A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

As the title suggests...

In fact, I actually wrote it out a few days ago when the forum was more screwed up than it is now and new posts got deleted after written. So, I lost it. But, here goes again.

Poker changes. I haven't been playing that long....about 4.5 years. That's a lot longer than a lot of people here. I certainly won't say I'm better, but I will say I've seen changes that newer players haven't seen. And a lot of people don't adapt to changing conditions. Don't be those people.

In the last few months, there have been more and more posts about how the games are getting tougher. And I'll be the first to admit that a lot of 100-200 games and higher are only BARELY beatable by me, if even that much (that alone will signify that lots here are lots better than me).

However, people are bemoaning the 30s and 50s on party. They aren't anywhere near unbeatable. Not all, but a lot of people here are:

1.) Not gathering info throughout a hand. They see VPIP/PFR numbers, and know preflop how they will play the entire hand way too often.

2.) Way too egomaniacal. Look, I was there (search for "GummyWorm" posts). I still have an ego problem (and for as bad as it is, it used to be a lot worse...if you can believe that!). I've made a lot of money at poker, and I've NEVER read a poker book. I've learned exclusively from my own pondering and this forum. Use this forum to learn. Quit saying things are 'obvious' when they are close. Yes, I'm largely referring to my recent "unusual AK hand". Anybody who chooses to do any math will see that by folding that river, they are losing pennies at most. And yet, TONS of people claimed it was an easy call, or a horrible fold, or a disasterous fold. None of those are right. It was close.

And again, those who said it was an easy call thought so because of one players stats, and refused to acquire information throughout the hand.

3.) People here don't think they can beat tight games. It's been said for years that preflop decisions are nearly worthless relative to postflop play. And yet, everybody focuses on preflop stats. ooooh, everybody at this table is 16/8, I can't win, I'll leave.

Please. Give me that game. If they can play well post flop, yeah, it's a tough game. But if those are their stats, they probably haven't played much shorthanded. This means that they are quite possibly poor from their blinds. Rip them apart. If you steal the blinds an extra time every five rounds, that's an extra 1.5BB / 100 hands.

1.5BB/100 hands if you can find one (extra) opportunity every FIVE ROUNDS.

A ton of people here would love to have that as their winrate. Here's a suggestion. Find a tight game with one or two players who don't play well postflop (even if they are tight preflop). Rob them. Get rich.

But please stop saying tight games are tough. Tight games can be the most profitable type.

All three of these things fall under the category of THINKING. THINK about your opponents hands, not just stats. THINK about how you can make money besides opponents bad preflop limps. THINK about how you can improve your game instead of thinking you already know everything.

This should make sense. And it should also hit close to home.

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The selected post/topic has been added to your list. You will see this entry in 'My Home' until you remove it if you added it as a Favorite. You also will get any replies to your Favorite topics emailed to you if you have this option enabled in your profile. Reminders will not be emailed to you and will go away once you make a reply to the post. In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.




[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

JoshW,

Very refreshing post...Thanks.

___1___

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't been playing that long....about 4.5 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. That's like older than the Spice Girls. [ QUOTE ]
THINK about your opponents hands, not just stats. THINK about how you can make money besides opponents bad preflop limps. THINK about how you can improve your game instead of thinking you already know everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying I should think about stuff? Cuz that's like my worst part.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

Great post [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

I don't think there is a good player on this forum who thinks tight games are impossible to beat.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

I tend to agree. I have pretty standard table selection procedure and review what tables I am sitting at very frequently, often leaving the tighter table.

The kind of annoying thing is that the tables I am doing well on/have doubled up on often dont have the best stats so I keep uncheckign my "auot-post blinds" box only to realize I'd be crazy to leave that table.

The problem I see is that SSH taught a bunch of us how to play AF=3 postflop and thats what we know how to do so we just find the loose games and keep betting and raising.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

It depends on your definition of good, of course.

There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

Well said. Especially your comments about pre-flop vs post-flop. Way too much focus is given here to pre-flop play and stats. How someone plays post-flop is SO much more important. A tough expert 35 vpip will crush a nitty 17 vpip anyday, even in a 10 handed game.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well said. Especially your comments about pre-flop vs post-flop. Way too much focus is given here to pre-flop play and stats. How someone plays post-flop is SO much more important. A tough expert 35 vpip will crush a nitty 17 vpip anyday, even in a 10 handed game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Just ask Derb (though I'd say 30 VPIP, not 35....but the point is the same).

