Two Plus Two table...vote needed...

[Mike Gallo]

Hi everyone,


It appears my experiment has failed. I thought we would get enough players who would take this gathering more serious. I started discussing this with Gonores last night at the table, however he had to leave and I neglected to pm him.

I would like to put it to a vote.




Any posters who would like to play every Tuesday night from 6:30-? whenever send me a pm. I will send the password. You can also pm Gonores. If you cannot bring your personal A game, do not come.

If anyone thinks I took one too many hits from the bong for posting I apologize.

[ElSapo]

I don't understand the current problem.

[Schneids]

During the 45 minutes I played in it, I did not witness any of the problems that have been expressed by some. It was just very tight, very aggressive poker, with a lot of semi bluffing. It was still a high quality game, in my mind.

If you think the semi-bluffing was extreme, then re-raise someone if you think they're semibluffing. The best way to beat a semi-bluffer is to raise them.

I think people were taking the game seriously though.

[Mike Gallo]

If you think the semi-bluffing was extreme, then re-raise someone if you think they're semibluffing. The best way to beat a semi-bluffer is to raise them \

I suggested this to Guy on Tilt and he felt that playing with people willing to cap with trash a waste of time. I agree that I want to play against a better quality opponent, rather than how to beat a lag.

I would like others input here as well.

[Alobar]

Well I didnt sit down until after midnight EST lastnight, and I've only played the 2+2 table 3 times now. But I've found it very helpful and its a type of game I dont get to play anywhere else. Add to that I get to play with people WAY better than me who are willing to tell me what I'm doing wrong and its invaluable to my growth as a poker player. I wasn't there to witness the problems, but I know the first time I sat down at the table I was overwhelmed by the tightness and aggrssiveness of it, my first reaction is that everyone is always bluffing, so maybe the excessive capping stems from that. *shrug*

All I know, is that I hope the table does not go away, as I look forward to tuesdays now and the chance to learn from those who know.

[canoekayak]

I'm fairly new to the 2+2 table, and I'm rather aggressive, due to me playing more short handed tables. As far as Maniacs and Aggressive players, bring them on. This is an great chance for both passive and aggressive to discuss their play. I don't think thats the problem.

The only problem I find is all the chat, that is not about the current game. I'm not keen on hearing about somebodys trip to Vegas, so I tune it out. The couple of times I was looking for what somebody had, or wanting to post what I had, the conversations about things not related to the game were going on, and I either missed it, or deleted it, because it was 5 posts after the hand and who cares at that point. So, I 'shut up and played' so to speak.

What was the problem? What do you want to fix? How bout we make this about the game at hand and not just a Sunday Afternoon Book Club. Did you know.... So and So is sleeping with So and So? This ain't ma-ziong (sp) club. This is poker to learn about poker.

I like this site, I like the game, and I still need to post my two QQ hands that I think I f'd up.

CanoeKayak

[Mike Gallo]

Canoe,

Welcome to the forum.

Please post the hands. I look forward to reading them. I do not know if I played a key hand against you last night.

I wanted everyone to discuss hands and how the hands got played. Please feel free to post anyones hand, not just your own.

[george w of poker]

i want to apologize again for playing like a maniac. i guess it was contagious. i've watched many times without playing and its definitely benificial, so i'm all for everyone playing straight up. if invitation only is the way to do it then i guess thats the way to go. one huge thing i learned last night though is how to use your table image to your advantage. i definitely got a lot of action after i showed down a few crappy blind steals.

one way to keep it to good poker could be to keep a running tally of how much everyone wins/loses from week to week to keep it competitive, but that would be a lot of trouble.

[BottlesOf]

I don't understand how an invitaion system would solve anything. Anyone who is capable of reading these forums is capable of sending you a pm requesting the password. What will your criteria be for denying someone the password--not being familiar with their posts? This seems arbitrary and unfair.

[ThingDo]

While I was playing last night, I noticed a few things that really annoyed me about what was going on. When I expressed my opinion on a few of the things I had a problem with people basically laughed at me and shoved it in my face. Just a lot of nonsene going on. People capping with trash. People "semi-bluffing" BLUFFING HU on the turn when the play is clearly incorrect. I'm not here to comment on the play though. I just think that if people want to play with a group of people who are there to learn and improve their game they should be willing to play accordingly and not just mess around because its only .5/1. Anyway, put me down for the second option as I think some people aren't ready to bring an A game to the table.

