Schneids
01-01-2004, 12:11 PM
A couple thoughts:
1. I think the fact that all winning hands are shown only makes it easier to get away with bluffing. People are more willing to make laydowns when they know that they're going to see what they folded to. This is just a fact, and I'm not suggested showing hands should become optional. It is just something that must be acknowledged and accepted as true. Thus -- based on gametime conditions, possessing a higher propensity to bluff (compared to normal) is +EV.
2. Most of the pots are heads up. Watch short handed 80/160 on UB, and you'll see multiple bets in each betting round with nothing more than ace high quite frequently. It's only natural for both players to frequently put the other on overcards and want to be the one to not give in on the pot. Hence, many raising wars with little. It's a head game -- pick your spots wisely.
3. I think some of the good players need to make some adjustments and recognize who the aggressive bluffers are. This means to not necessarily fold 88 when the guy 3bets you on a Q94 flop. I think they'd slow down their rate of bluffing if people simply began calling down more and the bluffs became much more unprofitable. But as it is right now, at the 2+2 table, perhaps the only people who are playing the table correctly are the ones who are bluffing a lot, since really, isn't the correct way to play poker entirely dependent on how the people around you are playing? That's not something to pin on them -- others should use appropriate game theory to make adjustments and eliminate the edge that they're being given with frequent bluffs. I think the proper course of action is to simply call them down more and watch them lose away their chips on bluffs -- rather than fold and then lament about the fact they capped a flop with king high or whatever and you folded pocket 6's.
4. I have not played in the 2+2 game for many weeks and am not one of the frequent bluffers, so I stand to gain nothing by defending them. I recognize some might be frustrated that this isn't how a "real" 30/60 game plays. However, at the same time, isn't this 2+2 table still a mega-tough table nonetheless? Many valuable lessons can still be taken from a table that has 7 tight players and 3 bluffaholics, and the game can still serve a purpose. And eventually, as the bluffing becomes less successful, people will treat it more and more like a typical game... so just don't make so many laydowns, and don't get caught up in the "I either have to raise or fold" mentality. Calling can be fine.
Thank you, and please don't flame away too much -- I realize many of you are passionately opposed to the current state of the 2+2 table and I respect your opinions. However, sometimes it's best to take a look in the mirror and recognize maybe you should make some gametime adjustments too instead of forcing yourself to play it just like how you personally play, or envision playing in, an upper limits game.
1. I think the fact that all winning hands are shown only makes it easier to get away with bluffing. People are more willing to make laydowns when they know that they're going to see what they folded to. This is just a fact, and I'm not suggested showing hands should become optional. It is just something that must be acknowledged and accepted as true. Thus -- based on gametime conditions, possessing a higher propensity to bluff (compared to normal) is +EV.
2. Most of the pots are heads up. Watch short handed 80/160 on UB, and you'll see multiple bets in each betting round with nothing more than ace high quite frequently. It's only natural for both players to frequently put the other on overcards and want to be the one to not give in on the pot. Hence, many raising wars with little. It's a head game -- pick your spots wisely.
3. I think some of the good players need to make some adjustments and recognize who the aggressive bluffers are. This means to not necessarily fold 88 when the guy 3bets you on a Q94 flop. I think they'd slow down their rate of bluffing if people simply began calling down more and the bluffs became much more unprofitable. But as it is right now, at the 2+2 table, perhaps the only people who are playing the table correctly are the ones who are bluffing a lot, since really, isn't the correct way to play poker entirely dependent on how the people around you are playing? That's not something to pin on them -- others should use appropriate game theory to make adjustments and eliminate the edge that they're being given with frequent bluffs. I think the proper course of action is to simply call them down more and watch them lose away their chips on bluffs -- rather than fold and then lament about the fact they capped a flop with king high or whatever and you folded pocket 6's.
4. I have not played in the 2+2 game for many weeks and am not one of the frequent bluffers, so I stand to gain nothing by defending them. I recognize some might be frustrated that this isn't how a "real" 30/60 game plays. However, at the same time, isn't this 2+2 table still a mega-tough table nonetheless? Many valuable lessons can still be taken from a table that has 7 tight players and 3 bluffaholics, and the game can still serve a purpose. And eventually, as the bluffing becomes less successful, people will treat it more and more like a typical game... so just don't make so many laydowns, and don't get caught up in the "I either have to raise or fold" mentality. Calling can be fine.
Thank you, and please don't flame away too much -- I realize many of you are passionately opposed to the current state of the 2+2 table and I respect your opinions. However, sometimes it's best to take a look in the mirror and recognize maybe you should make some gametime adjustments too instead of forcing yourself to play it just like how you personally play, or envision playing in, an upper limits game.