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

I'm a mid-limit player and certainly the 10/20 and 15/30 are far from impossible to beat handily. But I played several hours of a no fold 'em live 3/6 game. I counted about 10 times when I made a bad or highly questionable decision (over 8 hours of play). This is about 1 every 25 hands (and I could be making more errors that I don't yet notice). On the one hand, it is good that I can now recognize my poor decisions when analyzing the hand immediately after the fact -- that experience is something I didn't have when I was first beating these games. There's probably something analagous that goes on at every limit -- when we first play, even if we succeed, we can't really spot where our leaks are. It's only after a long amount of play in a game can we start to reliably spot leaks (and hopefully not make them).

But on the other hand, it was disturbing to make so many mistakes. Almost all of my mistakes were pretty small EV wise and ranged from loose calls to failing to bluff at one pot where I might have been able to take it down due to unique circumstances to not value betting/raising in a few situations. If I make this many mistakes in a game that is easier than the 0.5/1 game on Party, how many errors am I making a 15/30 game?

I remember a few weeks ago having one of my best sessions ever. I felt like I had a great read of everyone at the table and was picking up on the style of every new player at the table quickly. I felt like I was consistently making good decisions. I only made one boneheaded play the entire session, calling down a turn raise with TT against a player who was too passive to check-raise the turn with a hand I could have beaten. It helped that I was runnning good most of the session, and in fact that probably significantly reduced the number of tough decisions I faced.

However, this was a rare experience. So often, I play decent but end up getting sloppy and make plays against my better judgment, or I fail to work on maintaining active reads of the other players at the table, or I overcompensate when running bad to avoid being run over.

Despite being a winning player so far, I would say that I am not much better than a half-decent player. I can crush loose small stakes games and I can beat the lower mid-limit games so far despite needing work in my game. But a lot of that is my opponents at these limits are more lazy and more sloppy than I am, not that I am particularly good. I believe that I am capable of being a much better player, but it will take a lot more work to reach that goal. Hopefully I will learn to THINK better and also develop the discipline to work on consistently applying all that I know and all my observational powers throughout every session I play. Instead of looking at how much I am winning against my bad opponents, when I am honest with myself, I realize that despite this appearance of success, I am leaving a significant amount of theoeretical EV on the table. I am not that good, but I can aspire to study more and work harder to become that good.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
A tough expert 35 vpip will crush a nitty 17 vpip anyday, even in a 10 handed game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck with that.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've made a lot of money at poker, and I've NEVER read a poker book.

[/ QUOTE ]

So uh, whats up with that?

Why not just buy a book and read it? You *might* just learn a thing of two.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

I've recently explored some near-derb stats at full games with tight players, and I've seen excellent results. Kts utg, no problem, raaaaaaaisse.

Someone tries to isolate my kjo? caaaaap.

It really mind-[censored] the tags.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who chooses to do any math will see that by folding that river, they are losing pennies at most. And yet, TONS of people claimed it was an easy call, or a horrible fold, or a disasterous fold. None of those are right. It was close.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a really bad fold. Don't fool yourself.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

your third point is good, but that doesn't mean i'm gonna be looking for tight games.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl. This way you'll be able to name some of them, and they'll be able to defend their strange view. I'm, I'm assuming you're not just reading minds (again) here...

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

Tight games are beatable, but it takes more balls, and I've found that even though I am beating the game, I am not having a lot of fun. I play recreationally, so that's important to me.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl. This way you'll be able to name some of them, and they'll be able to defend their strange view. I'm, I'm assuming you're not just reading minds (again) here...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start with Gentleman Gerry. He said he's beating the 15, but the 50 is horrible. This means his earn (in BB/100h) is less than 30% in the 50-100 than in the 15-30. That's one name without looking up any old threads.

I've never read minds. I have read hands, tho!

