2+2 Table is open at Party

[AliasMrJones]

AliasMrJones's Pvt Table 1
Password is twoplustwo

Please join - its lonely here all by myself.

[AliasMrJones]

Bump

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Says I need to upgrade, but upgrader unavailable. Can't even get to www.partypoker.com. (http://www.partypoker.com.) Am I the only one?

[Dylan Wade]

ME TOO! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Oh.. I am finally able to download it off the site..

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Finally got to one part of their website and got a floorperson. They said, "try back in 1 hour." No explanation of the problem. No more communication. Got on 5 mins later.

[chim17]

nm!

[AliasMrJones]

BTW, there was what I thought was a maniac at the 2+2 table tonight. Caught some good cards, went up a bunch. Ran out of luck and busted out and left. Part of the early going pretty much went like this: maniac raises, Blini raises to isolate, everyone at the table sighs, they bet/raise like crazy and go to showdown. I don't fault Blini as he made the correct play against a maniac. Isolate and take them down. But, mostly the rest of the table just got to watch. Vehn and DougieFresh left while this was going on claiming it wasn't fun and it wasn't useful to anyone. I tend to agree.

When I get to work tomorrow and have access to hand histories, I plan on posting some example hands and calling the maniac out as I don't think this person's play was helpful to anyone but Blini who took most of this person's money. If someone else has a different opinion of this person's play (and everyone who was there knows who I'm talking about) please let me know that I'm whacked. Otherwise, I'll post some sample hands tomorrow and suggest we politely ask the person not to attend any more. (Unless, that is, they will spread their money around to everyone /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
We've talked at length about the 2+2 table and how to make it a valuable experience to everyone and I think that, for the most part it is, but when people are leaving because of the play of an individual, I think we should do something about it.

[Vehn]

It was just dumb. If I wanted to play against someone like that I'd play in the play money games. Its just boring. I went and played against maniacs in 15/30 for real money instead /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MrBlini]

It's too bad the table got off to a bad start. Fortunately, it turned around as soon as a solid player took that seat. The table just closed down, so we got in many hours of exceptionally good play tonight, but I was sad to see some very good players forced to leave during the first hour or so.

I'm sorry I had to play as I did, but I don't think it would have made much difference if I hadn't. I did get some practice in a situation that is still unusual and scary to me at higher stakes.

[daveymck]

As a first timer at the table I had watched three rotations and plucked up the courage to sit down and play for half an hour or so.

It was wild the person in question had stated they were aiming to play 80% of their hands and basically it was a raise or fold table when openeing. In the 40 minutes I stayed I think there was one hand where there was 4 limpers and no raise (I think I took it with my pocket 77's /images/graemlins/smile.gif).

It did highlight how to play a maniac and as such I have some good hand histories for examples of it. But if the table is structured like that all the time loose aggressive generally heads up I could see that other newbies could be hesistant to sit down.

I expected a tough tight game but wasnt really able to play my "normal" game which I thought the idea of it was a social game where we could hopefully improve our game getting in common situations where our play could be critiqued and discussed.

From my point of view I enjoyed it I have been saying a few times this last week that my heads up/short handed play is a weakness and it gave me a chance to test my mettle against a bunch of good players.

I could see however that if other new/inexperienced players are coming there they could be put off by how the table was during my time there as it was pretty intimidating.

[Mike Gallo]

It was just dumb. If I wanted to play against someone like that I'd play in the play money games.

Hence why I stopped playing in this game. We will always have one person who plays like a complete ass.

[rkiray]

I stopped by briefly early last night for the first time. I lefted quickly because I thought the poker sucked people just screwing around. Also I was playing in a 2/4 game at the same time and found it difficult to change mind sets appropriately for the two different games. I don't remember the maniac's name, but I think he was in the four seat.

[ScottTheFish]

I guess I came in after the maniac busted out. My first time at the 2+2 table. When I was there I found the game very enjoyable, with people playing tight and very aggressive. Never been 3-bet so much in my life! /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I got snapped off on a steal attempt from the button when the BB had KK. I went way too far with my rags. Other than that I played ok I guess.

Played tight, got a few good starters and played them strong. They can smell fear at that table, gotta be bold!

Table was so tight for a while there just about any raise was just winning the blinds! Very different from what we Party micro players are used to, that's for sure. You can't just wait for a hand then let 5 fish pay you off with their rags.

Anyway I had fun, won a few BB, then I gave up my seat as there were about 10 people waiting to play.

