Re: Why I switched to Party
 

40% of those polled said to limp. How many of them call a raise? Fine I'm guilty of hyperbole. Whatever. The fact is that MANY people here - based on that Jacks thread - would limp-fold with 5s in the early rounds of a 800-chip SNG, for better or worse. I do not find it surprising that most of those who advocated discression with Jacks haven't weighed in here, but my guess is that most of them don't mess with 5s with a raise in front.

Re: Why I switched to Party
 

They might limp-fold in some circumstances and limp-call in others. Limp-folding to 1 raiser is a very different beast than limp calling behind a raiser and two or three callers. Without talking about the action in its entirety it's hard to come up with a coherent picture of what to do, and you'll get pretty divergent answers as to how to proceed in the two cases. But keep grinding that axe.

Re: Why I switched to Party
 

[ QUOTE ]
40% of those polled said to limp. How many of them call a raise? Fine I'm guilty of hyperbole. Whatever. The fact is that MANY people here - based on that Jacks thread - would limp-fold with 5s in the early rounds of a 800-chip SNG, for better or worse. I do not find it surprising that most of those who advocated discression with Jacks haven't weighed in here, but my guess is that most of them don't mess with 5s with a raise in front.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is 55 chips into a 325 chip pot, with 4 limpers and no chance of getting reraised. I know some people might fold the 55 UTG. But I find it hard to imagine that one credible player on this forum would fold to the second raise.

Re: Why I switched to Party
 

[ QUOTE ]
40% of those polled said to limp. How many of them call a raise? Fine I'm guilty of hyperbole. Whatever. The fact is that MANY people here - based on that Jacks thread - would limp-fold with 5s in the early rounds of a 800-chip SNG, for better or worse. I do not find it surprising that most of those who advocated discression with Jacks haven't weighed in here, but my guess is that most of them don't mess with 5s with a raise in front.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course most here would limp-fold with 55 in level 1 normally (this hand is an anomaly since there are so many calling a raise preflop that you can play it for set value based on the preflop pot odds). That is because we have understood the concept of not bleeding chips in levels 1-3 when you only start with 800.

I think most of your poker advice on these forums are suspect. You seem to go too far for too many chips far too early in the tournaments. If it works out for you, great but I suspect you are giving up a tonne of folding equity too early far too often.

Re: Why I switched to Party
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course most here would limp-fold with 55 in level 1 normally (this hand is an anomaly since there are so many calling a raise preflop that you can play it for set value based on the preflop pot odds).

[/ QUOTE ]Which is all I was saying. And before I got gang-tackeld, a few people above said they would be reluctant to make the call even though they knew it was "right" because of the chip bleed with an 800-chip tourney.[ QUOTE ]
I think most of your poker advice on these forums are suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, I suggest you don't follow it then. *shrugs*

I don't play at 800-chip tournaments because I like post-flop play, don't mind 90 minute SNGs and generally like playing poker. I make no bones about the fact that I play at 1,500 chip levels or that my motivations for playing are different than the multi-tabling folks who live and die by the almighty ROI and have nightmares about variance monsters.

I also begrudge nobody how they get enjoyment. I just like the same courtesy.

The observation that many who play the 800 levels are weak-tight is hardly a revelation. Sorry my off-hand hyperbole to make that point got a few peoples' panties in a bunch.

For the record, I call that raise even if only ONE person was left in the pot because I want to see that flop. If you care to hyperbolize that by calling me a maniac chip-bleeder, I'll be glad to not decide to make a federal case over it.

I also play my Jacks with a raise too. Ooh, I'm out of control...

Re: Why I switched to Party
 

[ QUOTE ]

The observation that many who play the 800 levels are weak-tight is hardly a revelation. Sorry my off-hand hyperbole to make that point got a few peoples' panties in a bunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seem to understand that after one or two failed fancy attempts at postflop mastery in levels 1-3 your folding equity is gone with 800 starting chips.

Of course if you start with 1500 chips and a slow blind structure everything changes (especially in the early levels), but perhaps you shouldn't give UB-advice in threads about Party hands.

Re: Why I switched to Party
 

Um, I didn't even GIVE any advice in this thread.

Really, of you want to get in the last word, I'll stop responding though.