Conversation with Bartholow..
 

Rather than giving Bart the usual advice on women, working out, etc. that he is typically asking me for when we chat, we discussed a little poker strategy.

He mentioned to me that he thinks too many posts on this forum just revolve around people making recommendations to fold 3rd street, etc.. Bart plays well, and he plays well on all streets. I think that there are some of us in this forum who are missing opportunities to play on later streets by folding third too often.

Lstream and I have had similar conversations in between chatter of whether or not he should take Viagra. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Hehe..

I just think I notice the people who are playing higher stakes, Jeff, Carlos, Bart, are not doing so by just playing the nuts.

I have more to say, but it isn't all coming to me right now.

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

You raise a good point. But also remember the games that Bart, Jeffage, and Carlos play have a much different structure then the games you and I play in.

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just think I notice the people who are playing higher stakes, Jeff, Carlos, Bart, are not doing so by just playing the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where game structure dictates this type of play.

Notice that Barts loose post are from the days when the 20/40 was a "great" game. (At least this is how I understood the history of that game)

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

[ QUOTE ]

He mentioned to me that he thinks too many posts on this forum just revolve around people making recommendations to fold 3rd street, etc..

[/ QUOTE ]


I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying, Bart.
I mean, some noob post a hand where he was trying to steal with a high bag in EP at a loose .02/.04 table, we’ve got to tell him to fold 3rd, no? Doesn’t mean we can’t get an interesting discussion going on how he should have played the later streets, even if he shouldn’t have been in there in the first place.
Then, we get a lot of posts where it’s not so clear if the hand should have been played or not. I don’t see anything wrong with discussing that and I think it’s well worth it. I’ve posted a good deal of these hands myself, because I think there interesting and because I enjoy thinking about them. Can’t see how that’s a bad thing.


[ QUOTE ]

I think that there are some of us in this forum who are missing opportunities to play on later streets by folding third too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, this just depends on the structure, like Jon said. Playing to many hands in the tight Party structures is going to kill you, for sure. Now that doesn’t mean you can’t play a marginal hand once in a while. You even should, if you think it will make you some $$$. Obviously. The thing is, though, that Bart or Jeff or Carlos etc. are going to be able to tell you why they think the hand can be played for profit. Remember the hand Carlos posted recently? 2A4 with a 2-flush? Looks like a bad hand, but he had excellent reasons to play it (looser structure of course, but it does illustrate my point).

Bottom line, I think you’re contradicting yourself. You want to see people playing more marginal hands, giving themselves an opportunity to out-play their opponents on later street, right? But you can’t just tell people “play more hands” without telling them which hands, exactly.
Granted, get a discussion going about a close 3rd street decision and I’m probably going to chime in with a “fold 3rd”. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Doesn’t mean you can’t respond with a “no, raise 3rd, because…” though.
So really, what you want is more of these 3rd street discussions, not less.

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

[ QUOTE ]


Bottom line, I think you’re contradicting yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you mad at me?

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line, I think you’re contradicting yourself.



Are you mad at me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres no wrong way to eat a Reese's.

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

Roland doesn't know what a Reese's is, nor does he know the pleasure of Dorito's.

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

I think Beer's right here. I sometimes think that the collective wisdom of the board is too tight, both on third and sometimes later on. People suggest that you should fold something like 80% of hands on third, which suggests that you voluntarily put money in the pot about 14-15%. Intuitively, that seems very tight for an eight handed game, whatever the ante is. I've been trying to play some more hands - things like JT9, K44 and flushes with two of the suit out, obviously, depending on the situation. I think this can be profitable if you can play better than your opponents generally. Also, is there not an advantage in playing hands that are roughly break-even, in that they make you harder to read, and more likely to be paid off when you hit a hand.

I also think that, if you want to eventually play at higher stakes games, having more practice dealing with marginal hands can only help.

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think Beer's right here. I sometimes think that the collective wisdom of the board is too tight, both on third and sometimes later on. People suggest that you should fold something like 80% of hands on third, which suggests that you voluntarily put money in the pot about 14-15%. Intuitively, that seems very tight for an eight handed game, whatever the ante is. I've been trying to play some more hands - things like JT9, K44 and flushes with two of the suit out, obviously, depending on the situation. I think this can be profitable if you can play better than your opponents generally. Also, is there not an advantage in playing hands that are roughly break-even, in that they make you harder to read, and more likely to be paid off when you hit a hand.

I also think that, if you want to eventually play at higher stakes games, having more practice dealing with marginal hands can only help.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think anyone flat out says to fold something like 9TJ. it is all situational as you say. If you can limp in, your straight cards are live, and you are late to act/dont think it will be raised behind you, if you fold you are so tight that will earn more money by putting a lump of charcoal up your ass.

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

[ QUOTE ]

I also think that, if you want to eventually play at higher stakes games, having more practice dealing with marginal hands can only help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is part of the 'problem' here. A competent person with some poker background in hold'em or omaha, can pick up a copy of 7CS4AP, read it and practice its teachings without playing the marginal hands, and be a winning player at the lower limits. Obviously when you start moving to the 30/60 level that a lot of you guys are at, if you only play big pairs, strong 3 flush or 3 straight draws then you're probably going to lose a lot because you'll be marked as a rock and won't get as much action when you hit your big hands.

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

Simon Allen:I really like what you're saying.Purposely taking on marginal situations for image purposes or for self training are great things to do.If a player is doing this in a hand that he posts,he should notate this so other posters will understand & adjust their comments accordingly,imo.

Re: Conversation with Bartholow..
 

I don't think this is a question of playing hands which you wouldn't otherwise play. You might want to say that you think a hand is marginal when you post it, but you are playing it because you believe it is correct to do so.

I think there is a set of hands which we all play almost all the time - things like pairs of aces or kings, rolled hands, big live flush draws etc, which have a high positive expectation. Up to and including 5/10 (and possibly higher than that) it's pretty easy to be a winning player just playing these hands. I suspect that this is a strategy used by a number of posters here, and it is an effective and relatively low variance way of making money in these online games.

I think that there are a number of other hands, which are (or can be, if played well) marginally profitable. There is a section in 7CSFAP about playing some pretty junky hands in late position in unraised pots. As well as playing these hands for the potential profit, I think that it is correct to play for meta-game reasons, but also to improve your skill and judgement. Indeed for those reason it is correct to play hands with no positive or negative expectation.

A couple of examples - when I started posting here, I asked a few questions about whether I should play hands like A44 against a raise or reraise from cards like queens and kings. Most people here suggested that I probably shouldn't, although nobody demonstrated that I would actually lose money doing so. Another example is that a number of people are unwilling generally to call a small bet on fourth with a gutshot. People also suggest folding a flush draw on third, if there are two cards out, even with a fully live overcard to the board. I think that these are all situations that should be played unless there is a good reason not to.