[Paul77]

Hi there,

Well, a few comments on Kammen's book, and seing how as I'm the author I thought I'd post a few [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]) These quotes are from Andy's posts...

Does anyone, and I mean anyone, play this tight? In good low-limit games, I’m around 25%, and in tough games, I’m probably around 18%. Seems to me that anyone playing 10% of his hands is going to go like Broomcorn’s uncle.

Yes, that is slightly tight, especially for Canterbury's High-ante games, but for a low ante structure game or spread-limit game with no ante, it's not overly tight.

Canterbury’s $2/4 game has a $.50 ante and $1 bring-in, and that is the model that Kammen uses for his discussion. I think that Canterbury’s $3/6 game, with the same ante and bring-in, would have been a better model.

Maybe, unfortunately this game never goes off. $4/8 does on Tuesdays, but for stud 2/4 is about it.

I wonder what he means by “a few.” I don’t know how many times I’ve been rolled-up, but it’s at least 100, which is more than a few. I wonder just how much this guy has actually played.

More than a few, but it's very rare. I play about 10 hours per week on PokerStars and Canterbury. Last time I was rolled up was Sunday night in a Satellite, unfortunately it was with rolled up 9s and my opponent had rolled up queens. Bummer.

Kammen says that your default play should be to slow-play big full houses or better on fifth. I think that this is a mistake in most low-limit games.

If the game is loose, certainly play it hard, but I'd rather play it loose-passive and call and hope players hit the flush or straight to extract more money from them.