[GuyOnTilt]

Why does it need to be one or the other? Can't there be an open table AND an invite only table? I realize some may feel alienated or whatnot by not getting an invite KNOWING that others are, but that's life. Showing enough diligence in making quality posts in this forum, as well as showing good play at the open table could earn you an invite.

I think an invitation only table is a good idea. However, I see no reason why other 2+2'ers can't still get together on Tuesday nights if they want.

GoT

[BottlesOf]

Like anyone else, 2+2ers can always make a private table on their own. If some 2+2ers no longer want to participate in the 2+2 table b/c they don't like the quality of play, that's there perrogative.

[CPA]

The reason I would not be in favor of an invite only table is that the purpose for many to play at the table is to learn. After reading posts for several months (for whatever reason, I have not posted before), you get a feel for whose advice is better than others. I have a feeling that all of the "good advice" will be at the invite table.

[Jezebel]

Hey guys,
I've only played at the 2+2 table once several weeks ago and it seemed to be running well then. I vowed not to play again since I got dealt more Group 1 hands in an hour than I normally do in a month playing 3/6. I felt like I was wastin' 'em. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

One option is to have players register for something like "Player of the Year (or other timeframe)" You could post a schedule of days/times that POY games would be conducted. If players felt that they could probably make most if not all of the games they could register with the "Administrator" You could charge like $10 or $20 per player to go in a kitty and the eventual winner would get the kitty and bragging rights on this forum. I would also suggest that the Administrator take a slight cut for donating his time in setting up the program/compiling results. Registration could be paid through Party Poker or Neteller for the Administrator to hold. I am envisioning a set of rules something like:
1 Winner is based on highest BB per hour.
2. Must participate in at least X sessions/hours to qualify
3. Everyone must buy in at the .5/1 table for something like $100 and not rebuy during a session. This would keep tracking results easier and if you lose 100 bb in an evening its probably time for a break anyhow.
4. Depending on the number of registrants you could have multiple tables. Players would be randomly selected and notified of the dates/times/table that they would be playing on.
5. Hand Histories could be used to verify reported results.
6. Start off with something like 4 or 5 sessions to work out any bugs.
7. You could still require that all hands be shown down in the end, for educational value.

With some kind of system such as this then I think it would cut down on trashy play and everyone would have incentive to bring their A game. Obviously no one wants to be caught at the bottom of the published leader board /images/graemlins/blush.gif

We do something like this for a home game that I frequent. It works well there and I think it could work online. Thoughts?

[BigEndian]

This smacks of aloofness.

- Groove

[MrBlini]

I, for one, did bring my A game. Yeah, it sucks. I beat passive tables routinely, but I obviously have a lot to learn about playing at an aggressive table where most hands are played heads-up after the flop if at all.

I was a donator this time around, helping a few of the best players to end the session up, but I don't plan on playing the same way next time I join. I know a lot of adjustments I need to make for this type of game. I had a lot of fun and learned a great deal, even if I wasn't asking a lot of questions, and I liked the critiques that I did get. Among other things, I learned:

<ul type="square"> The trouble that AQo can get you in at this sort of table. Normally, I like this hand, as I can play it profitably at a passive table under a variety of conditions. But if I see this at the 2+2 table, it's probably hitting the muck. AJs is a very profitable hand for me in passive games, but I don't like it at the 2+2 table, either.
The value of TT and the like when the play is likely to be heads-up postflop.
The trouble with a loose table image. I did get a good number of legitimate late position raising hands in the button and CO, but got called or raised by the blinds with worse hands routinely, then got outplayed by them postflop. I made some really bad folds under these circumstances. Stealing the blinds outright was not a possibility at all given my table image.[/list]

I think the session would have been even more beneficial for me had there not been a problem with hand histories. Except for the rudimentary statistics Party gives, I had no quantitative idea of how I or anyone else was actually playing. I do remember playing some hands better later in the session, when I had tightened up and gotten more aggressive with semi-bluffs. I think a couple of you noticed particular aspects of my play improving even as the night went on.

To respond to a particular issue: I have no idea why I coldcalled with K8s. I did get frustrated with the game a couple of times and made a few totally inexplicable plays as a result. That may have been one of them.

