12-07-2005, 12:41 AM
Sorry if the answer to this is exteremly obvious or known by all. I play mostly small stakes limit, but have been trying to get into NL as of late. I would guess that it's more profitable, I just find in boring by comparision (but that's another debate).
Anyway, I was talking to a friend of mine who does quite well for himself playing primarily 400NL and 600NL. He's very rock like but a winning player, although I imagine he wins at a less than an optimum rate. fwiw, I usually play 100NL and as of now am not interested in playing higher. Here's what he says that I found interesting: when you put the first raise in preflop it's always the same amount, whether you're raising aces or stealing blinds etc. And if it's checked to you on the flop you bet 2/3 of the pot everytime. His claim was this makes you tough to read and forces your oppoent to put in a decent amount of money if they're going to jerk you around or find out where they're at. It made sense at first, but I'm now questioning it. Is this idea standard or strange?
Anyway, I was talking to a friend of mine who does quite well for himself playing primarily 400NL and 600NL. He's very rock like but a winning player, although I imagine he wins at a less than an optimum rate. fwiw, I usually play 100NL and as of now am not interested in playing higher. Here's what he says that I found interesting: when you put the first raise in preflop it's always the same amount, whether you're raising aces or stealing blinds etc. And if it's checked to you on the flop you bet 2/3 of the pot everytime. His claim was this makes you tough to read and forces your oppoent to put in a decent amount of money if they're going to jerk you around or find out where they're at. It made sense at first, but I'm now questioning it. Is this idea standard or strange?