Done with stud....

[SittingBull]

playable. If U do not play loose enough,then your stack will be chipped away. I would suggest playing the 1/2 at PokerStars. The ante is 10% of the SB. This structure will reduce your variance and U can play much tighter while many of your OPPOs. continue to play too loose for the ante.
If the ante is over 20% of SB,ur approaching a crap-shoot structure.
Stay away from these games. I'm NOT saying that a 25% structure is UNBEATABE. However,expect horrendous swings in these big ante games. Keep in mind that the larger the ante,the looser u have to play to survive and win. The smaller the ante, the smaller the variance,and the tigher u play.
SittingBull

[SittingBull]

complex than hold'em?If so,would u say it takes much longer to be a proficient stud player than a proficient hold'em player at comparable levels?
Hmm
Just wondering,
SittingBull

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet if you get methodical about it,

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet that's what you did, stream!

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]

edit: Isn't the 1/2 structure really bad at party? That could be part of the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the 1/2 stucture at party is very similar to the $40/80 structure in an B&M. It's a great structure that encourages loose agressive play. If you try to be tight, the ante's will eat you up. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[beta1607]

Yes and Yes. I will use 5/10 and 3/6 as examples because that is what I am most familiar with. Using programs like 'pokertracker' many players can easily auto pilot 4-12 tables of hold em where as I think even the best stud player loses a lot by playing more then 2. In hold em a basic thing like figuring pot odds is 1000 times easier given that there is no dead cards one must keep track of. I also think that there is more of an edge to an "expert" stud player over an average or poor opponent then in hold em. Let nobody forget Phil Ivey cut his teeth on the stud games in Atlantic city and he is now arguably the best all around player in the world.

[Andy B]

This one is easy. You played it bad. This is a trash hand and I wouldn't even limp in from late position with it. Playing it first to act is ridiculous. When you get three callers on fourth, it should occur to you that your little charade isn't working. I would check and pray for a free card. Of course you bet your open trips on sixth, but the river bet is just plain dumb. Yes, occasionally you will get a call from someone who can't beat your board. Far more often, you will be called only by people who have you beaten. And occasionally, you will be in the uncomfortable position of getting raised, as happened here. This bet is serious -EV. The pot's too big to fold to the raise, but you're not going to be good very often.

[Andy B]

Well, I'm glad that this little glitch was brought to greenage's attention, but would it have killed you to take a minute to cut out all of the "SHOWN"s?

I lean towards completing on third street. I think fourth is well worth a three-bet.

I wouldn't have gone for the check-raise on fifth myself. With the open Aces and your three-flush showing, a lot of players will get skeered and check behind you. A bet by you looks natural and shouldn't necessarily kill your action. When you check-raise, it will look for all the world like a flush, and the other players should have an easier time getting away from their hands.

I probably call down the open trips too. Tough break.

I do believe that Party offers players the option to shuffle their hole cards. That may not have been a runner-runner full house after all.

This isn't necessarily relevant to your plight, but something I've never quite gotten is the popularity of 6-max games. I'm mostly playing on-line these days (who'da thunk?), but I've played a lot more B&M over the years. Lots of B&M complain when games get short-handed. Some will refuse to play, and even I am somewhat careful when it comes to chosing whether or not to stay in a game that's getting short-handed. A 6-max game is invariably going to be short-handed. I've been playing small NLHE money games on Stars lately, and most of the tables are 6-max. Are on-line players cut from a different cloth than B&M players? Is it just because pros or pseudo-pros choose the open 6-max tables to sit at, hoping that a fish will come along to play him heads-up, and that's how most of the games get started? I don't read the hold'em forums much these days, and I almost never visit the zoo, so this topic may have been beaten to death without my knowledge. If anyone has any insight, or can point to a thread, I'd appreciate it.

[BeerMoney]

I don't understand the 6 max craze either, although the 10/20 6 max hold em tables are some of the wildest table's I have ever experienced. It just feels like gambling at its purest.

I'm with you, I like a full table, where I can benefit from my patience and tight play.

[RandomUser]

Switch back to 8-man tables, tighten up, and play through the downswing.

Variance is a bitch, patience is everything.

If it bothering you to that degree, take a break from gambling, period, until the emotions are gone.

[boondockst]

I improperly played the hand because i was being a tilt monkey and the player who completed was completing every single hand. In all seriousness, how do you handle this player? As we speak, at a 0.5/1 table 4-handed, a guy is completing every single hand and i have Ac Qc 2x and he completes with Kh showing and probably does NOT have a pair of kings but is it worth the call? I folded but what do i do with pocket aces? Reraise him? Smoothcall and check-raise on a later street?