Believe me, I wouldn't have paid as much as I did to play at this table if I didn't feel I was getting value out of doing so. It was an excellent experience that I hope to repeat soon. Just not the same way.

[Ulysses]

If someone wanted to actually set something like this up, I think it would be a great Battle for 2+2 Bragging Rights.

[Brian]

Hi everyone,

Last night, JTG and Joe Tall were quite aggressive. Raising with trash a lot from middle position, and stealing at every opportunity. But, does this mean that they were playing like maniacs and were just having fun because of the low limit cost? I don't think so. I think that they adjusted their play style (or maybe played as they always do) knowing that their competition was better. In other words, what is considered correct play changes according to your opponents.

For instance, it is recommended that when UTG with a pair of Queens in a typical game, you raise. You don't want to let suited trash in cheaply, and you want to get hands like Kx out. However, at the 2+2 table, I would limp UTG with a pair of Queens almost every time, assuming I had not done any limp-reraising prior. At a tight-aggressive table, suited trash won't come along just because of an EP limper, and you are almost guaranteed to be raised by someone who looks at your limping as a sign of weakness.

Now, while there were many plays going on last night that seemed like more of a stretch than limp-reraising with QQ UTG, my point remains the same: Your style of play should vary according to the opposition. While some plays may look maniacal to us, I trust that people like Joe Tall and JTG were doing it for real, and not just because the stakes were low.

However, I certainly think that there were some players last night who were just playing recklessly because it seemed everyone else was. I am not sure what the best solution for that is. I think that now that the issue has been brought up, there won't be problems with it again.

-Brian

[lil']

You can't make people play the way you want them to play.

There are two ways to stop this maniacal "show off" style. The first way is to play against these "cap any two" guys and kick their a$$es. The second is to post about how you took their money here.

Also, increasing the limit you play at might snap some sense into people.

[Barry]

Brian -

Actually an open limp in UTG - EP at this table is actually a BIG warning sign that a limp/reraise is a high probability plan by the limper.

[Brian]

Hi Barry,

I saw many people open limping in EP and then check-fold the Flop.

-Brian

[CrackerZack]

I played in it a few times in the very beginning when the effort was to be serious. But it was anything but educational. Here is every single situation:

Open raise from somewhere, everyone folds

Open raise from somewhere, 3-bet, everyone fold, raiser calls. There is a bet on the flop, hand is over by the turn.

Open raise from somewhere, BB defends, fold on the flop.

Maybe a few comments about cold-calling with AQ or AJ. End of lesson. if anything out-of-line was done people were accused of not playing seriously. Not good times.

[JTG51]

I didn't play very well last night, but it wasn't because of the stakes or because I was trying to play poorly. I just didn't play well. The hand where I capped before the flop then raised a ragged flop with AKs after you limped UTG with QQ was a good example. I wasn't paying very close attention and didn't even notice you in the hand. If I had, I probably would have folded before the flop since the only hands you limped UTG with were big pairs. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I did attack the blinds much more aggressively than I normally would, but as you pointed out that was because I thought it was the best play. As you noticed, there were many times when I open rasied from LP, got called by a blind, then won the pot with a bet on the flop.

[JTG51]

I'd be very surprised if your play last night was your normal game. You did so much bluffing and played your draws so incredibly aggressively, that's not a very good style for typical low limit games. I think you just cranked up the aggressiveness a couple of notches too high last night.

[James282]

Hey. I had a great time playing. I only saw 2 people I can remember who were acting "maniacally" and one person wound up paying good players off when they isolated him and the other was doing it to prove a point I think. It was fun to play against the sharks and feel like I could hold my own(tell me if you thought I was a fish, or what I can work on!). I love playing at these limits personally because I am so competitive...and if I had the roll I would play this way at 30/60 or whatever the same way I play .5/1. I think I over-extend myself on my limits every once in a while(although recently I have been very bankroll conscious) and I think this effects my play. Anyway, if you want to make a table and just play against the sharks, or have a tryout, I am sure no one will stop you. I loved the atmosphere since it was my first time playing...it felt like a bunch of guys hanging out and having a few beers(a few of which are exceptionally good at poker!). Yeah, a lot of hands are over before the river. This is the way it works when most people are tight and aggressive. Any of us would sit up from a table like that immediately in real life because the the soft spots were so few and I don't think that anyone really "had control" of the table. Anyway, hopefully my play earned a little respect and I won't be kicked out of the 2+2 table /images/graemlins/wink.gif It does seem a little bit elitist to be honest, and I like the idea that less experienced players can learn. The only problem is, this table will be decidedly less valuable for someone whop plays real .5/1 than someone who wants to know how to play those tough spots in games 10/20 and higher. I don't know where this is going, but I had fun in the 2.5 hours I played and for someone relatively new to the forum it was a great experience for me. It gave me a little more confidence to play back at the tough spots in the games I play. OK my posts are always way too long. Hope to play with you all again sometime soon.
-James

