2+2 Table is open at Party - Page 5

rkiray · #41 01-22-2004, 02:19 PM

When I was there it was six handed she was on my immediate left. So basically I was just losing my blinds and watching people turn over stupid cards. I didn't learn anything, it wasn't fun, so I left after about 3 rounds (maybe 20 hands). I get lots of practise playing against maniacs in normal games. I thought the idea here was to be able to play against tough opponents inexpensively. This was just a waste of time.

morgant · #42 01-22-2004, 02:38 PM

i am not missing your point in the slightest. i think it is just a case of we dont agree with eachother which is totally fine(even though i am right!lol) It is great to play tough competition for a such small stakes but follow Vehn up to his regular limits(?) and you will find the jinkyg in the tables. if i play in a normal environment with maniacs, i want to learn how to punish them, so being at that table watching blini capitalize on jinky should be a great learning experience. real tables dont have 10 tight aggressive players like the 2+2 table does, so the added player personalities are crucial, in my opinion. so you practice playing against vehn, got, and joe, great so you have an idea how to play against them, now you are at your real table and feel you can peg two players as similar abilities as the above players, how are you going to handle a maniac in between you and the solid players?????? can you see my point a little bit? you can't have ideal playing conditions ever, when you do find a gem of a table it must be taken advantage of cause they dont last too long. if you enjoy the 2+2 table to play against tough comp. than great, but why do you want to learn how to beat 15/30 players if you are playing in 2/4 games?? i like the tues. night table cause of the afterwards hand analysis which makes me learn how others think and how i should or shouldn't be thinking......i am done with this thread, good luck and see you tuesday [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

DeuceKicker · #43 01-22-2004, 02:44 PM

Well said, AMJ.

Stu Pidasso · #44 01-22-2004, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Others came and left because of the play. I'd like to play against Vehn. Unfortunately, seeing the childish play set him running off to find something more interesting to do. A couple of others came and left as well. I'd much rather practice playing against a Vehn or a GOT or a JT playing well than a JinkyG playing stupid. So, if JinkyG is going to chase away the players I want to play against (and I'm not saying she specifically chased away all of those I mentioned), I'd rather chase away JinkyG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't beleive so many people got scared off becuase of a maniac. I am ashamed the players in this forum allowed Mr Blini to take over the table. Does nobody around here know when to cap the action besides the times when they have AA or KK? Jinky and Mr Blini turned a table of tight aggressive players into weak, passive scared off fish.

Stu

Vehn · #45 01-22-2004, 03:29 PM

Morgant, I was (half) kidding when I meant I'd rather go play the maniacs at 15/30. There are very few true maniacs up there and when they are they don't last long. Learning how to play against the occasional maniac is useful, obviously, but its basically a "waste" of the 2+2 table. I haven't played a lot on it as of yet, mostly because I didn't have any money on party until late december and I often go to the card barn Tuesdays, but I just don't feel that that type of game is what the table is about. So if its going to continue to be that way I'm just not going to participate.

Anyways my suggestion is to try it again the same way next week, i.e. start a thread here with the password in it, and if it happens again then we can simply move to starting a thread and then having the players who want to play PM that person for the password (who shouldnt get more than 15-20 PMs), but someone would have to step up for that. Another option is a Yahoo group.

In regards to raising the stakes I think its a mistake. "We" are giving enough rake to party in the .5/1 game, why kill ourselves in higher games? Plus it would be restrictive to the people who really want to learn and improve. Most of the 3/6+ players are beyond the learning phase of the game.

AliasMrJones · #46 01-22-2004, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
why do you want to learn how to beat 15/30 players if you are playing in 2/4 games??

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhhh...cause I don't want to play 2/4 forever?

Never mind. I was initially against making the 2+2 table invite-only. I've seen the light. I think the password should be PM rather posted. Those that want to practice stupid childish play can start another table.

Stu Pidasso · #47 01-22-2004, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Never mind. I was initially against making the 2+2 table invite-only. I've seen the light. I think the password should be PM rather posted. Those that want to practice stupid childish play can start another table.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you shut out the personalities you do not like you will have a game of weak passive tight players pretending to be strong tight aggressives players.

Stu

rkiray · #48 01-22-2004, 04:07 PM

All three of the SS related tourneys at True were full of very tough players. I think what many of us want is a similar ring game. This is a valid concept. There may not be as many tough games as there used to be because of TV but they do exist. In B&M I've played in tough games at 20/40, 10/20, 15/30 and occasionally even 6/12 or 2/5. For years the afternoon 10/20 Mirage game was legendary for how tough it was. I played in it several times. I'd love to get practise in a tough game with a .5/1 limit. Tuesday night was just a joke when I was there.

MrBlini · #49 01-22-2004, 04:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have to ask since I wasn't there -- it sounds like MrBlini was "over-"isolating? Maybe you all weren't adjusting to his wider range of 3-betting hands? Either that or he was on a rush of cards. If he is isolating with KTs-like cards regularly, and playing headsup with jinky regularly, then it would seem people are at least sometimes throwing away better hands that could/should be 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]Based on this, I looked at the hand history. From the first attempt to play isolated to the time Stu took the #7 seat was a period of some 101 hands, of which I attempted to get heads-up 14 times including 2 BB calls. In the following, I called in the BB and 3-bet in later position:

SB: A7s (call), A8s (3-bet), 77 (3-bet)
BB: 87, K2
MP2: 65s, KTs, A8s
CO: 99, AQ, 44
Button: AQ, 55, T9s

These mostly came in two short "rushes" of marginally playable cards. There must have been a lot more going on at the table during these 101 hands, because I folded preflop (73 hands) far more than I played.

I don't feel that this was over-isolating given the average quality of hands I was up against, although in retrospect there are a couple of these situations I'd rather have avoided (3-betting 77 in the SB and 65s in MP2, possibly 3-betting 44 in the CO). It may have been over-isolating a bit. This was certainly no superb run of cards.

Except for AQ and 99, the rest of these can be found in Sklansky's Group 4 and below. I suspect that players acting after my 3-bet could have capped with hands down to Group 5 in later position and most Group 3 hands in the blinds.

Stu Pidasso · #50 01-22-2004, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I played in it several times. I'd love to get practise in a tough game with a .5/1 limit. Tuesday night was just a joke when I was there

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't a joke for the One player who was able to adjust to it. Most of you froze like deer in head lights let yourselves get run over. The rest ran for cover in other, easier games.

Stu