#1
|
|||
|
|||
$22 Why getting fancy in the lower limits is a bad idea
Here is a stop-n-go that where I had a good flop (as in he missing it). But I was stupid enough to do it against a somewhat loose big stack. Thus the chance of it working is so reduced that it is a bad bad play. He minraised everything so that isn't a big factor here.
Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t150 (5 handed) converter Hero (t850) UTG (t3105) MP (t1160) Button (t1075) SB (t1810) Preflop: Hero is BB with 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to t300</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Hero calls t150. Flop: (t675) J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font> <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets t550 (All-In)</font>, UTG calls t550. Turn: (t1775) 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font> River: (t1775) K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font> Final Pot: t1775 Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF"> Hero has 4d 3c (high card, king). UTG has As 9h (flush, king high). Outcome: UTG wins t1775. </font> |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $22 Why getting fancy in the lower limits is a bad idea
Nice hand.
Seriously though, your are right. At this level anything but straightforward play seems to be suboptimal the majority of the time. Maybe everyone has the same FPS you do and that is why they look so terrible. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $22 Why getting fancy in the lower limits is a bad idea
When it doesn't work, it is a bad idea.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $22 Why getting fancy in the lower limits is a bad idea
[ QUOTE ]
Nice hand. Seriously though, your are right. At this level anything but straightforward play seems to be suboptimal the majority of the time. Maybe everyone has the same FPS you do and that is why they look so terrible. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I rarely do it though. But with tiny stack and one of the big stacks minraising every hand it was hard to find any spots to do anything. Plus frustration with not getting any even half-decent starting hands. This is about as fancy as I have gotten in ages. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $22 Why getting fancy in the lower limits is a bad idea
I would never even dream of doing this or anything even remotely similar to it in a situation like this. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $22 Why getting fancy in the lower limits is a bad idea
[ QUOTE ]
I would never even dream of doing this or anything even remotely similar to it in a situation like this. [/ QUOTE ] Because he minraised? He did that the last six hands (when not in a blind). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $22 Why getting fancy in the lower limits is a bad idea
No, because you have 43o and big stacks call stuff.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $22 Why getting fancy in the lower limits is a bad idea
[ QUOTE ]
No, because you have 43o and big stacks call stuff. [/ QUOTE ] I know. That why I said it was a bad play in the original post. Not that I think cards are that important here. The second factor is. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $22 Why getting fancy in the lower limits is a bad idea
This would be a far less bad play (still bad, but far less bad) if you had, say, K9, so that when he calls you with any two anyway at least you have a chance to be beating Q7.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $22 Why getting fancy in the lower limits is a bad idea
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No, because you have 43o and big stacks call stuff. [/ QUOTE ] Not that I think cards are that important here. The second factor is. [/ QUOTE ] I think I probably if Im the largestack there (well, assuming I would be raising utg with A9o, which i wouldnt) |
|
|