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, increasing the limit you play at might snap some sense into people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the point of the .5/1 was so that people who normally play low limit could get some experience at the kind of table that is much higher in limit with good players, with out ruining thier bankroll

[ElSapo]

In other words, what is considered correct play changes according to your opponents.

Brian, I think you've hit this far more succinctly than I could in past posts and responses.

I don't know of any specific examples we're talking about here, so I can't give examples. But the upshot is this -- if I think a raise will make someone lay down their hand, then do the cards matter? The 2+2 table quickly becomes more about the players and situations than about the actual cards. If I can steal from MP with 25o 70% of the time, then the raise is correct, yes? Does it matter what the cards are, if I think I can steal that percentage of the time? Maybe that's an extreme example, but I think it gets the point across. And if I get called by the big blind with that 52o, and then think he'll lay down the correct percentage of the time to a flop raise, aren't I correct to make it?

I understand the purpose of the 2+2 table, but I also think you have to expect bringing 10 tricky and agressive players together will result in a different kind of game, and one that is not altogether incorrect.

What's the problem here? When 52o raises, gets three-bet by QQ and then runs his bluff on a A-high board, is QQ upset when they fold?

In a 'real' game, you'd make a mental note about the player and move on. Here, it's like they stepped out of character?

I think it's a great table, but I think the real irony is that people are actually underestimating the complexity of hold'em once it hits that next level. And at this table, it reaches that point quite frequently.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that they adjusted their play style

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[ QUOTE ]
knowing that their competition was better

[/ QUOTE ]

Yupper.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, what is considered correct play changes according to your opponents

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes!

[ QUOTE ]
I trust that people like Joe Tall and JTG were doing it for real, and not just because the stakes were low.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Brian, I didn't even look at the money, I just make certain adjustments in that game that I feel is my best winning strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly think that there were some players last night who were just playing recklessly because it seemed everyone else was.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, and I had to make further adjustments as other players changed their style.

That game is going to be crazy, there is not way around it. You have 10 players that are schooled in the game, simple as that.

I think all the hands I showed down made sense, if they didn't feel free to ask me about them and I'm sure that goes for JTG also.

Peace,
JT

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a great table, but I think the real irony is that people are actually underestimating the complexity of hold'em once it hits that next level. And at this table, it reaches that point quite frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

BINGO! Some night jump on Stars and watch the 100-200 game, down load the hand histories. You know what, you'll find? A crazy complex game.

Well said, Sapo.

Peace,
JT

[AliasMrJones]

I was a first-time player last night and frankly I was a bit overwhelmed. I don't think I was a maniac, but if I was please tell me!

I'm used to 2/4 and this game was so tight super-aggresive that I didn't know what to do other than hunker down, play super-tight pre-flop and fire away when I got a hand. As I saw people raising with junk and bluffing me off good hands, I know I got more aggressive and more aggresive than I should have in some cases. With the semi-/bluffing, I didn't know what to do other than raise back at people.

Anyway, next time I plan to still play very tight, but be slightly less aggressive post-flop and think more about putting my opponents on hands rather than just firing when I have something. (Case in point the AA flopped set vs. my QQ.)

I asked in another thread about whether what I saw at the 2+2 table was typical of high/mid-limit games because I thought the purpose of the table was to let low-limit players get a taste of what a tough higher-limit game is like without having to pay the higher bets. The game seemed comic book aggressive to me, but never having played in a really tough game didn't know if that is just how it is and just did my best.

