|
|
#51
09-13-2005, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: unfluctuation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 3rd if you want to add deception you can start making plays such as raising in this same spot with a hand like 78s. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. So, why is it wrong to occasionally *not* raise with a premium hand like AK, also for deception (aside from sacrificing the small equity edge)? [/ QUOTE ] The issue wasnt with occasionally not doing it, the issue was with the fact that tommy never does it. 
|
|
#52
09-13-2005, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 3rd if you want to add deception you can start making plays such as raising in this same spot with a hand like 78s. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. So, why is it wrong to occasionally *not* raise with a premium hand like AK, also for deception (aside from sacrificing the small equity edge)? [/ QUOTE ] The issue wasnt with occasionally not doing it, the issue was with the fact that tommy never does it. [/ QUOTE ] No, the question posed was whether it is correct to do it at all times in all games for all players.
|
|
#53
09-13-2005, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
No. You would have to use your imagination pretty strongly to come up with a game where raising preflop out of the big blind is never the best thing to do. More importantly, the game originally mentioned, 4 handed at reasonable stakes, provides a perfect example of a game where raising out the BB with a wide range of hands is almost definitely a very good idea.
|
|
#54
09-13-2005, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
I can't give a mathematical answer other than a guess, but I wouldn't believe an argument that says never raising out of the BB would gain more value in deception than it lost in actual value. The game talked about provides the perfect situation for raising a lot of different hands and therefore not losing much value to defining your hand.
|
|
#55
09-13-2005, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
"You would have to use your imagination pretty strongly to come up with a game where raising preflop out of the big blind is never the best thing to do."
But what if, by not raising with big unpaired hands from the big blind at shorthanded B&M, you create an environment in which not raising becomes correct, because of all the unexplored and freshly exploitable postflop situations and meta-game considerations that develop. Is that so impossible to imagine? Tommy
|
|
#56
09-13-2005, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
[ QUOTE ]
"You would have to use your imagination pretty strongly to come up with a game where raising preflop out of the big blind is never the best thing to do." But what if, by not raising with big unpaired hands from the big blind at shorthanded B&M, you create an environment in which not raising becomes correct, because of all the unexplored and freshly exploitable postflop situations and meta-game considerations that develop. Is that so impossible to imagine? Tommy [/ QUOTE ] I've really enjoyed reading this thread. I think the answer to Tommy's question is no, it isn't that hard to imagine. The question is how do you quantify the information people give you by NOT raising PF, and how to you quantify the action they give you post flop on the current hand, and on ones after it. I don't think either of them have a definative answer, but it seems a lot of people in this thread just can't get past looking at one street, and only one street, at a time. One effects the rest, and maybe, just maybe, giving up 2 sb's preflop will help you gain 3bb post flop when you hit, or a pot when you miss... Certainly worth considering. Nice to have you back Tommy lf
|
|
#57
09-13-2005, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
I dont understand the argument, "raising with a wide range of hands out of the BB is the right thing to do, so therefore raise AK (ie raise 67 AND AK)".
Doesnt make sense in my book, if you are saying that this is right, than NOT raising accomplishes the same basic goals of raising (ie meta-game, deception). I, for one, am very, very agressive in my BandM play (sh), so not raising an AKs here, is WAY more deceptive than raising both AK and 67. erm, nm, I didnt realize the question was never raise AK in any game. I think never and poker theory should never be used in conjunction.
|
|
#58
09-13-2005, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Put Him Back on the Shelf
[ QUOTE ]
Angelo can't play limit holdem worth a damn. I have no doubt that if he ever sat with me, dcifer, and scheids in a 4-handed game, freeze-out style, he would be the first one out of chips 90% of the time. And I'll back up the aforementioned statement with a small wager if necessary. TSP [/ QUOTE ] Braggadocio instead of insight, something that's quite useful for all [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].
|
|
#60
09-13-2005, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ok, the old TSP is back . . . .
[ QUOTE ]
Angelo can't play limit holdem worth a damn. I have no doubt that if he ever sat with me, dcifer, and scheids in a 4-handed game, freeze-out style, he would be the first one out of chips 90% of the time. And I'll back up the aforementioned statement with a small wager if necessary. TSP [/ QUOTE ] OK. 10 games. You four players. 50BB? 100BB? 15-30? 30-60? 100-200? Let me know what you want. How about we wager $100,000 + all expenses for all players and setting up the game (all of which I would front)? Tommy needs to not be first out twice for me to win. You have "no doubt" so I should get odds here, but I'll go ahead and give you this at even money since I'm such a nice guy. Also, please let me know what sort of odds you will give me on Tommy not being the first one out 3,4,5 or more times. Thanks.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
