[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people have been fretting lately about the increasing tightness (as measured by VPIP) on Party. At various levels, this appears to be the case. One reason for this is the increase in the number of tight, aggressive players playing multiple tables.
However, I've also seen a lot of people fretting that the games are drying up and are no longer as profitable as they once were, or profitable
at all.
While tracking the statistical trends of the various levels on Party is somewhat interesting and marginally useful, I'd just like to point out that the games continue to be very, very good, even if they aren't as good as they were in the past. Egregiously bad players (I hate calling them "fish"--I prefer "donkeys," "donks," or "producers) are still playing in droves, but more importantly there are vast numbers of players who are tight and aggressive preflop but just suck postflop.
I understand the stage these players are in, because that was me when I first started playing hold'em seriously. I thought that being tight and (somewhat) aggressive preflop and playing fit or fold postflop should be enough to make me a substantial winner in small stakes game. It isn't.
Improving your postflop play is absolutely the most important thing you can do. Stop worrying about statistics. Stop worrying about your winrate. Start worrying about not sucking postflop. It's what keeps me up at night.
Here's a hand I played against a player who is excessively tight and reasonbly aggressive preflop. I think he took a horrible postflop line. He had TT in this hand (what I had doesn't really matter.) He essentially took a line that wins him the least when he's ahead and loses the most when he's behind:
Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (9 handed)
converter
Preflop:
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">bdk3clash 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">
7 folds</font>, UTG calls.
Flop: (7.33 SB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">bdk3clash bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">bdk3clash 3-bets</font>, UTG calls.
Turn: (6.66 BB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">bdk3clash bets</font>, UTG calls.
River: (8.66 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">bdk3clash bets</font>, UTG calls.
Final Pot: 10.66 BB
What's the point? The point is that you should not fret if you're playing against tight opponents. Most of them are pretty bad postflop. Just don't be one of them.
Learn blind stealing and blind defense.
Learn that raising light preflop feels naughty at first but vastly increases your chances of taking the pot down with a flop or turn bet. The notion that aggression on any street essentially buys you outs and makes you money (by getting your opponents to check when they should bet, call when they should raise, or fold when they should call) isn't discussed very often on this forum, but I think it's important (and something I struggle with.) Abdul Jalib discusses this on his site quite well.
Learn that raising preflop and on the flop allows you to make folds on the turn and river with a better conscinece because an opponent betting or raising someone who has shown strength on that or a previous street means a stronger hand than betting or raising someone who has played a hand passively.
Learn that even though not all of your opponents are braindead fucktards who you can nut-peddle against and value-bet the shit out of, many of them are still bad postflop and very profitable to play against.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is/was a great post. One thing I don't get, if you folks can humour my ignorance, is the quote in the text
"He essentially took a line that wins him the least when he's ahead and loses the most when he's behind:"
I've heard and seen this lots, but help me out here folks.
UTG had TT - we know that for sure. If was behind (to say a QQ), then there are ways he could played this and lost MORE money. For example, capping post-flop and leading with a bet on the turn and river.
If he was ahead (let's say to 99), there are ways he could have played this and made LESS money. Not Checkraising post-flop, for example.
So, I don't get the quote.
If I was in UTG, I would figure after the two 3 bets that I was about 50/50 chance of being ahead.(this is very much read dependent, and depending on my opponent I could fold, re-raise, or slowdown and call down). I could be ahead to 99, AKs, AKo and AQs. I would be behind to JJ - AA. With the two 3 bets, the board is just noise (unless he hit trip 8s) - it's probably going to come down to the pocket cards.
So, how does the quote ring true.
If UTG is unsure if he's ahead or behind, but is committed to a showdown, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for him or anyone to play the hand in such a way that maximizes the pot if he is ahead, and minimizes his loss if he is behind..
Is the original poster suggesting that UTG should have decided if he was behind and folded to the post-flop 3 bet, OR decided he was ahead and pumped the action through to the river? If so, this seems a little like the raise or fold argument - as others noted, it's not a sin to hit the call button!!!
Now if this player was avoiding obvious info that he was beat, then he should have folded. But, we dont have that info when looking at this example...
HELP