Oh yeah, and I'd hate to see the game be invite-only. If someone feels people aren't playing their best are are getting crazy maniacal I think the best way to handle it is to point it out during the game.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
Raising with trash a lot from middle position, and stealing at every opportunity

[/ QUOTE ]

This is some what true. I did open raise from MP w/K9s, A7s, 76s etc and stole the blinds. However, I'll still play this way due to the fact that the next time I open in this siuation, no one will know what I hold.

Those types of plays are to keep the action going, I don't want everyone to fold when I hold AA.

Peace,
JT

[gonores]

My thoughts exactly.

I have no problem continuing to run the open table on 2+2, although I have been disappointed with the number of questions and hands generated from the table.

I think the public table serves some educational purposes, although I guess not that much for the players from the higher end of the experience/talent/whateveryouwanttocallit spectrum...I've seen some green players develop a bit from the table, and I get a good feeling from that. However, I wouldn't mind playing in a situation more conducive to my own education process.

Doug

[gonores]

First, I'd like to say I stand by MG and I like his idea of starting an invite-only table. Regardless of whether or not I or anyone else gets in on the table, what the hell should I care? If I were rejected, that's just going to motivate me to play even harder to get up there.

That being said, I think there is an easy fix to make the current table more realistic...not showing winners. Feel free to ask after in the morning after, but play the table the way a real game is supposed to be played, just with better players.

Meh?

Doug

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If you cannot bring your personal A game, do not come.

I'd humbly submit that anyone who thinks they can predict when they'll have their A game or not has either reached a Zen state of enlightenment or is deluding himself. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But I understand the point. Only play if you're committed to giving 100% effort.

[ElSapo]

That being said, I think there is an easy fix to make the current table more realistic...not showing winners.

I think that's probably an excellent suggestion...

First, I'd like to say I stand by MG and I like his idea of starting an invite-only table. Regardless of whether or not I or anyone else gets in on the table, what the hell should I care? If I were rejected, that's just going to motivate me to play even harder to get up there.

I honestly don't understand the invite-only table, or, for that matter, much of the debate here. The more I read of it, the less I understand.

Frankly, and this may be an unpopular thing for me to say, it sounds like another variation on entitlement tilt. "I had KQs, he re-stole with 52o, that's crap." Yes, it is crap, but you (not Gonores, just a big general you) shouldn't let him do that.

Not showing winners would eliminate some of this, perhaps.

If you want to create a table where everyone just plays from a set playbook, using HEPFAP's starting requirements, making textbook plays from the precise position, then why bother? Just mail in your responses and go play your regular game. Do people really need practice folding KQo to an UTG raise?

Look, my game needs as much work as anyone's. Ok, my game needs a lot more work than that. So I'm not saying I have all the answers or anything, or that my play is great, or that if there were such a thing as an invitation-only table I'd ever get "invited" to play it. I'm not so good that I'm an example to anyone on how to play hold'em. But...

...but, this whole thing sounds like sour grapes. Like the people waiting for good cards simply got outplayed, and don't like it.

Apologies if I offended anyone, I just don't get it.

[Mike Gallo]

But I understand the point. Only play if you're committed to giving 100% effort.

I should have posted it that way. Thank you for helping me to express myself /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[gonores]

Frog,

I don't think this is an entitlement thing, and it's definitely not sour grapes. I know the forces behind developing the invite-only table have been hammering the 2+2 table consistently. They are leaving winners, and I don't think it is a challenge to them.


When the table first started, I liked playing it because I couldn't beat it. Now that I think I am beating the table, I play for somewhat altruistic reasons of facilitating an educational game for greener players. I still want that kind of game that I can't beat, because it would be a great tool for me to help develop my game. I wish I was there for more of last Tuesday night, so I could get a better feel for how bad it got last night. As it stands, I only got to play about 80 hands and left up about 20BB. I didn't see a lot of bad play, but then again when I sat, the majority of the players were regulars like JTG, JoeTall, Akshawn, Schneids, and Barry.

I definitely think eliminating the "show all winners" policy will stop manipulating new players' minds into deviating from a good gameplan. I could see dropping the chat too, but I think that would keep better players, who are playing and winning on somewhat of auto-pilot, away from table altogether.

I really hope developing a new table doesn't hurt anyone's feelings. I know mine won't be hurt if I don't get to play...it's just going to motivate me to play better than I play now. I won't take it personally. Hopefully, things won't get too political and everyone will maintain a mindset of mutual beneficiality, regardless of whether or not they are get invited.