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

Would this strategy increase variance? That's the primary reason I get up from tight tables - It seems like we are just waiting to see who gets the cards today. I prefer being at tables where I can point and say, "that's a mistake! That's a mistake! There's another one!" I don't know, I've stumbled on this neat parlor trick where I can make a bunch of money playing a stupid game 5 hours a day. My understanding of this game isn't big enough to know how to squeeze blood from a stone. I mean, I understand the TAG rules and know how to use that against a fellow TAG, but I don't conjure hands out of thin air. I don't 3bet T9s, and I hardly ever chk/rz a turn completely naked. I think I'm happy where I am.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl. This way you'll be able to name some of them, and they'll be able to defend their strange view. I'm, I'm assuming you're not just reading minds (again) here...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start with Gentleman Gerry. He said he's beating the 15, but the 50 is horrible. This means his earn (in BB/100h) is less than 30% in the 50-100 than in the 15-30. That's one name without looking up any old threads.

I've never read minds. I have read hands, tho!

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and close the gap between this and your assertion. Why bluff?

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm happy where I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it would be silly for you to change.

I think part of the reason I wrote this is because...I don't foresee the games always being this good. I mean, the games are tightening up. As I said in my preface, the games always change. What works so well today won't in 18 months.

ABC poker wins a lot of money right now. It wins less than it did 6 months ago. Will it still win in 18 months? I certainly can't say. But I don't like the trend.

For now, though, if you are happy...Congrats. I mean that in the sincerest of ways.

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't foresee the games always being this good. I mean, the games are tightening up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, given that tight doesn't mean tough was your thesis...

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't foresee the games always being this good. I mean, the games are tightening up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, given that tight doesn't mean tough was your thesis...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess my response was too brief, hoping the reader would connect the dots. Yes, it led to ambiguity.

1.) A lot of people think tight games are bad. Hence, I wrote what I did.

2.) The person whom I was responding to (and others) said that they don't wanna seek out tight games. They wanna be able to play ABC and win lots of money.

3.) That's fine.

4.) The games may not always be this 'good'. That is, in their view, loose. To them (to some non-universal extent), good = loose.

5.) The games may tighten up. ABC poker may not win as much because of this. I think games will still be good (maybe not quite as good, but still very beatable, whereas many here think tight games are unbeatable).

I hope this clears it up for you. However, I don't think it will. It seems as though you have some sort of vendetta or agenda. If that's the case, you should just come out in the open with it. You've made a five responses in this thread, and contributed nothing. Why is this?

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl. This way you'll be able to name some of them, and they'll be able to defend their strange view. I'm, I'm assuming you're not just reading minds (again) here...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start with Gentleman Gerry. He said he's beating the 15, but the 50 is horrible. This means his earn (in BB/100h) is less than 30% in the 50-100 than in the 15-30. That's one name without looking up any old threads.

I've never read minds. I have read hands, tho!

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and close the gap between this and your assertion. Why bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had any sort of clue what you are trying to get at here, I'd respond more constructively. As it is, I'm just forced to ask...what's your agenda here? You aren't trying to learn anything. You aren't trying to teach anything. You aren't trying to strike up constructive conversation. You aren't discussing strategy. I think you may have stumbled into the wrong forum.

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl. This way you'll be able to name some of them, and they'll be able to defend their strange view. I'm, I'm assuming you're not just reading minds (again) here...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start with Gentleman Gerry. He said he's beating the 15, but the 50 is horrible. This means his earn (in BB/100h) is less than 30% in the 50-100 than in the 15-30. That's one name without looking up any old threads.

I've never read minds. I have read hands, tho!

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and close the gap between this and your assertion. Why bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had any sort of clue what you are trying to get at here, I'd respond more constructively. As it is, I'm just forced to ask...what's your agenda here? You aren't trying to learn anything. You aren't trying to teach anything. You aren't trying to strike up constructive conversation. You aren't discussing strategy. I think you may have stumbled into the wrong forum.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

My agenda? Gentleman Gerry never said he didn't like the games because they were tight. He said they were often horrible.

I was originally trying to make the point that you made a claim you couldn't defend, and you did it with the gee whiz sense of discover of someone your age.

You've since put on a clown show.

My agenda.

