|
|
#11
05-05-2005, 11:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Your screen name makes a big difference?
[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong. [/ QUOTE ] There is no conclusive evidence to prove that I'm wrong. There is no definitive answer to this question. I know Sklansky and Malmuth have written some articles about the advantages of a tight image, but other such as Mike Caro and Doyle Brunson have favored a loose, wild image. [ QUOTE ] It is more profitable to develop a tight image and steal the occassional pot. [/ QUOTE ] If you're talking about no limit, then sure, stealing pots is a vital weapon. But if we're talking about small stakes limit(I'm really not sure what stakes or limit we're talking about) then stealing pots is near impossible regardless of image. Even if it is possible, it is not a reliable weapon you can use against your opponents. Getting opponents to call value bets is much more likely and useful in these types of games. [ QUOTE ] For one thing tight is the correct strategy anyway. You will waste a lot of chips developing your loose image and then you have to make all those wasted bets up before you can even begin to profit on your loose image. [/ QUOTE ] I did not say that you should play loosely, just that it's better to have a loose image. How you get that loose image, I don't know. [ QUOTE ] You are right that you can't do it too much. You don't need to do it too much. Just a little will bring you much EV. And if you get caught a couple of times you tighten back up and cash in on the extra action you will get with value bets. And when (if) your opponents adjust then you can steal a few more pots. It is all about keeping your opponents off balance. And in my experience most opponents are slow to adjust to your play if they even adjust at all. [/ QUOTE ] This I agree with. Of course the best strategy is one that will constantly have your opponents off balance. You should do the opposite of what they think you will do. Thus fully exploiting the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. 
|
|
#12
05-05-2005, 11:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your screen name makes a big difference?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You are wrong. [/ QUOTE ] There is no conclusive evidence to prove that I'm wrong. There is no definitive answer to this question. I know Sklansky and Malmuth have written some articles about the advantages of a tight image, but other such as Mike Caro and Doyle Brunson have favored a loose, wild image. <font color="blue"> I can only hope that more people follow their advice. If you are Doyle and Mike you might be able to pull it off.</font> [ QUOTE ] It is more profitable to develop a tight image and steal the occassional pot. [/ QUOTE ] If you're talking about no limit, then sure, stealing pots is a vital weapon. But if we're talking about small stakes limit(I'm really not sure what stakes or limit we're talking about) then stealing pots is near impossible regardless of image. Even if it is possible, it is not a reliable weapon you can use against your opponents. Getting opponents to call value bets is much more likely and useful in these types of games. <font color="blue">I play limit 2/4 to 5/10 with the bulk of it 3/6, both shorthanded and full ring and I steal plenty of pots. If you are out of position a flop checkraise followed up with a turn bet or an in position turn raise followed up by a river bet can bring in a surprising number of pots if you can pick the right spots and opponent(s). </font> [ QUOTE ] For one thing tight is the correct strategy anyway. You will waste a lot of chips developing your loose image and then you have to make all those wasted bets up before you can even begin to profit on your loose image. [/ QUOTE ] I did not say that you should play loosely, just that it's better to have a loose image. How you get that loose image, I don't know. <font color="blue">Maybe you can try Hypnosis </font> [ QUOTE ] You are right that you can't do it too much. You don't need to do it too much. Just a little will bring you much EV. And if you get caught a couple of times you tighten back up and cash in on the extra action you will get with value bets. And when (if) your opponents adjust then you can steal a few more pots. It is all about keeping your opponents off balance. And in my experience most opponents are slow to adjust to your play if they even adjust at all. [/ QUOTE ] This I agree with. Of course the best strategy is one that will constantly have your opponents off balance. You should do the opposite of what they think you will do. Thus fully exploiting the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#13
05-05-2005, 12:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your screen name makes a big difference?
An interesting...
But mostly meaningless question. 90% of screen names are an attempt at some kind of joke. One thing I do find... Is that "math whiz" type players... Usually well read and tight/agressive... Often give this away by using a math-oriented screen name. Guys like Bluffoon... Who claim they "build an image" in 15 minutes... And get a good read on their opponents in 30 minutes... Make me laugh. He probably lives in a cave... Because for a few bucks... most serious players... Subscribe to a service like Poker Edge... And have all of Bluffoon's stats before they sit down. rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#14
05-05-2005, 12:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your screen name makes a big difference?