[sweeneyagonistes]

is the game .5/1 or higher?

[ScottTheFish]

.5/1

[sfer]

That was me on your steal. What were you holding by the way? If I remember correctly the board was showing 3 threes.

It was my first time and I had a blast. I think I picked up a lot watching and "listening" to the chatter.

[Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)]

I came in after the maniac left, as well. That game was a whole different experience for me...it's what I imagine the 30/60 at the Bellagio to be like /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I got my ass kicked at the beginning, but I was happy with the way I played a few hands towards the end of my session. I learned a lot, and hope that some of the better players continue to play in that game. Great learning experience, thanks all.

[AliasMrJones]

Well, the maniac last night was named JinkyG. Claimed to be a she, don't know what she posts on 2+2 as. Typical hand when she was at the table: she'd raise with any 2 cards and bet/raise/3 bet/cap the flop, then bet/call to the river. Her VP$IP% was 60%. She raised 64o in MP, 65o in MP, 72o in MP, 96o in EP, J5o in EP, J8s in EP, J9o in EP, K7s in EP, Q9s in MP and others. When she hit, as she did early, she won a bunch, then when her luck ran out she went bust and left.

Here's an example (I cut out the PF folds):
Party $.50/1 8 handed

JinkyG is UTG with J/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif
MrBlini is UTG+2 with K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

JinkyG raises, MrBlini: sorry, guys, but I have to do it
MrBlini raises, JinkyG calls
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 3/images/graemlins/club.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif ]
JinkyG bets, MrBlini raises, JinkyG calls
** Dealing Turn ** : [ 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif ]
JinkyG bets, MrBlini Raises, JinkyG calls
** Dealing River ** : [ 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif ]
JinkyG checks, MrBlini bets, JinkyG calls
JinkyG balance $18, lost $5.50 [ Js 9h ] [ a pair of sixes -- Js,Ts,9h,6c,6s ]
MrBlini balance $32.75, bet $5.50, collected $11.25, net +$5.75 [ Kd Td ] [ two pairs, tens and sixes -- Kd,Td,Ts,6c,6s ]

While it may have been good "how to play against a maniac" practice for Blini, as others have commented it wasn't much fun or good practice for the rest of us. I move we vote JinkyG off the island.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]
That was me on your steal. What were you holding by the way? If I remember correctly the board was showing 3 threes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember, it was rags, though. It was a straight up steal attempt. Then I hit 3rd or 4th pair on the flop and stayed in like an idiot. Bad play. I did have a couple of other successful steals. You can imagine my excitement dragging those $0.75 pots! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Needless to say I don't have much experience with blind stealing. I don't know if it's ever been folded to me on the button in the games I play /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Mike Gallo]

I had problems with Jinky G last week.

She/it did indeed play like a maniac. Not to mention what she/it typed in the chat box.

[Dylan Wade]

[ QUOTE ]
so we got in many hours of exceptionally good play tonight

[/ QUOTE ]

We sure did. I really enjoyed it getting in some shorthanded experience at the end of the night. Not to mention, you and I got to play HU for a few minutes before the table died (I was ImBoutIt..lol). I hope it's as fun next week!

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
It was just dumb. If I wanted to play against someone like that I'd play in the play money games.

Hence why I stopped playing in this game. We will always have one person who plays like a complete ass.

[/ QUOTE ]


We play at .5/$1 so as not to shut out the those who cannot afford higher stakes because of thier skill(or bankroll). We should either step the tuesday night twoplustwo game down from .5/$1 to a private play money table(so as not to shut out anyone), or raise the stakes to where it actually means something to most of us.

I say its better to raise the stakes to $3/$6. Sure some folks will be cut off becuase of the stakes, but that does not prevent them from watching and asking questions. Those that are able to play will learn a lot more than if we continue the play .5/$1=play money limit. Education cost money, unfortunately thats just the way it is.

Stu

[JTG51]

Education cost money, unfortunately thats just the way it is.

The fact that I can read this forum for free kind of shoots a hole in that theory.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Education cost money, unfortunately thats just the way it is.

The fact that I can read this forum for free kind of shoots a hole in that theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody paid for your computer, and your internet connection. Advertisers and book sales pay the for this forum. Reading this forum may be no cost to you, if your time has no monetary value. It is certianly not free because someone, somewhere, is bearing the cost.

My point is that if you really want to learn to play a small stakes game, you need to play in a small stakes game. The cost of playing in a small stakes game is putting at risk a small stake. When a middle limit player like Vehn, or a small stakes player like myself steps into one of these microlimit games and we play it like our normal game, all we doing is subsidizing the education cost for these up and coming microlimit players.

