Tommy Says...

I wrote: 2-4 players see the flop, raised pre-flop 90% of the time. ...some are too loose in calling raises or reraising (with AJo etc) preflop.


Tommy wrote: In a game that's this tight, with 90% preflop raising, AJ is often a good reraising hand, IMO.


I will agree with this if the cutoff open raises and you are on the button or in the SB or if you are in the SB and the button open raises. However, I've always had the impression that reraising or cold calling an early or middle position raiser with AJo (or even AJs for that matter) in a tight aggressive game was just a money looser.


I would love to hear people's comments on 3-betting an early or middle position raiser with AJo in a tight aggressive game. Maybe making this laydown is a leak in my game.


Rob

it should be a muck to an early to middle position raiser if his raises are generally solid. middle position raise with AJs is just enough to 3 bet. if the player is very solid i will also muck this!

Rob,


I saw that comment of Tommy's in response to a post of yours, and I wouldn't be surprised if Tommy was being a little hyperbolic. My approach to AJo in a raised pot is much more similar to yours. Namely, I'm going to 3-bet any late position open raiser (unless I'm in the BB or there is a cold caller) and I'm going to fold to any "legitimate" raiser (practically any early position raiser, practially any mid-position raiser after EP limper(s), and some but not all mid-position open raisers depending on their opening standards--and i'll 3-bet those guys if their opening stadards are loose enough for me want to play my AJo at all. Actually, maybe Tommy didn't mispeak. He did say to call a UTG raise with 99 next to act, which I personally think is a real $ loser. While I really enjoy Tommy's posts and think that he is probably a truly amazing card reader, I must say that I disagree with some of his approach to preflop hand selection.


-Dan

"I wouldn't be surprised if Tommy was being a little hyperbolic."


I just learned something, shared here NOT to correct you, but just in case you're into this stuff. I looked up "hyperbolic," and it's "correct" usage refers only to the geometric "hyperbola." The adjective referring to an "exaggerated statement that is not meant to be taken literally" comes from the word of that meaning, "hyperbole," and is, "hyperbolical."


My point about the 90% raised-pot tight game was that because the struggle for the blinds is intense, it means that many of the raises are made with marginal hands, meaning that, by and large, AJ can be a reasonably playable lie at times when it seems like it shouldn't be.


"Actually, maybe Tommy didn't mispeak. He did say to call a UTG raise with 99 next to act,..."


Whoa nelly! I said I would call only if I could nearly count on a snow-ball effect of multiple callers behind.


"I must say that I disagree with some of his approach to preflop hand selection."


I'm glad you put the word "approach" in there, because if I stray from standard teaching, it's in the weighting I assign to the various reasons for entering or not entering a pot. An oversimplification would be to say that I think situation first and cards second. Instead of thinking, "Here's a starting hand. When should I play it?" I think, "Here's a situation, what hands are playable?"


In evaluating the situation, I seem to place more emphasis on position and opponents than most players do. For what it's worth, I probably fold AJ before the flop more than anyone else here. That's because, again oversimplifying, when I'm first to open with many players left to act, it's a bad position, and I don't know who is going to be in the pot. I'm actually MORE likely to play AJ when someone else raised first, if it's a player I like playing against, because I can often earn position and momentum with a three-bet.


Tommy

I stand corrected on multiple counts:


Count 1) Use of the word "hyperbolic." I don't have a dictionary in front of me, so I'll take your word for it.


Count 2) Misreading what you said about 99. I only vaguely recall the post. I too am a big fan of making calls up front when I think I can induce a snowball effect behing.


I agree that you value position relatively more than most posters on this forum and card value relatively less in making your preflop hand selection decisions. I have one point to make about this...


You and I can both be right! Here's how... Let's say the following is true. You are a great hand reader and are thus better able to use a positional advantage than I (and perhaps many other posters). Therefore, it is correct that you value position relatively more (and thus card value necessarily relatively less) in making preflop decision than I. In more intuitive terms, both of our starting hand decisions can be correct if they cosign (just thought I'd throw some more math made English terms in this thread to see if it passes the Angelo acid test!) our post-flop playing strenghts.


-Dan


P.S. Needless to say, no disrespect was intended in my original post, as I find your posts to be among the most thought-provoking on the forum. That's not to say that I agree with everything... /images/smile.gif

reminds me of a guy I know who says "I don't play the cards, I play the player" --he has a very good track record $$$

Daniel,


"I agree that you value position relatively more than most posters on this forum and card value relatively less in making your preflop hand selection decisions. I have one point to make about this...


You and I can both be right! Here's how... Let's say the following is true. You are a great hand reader and are thus better able to use a positional advantage than I (and perhaps many other posters). Therefore, it is correct that you value position relatively more (and thus card value necessarily relatively less) in making preflop decision than I."


I'll agree that we could both win, but as to "right," well, your reasoning doesn't quite float. If I was such a great hand reader, then wouldn't it behoove me to play the hands that most everyone else plays from the blinds? Hands that have been supported at length by authorities as playable, based primarily on the cards alone with a smidge of situation thrown in?


One of the many reasons I play so few hands out of position is because I can't read hands very well from up front. So it all kinda fits together.


As to hand reading in general, I don't think I'm that much better than anyone else who has played a lot of hours and pays attention. I misread what seems like thousands of situations per year, and that's not counting the ones I don't even see. Wow, we make so many decisions, there's bound to be a whole bunch of bad ones, especially since so many players are capable of playing well on any given day.


Maybe the difference between "good" and "bad" hand readers (among serious students) is a small percentage of actual accuracy of reads over all. And maybe a small difference makes a big difference.


".. both of our starting hand decisions can be correct if they cosign ..."


I've had times when I wanted to take out a loan on a hand. Is that what you're talking about? :-)


Tommy