2+2 Table is open at Party

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I checked pokertracker. I was there for 17 hands. I played in 4. Each time I entered I raised and she reraised me. Each time I had a much better starting hand but she sucked out on 3 of the 4. This was a waste of time and NOT why I came to the 2+2 table. It wasn't poker, it was bingo.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have been three betting her, not running away.

Calling it a waste of time and leaving becuase you do not want to play poker bingo is basically saying "I'm not strong enough to handle the swings that are going to come when I play against a maniac". What makes it worse is that its .5/$1, so it not like anyone is going to get hurt except for the maniac.

Stu

[AliasMrJones]

Stu, babe. Please read MG and rkirays posts from earlier in this thread. We don't play the 2+2 table to beat up on stupid players. We don't play the 2+2 table to make money from maniacs. If we did, I'm with you, but we don't. We play the 2+2 table to play against a table full of tough opponents. We can play against bad players at regular Party tables. There is no need for a 2+2 table if that's what you want to do. I get LOTS of practice against maniacs and other types of bad players every time I play at Party. If we wanted to play against bad players and maniacs, we wouldn't make it a private table. We make it a private table because we want a table full of tough players playing their 'A' game. JinkyG was playing worse than my 7 year old son does. (And I'm not kidding.) Pick any old $.50/1 table if you want to play against that. This isn't about whether we can beat JinkyG. OF COURSE WE CAN. The point is we don't want to play against a 7 year old at the 2+2 table.

For the record, of the 99 hands that I have hand histories on, my vp$ip was 19%. That is actually high for the 2+2 table. I wasn't scared, I didn't go running. I was involved in lots of hands. Yes, hands against JinkyG. I was up $8.50 in 63 minutes. Again, so what?

People are walking away not because they're scared or because they can't beat someone playing like JinkyG. I like to play against someone like JinkyG when I sit down at a poker table to play for money. Again (maybe this time it will sink in) we are not at the 2+2 table to make money or beat up on bad players. We are there in that particular circumstance to play our 'A' game against other tough players' 'A' games and learn from the process. To get practice against a bunch of tough players, which we might not often get the chance to do. (As opposed to playing against bad players like JinkyG, which we get to do all the time.) Do you get it now?

If you want to play against JinkyG-type players I'll get Party accounts for my 11, 9, 7 and 3 year old kids and you and they can have a ball. (Unless they gang up on you and take all your money -- ha, had to get that in.)

[rkiray]

You are wrong and can't read. I mentioned earlier she was on my immediate left. I said I raised and she reraised.So she was 3 betting. Learn to read. I didn't play at that table to win money. I mostly came out of curiousity since I just recently put money in my Party account for the first time in over two years. I was also hoping to get practise in a certain type of game cheap. I also was playing in a "normal" 2/4 game at the same time. Going back and forth between that game and a short handed game with a maniac was more than I wanted to deal with. I checked out something new, didn't like it, and chose to stay with the game I liked better (and was more profitable). It had nothing to do with anything you said.

[Mike Gallo]

At the very least, Jinky is pretty entertaining. Some of the exchanges between her and MG last week were so funny that I was peeing in my pants. (MG, the dry cleaner's bill is in the mail!)

I have to agree, I have never seen anyone spew venom so quick. She had some good insults for me. If I could do half of the things she suggested, I would never leave my house. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Vehn]

By the way I think removing the "show all winners" rule would be a good idea for these things. With it in place now, it promotes weak tight play as instead of having to pay off when someone thinks they're beat, they just fold and get to see their opponent's cards anyways.

[Mike Gallo]

By the way I think removing the "show all winners" rule would be a good idea for these things. With it in place now, it promotes weak tight play as instead of having to pay off when someone thinks they're beat, they just fold and get to see their opponent's cards anyways.

You make a good point.

I do not have a problem with that if nobody else doesnt.

[AliasMrJones]

I actually think it encourages wilder play than weak play. The fact that I get to see the winners really doesn't influence my play during a hand. (At, least I don't think it does.) It does, though, let you see what people bluff with and I think for first-timers, it can lead them down a path of wild aggression. As the table is quite aggressive and it can be overwhelming your first time there. (I say this from experience [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

I think showing winners and losers helps you see strategy while you're playing and that is helpful to the player trying to learn. But, I can see the benefit of not showing too. I suppose players can ask if they want to know to discuss the play after the hand is over.

[gonores]

Consider your view second-ed

I posted the exact same thing back before my hiatus as self-appointed leader and ruler of the 2+2 table. Since the failed bluffs get mucked, there is definitely a positive reinforcement thing working here that affects the play of the newer guys and gals at the table.

Doug