flop is particularly scary or if a scare card hits the turn or . . . I think you get the point. I'm just saying that if you sit down at a table and get TPTK first hand and take this line you will be fine. Not that I, or anyone, should take this line every time. It's my default line, however. The bet sizes I might vary and the turn play I might vary even against unknowns but the folding to a raise I will never vary against a complete unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if you're playing against a complete unknown then this formula is understandable (assuming TPTK). However, after you've sat at a table for a while, you should realize certain people's betting patterns, and then (obviously) no formula exists; everything becomes read dependent. So many players online up until and including NL200 play "abc poker," and these players are incredibly predictable. I write notes on them that says "abc standard player" (this generally constitutes three of the five other players), and they are so easy to manipulate/beat. I think that if you're first starting NL holdem, then playing "abc poker," is a good idea b/c you gotta learn the basics. But, if you have a lot of experience playing, in the long run I think that you'll make so much more if you differ your playing style. You'll make mistakes, misread people, etc, but your instincts will get better and better. This is just my opinion and at least true for me...

[TheWorstPlayer]

If you are writing "abc standard" on 3 of 5 players, I think you have bad table selection. I'm writing "overplays TPWK", "CS", "Maniac", etc. on at least 50% of people at a decent table.

[Go_Blue88]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are writing "abc standard" on 3 of 5 players, I think you have bad table selection. I'm writing "overplays TPWK", "CS", "Maniac", etc. on at least 50% of people at a decent table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I write notes like that too, but why is it bad to play against abc players? You pretty much always know what they have and when you're behind, and a lot of these players eventually get frustrated and don't lay down TPTK (ie AK top pair A) or a low 2 pair. I know that everyone is going to disagree with me on this, but in my experiece at NL100, you can rarely have bad table selection.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I know that everyone is going to disagree with me on this, but in my experiece at NL100, you can rarely have bad table selection.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, there's 'good' and then there's 'great'. And I actually left two tables yesterday which is the first time I've left a table in a long time. I actually saw tables with 25% VPIP. Yuck.

[Supern]

Do you play like this with TPTK only?
Or do you bet this hard with TPGK as well?

For example: KJ on a flop J84 rainbow.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Same way with TPGK. And I won't really play anything that makes hands worse than TPGK.