This whole thread and the tuesday night two plus two game as it is currently being played, needs to be moved to the microstakes forum. The small stakes forum should put on a real samll stakes game.

Stu

[daveymck]

Interestingly this may be the way to go cos the Micro limit forum seems to be thinking the same thing that it would be better for micro players to play together with some of the more experienced players watching/advising than for some of the higer stakes players coming in and playing at a level where the money means nothing to them.

There is a post in the micro forum about this subject.

[ElSapo]

Somebody paid for your computer, and your internet connection.

Yeah, about 10,000 other poker players /images/graemlins/grin.gif

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[ElSapo]

I say its better to raise the stakes to $3/$6. Sure some folks will be cut off becuase of the stakes, but that does not prevent them from watching and asking questions.

I think you'd shut out too many players -- I mean, for a lot of players making good money online 3/6 is as high as they play. The idea of playing with all 2+2ers is going to seem like a bad one at this limit.

Additionally, I suspect the players benefitting most from this table are still working their way towards 3/6 (though I may be way off). Personally, there's no way I'd play this limit against all 2+2ers, but that's just me and makes no difference.

I haven't played the 2+2 table recently, but the issues seem to have gotten a little worse since I last did. I'd offer two ideas...

1) PM the password. It will mean one person per week needs to be responsible for the table, a duty which could be rotated perhaps, but sending it privately and thus knowing who is out there would add some weight and responsibility to the game. If they play like maniacs, simply don't send it to them again.

2) Set a core group of players and don't make the table "public," as in open to all 2+2ers, which includes a lot of lurkers.

I don't play the table often, and when I do I admit it is for the social aspect and not for the poker. However, if it is a good learning tool and needs to be saved then either of the above suggestions might work.

[rharless]

I'll go out on a limb here and say I actually like having Jinky at the table. The chat box stuff is not profane (that I have noticed) and is usually really funny in a perverse humor type of way.

Also, really, playing against a maniac can be harder than playing against a rock. And you're generally much more likely to encounter problems playing a semi-maniac, than a 2+2er, at a real table. Not saying there are necessarily more maniacs than 2+2ers in raw numbers out there, but, the maniacs generally require more adjustment, especially as you have to "adjust to the adjustments" in the other players.

[Mike Gallo]

Also, really, playing against a maniac can be harder than playing against a rock. And you're generally much more likely to encounter problems playing a semi-maniac, than a 2+2er, at a real table. Not saying there are necessarily more maniacs than 2+2ers in raw numbers out there, but, the maniacs generally require more adjustment, especially as you have to "adjust to the adjustments" in the other players.

You make a good point.

Adjust adapt overcome /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[AliasMrJones]

RE: The micro limit suggestion about higher limit players watching/commenting. That happens now when low/micro limit players post hands. It has NOT been the higher limit players that have become maniacs when I have been there. The higher limit players have played pretty straightforwardly as far as I've been able to tell. A bit trickier than usual, perhaps, as this is a table full of people that know how to play, but no crazy.

RE: Rharless -- I agree that having a maniac at the table happens and it is good to practice. Also, she wasn't insulting or using profanity or anything. But, unfortunately, virtually the entire session she was there, only she and Blini got to play because she'd raise her any two cards and he'd isolate. So, it was not good practice or even much fun for the rest of the table.

Also, I think the general understanding is that we're all supposed to bring our 'A' game. I bring my C- game, but that's only because its all I've got. She was clearly just playing stupid for the hell of it. If I want to play against this type of opponent, I can play any other $.50/1 game on Party. That isn't why we play the 2+2 table. The purpose of the 2+2 table is to get practice playing at a tough table for not much money as a learning exercise. (And to have fun doing it.)

[daveymck]

Sorry I was just highlighting the discussion on the micro forum, I havent been a the 2+2 table apart from those few hands so not sure how it normally plays.

[AliasMrJones]

I hope you didn't take that the wrong way. Suggesting new ideas is good /images/graemlins/grin.gif I just don't think that would help in this case.

Why exactly do the micro limit players want the tougher players to comment rather than play? It seems that sitting around and commenting would be more of a waste of time for higher limit players than playing micro limits? (Or at least that playing would be no less a waste of time as in either case they'll be making less than they would actually playing higher limit.)

