Table selection related to Irieguys post

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the <font color="red"> solid/predictable player </font> got sick of it and made a <font color="red"> spite call with J-9. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, yeah. I'd have to go with him not being a solid player. This is a horrible, horrible, horrible call any way one looks at it...

No 'solid' player will ever make this call.

Although I'm sure this is just semantics. You probably mean: 'weak/tightish predictable player who is probably slightly winning.'

Isn't it funny that 'The Van Sexton' would work pretty well against Van Sexton?? I always thought that to be ironic...[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

A solid player WOULD make this call. It wouldn't be a solid play on it's own, but its future value could be HUGE.

[raptor517]

nobody gonna wanna steal from the guy that calls with J9 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] holla

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody gonna wanna steal from the guy that calls with J9 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think that this is the reason that players like gambooholic_ make such loose calls from time to time?

For meta game purposes?

[raptor517]

that cant possibly be it, they are just terrible. thats the only possible explanation. bwahahaha

[DonButtons]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nobody gonna wanna steal from the guy that calls with J9 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think that this is the reason that players like gambooholic_ make such loose calls from time to time?

For meta game purposes?

[/ QUOTE ]

your getting somewhere [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[The Yugoslavian]

Ahhh, yes. I was completely forgetting about any meta-game considerations.

Okay....I want to revise my stance and say that I don't like the spite call in a very general sense. But I'm not completely blinded anymore to the move having potential to be +$EV over time.

The great thing about my post as I've learned more from it than 99% of my other posts...[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Yugoslav

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
This post and the one it refers to had me thinking that maybe SNG aren't the best way to go in the upper limits. In an SNG, it seems, you certainly don't want to play if there are a few good players, but in a cash game it seems like you just want to make sure there are a few really weak players.

However, Daliman says there are plenty of $200 tables without too many good players, so I guess it's all good. I'd hate to have to leave SNGs, because I think they are fun, but I don't really think cash games are, at least not online.

[/ QUOTE ]

the highest i have ever played was in a 55 so i don't have any firsthand experience...however, i have discussed with several people at various live tourneys around town that i play online every now and then (yeah like the moon comes out at night every now and then [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) and i have met at least 5 people who were utter fish tell me that they love playing the "party $200 single table tournies." what many people at this forum dont realize is that there are fish at every level as gambling is merely a thrill to many. this is precisely what makes poker a beatable game. furthermore, it is reason to never berate someone who is a lesser opponent than you as you may shoe him away from playing with you in future episodes.

[viennagreen]

if i sit to the left, or end up being to the left, of a person that i have marked as a good player--- my range of hands that i call their all-ins with greatly decreases-- because i know that their range of all-in hands is fairly wide.

with an unknown player, i am much more tight with my calling requirements (if my chip stack allows it)

[raptor517]

you mean u increase the range, but decrease the quality i think. holla

[viennagreen]

yes of course.. i misspoke.. holla [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]