Genius or Retard?

[naphand]

OK, then I will indeed just have to trust your take on the game. If the game was as weak-tight as you say, raising these hands PF makes a lot more sense. I doubt I go as low as 97s but it would have to be a consideration as it obviously belongs to a bunch of hands that can win their fair share (or just over) of pots. The $3/$6 games I see on other sites usually have some calling station who just will not fold, even Q-high sometimes (EDIT: and certainly with QJ in exactly these kind of pots), or 1 or 2 LAGs who simply will not let you get away with stealing too many pots, so I prefer to have position on them for this play.

Is the bonus really worth it? I guess if you can run over tables like this then it must be. When I played Absolute $3/$6 they seemed permanently populated by idiots and LAGs, which made for some crazy beats and very few steals post-flop and it was a coin flip to determine if you lost the entire bonus or made a ton. I also found only 1 or 2 tables open, whihc tended to quickly break up. How many $3/46 tables are you typically seeing now?

[Huhmare]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the bonus really worth it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It definately is. $15/h add to my BB/100 is quite nice.


[ QUOTE ]
I guess if you can run over tables like this then it must be. When I played Absolute $3/$6 they seemed permanently populated by idiots and LAGs, which made for some crazy beats and very few steals post-flop and it was a coin flip to determine if you lost the entire bonus or made a ton. I also found only 1 or 2 tables open, whihc tended to quickly break up. How many $3/46 tables are you typically seeing now?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is 4 tables open right now, but later in the day there will be more traffic. I haven't seen many LAG's there during those 6k hands I've played there.

This one guy at 3/6 is horrible. Just having him around is +1BB/100. It's just a guess, but he makes some horrible plays. Yesterday I took a nice pot against him with AK when he was trying to steal out of position with K3s. I just called him down, because I knew he was very capable of doing this. I don't raise anything like 79s against this guy, because I know I can't get him to fold. And if these tables were full of these players, I could see my BB/100 being higher. And ABC poker would work.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
There is approximately zero requirement for deception at this limit. I think even the $10/$20 players rarely make these kinds of moves for "deception".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, this is true. Specially since people started to use playerview and Gametime+, all the good players have stats on you making it hard to fool them and the bad players dont think about it.

U say u sit in a weaktight game and do a lot of stealing. Good, but why do u then want them to see u raise with a bad hand (if u think a 97s raise from CO is bad, I think its marginal but ok if others are weak)? You want them to fold, not start to call u down?

Against weaktight players u want a tight image, making them play even tighter against you.

Not being deceptive got very little to do with playing ABC-poker. ABC-poker for a skilled player involves a lot of bluffing and semibluffing, positional raises and so on. But every time u do this u do it for a purpose in the hand u are now playing, not because of some metaconsiderations where u want to be "deceptive". If u play good ABC u will be deceptive without having to do something other then the normal.