Paternalism Disclaimer-- Zero Poker Content

[Matt Flynn]

Cero,

Aw c'mon I still love ya. ;-)

I know the medical side wasn't the main point of your post, but it's worth saying that people - even completely competent ones - make a lot of spectacularly wrong medical decisions. Yes, a lot of medical care and particularly tests are only marginally helpful. That's where it helps to have a doc who understands the numbers behind the recommendations. But when someone makes a significant wrong decision, like not treating an invasive squamous cell cancer on the ear when they are 62 and healthy, it is my job to be as convincing as possible. "Accepting" someone's "preferences" in those settings is bad medicine, cultural relativism notwithstanding.

No limit-wise, you know my position on loose aggressive play. My best game is 5-6-handed fish and chips played for medium stakes. Against crazy relatively inexperienced players at $500-$1,000 buyins I am lethal. I play a third or more my hands, usually for raises, hammer at will, and generally seem like a nut. The game typically breaks when they run out of chips. It is great good fun to dominate, play so many hands, and win so much money. Against better competition I lose quickly when I play that way. If you can read your opponents very well, you can play a hyperloose aggressive style and win a lot of money, especially if your opponents will continuously lay down for you. Playing loose aggressive is FUN. It's also an easy excuse to indulge in tilt. It's a style worth learning if you have the potential to master it, but it is not necessary for success. Since Zee's been quoted here, let me include that Ray Zee has never in my presence or to my knowledge with respect to the Lucky Chances game played a loose aggressive style or anything remotely resembling loose preflop play.

Obviously the best way to learn a loose aggressive style is to play that way. But how many posters on this forum have an adequate bankroll for their games? Maybe 10% at best. Most of the players here think 20 or 30 buyins is adequate for a pro with no chance of replenishing bankroll. 30 is cutting it close unless you have excellent control and constantly play your best game, which I do not. The rest of you are just kidding yourselves. Then we start talking about loose aggressive play. Now you need a lot more than 20 buyins to stave off gambler's ruin, even if you are a winning loose aggressive. And most will not win playing that way, especially not with a lot of practice. So, when we talk about loose aggressive play, I have all sorts of ideas and little plays I like, chatter that's useful, specific tells, and so on. But my first thought is if I start in with those I am going to get someone broke. If you are going to practice it, drop down in limits and find weak opponents.

As long as that qualifier's in there, let's talk hands.

IMO, the first place to practice loose aggressive skills is with flush and open-ended straight draws on the turn. Size up your opponent, decided whether he likes his hand, and if not fire big. Most players either always bet there heads up or almost never bet there. Figure out where you stand. That's a cheap way to start. If you want, play hyperloose aggressive but limit it to the cutoff and button until they figure you out. Position, position, position.

Ok, who wants to talk 65s?

Matt

[Heimdal]

great post. all the things i have been thinking about lately in one post

[ QUOTE ]
the first place to practice loose aggressive skills is with flush and open-ended straight draws on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

just a silly question. wouldnt it be better to do this on the flop with two cards to come?

[gomberg]

[ QUOTE ]
just a silly question. wouldnt it be better to do this on the flop with two cards to come?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you do this too - but this move is very transparent. Much harder to do on the turn and people will usually give you credit for a real hand. If they do call, you do have some equity with the draw...

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
just a silly question. wouldnt it be better to do this on the flop with two cards to come?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a sliding scale with value betting on one end, semi-bluffing in the middle, and pure bluffing on the other end. The crazy laggish approach that cero and matt are talking about is flirting with the pure bluffing side of that sliding scale.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]


Ok, who wants to talk 65s?

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Raise preflop

[Roman]

Great post. I think a big problem with this forum is that people post only their preferred line in a certain hand, and not all the lines they would take and how often they would take them. It makes people think too one dimentially about the game. The secret to good LAG play is realizing the situations where an unorthadox play will work.

[sting]

Im a long time lurker that has avoided posting because of what you describe. Maybe Ill get off of the schneid.