[morgant]

there are maniacs in the game, you need to learn to play with them and use them to help you win bigger pots, i think that having jinky is a great asset, the point of the 2+2 table is not to have a rock garden where we know an early position limp means a monster etc....where all hands are transparent, there is nothing to be learned in that environment, i feel it should resemble a normal table as much as possible but it has the benefit of opening up the hands to all involved the very next day and strategies and playing lines can be discussed, that is the invaluable benefit of playing that table(for me anyways). many times i have seen people complaining about the maniac, but hey, they exist and are part of the game and it is imperative to learn how to coexist with them. Isn't the old adage, if you can't beat the any two guy your game needs some work(okay maybe not an adage and not old but fitting nonetheless)?

[ScottTheFish]

Some of them just seem to enjoy helping the newer players learn. They don't get paid to post on here, either but they do it.

I didn't think they wouold want to just watch and comment either, but a few seem to be up for it, and I certainly won't say no! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
The micro limit suggestion about higher limit players watching/commenting

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggested that if there were a few of us around maybe we could watch/comment. Micro just wanted to get a game.

[ QUOTE ]
hat happens now when low/micro limit players post hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does but there is nothing like onsite comments. Watching the action seeing how every hand develops is much better than reading a post when commenting on it, I feel.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[daveymck]

I didnt, but I realised that my post could be taken as opinion when it was pointing out facts.

Some of the experienced guys seemed to be agreeing in the thread on micro to watch and comment.

For my part I feel that the table has to be aimed at people in a certain way, the idea is that its a cheap way for everyone to play together, but it depends on where you are in your playing and development.

For newer and improving micro players they need a table that plays like a micro table ok its not going to be a true party type table as the players should have a better idea but if you are not getting a chance to play your 'normal' game I dont see how people can comment on your game and how you played hands because you are in a situation new to you and learning to play in a tight agressive game isnt really going to help you beat the micros.

For players moving up to small stakes and wanting to move up beyond building on what was learnt in micros then a tighter more agressive table agaisnt good higher limit players with smaller risk of .5/1 stakes is ideal. Having played in micros I can play loose passive tables (to a dergree not saying I'm and expert) learning to play tighter more agressive tables is the next step of learning. A maniac there from time to time is educational but if that was the texture constantly of the table I would not see the point for anyone the guys trying to learn and the experienced guys giving their time to try and help.

I dont think someone with one or two months period of playing poker was going to get anything useful out of the table the other night (in the time I was there)and that is where the intent of the table comes down too, I think having two tables with intent set ie micro beginner, medium stakes etc would make it more sucessful and more of a point for everyone concerned.

I think if the intent of the tables are clarified everyone can know where they are have the right expectations and play the table accordingly.

[AliasMrJones]

You're missing my point entirely. I agree that one needs to learn to play against the maniac. The problem was only one person got to do that. Blini isolated virtually every hand so the rest of the table just got to watch. How does that help me sitting 2 to the right of maniac when I don't get to play?

Also, there are plenty of maniacs in the wild. There aren't nearly as many 2+2 caliber players. I'd much prefer to get in my tough player practice at the 2+2 table as I can practice against maniacs elsewhere.

[rharless]

I played with her twice and that (only her and Blini get to play) didn't happen when I was there, so the texture must have been different earlier.

I have to ask since I wasn't there -- it sounds like MrBlini was "over-"isolating? Maybe you all weren't adjusting to his wider range of 3-betting hands? Either that or he was on a rush of cards. If he is isolating with KTs-like cards regularly, and playing headsup with jinky regularly, then it would seem people are at least sometimes throwing away better hands that could/should be 3-bet.

Gotta get jiggy with it. Isn't that what kids are saying these days? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I wasn't there during the Extreme-Jinky spell, so my theories might be totally off.

[morgant]

if the rest of the table watched that is their faults, blini can't have the goods all the time, he must be isolating with marginal hands, so get in there and shake them up. it is more expensive to see flops but the payouts will be handsome. 2 the right of the maniac is not that bad a spot, limp your monsters into him and let him do the rest. so if there are more maniacs in the wild than 2+2ers it would seem that i want to become more proficient at beating maniacs than beating 2+2ers, seems much more profitable to me. maniacs are frustating but they are playing within the rules of the game, so if you can't beat them they are beating you.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
if there are more maniacs in the wild than 2+2ers it would seem that i want to become more proficient at beating maniacs than beating 2+2ers

[/ QUOTE ]

You're, again, missing my point. I can play against maniacs many places. Pick any play money table. Many $.50/1 tables. I can play against a table full of 2+2 quality players rarely. I don't come to the 2+2 table to play against players I can find at micro/low limit Party. Why would I when they're all over the regular tables?

