Thinking outloud about the 2+2 table

[Schneids]

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.

[me454555]

I love your post and completely agree. I played in the 2+2 game a couple of nights ago and found it very tight and aggressive w/many heads up pots. Heads up pots lead to a lot of overaggression knowing that there is a possibility that A high may infact be the best hand.

[MrBlini]

I also agree. The game this week was wildly aggressive at times, but it was also extremely tight. I was seeing 14% of flops when it was between 7 and 10 players, which was half again as many as some players at the table. By the numbers, I was one of the loosest players, and I actually felt like I missed some opportunities to defend my big blind.

When the flop looks like it may have missed the other guy, you have to think about the possibility that AK or even AQ are still good at this table. Yes, we see a lot of bluffing and semibluffing on a draw or overcards--but many of these "bluffs" actually turn out to be value bets with the best hand when most people are seeing no more than 15% of flops and get heads-up.

This Tuesday's table was super-tight, super-aggressive, and super-hard-to-beat. I made a couple of big mistakes, and they were punished severely. Two big mistakes at this table are enough to turn a small win into a medium loss.

For example, I demonstrated that even though you're nearly certain another player will bluff into your medium top pair twice (on the flop and turn) with nothing heads-up, the possibility that the turn will be an overcard makes waiting to pop the turn potentially disastrous. I tried this, made a bad play, and sure as champagne spills from a glass knocked on its side, it cost me. It's one thing to read about why this is a bad idea, but it's another thing to experience it. $5 is a small price to pay for this lesson.

[Eihli]

I'll probably never play in a game that plays like the 2+2 table. But it's still fun to play in that game for a change of pace. And I learn something from the chat every now and then. It's a fun table.

[Mike Gallo]

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,

Excellent point.