[ QUOTE ]
An interesting... But mostly meaningless question. 90% of screen names are an attempt at some kind of joke. One thing I do find... Is that "math whiz" type players... Usually well read and tight/agressive... Often give this away by using a math-oriented screen name. Guys like Bluffoon... Who claim they "build an image" in 15 minutes... And get a good read on their opponents in 30 minutes... Make me laugh. He probably lives in a cave... Because for a few bucks... most serious players... Subscribe to a service like Poker Edge... And have all of Bluffoon's stats before they sit down. rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Yes I can tell within ten minutes alot about most players at the table. I already have the weaker players picked out and I have a sense of who can be bluffed and who the calling stations are and who bets with the goods and who is averaggressive. I pay attention to stats but I also pay attention to what players are doing right now because stats are an average and a guide only. And I don't care how many stats you have on me if you play to my stats I am going to attempt to adjust to that and if you aren't paying attention and you don't notice I will gain an edge. Go ahead and play to your stats.
|
|
#15
05-05-2005, 12:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your screen name makes a big difference?
Names like Bluffallot, N3verbluff, etc are EV- in IMO. Whenever a player with a name like this sits down I automatically pay more attention to their play to see if their name is a 'clever' ruse to create a flase image.
|
|
#16
05-05-2005, 12:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your screen name makes a big difference?
Fair enough...
I'm sure that your style works for you... And that's the only thing that counts. But remember... You have to play at least 1,000,000,000 hands at the same table... For your "image" to be statistically significant [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#17
05-05-2005, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your screen name makes a big difference?
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough... I'm sure that your style works for you... And that's the only thing that counts. But remember... You have to play at least 1,000,000,000 hands at the same table... For your "image" to be statistically significant [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Hey I am sure that some people can do well playing loose/aggressive but I think the average (and I include myself) player is better served playing tight and aggressive and using that image to take the occasional pot when the circumstances warrant it. If image is not statistically significant until 1m hands then you really overpaid for all those stats, they're worthless. Thanks for challenging my thoughts and ideas.
|
|
#18
05-05-2005, 09:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your screen name makes a big difference?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In limit holdem, unless the game is very loose, stealing pots is much more profitable than getting occasional extra bets in the rare cases that you have a strong hand. [/ QUOTE ] Couldn't be further from the truth in my opinion. At least in low limit games, the majority of your profit will come from loose players who always call your value bets. [/ QUOTE ] Iceman is right. You're talking about the one exception he already mentioned. [/ QUOTE ] Unless we're talking about high stakes, the games are almost always loose. It's stupid to emphasize what's important in tight games when the games are almost always loose. It would be better to say "Except in very tight games where stealing is more important, getting your opponents to call your value bets is more profitable." But the OP didn't mention what stakes he was talking about so it depends. [/ QUOTE ] the problem with this theory is that most people call to much . They didnt drive all the way from pocomia to fold you know. they came to call pots . So for a tight image to be more effective you need to manuver them from calling too much to calling about right . when they call about right you lose money . so now you have opponents which were giving you money with their loose calls taking your money with their just right calls. To make them profitable opponents again you must further manuver them towards not calling enough and then further still towards calling way less than is correct. Which aint going to happen any time soon. so unless you got opponts that are aready not calling enough then going out of your way to create a tight image in an effort to get them to fold more than is correct is going to cost you money on the margin. This is true because even tight players will call down big pots and you need them to fold those big pots for your tight image strategy to pay dividends. One additional factor is that people dont want to be deceived . since they dont want to feel foolish by being deceived they want to think there is a good possibility you are bluffing. they often misjudge your bluffing frequency by thinking the chances you are bluffing are greater then they truly are . since this is a fact of life for all but a few trusting and or really good players you are going to get called more often than not. Due mainly to these two facts of life your tight image play which may be good in theory falls apart in the heat of battle. timmer
|
|
#19
05-06-2005, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your screen name makes a big difference?
Not to get into the shouting match here, but as an observation, someone with "fish" in their name is 95% of the time NOT a fish.
Notable exception: Names like "fisherman", "fishhuntr", "ihatefish" are usually worse than normal. The only real -EV poker names are the ones that signal that you know what you're talking about. Names with "EV" or a good poker author's name in the name are almost without exception good players and I play them more carefully.
|
|
#20
05-07-2005, 04:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your screen name makes a big difference?
[ QUOTE ]
Names like Bluffallot, N3verbluff, etc are EV- in IMO. Whenever a player with a name like this sits down I automatically pay more attention to their play to see if their name is a 'clever' ruse to create a flase image. [/ QUOTE ] Whenever I see a name that denotes a particular style of play, I tend to assume that their real style is the opposite. I don't automatically assume my feeling is correct, but that is just my initial presumption. I like to use screen names that are easy for me to remember but hard for my opponents to remember.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
