playing - AJo - question?

In the book; Wining Low Limit Hold'em, Lee says to call with an unsuited AJ as long as there are three or fewer callers in front.


He does NOT however, say to call with this at any other time. He never mentions this hand again.


I'm wondering why you would play this in middle position with less than three callers in front, but not when you're in late postition with the same amount of callers.


Did he just forget to put it in the book, or is there a reason for this?


Thank you,


ezinestein

It is just assumed that if you're playing AJo in that position you will play it anywhere later also.


The best strategy in late position is probably to just call with 3 or more limpers and raise with 1 limper. 2 limpers is really a matter of taste. In middle position in a low limit game I will always call because I don't have to fear getting isolated by a late position aggressive player.


The reason you are just calling with AJ in late position here with many limpers is that rather than everyone checking to you on a favourable flop, you would prefer someone to bet out so you can raise.


Chris


PS: Poker is a high variance game, so even if you are the best player on the table you are by no means guaranteed to walk away a winner. In low limit games the majority of a winning player's sessions will be losing sessions.

PS: Poker is a high variance game, so even if you are the best player on the table you are by no means guaranteed to walk away a winner. In low limit games the majority of a winning player's sessions will be losing sessions.


could you explain what you mean here?... it would seem as though you have made a glaring conradiction... ya know "it's one long game" line of thought.... is this to say that when we DO win we make up for all of the other "losing sessions"?


index

Yes. Obviously it depends. If your sessions are 100 hours long I would not expect a majority to be losing. I would expect a majority of, say, one hour sessions to be losing ones. The nature of the game is to occasionally win big pots and for the rest of the time sit there patiently folding.


The "it's one long game" school of thought is perfectly fine and there isn't a contradiction here. I'm just trying to convey to someone who hasn't played the game before the nature of poker, which is not winning one big bet an hour in the short term. Even if you're the best player in the world, you can't take a short holiday to Vegas *expecting* to win.


Chris

(nt)