To chuckle.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

Yes. It's personal. There's something about you I don't like. Or maybe we've played together and you've outplayed me. Or maybe not even that, but I just think your a cocky kid. AND IT PISSES ME OFF! YEAH THAT"S IT. I"M PISSED OFF!!!! MYAGEENDAR IS TO TAKE YOU DOWN MORHTERHFUSDLAFJER. It's not simply that I thought you said something silly and called you on it. Nope.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

To say that the 50-100 games have been horrible recently has been to say that you (or whomever) can't beat good games. THAT was the point of my post. There are tons of crushable games out there that people are avoiding for whatever reason. The biggest reason is because of tightness. You are right, I shouldn't have guessed why Gerry thought the games were horrible. I made an deduced assumption that may or may not be correct.

[ QUOTE ]

My agenda.

To chuckle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are looking for OOT.

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are right, I shouldn't have guessed why Gerry thought the games were horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. I guess an admission of error, even if only a part of it, is laudable.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are looking for OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

You post there too?

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've made a lot of money at poker, and I've NEVER read a poker book.

[/ QUOTE ]

So uh, whats up with that?

Why not just buy a book and read it? You *might* just learn a thing of two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously though. I really am curious....

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
but I don't conjure hands out of thin air. I don't 3bet T9s, and I hardly ever chk/rz a turn completely naked.

[/ QUOTE ]

im pretty sure that doing these particular moves is not how you beat "tight" games.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are right, I shouldn't have guessed why Gerry thought the games were horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. I guess an admission of error, even if only a part of it, is laudable.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are looking for OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

You post there too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have anything, ya know, benefitial to add?

If not, I don't think I'll continue to participate in your attempted thread hijack. It's nothing personal. In fact, I'm surprised this is coming from you. It's just that the boards have enough clutter with stuff like what you are writing. I don't want to catch myself doing that, too.

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

You realize that most of the people who play 30/60+ 3+ table right? They have no idea how their opponents play outside of whatever they have set up for their HUD. But you're supposed to just magically OUTPLAY everyone post flop? Ohhhhh kay. Good thing this wasn't an egomaniacal post.

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

Hi Josh,

While I, and i'm sure others, appreciated what you took the time to write, you aren't exploring new territory here. In fact, the only reason you're getting such a volume of responses is the brash and condescending manner in which you presented it. No offense intended.

I enjoy reading your posts, especially the ones I disagree with, as you at least take the time to include a "why" with your "what".

Ultimately, however, your post boils down to two often tred topics.

#1. Success in poker comes not from our own skill, but from the difference in skill between us and our opponents. Granted there are different kinds of skills, and different skills serve different purposes on every betting street. To assume, however, that beating a bunch of "17/10 nits" is easy, is foolish. If these players have the discipline to play that solid, against standard oppositon, it won't take them to long to asses your style of play, and adapt accordingly. Nobody with the discipline to play winning 17/10 poker lacks the intution required to make such adjustments. Doing so, however, requires attention to every detail of the opponentes game. Why bother? They can just as easily ignore you, or go to a game with 6 other 38/14 monkeys and play 600 hands an hour with out thinking. Don't assume just because these people choose not to try outwit that they are incapable of doing so. To make that assumption would be a huge mistake.

#2. Success in poker is realized by recognizing that difference in skill, and exploiting it. Tommy wrote a wonderful post on "making a difference" that explained this, albeit using a vagueness that only Tommy has mastered. I suggest you search it.

I look forward to another one of your poker epiphanys, hopefully the next one will be slightly better received, and much more original.

lf

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
You realize that most of the people who play 30/60+ 3+ table right? They have no idea how their opponents play outside of whatever they have set up for their HUD. But you're supposed to just magically OUTPLAY everyone post flop? Ohhhhh kay. Good thing this wasn't an egomaniacal post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Three tabling allows for tons of opposition observation.

This isn't egomaniacal at all. I'm sorry if it came off that way.

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have anything, ya know, benefitial to add?

[/ QUOTE ]
You've amended some of your spew in light of my comments, was this not progress, of a sort?

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Josh,

While I, and i'm sure others, appreciated what you took the time to write, you aren't exploring new territory here. In fact, the only reason you're getting such a volume of responses is the brash and condescending manner in which you presented it. No offense intended.