While I seem to be the one arguing this here. Others came and left because of the play. I'd like to play against Vehn. Unfortunately, seeing the childish play set him running off to find something more interesting to do. A couple of others came and left as well. I'd much rather practice playing against a Vehn or a GOT or a JT playing well than a JinkyG playing stupid. So, if JinkyG is going to chase away the players I want to play against (and I'm not saying she specifically chased away all of those I mentioned), I'd rather chase away JinkyG.

I played well I thought and JinkyG's play didn't disrupt my play per se, but I don't think her kind of play belongs at the 2+2 table. As I said, if you want to find stupid play, you can at many Party tables. No need to come to a special 2+2 table for that. I'd prefer that the 2+2 table be for practicing against the kind of tough play I don't typically see in the LL games I play in so when I do go up against tough opponents, I'll be better prepared.

[rkiray]

When I was there it was six handed she was on my immediate left. So basically I was just losing my blinds and watching people turn over stupid cards. I didn't learn anything, it wasn't fun, so I left after about 3 rounds (maybe 20 hands). I get lots of practise playing against maniacs in normal games. I thought the idea here was to be able to play against tough opponents inexpensively. This was just a waste of time.

[morgant]

i am not missing your point in the slightest. i think it is just a case of we dont agree with eachother which is totally fine(even though i am right!lol) It is great to play tough competition for a such small stakes but follow Vehn up to his regular limits(?) and you will find the jinkyg in the tables. if i play in a normal environment with maniacs, i want to learn how to punish them, so being at that table watching blini capitalize on jinky should be a great learning experience. real tables dont have 10 tight aggressive players like the 2+2 table does, so the added player personalities are crucial, in my opinion. so you practice playing against vehn, got, and joe, great so you have an idea how to play against them, now you are at your real table and feel you can peg two players as similar abilities as the above players, how are you going to handle a maniac in between you and the solid players?????? can you see my point a little bit? you can't have ideal playing conditions ever, when you do find a gem of a table it must be taken advantage of cause they dont last too long. if you enjoy the 2+2 table to play against tough comp. than great, but why do you want to learn how to beat 15/30 players if you are playing in 2/4 games?? i like the tues. night table cause of the afterwards hand analysis which makes me learn how others think and how i should or shouldn't be thinking......i am done with this thread, good luck and see you tuesday /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[DeuceKicker]

Well said, AMJ.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Others came and left because of the play. I'd like to play against Vehn. Unfortunately, seeing the childish play set him running off to find something more interesting to do. A couple of others came and left as well. I'd much rather practice playing against a Vehn or a GOT or a JT playing well than a JinkyG playing stupid. So, if JinkyG is going to chase away the players I want to play against (and I'm not saying she specifically chased away all of those I mentioned), I'd rather chase away JinkyG.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't beleive so many people got scared off becuase of a maniac. I am ashamed the players in this forum allowed Mr Blini to take over the table. Does nobody around here know when to cap the action besides the times when they have AA or KK? Jinky and Mr Blini turned a table of tight aggressive players into weak, passive scared off fish.

Stu

[Vehn]

Morgant, I was (half) kidding when I meant I'd rather go play the maniacs at 15/30. There are very few true maniacs up there and when they are they don't last long. Learning how to play against the occasional maniac is useful, obviously, but its basically a "waste" of the 2+2 table. I haven't played a lot on it as of yet, mostly because I didn't have any money on party until late december and I often go to the card barn Tuesdays, but I just don't feel that that type of game is what the table is about. So if its going to continue to be that way I'm just not going to participate.

Anyways my suggestion is to try it again the same way next week, i.e. start a thread here with the password in it, and if it happens again then we can simply move to starting a thread and then having the players who want to play PM that person for the password (who shouldnt get more than 15-20 PMs), but someone would have to step up for that. Another option is a Yahoo group.

In regards to raising the stakes I think its a mistake. "We" are giving enough rake to party in the .5/1 game, why kill ourselves in higher games? Plus it would be restrictive to the people who really want to learn and improve. Most of the 3/6+ players are beyond the learning phase of the game.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
why do you want to learn how to beat 15/30 players if you are playing in 2/4 games??

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhhh...cause I don't want to play 2/4 forever?

