|
|
#61
12-14-2004, 09:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Beating the Party 10+1, Part 2
Wow that's a little harsh don't you think? Sorry if this is a little off topic but, why do people get so agitated when a newb asks a question? That is what this board is for after all? They are not idiots they just don't know any better yet. How would you feel if your child asked his teacher a question and his teacher replied that he must be an idiot, the child isn't an idiot he just hasn't been taught the answer yet. A few of the posters around here seem to have a real superiority complex or are just complete a-holes. Perhaps they were born with infinite poker knowledge ,must be nice. Most of us need to ask questions and have discussions in order to learn however. So when someone asks what can I do to prevent being short-stacked, is it better to call them an idiot or explain how stealing becomes very important late in the game? I generally consider you one of the better posters around here when it comes to poker content, but that last one doesn't add anything to this forum and just makes you look like a jerk.
|
|
#63
12-14-2004, 09:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beating the Party 10+1, Part 2
[ QUOTE ]
While it's nice that this thread is getting bumped and all, since it is a very nice thread, you people are killing it. The subtext, if not the real text, of the last series of stupid assed messages in this thread is: "You made a post that says if I read it and play in a certain way, I should beat the Party 10+1s. In my last 2 games, I've not won! Waaaaah. I want my money back. I get short stacked when I don't play hands! Waaaah." Oh my god people. Look at the actual text of the message that I'm posing in reply to. "I'm currently playing one in which I have yet to play a hand from any position other than the blinds. Needless to say, half my stack is gone and I'm now a huge underdog." Is there any meat to that at all? You should be damned ashamed of yourself. Look: The "beating the Party 10+1 system" works on a very simple premise set. 1) Using this system, you are very unlikely to Be broke in the first 4 players to get broke. 2) Using this system, you will either have lost a few chips due to blinds, or raising and then folding, limping and then folding, in the first couple of levels, or will be up chips due to the few hands you play being better than the average hands that others play. 3) Using this system, you will be amongst the small group of intelligently aggressive players at the Party 10+1 games. Thus, though you will likely be shortish stacked, you will be stealing enough to come back, and build a stack at the right time of the game. 4) When you are called, while stealing, you are often going to have the best hand, since well, these people are stupid for the most part. There are a variety of reasons that the majority of the people who whine, whine about being too short stacked. They have mostly to do with not going for steals enough, or with enough "gusto." Let's say you get to the final 6 players 90% of the time. If you start rolling the dice here, you're likely to make money. Since well, you only need to get in the money something less than half the time, and you only need to eliminate half the field to get in. None of this is to say that there are not other styles, and things that you should know, to play the Party 10+1 game. It's just that the "beating the" thread is showing that EVEN using a very simplistic system, one should be able to beat the game. This system works, and if you are having problems with it a) you have a small sample set b) you are an idiot c) you haven't posted real questions about it enough. Happy Hunting, citanul [/ QUOTE ]The problem is that by the time it gets to 6-handed, you're usually down to about 5-600 in chips, if not less. The blinds at 100, one or two bad steals and you're out of the game. And that's to say you even get enough hands to steal with. It only takes two revolutions then for your blinds to be halved, and it's not easy getting a hand tha's stealable with. The more aggressive players have mroe than enough chips to bully you around, and can easily knock you off a flop if you miss. (Should we be calling our entire stack on the off chance he can't beat K high?)
|
|
#64
12-14-2004, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beating the Party 10+1, Part 2
i disagree. it was necessary to remind them that just cause "the system" didnt win in a certain situation, doesnt mean it is broken.
I read his post, and sat there nodding, then the next post bashes it. Take 2 posts. Post A: YOU ARE IDIOTS. STOP POSTING. Post B: YOU DONT SEEM TO BE UNDERSTANDING FULLY THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL POST. POSSSIBLE REASONS INCLUDE....AND HERE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO HELP YOU. Post A no good. Post B great. Some games will simply not be winnable, no matter how good/bad you are. Period. You just dont get cards, or get them in situations where they end up 2nd best. If someone didnt have a hand to play in 50 hands, and is down to half his stack, i think it is very likely he would have NO stack if he decided to play it looser. IMO.
|
|
#65
12-14-2004, 09:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beating the Party 10+1, Part 2
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that by the time it gets to 6-handed, you're usually down to about 5-600 in chips [/ QUOTE ] Run the ICM 6 handed with a chip count of 600 and see if your equity would give you a +ROI. If it does, compare it to your current ROI... you may be surprised. Irieguy
|
|
#67
12-14-2004, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beating the Party 10+1, Part 2
[ QUOTE ]
i disagree. it was necessary to remind them that just cause "the system" didnt win in a certain situation, doesnt mean it is broken. I read his post, and sat there nodding, then the next post bashes it. Take 2 posts. Post A: YOU ARE IDIOTS. STOP POSTING. Post B: YOU DONT SEEM TO BE UNDERSTANDING FULLY THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL POST. POSSSIBLE REASONS INCLUDE....AND HERE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO HELP YOU. Post A no good. Post B great. Some games will simply not be winnable, no matter how good/bad you are. Period. You just dont get cards, or get them in situations where they end up 2nd best. If someone didnt have a hand to play in 50 hands, and is down to half his stack, i think it is very likely he would have NO stack if he decided to play it looser. IMO. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you on this. The problem I had with his post is that it was more Post A and not enough B. To me it came across as the newbie says "Hey the system is broken" the more experienced player/poster says " No the system is fine you are just an idiot" where it would have been more helpful to say "No the system is fine let me try and explain the part you don't understand". That is all I was saying.
|
|
#68
12-14-2004, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beating the Party 10+1, Part 2
[ QUOTE ]
If someone didnt have a hand to play in 50 hands, and is down to half his stack, i think it is very likely he would have NO stack if he decided to play it looser. IMO. [/ QUOTE ] I think that's an excellent point... we're playing tight and looking jealously at the big stack that is looser than a rapper's pants. We have to keep in mind that for each loose player that's the chip leader, there's 3 other looser players going home broke. I was heads up with one player that was chip leader through the whole game, and he placed first (i was second.) We both ended up at the same SNG afterwards. He was the first player to bust out.
|
|
#69
12-15-2004, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beating the Party 10+1, Part 2
I'd change this strategy one way: be aggressive early. Try to double up early and not be afraid of busting out early. If you can double up, you are almost guarentteed to be in the money if you play smart. If play good cards, you are more likely to double up than bust out, and you only need to do this once. After that, you watch everyone else play tight and get blinded away while you make the occasional steal to keep your stack size.
I think the crucial period is in the early game, when the fish are still around, and they aren't afraid to call with really bad pot odds.
|
|
#70
12-15-2004, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beating the Party 10+1, Part 2
Irie, unfortunately neophytes (like myself) don't know what ICM is yet.
Are you saying that loose play with the 500-600 chip stack in the middle "bubble" period is enough fold equity to build a decent chip stack via blind stealing? And, this is "preferable" over Big Lemon's idea of playing loose early to "double up."
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