I enjoy reading your posts, especially the ones I disagree with, as you at least take the time to include a "why" with your "what".

Ultimately, however, your post boils down to two often tred topics.

#1. Success in poker comes not from our own skill, but from the difference in skill between us and our opponents. Granted there are different kinds of skills, and different skills serve different purposes on every betting street. To assume, however, that beating a bunch of "17/10 nits" is easy, is foolish. If these players have the discipline to play that solid, against standard oppositon, it won't take them to long to asses your style of play, and adapt accordingly. Nobody with the discipline to play winning 17/10 poker lacks the intution required to make such adjustments. Doing so, however, requires attention to every detail of the opponentes game. Why bother? They can just as easily ignore you, or go to a game with 6 other 38/14 monkeys and play 600 hands an hour with out thinking. Don't assume just because these people choose not to try outwit that they are incapable of doing so. To make that assumption would be a huge mistake.

#2. Success in poker is realized by recognizing that difference in skill, and exploiting it. Tommy wrote a wonderful post on "making a difference" that explained this, albeit using a vagueness that only Tommy has mastered. I suggest you search it.

I look forward to another one of your poker epiphanys, hopefully the next one will be slightly better received, and much more original.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

Three points.

1.) If this came off brash (or, rather...SINCE this came of brash)...my sincerest apologies.

2.) This post isn't directed at people who can beat the tar out of tight games. I **know** that those people exist, and I'm glad they do, because they can hopefully contribute to the discussion (should they choose).

3.) I have seen no threads like this is the last 6 to 12 months. I'm sorry if it's often discussed. Can you please point me to threads regarding these topics...I'm not so egotistical to think that my game can't improve, and if there are threads out there that will help me, I'd love to peruse them

Thanks, and again, sorry for the tone.

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

Josh to be honest, if all you can come up with is a winning $15/30 player finding a few $50/100 games tough, you don't really have much of a point or an argument here. Maybe he doesn't consider himself to perfect postflop player either yet.

I don't know why you are using this as an argument to back up your claim that a lot of winning $15/30 and $30/60 players focus only on finding games with loose play preflop. You yourself are saying you would have trouble beating $100/200, can't a $15/30 winner find a few $50/100 games horrible?

And also, preflop looseness is not the be all or end all of limit Holdem, but it sure is ONE very nice factor to a game, if it's there. There are certainly others too, but PARTICULARLY I think as you escalate up the limits, preflop looseness is one way to beat very experienced and aggressive players slightly over time.

I think Paluka have touched onto this earlier, saying he is equal at best postflop to most of his high-limit opposition, but he gains his edge preflop. You will also see Stoxtrader entering full games at almost the highest online limits, playing against some of the world best online $500/1000 players, but possibly having an edge even over them as they have a hard time adjusting, or being bothered adjusting, to proper tight play once the game gets more than 3 or 4 handed.

lars

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've made a lot of money at poker, and I've NEVER read a poker book.

[/ QUOTE ]

So uh, whats up with that?

Why not just buy a book and read it? You *might* just learn a thing of two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously though. I really am curious....

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I wasn't 100% truthful.

After playing for about 2 years, I hit a downswing. People suggested that I read HPFAP. I borrowed a copy of it from Sooga, and started to read it. I read the first 15ish pages, then glanced at a couple other chapters and found it very very obvious. I really don't enjoy sitting down and reading books, so I don't think it's +Life EV for me to read it.

Other books on limit holdem haven't been quoted as often or preached to me as much, so I figure nobody has reinvented the wheel as far as limit holdem books go, yet. IF I hear of a book that far surpasses HPFAP, I'll likely read it.

I've suggested to TONS of friends who want to learn poker to read books first. I wish somebody would have told me that before I lost thousands climbing the learning curve.

If I were to more seriously pursue NL or stud or omaha, I would certainly try to find a book to read first, to accelerate the learning process.

Hope this makes sense.

Josh

Re: A post I\'ve wanted to write for a long time (LONG)
 

tight games may or may not be good on an absolute basis, two important factors there is your skill, and the post-flop skill of your opponents.

on a RELATIVE basis, tight games blow.