Never mind. I was initially against making the 2+2 table invite-only. I've seen the light. I think the password should be PM rather posted. Those that want to practice stupid childish play can start another table.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Never mind. I was initially against making the 2+2 table invite-only. I've seen the light. I think the password should be PM rather posted. Those that want to practice stupid childish play can start another table.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you shut out the personalities you do not like you will have a game of weak passive tight players pretending to be strong tight aggressives players.

Stu

[rkiray]

All three of the SS related tourneys at True were full of very tough players. I think what many of us want is a similar ring game. This is a valid concept. There may not be as many tough games as there used to be because of TV but they do exist. In B&M I've played in tough games at 20/40, 10/20, 15/30 and occasionally even 6/12 or 2/5. For years the afternoon 10/20 Mirage game was legendary for how tough it was. I played in it several times. I'd love to get practise in a tough game with a .5/1 limit. Tuesday night was just a joke when I was there.

[MrBlini]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to ask since I wasn't there -- it sounds like MrBlini was "over-"isolating? Maybe you all weren't adjusting to his wider range of 3-betting hands? Either that or he was on a rush of cards. If he is isolating with KTs-like cards regularly, and playing headsup with jinky regularly, then it would seem people are at least sometimes throwing away better hands that could/should be 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]Based on this, I looked at the hand history. From the first attempt to play isolated to the time Stu took the #7 seat was a period of some 101 hands, of which I attempted to get heads-up 14 times including 2 BB calls. In the following, I called in the BB and 3-bet in later position:

SB: A7s (call), A8s (3-bet), 77 (3-bet)
BB: 87, K2
MP2: 65s, KTs, A8s
CO: 99, AQ, 44
Button: AQ, 55, T9s

These mostly came in two short "rushes" of marginally playable cards. There must have been a lot more going on at the table during these 101 hands, because I folded preflop (73 hands) far more than I played.

I don't feel that this was over-isolating given the average quality of hands I was up against, although in retrospect there are a couple of these situations I'd rather have avoided (3-betting 77 in the SB and 65s in MP2, possibly 3-betting 44 in the CO). It may have been over-isolating a bit. This was certainly no superb run of cards.

Except for AQ and 99, the rest of these can be found in Sklansky's Group 4 and below. I suspect that players acting after my 3-bet could have capped with hands down to Group 5 in later position and most Group 3 hands in the blinds.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I played in it several times. I'd love to get practise in a tough game with a .5/1 limit. Tuesday night was just a joke when I was there

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't a joke for the One player who was able to adjust to it. Most of you froze like deer in head lights let yourselves get run over. The rest ran for cover in other, easier games.

Stu

[Mike Gallo]

Hi everyone,

A few years ago, Dynasty originally came up with the concept of playing against other 2 + 2 members in a shorthanded play money table. We played at Ultimate Bet on Monday and Wednesday nights. We played at a 5 max table.

Dynasty started the program so he could work on his shorthanded game. I along with Mikey, Clarkmeister, Hutz, Acehigh, Allen, Andy B, and several other posters played our A game. We met up for several months before this stopped.

Fast forward to this year. I took the iniative and posted if anyone wanted to develop his or her skills against solid thinking opponents.

3 months later we have the same scenario. People who do not want to take this seriously.

I will commit to create a table every Tuesday night for those who wish to play his or her best game. If anyone wants to play, send me a pm for the password.

This might come off as aloof, however I would like to play against players like Homer, Vehn, Ulysses, Rharless, Brian0729, Guy on Tilt, Barry, Joe Tall, JTG51, Mikey, Gonores, el al. I apologize to those who I left out.

I do not want to play against players who want to bleed chips away. I want to play against players who will make a concerted effort to play well.

Anyone interested send me a pm.

Rant over, time to step off of the soapbox.

[AliasMrJones]

For the love of Pete. Why do you keep talking like you were there? I played my best game. I ended the session up after an hours play. I thought I played well. I didn't freeze up like a deer in headlights. I may have over-exaggerated Blini's isolation plays a bit. But, that is not the point. The players that left didn't leave because they were afraid. THEY LEFT BECAUSE JINKYG WAS PLAYING LIKE A CHILD AND THEY CAN PLAY AGAINST THOSE PLAYERS ELSEWHERE AND MAKE REAL MONEY DOING IT!

The reason good players want to play the 2+2 table is the reason rkiray gave. When that goes away, there is no point playing the 2+2 table any more.

[MrBlini]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention, you and I got to play HU for a few minutes before the table died (I was ImBoutIt..lol). I hope it's as fun next week!

