|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Adjusting to the $200 games
I wrote up a long question here but decided to be simple instead.
Due to the difference of aggression between the $100 and the $200 games I have decided to not open limp small PPs in EP, but I decided to replace them with c/c'ing SCs when I have position and am against somebody with at least a 100bb stack...even when it will likely be HU. How bad is this? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
[ QUOTE ]
I wrote up a long question here but decided to be simple instead. Due to the difference of aggression between the $100 and the $200 games I have decided to not open limp small PPs in EP, but I decided to replace them with c/c'ing SCs when I have position and am against somebody with at least a 100bb stack...even when it will likely be HU. How bad is this? [/ QUOTE ] regardless of the level, small-mid pocket pairs hitting sets is a major source of income. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I wrote up a long question here but decided to be simple instead. Due to the difference of aggression between the $100 and the $200 games I have decided to not open limp small PPs in EP, but I decided to replace them with c/c'ing SCs when I have position and am against somebody with at least a 100bb stack...even when it will likely be HU. How bad is this? [/ QUOTE ] regardless of the level, small-mid pocket pairs hitting sets is a major source of income. [/ QUOTE ] They're also about the easiest hands to play OOP vs. a preflop raiser. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
I think what both of you said are pretty obvious. But against people who are raising many hands and likely do not have much to pay off with I am not sure they are worth it, obv. this is read dependent. Shouldn't I be more likely to limp w/PPs at a tight/aggressive and loose/passive table instead of loose/aggressive tables?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
[ QUOTE ]
pretty obvious. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks joker, true to your name. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
[ QUOTE ]
I think what both of you said are pretty obvious. But against people who are raising many hands and likely do not have much to pay off with I am not sure they are worth it, obv. this is read dependent. Shouldn't I be more likely to limp w/PPs at a tight/aggressive and loose/passive table instead of loose/aggressive tables? [/ QUOTE ] If its really a table where most of your opponents are loose-aggresive, online at the $200 NL level, I would get up and find another table. However, in my experience, there are not many good LAGs per table, and even against them, a set is a nice hidden hand that can pay off very well. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I wrote up a long question here but decided to be simple instead. Due to the difference of aggression between the $100 and the $200 games I have decided to not open limp small PPs in EP, but I decided to replace them with c/c'ing SCs when I have position and am against somebody with at least a 100bb stack...even when it will likely be HU. How bad is this? [/ QUOTE ] regardless of the level, small-mid pocket pairs hitting sets is a major source of income. [/ QUOTE ] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
Do you play 6-max or full ring?? Not that it really matters with the pocket pair, just wondering out of curiosity.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
sorry, full ring games.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
I don't see playing suited connectors as being more profitable for you, even with the positional advantage, as you stated yourself you don't like variance.
A lot of the profitability of these hands comes from pushing your draws hard, which obviously pumps up your variance. Plus it is like a thousand times easier to play a set, even out of position. So I don't think this adjustment is necessary. I do think, however, that everyone, including yourself, should play 6-max though. Its like soooo much more fun |
|
|