Doug

[CPA]

Sorry All, but I am just a little slow.

But, what is the purpose of the table?

Is it for real good players to play against real good players and play some intense poker?

Or is for three or four real good players to help players that are "better than most, not as good as some" type players.

Obviously, if the good/great players want to play, then do an invite only table. If the goal is to help many posters, than an invite only table doesn't make much sense.

Thanks in advance for the response.

(Sorry that I don't post much, maybe this table is only for posters, not readers like myself??)

[gonores]

I think this could easily be done by building a seperate pokertracker database.

I would suggest a structure like this:

-Have a sign-up session for the next few weeks, followed by a "preseason" like you describe
-Tables would be facilitated multiple times each week, preferably at different times of the day.
-Each competitor logs 5000 hands (or some other number) at these tables before ____ (I'm thinking June or July). This could be done by running a table for a regimented amount of time (you don't play until the table breaks, you play for a set amount of hands...don't play unless you can play the full time).
-Table assignments would be done at random. This could be handled by having a signup a few days prior to the actual table. We could do the signup in one of the deader forums, like "Other Poker" or something like that.
-The top X players play in a post-season tourney, maybe over at TruePoker.
-50% of registration fees go to the top ___ regular season players, with the other 50% added to the post-season tournament purse. The registration fee, IMO, needs to be included to insure participation.

I'll be glad to spearhead this effort (although until Wednesday, I'm going to be owned by finals). I may need some help, depending on how big this gets, and I would definitely need someone to cross-check results.

Comments?

Whether y'all trust me with your money is a different story.

[gonores]

Meh. Good question.

We never really developed a mission statement for the table. It kind of just is what it is.

You make some good points. That's exactly why I think the two tables can co-exist.

Please keep posting...from the looks of things so far, you appear rather insightful.

Doug

[Alobar]

IF we arnt showing down winners, how are we supposed to learn anything??? I've had KK bluffed off the pot by trash when an ace flops. And when he showed me his crap, I became a better player for it. If he doesnt show me the winner, what did I learn??

I thought the 2+2 table was check your ego at the door? Maybe the problem is that some people arnt doing this. If it were a real money game, yeah I'd be pissed I lost a pot too, but this isnt a real money game, its a learning experience, whats the problem if you lost the pot. IT just means you got out played, learn to play better, thats what the table is for........isnt it??

[gonores]

Hi Alobar,

You make good points. Because of the nature of the table, I think you should be able to find out the morning after if you PM the guy you played.

The problem with the way the table structured now (or so I am inclined to think) is that there is transparancy in the winning hands and opaqueness in the losers. The new players are seeing only the successful bluffs, while the expensive failures end up in the muck. Thus, they get the idea that extensive bluffing is +EV, and the problem compounds itself. Meanwhile, good players quietly play some ABC poker and find themselves with a crisp Jackson in their pocket every Tuesday for their efforts.

Like I said in previous posts, I rarely get to play a meaningful amount of time at my own table, so I am not sure how bad it gets when I am not around.

It was just a suggestion. We'll see how well it gets received.

Doug

[Alobar]

how about we have the losers show down hands to then?

[gonores]

Not feasible. Can't show a loser unless you are involved in a showdown.

[Barry]

Very interesting thread.

I know that some of the newer posters that played at the table think that the play was "bad", especially relating to some of the steal/re-steal situations. Brian took me to task when I open raised on the button w/ QTs, he 3-bet (w/ QJo) as my raise could be “any 2 cards” then bet on an AA rag flop. I raised and he folded. I think many others have eloquently stated the rationale behind some of the tactics utilized and I won't cover them further.

Perhaps some of the push for the "invitation only" table is that there are many folks that come to the table that don't want to identify themselves and just want to play around. We need to remember that the reason this got started was to have the more experienced players help the newer ones develop in a real life setting (albeit tougher than normal ring games) as opposed to helping through postings. Also, remember that there is a fair amount of camaraderie going on. For example JTG, Homer, JoeTall, Max Power, Cracker Zack and I know each other personally, and have spent a decent amount of time playing (and eating) together at Foxwoods.