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks. I enjoyed it, too. The shorthanded play was excellent. We must have been pretty well balanced, because I don't remember anyone winning or losing a great deal. It was one tough table.

[rharless]

Hi MrBlini,

I almost went back to edit my post, and now I wish I did. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I was going to edit it to read:

"it sounds like MrBlini was correctly 'over'-isolating?"

The point being, I don't think from the sounds of it that you over-adjusted. If everyone is going to fold to your 3-bet, which seems to have been the theme, then maybe you should be 3-betting even more. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you keep talking like you were there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was watching the game waiting to get in just before she left.

[ QUOTE ]
THEY LEFT BECAUSE JINKYG WAS PLAYING LIKE A CHILD AND THEY CAN PLAY AGAINST THOSE PLAYERS ELSEWHERE AND MAKE REAL MONEY DOING IT!

[/ QUOTE ]

They should have been putting her in her place like Mr Blini. They should not have let Mr Blini monopolize her. Jinky was playing childishly that is true, but the rest of the table played weakly(Blini excepted).

Vehn said that maniacs at $15-$30 do not last very long, Why is that? Becuase the whole tables pounds on them and the don't allow one player to monopolize the maniac. The tuesday night two plus table can deal with childish maniacs in two ways run em off with strong aggressive play(i.e. the Mr Blini way), or shut em out with private passwords(easier but weak, passive way).

One manaic at a table of strong tight aggressive players is not going to ruin the game. Its not going to turn the game into California no fold em hold em if all the players on the table adjust properly. It will actually be a really good and fun game. A table full of strong tight aggressive players is saddened when the maniac busts out. I'm surprised you people cannot see that.


Stu

[morgant]

thank you stu, the point i have been trying to get across in a much more succinct fashion

[AliasMrJones]

For the love of Mike! The reason a table full of 15/30 players like the maniacs is because they are at the table to make money. WE DON'T PLAY THE 2+2 TABLE TO MAKE MONEY!

As Vehn said - if he wanted to make money playing against maniacs he'd do it at 15/30 where he'd make real money. If I wanted to play against bad players I'd play 2/4 where I'd make real money (lol).

As it turns out, as soon as JinkyG's streak of good cards ended, she did bust and and went away. The problem is this table is intentionally micro limit. So we can't chase people away by taking their money like you can at higher stakes. She lost $20 - is that going to keep her from coming back?

I didn't think I played weak. I took some of her money. So what? Go back and re-read rkiray and MG's posts as it sums up why the 2+2 table was created and why (most) people want to play at the 2+2 table. If you'd like to create a childish maniac table, please feel free.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
As it turns out, as soon as JinkyG's streak of good cards ended, she did bust and and went away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah Blini says to himself, "I ain't going to put up with Jinky's crap" and she's gone 101 hands later his stack greatly improved. He had fun and got practice taking advantage of a maniac and a table full of weak passive players, who don't know how to deal with a maniac. One she was gone his gears changed back to playing in a game with reasonable players with reasonable raising and three betting standards.

[ QUOTE ]
Go back and re-read rkiray and MG's posts as it sums up why the 2+2 table was created and why (most) people want to play at the 2+2 table.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2+2 game was created so that poker players can improve their games. That means they need to be able to change gears on a dime, and adjust to players and ever changing table conditions. For that you have to have an open table.


A closed table quickly loses it educational value. Go ahead and make it a closed table, I am certainly not disadvantaged if the small stakes two plus twoers wish to practice in a one dimensional game.

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
She lost $20 - is that going to keep her from coming back?

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet if two players stood up to her they could chop her up in 50 hands. If 3-4 stand up to her, she will quickly start looking for other .5/$1 games to dominate.

Stu

[rkiray]

I checked pokertracker. I was there for 17 hands. I played in 4. Each time I entered I raised and she reraised me. Each time I had a much better starting hand but she sucked out on 3 of the 4. This was a waste of time and NOT why I came to the 2+2 table. It wasn't poker, it was bingo.

[rharless]

Stu, for the record, I'm with you on everything you have posted in this thread.

I play at 2+2 BOTH to listen to/discuss interesting hands in play, AND for entertainment/social value. At the very least, Jinky is pretty entertaining. Some of the exchanges between her and MG last week were so funny that I was peeing in my pants. (MG, the dry cleaner's bill is in the mail!)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I checked pokertracker. I was there for 17 hands. I played in 4. Each time I entered I raised and she reraised me. Each time I had a much better starting hand but she sucked out on 3 of the 4. This was a waste of time and NOT why I came to the 2+2 table. It wasn't poker, it was bingo.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have been three betting her, not running away.

