[CJC]

Hello Again Lin,

To reply to your replies [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

1) The idea that the ante justifies loosening up compared to a non-anted game is completely wrong when the game is already loose.

In a very loose game I DO AGREE with you on this one. Actually I have thought about your comments on this matter quite a deal in the last hour. ( I have nothing else to do here at work right now [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] ) I do think we might 'differ' on our definitions of loosening up.

I will just say, that ON AVERAGE.. if one plays a 1-5 game with the 50 cent ante the same way he/she plays the 1-5 with no ante, that person WILL NOT BE A WINNER. Or at the very least, will not be maximizing his/her profits.

2) As for raising with a drawing hand (CJC), this is almost always wrong unless

I don't rember posting above anything about raising with a drawing hand. I do remember discussing RE-RAISING. Though there are several times when both are correct. ( particularly re-raising ) For example. If you know a loose opponent will raise with something like 456 and you hold 10JQ, if a re-raise will get you heads-up. Wouldn't you want to be? I would! Now in a really-loose game where heads-up opportunities are almost impossible, then I agree re-rasing with a holding such as this is futile/stupid. Although the original post implies a loose game with 1 maniac, it didn't refer to a MULTI-MANIAC table. ( such as the one really loose one I described in my 10-20 post from the other day )

3) As for calling with weak drawing hands on third, this is often right, but not as often as most stud players think

I don't disagree with you here at all..


4) Playing with your balls [sic] is a good way to wind up in 1-3. It's okay to think at the table, really it is


[img]/forums/images/icons/confused.gif[/img]


Sincerly,

CJ