Kill Pots VS Maniacs

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
You are trying to justify playing scared.

[/ QUOTE ]

When have I ever justified playing scared? I don't believe I ever, ever mentioned that in my reasoning for any type of play.

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't support your assertions then, and you haven't done so now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done so numerous times. Back then, it was against the debate for playing hands like 98s and Ax in maniac games. Hands that all's they really do is add variance to the session. Why not just link that thread?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not the only one to say you are wrong when you tighten up in a loose game

[/ QUOTE ]

You also had this argument back then too. This isn't just a typical loose game. I've also never said to play tight in just a loose game. There is another factor to the equation.

[ QUOTE ]
So, why do you disagree with Caro and Miller et al. about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not disagreeing at all. Neither of them are talking about kill pots or maniac games. Why don't you find out their opinions on those before you quote them out of the context we are talking about here. You seem to see games as just either loose or tight. There is a little more to them than that. There is a big diffence between a loose aggressive game, and a loose passive game.

Again, Im not going to redo a thread done months ago just to get to the same conclusion. Post a link to it and save us both some time.

b

[bernie]

================
P.85

If the pot has been raised and reraised in front of you, you must play extremely tightly, even if you do not respect the raisers. Against typical opponents play only AA-QQ and AKs. You may add JJ-TT and AK against looser raisers. If more than about thirty percent of all hands are raised and rerasied before the flop (indicating that the raises and reraises are very loose), you may also play 99, AQs-ATs, KQs-KJs, and AQ. If you play very well in large pots, you can loosen up slightly more still, but stick to the suited hands with high-card strength. Even if your opponents are extremely loose and crazy, you cannot play speculative hands profitably if you must pay three or more bets to see the flop.
================================

I actually advocate a little looser than this in these types of games. As I had stated in that previous thread. So you're accusation of saying I recommend playing tighter than what is recommended is false.


Any other Miller quotes you'd like to throw out?

b

[JonLines]

[ QUOTE ]
Many players correctly muck KJo UTG, so the PokerRoom statistics don't tell you how much it is worth when you play it. However, almost all players limp or raise with KQo UTG. Does this "easily dominated" hand do better in a tight game, or a loose game?

KQo UTG
Loose: $1-$2 +0.10 BB/hand
Tight: $10-$20 -0.12 BB/hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice link pzhon, really interesting stats on pokerroom!

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are trying to justify playing scared.

[/ QUOTE ]

When have I ever justified playing scared? I don't believe I ever, ever mentioned that in my reasoning for any type of play.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

You tighten up. Why? Because the money you lose during these kill pots is much tougher to recoup when the limit goes back to normal. You get involved in a big hand, you can easily lose 20bbs to where in the normal game you'd lose 10. That's a big hole to dig out of.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's implied.

[johnc]

Miller makes this point many times throughout his book which is exactly why I could not see +EV in cold calling my KJo even from one off the button. Even suited the call isn't going to make alot of sense, this maniac was definately very aggressive but he wasn't a total idiot. Combine that with the two callers in front and the blinds who were very loose anyone of which played Ax - not a situation I found myself ahead in, domination being my primary concern. On the other hand, playing hands like higher suited connectors, medium pocket pairs are for sure profitable if you can see the flop cheaply but that was never the case. Getting looser in these raised kill pots does not appear to be the best approach IMO, but...

[bernie]

At most, I would play a kill pot the same way as the regular pot. It took me awhile to get to that point though I still play tighter. I would not loosen up just because the betting rounds are now bigger. I tend to play tighter because I don't like to add that much variance in my session during those pots. Though I find these games to be much more profitable than typical games even tightened up a bit in the kill pots.

However, that doesn't mean that when a kill pot is raised and opponets get real loose and wild that you loosen up in these spots. You play them like maniac games in which, you tighten up.

Saying that most are bankrolled for playing kill games is unlikely. Most are barely bankrolled for their current limit if at all. Just browse the forum for proof of that. Just as saying anyone who is normally used to the normal limit will easily be used to the psychological swings when they blow 20 bigbets in a hand, then blow 15 in another won't be affected by the big hit. Those are the guys I have in mind when I recommend how to play kill pots.

Not the fully bankrolled, hardened to the game player.

b

[MrGrob]

I simply view a kill pot as a hand at the next higher limit where someone has just come in and posted in some random position. If I have a read on him, great, but I see no differece between these two situations. The ONLY difference that I ever see a kill game create, is when you are a leg-up...then you tighen-up your starting hands.

I have seen kills cause a table to freak-out, but once you know how they are going to freak (either everyone must now call, raise, or run like hell), just play the hand as that type of table with a random poster.

I used to think the kill changed the game...it doesn't really, it just changes the players...and once you know how they change, it is the same game at the next level.

My 2 cents.

EDIT: Yes, I know the blinds are not the same, but this view has worked for me....