My suggestion would be to have an open invitation system, whereby anybody that has shown a desire to improve their game by posting and responding to posts would be eligible (somewhat like the KOTZ tournaments) as it would be a shame for this to become an “elitist” social event. If folks want that, another venue can be created to do so. I think that the “always show” policy should be maintained and the discussion of play should be the primary chat activity to maintain the learning focus and have much less trash and social talking going on.

So if the more experienced folks can remember why they are there, than the less experienced folks would get more out of their being there.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Not feasible. Can't show a loser unless you are involved in a showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it's feasible. Just say what you had. Some of the players did that and I think it helped out. That's the only way they knew akshawnd capped pre-flop w/ 66 since he folded right away on the flop.

[AliasMrJones]

After reading some the responses, I think I get the dynamic more. When I first sat down, I thought, gol dang this is hyper-aggressive. But, I'm used to Party 2/4 and this is a table full of people that either really know what they're doing, or at least have some clue. The trickiness is going to be there just because of the level of player. Some people were going a bit crazy, I think, with hands they shouldn't, but again against that solid a table, how are you going to get people to pay you off unless you make them guess about what you have?

I would suggest talking more about the play during the game. I had a couple of short exchanges about my play and it helped. Also, some people were putting their folded hands in chat and I think that helped a lot too. I think showing the hands is the only real way to help people and it should be mandatory to show losing as well as winning hands. I had a fun time playing and I did learn so I hope the open table continues.

[Jezebel]

I didn't think of pokertracker, but that would simplify things tremendously. Whoever wants to sign up registers through the Administrator with their $20. You set up the schedule so that whoever is hosting the private table has pokertracker and is available for the entire session. Registratants get sent the password for all of the available tables on a given date and can choose any that become available. You make X number of hands as a minimum qualifier so that people can play the timeframes they want and if they get there late or have leave early it doesn't really affect them, since they only have to play X number of hands by a certain date. If you don't get in the minimum number of hands...oh well. If you want to play like a maniac, feel free if that is going to get you the money. The "2+2 Poker League....Run what ya Brung". Sounds like fun and I don't think it would be that tough to set up and adminsiter with pokertracker.

You could even seek sponsership /images/graemlins/grin.gif I've always wanted to wear one of those fishing jackets with all those patches like the rednecks on TV. Maybe even take a page from NASCAR and through some decals on my CPU.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
I would suggest talking more about the play during the game. I had a couple of short exchanges about my play and it helped. Also, some people were putting their folded hands in chat and I think that helped a lot too. I think showing the hands is the only real way to help people and it should be mandatory to show losing as well as winning hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I played the 2+2 table a little bit a few weeks ago and found it incredibly fun and useful.

I strongly agree that showing hands is key to making this game a learning experience. Watching how good players play certain hands in certain situations is extremely informative. I agree that players that were involved in a hand but folded before showdown should simply type what they had into chat.

It seems to me that global hand transparency would curtail over-bluffing not encourage it.

I also agree that the criteria for "bring your A game" should be playing to win, and that should include adjusting for the local strategic climate in an effort to exploit overly tight play if you feel that is warranted. After all, the recursive nature of double and triple guessing is one of the key factors of high level poker strategy, is it not?

Anyway, I think hand transparency is enough of an artificial constraint that the only other rule should be play to win.

If there were to be two tables (or types of tables) I would suggest one with and one without hand transparency as being more useful than open and invite. The one with would be more of a Socratic learning experience, the other would be straight up play against strong players at an affordable limit.

/mc

[Brian]

Hi gonores and others,

I agree with the others that not showing down winners takes a lot away from the 2+2 table. I'll play in the game where everyone shows their hand.

-Brian

[salty]

I raised a few concerns after I played by suggesting that this table is wide open to bluffing because of what I perceived to be an exagerrated tightness.

I feel the problem here is this constant stressing of the "A game".Why not just bring your "game", does the fact that you call hands without the proper odds or out of position affect how others with a better A game play.Bring your normal game and if it sucks you'll have a load of holes poked in it by better players.

Lets say I arrive and call T8s cold for 2 in early position and see the flop 3 handed against AA and TT but my miracle cards come giving me a straight or a flush,I might consider this a good move and others might be able to show me the light.I know this is a [censored] example, what I am trying to say is why not play how you think you should play and if your leaks are obvious then they should be pointed out.