Keep It Simple Stupid

[CCass]

Harrington open raised in LMP with a hand (T8s) that is playable if called. Folds to the BB (a WSOP regular, and winner of a bracelet) who re-raises with AQo. DH pushes all-in and the BB thinks for a minute, looks at DH and says "I can't beat Kings" as he folds. The BB thought that DH would only play AA or KK in this fashion. DH can make this play because he knows that the BB thinks he will only make this play with AA or KK. Had one of the no-name players re-raised DH, my guess is he would have folded, but he obviously felt like this was a play he could make against the BB.

I tight image (and years of play to back up that image) garners a lot of respect.

[TheJackal]

[ QUOTE ]
who re-raises with AQo.

[/ QUOTE ] He actually had a pair of 5's so it's a coin flip either way. DH was working off his image, the guy said "I don't have aces" implying Dan did. If the guy had a bigger PP, he may or may not have folded. This is what makes DH a dangerous player, he might be a tight player, but his play is very superior to other conservative players because he can change gears if the situation warrants it.

[Greeksquared]

OK im sorry but your post is a little flawed. I said that he is a 3-1 favorite against AJ AK AQ only. 2-1 against KJ and KQ.1-1 against QJ. Im not saying what I would have done had I known his hand..Im saying what he would have done. He would have surely called anything that he wasnt behind. There was already 80k in the pot. Greg had 200k left(not sure) giving the call 1.4-1. He was happy he called after they flipped. Im talking about myself and matusow in the same sentence. I dont make this call but he does..he cant resist to try and knock out raymer.

BTW, I fixed those probabilities so that it gave Matusow the benefit of the doubt. I gave Raymer very little credit for his all in. I said 70 percent of the time Raymer would have AK,AQ,AJ,KJ,KQ no diamonds. I only had him beat 10 percent of the time. They are very fair.

Anyways..I do play more than pocket pairs in the NL cash games...and I do change my game...its just that I really like pocket pairs. They are easy to play and are the best money making hands. If you use poker tracker you will understand this.

And one more example...THis time for last years WSOP.

Olof Thorsson had just lost half his stack the previous hand when he his delt KK. He raises to 20k(maybe 40k) gets called by Farha(AJ). Ace on flop. Thorsson moves in for 400k..WTF You really dont want to do this against someone who might call you like Farha. Thorsson had a million chips two hands before. He probably could have stopped playing and ended up top 5. It just seems so simple to me, if you are a super aggresive player to move in with the nuts. Im sure it happens..Id love to see it on TV

[Moovyz]

First, just kidding about the stupid remark. You ask very good questions.

I play, and have played in a lot of tournaments. From 2 tables to 300+. I have had more than my fair share of success. I know and have played with some of the best. So I think I have a strong "handle" on what it takes to play succesfully at these events.

Before I go into any remarks about your post, I want to ask you a few poker related questions... ready?

1. You have Pocket Aces, it's called and raised before you.
What do you do?
2. You have pocket deuces, under the gun. You are the
chipleader. What do you do?
3. You have AK suited on the button. No one has raised.
What do you do?

I can go on and on, but this is a small sampling of 3, relatively, easy questions. What would you do? If your answer to any of these is ANYTHING other than "it depends" you are probably wrong.

Poker is situational, almost always! What works one time, for one person, will not always work the next time or for the next person. Playing one way may find success today but not tomorrow. Even one player changing in a table can change the entire mood or dynamics of a table.

If you think Dan is playing simple, perhaps it's just the way you mean "simple". He is playing a more "traditional, staight forward" game. But he is far too good a player to play the same all the time. His play with the 10-8 is an example. However, we don't see many of these examples on T.V.

Different styles work for different players. But no player, I repeat, no player can be continueously successful playing one way. You have to mix it up.

You have to play the situation, the player, the current moment. The next hand, things have changed again. One "bully's" stack may just have been crippled, now everything has changed.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at. Greg Raymer, before he was so busy as champion, and I used to get into heated discussions here over play of certain hands. I loved playing Devil's Advocate to his posts. He was usually correct in most of his statements, but I always looked at it from a different viewpoint JUST to point out that there is NO one correct answer. It always depends.

It is often correct to put all your chips in on AK. It is often correct to call AQ with AQ. And so on and so on.

In almost every event you can find many bad plays. You can also find many times when EVERY player played the hand correctly, despite the outcome. It's just these kind of seemingly easy choices, made difficult and vice-versa that make the game so great. But poker is not measured by today's success, or tomorrow's. You might win today and play poorly but will lose tomorrow playing great. Poker is measured in long-term success. I've been playing 28 years. I've one in all but one. But I'm still learning, every hand, every session.

Keep it simple? I think it's more like "Keep It Fresh".

Keep playing hard!

[CrisBrown]

Hi Greeksquared,

[ QUOTE ]
He definitely had pot odds to call...which I dont think automatically warants a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where you and Greg disagree, as he has said many times that until you get into the money -- which in WSOP terms really means the top 50 or so, where the payouts are signficant -- your $EV is equal to chip EV. In short, until it gets close to crunch time, Greg believes the best strategy is to play your strongest possible ring game. And for top-level NL players, that has as much to do with their estimation of steal equity as with the actual values of the cards themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways its 22-AA for me when I'm at a full table ... I dont see why everyone doesnt play this way at any of the 200NL tables and below.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you seriously think you have discovered the one-and-only way to play NLHE, then all I can say is that I'd love to hear back from you in five years.

Cris

[Richard Tanner]

I agree with much of what Mc says, but at the same time I really can understand Geeksquareds point. It seems that he's saying that yes poker is a situational game and yes there are many styles that work, but at the end of the day it's better to get your money in with a set on the flop than with A-Q off before hand (almost always, tell that to Howard Lederer, poor guy).
I would tend to agree that in any given set of hands over a tournement (a large test group) that there are many chances to get your money in with the clear favorite and there are many oppertunities for coinflips. I also have some trouble understanding the pros affinity for praying for a read to be right then calling in a small favorite/big dog situation.

Cody