Calling it a waste of time and leaving becuase you do not want to play poker bingo is basically saying "I'm not strong enough to handle the swings that are going to come when I play against a maniac". What makes it worse is that its .5/$1, so it not like anyone is going to get hurt except for the maniac.

Stu

[AliasMrJones]

Stu, babe. Please read MG and rkirays posts from earlier in this thread. We don't play the 2+2 table to beat up on stupid players. We don't play the 2+2 table to make money from maniacs. If we did, I'm with you, but we don't. We play the 2+2 table to play against a table full of tough opponents. We can play against bad players at regular Party tables. There is no need for a 2+2 table if that's what you want to do. I get LOTS of practice against maniacs and other types of bad players every time I play at Party. If we wanted to play against bad players and maniacs, we wouldn't make it a private table. We make it a private table because we want a table full of tough players playing their 'A' game. JinkyG was playing worse than my 7 year old son does. (And I'm not kidding.) Pick any old $.50/1 table if you want to play against that. This isn't about whether we can beat JinkyG. OF COURSE WE CAN. The point is we don't want to play against a 7 year old at the 2+2 table.

For the record, of the 99 hands that I have hand histories on, my vp$ip was 19%. That is actually high for the 2+2 table. I wasn't scared, I didn't go running. I was involved in lots of hands. Yes, hands against JinkyG. I was up $8.50 in 63 minutes. Again, so what?

People are walking away not because they're scared or because they can't beat someone playing like JinkyG. I like to play against someone like JinkyG when I sit down at a poker table to play for money. Again (maybe this time it will sink in) we are not at the 2+2 table to make money or beat up on bad players. We are there in that particular circumstance to play our 'A' game against other tough players' 'A' games and learn from the process. To get practice against a bunch of tough players, which we might not often get the chance to do. (As opposed to playing against bad players like JinkyG, which we get to do all the time.) Do you get it now?

If you want to play against JinkyG-type players I'll get Party accounts for my 11, 9, 7 and 3 year old kids and you and they can have a ball. (Unless they gang up on you and take all your money -- ha, had to get that in.)

[rkiray]

You are wrong and can't read. I mentioned earlier she was on my immediate left. I said I raised and she reraised.So she was 3 betting. Learn to read. I didn't play at that table to win money. I mostly came out of curiousity since I just recently put money in my Party account for the first time in over two years. I was also hoping to get practise in a certain type of game cheap. I also was playing in a "normal" 2/4 game at the same time. Going back and forth between that game and a short handed game with a maniac was more than I wanted to deal with. I checked out something new, didn't like it, and chose to stay with the game I liked better (and was more profitable). It had nothing to do with anything you said.

[Mike Gallo]

At the very least, Jinky is pretty entertaining. Some of the exchanges between her and MG last week were so funny that I was peeing in my pants. (MG, the dry cleaner's bill is in the mail!)

I have to agree, I have never seen anyone spew venom so quick. She had some good insults for me. If I could do half of the things she suggested, I would never leave my house. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Vehn]

By the way I think removing the "show all winners" rule would be a good idea for these things. With it in place now, it promotes weak tight play as instead of having to pay off when someone thinks they're beat, they just fold and get to see their opponent's cards anyways.

[Mike Gallo]

By the way I think removing the "show all winners" rule would be a good idea for these things. With it in place now, it promotes weak tight play as instead of having to pay off when someone thinks they're beat, they just fold and get to see their opponent's cards anyways.

You make a good point.

I do not have a problem with that if nobody else doesnt.

[AliasMrJones]

I actually think it encourages wilder play than weak play. The fact that I get to see the winners really doesn't influence my play during a hand. (At, least I don't think it does.) It does, though, let you see what people bluff with and I think for first-timers, it can lead them down a path of wild aggression. As the table is quite aggressive and it can be overwhelming your first time there. (I say this from experience /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

I think showing winners and losers helps you see strategy while you're playing and that is helpful to the player trying to learn. But, I can see the benefit of not showing too. I suppose players can ask if they want to know to discuss the play after the hand is over.

[gonores]

Consider your view second-ed

I posted the exact same thing back before my hiatus as self-appointed leader and ruler of the 2+2 table. Since the failed bluffs get mucked, there is definitely a positive reinforcement thing working here that affects the play of the newer guys and gals at the table.

Doug