Do we think too much

[Benman]

Let me start out by saying I find this forum absolutely essential. I've plugged so many leaks it's not even funny.

Nevertheless, I wonder if we take it too far in trying to outthink ourselves in our card reading skills. Many times on this forum I see people who've been on the gas the whole hand freeze up when an overcard hits. They rationalize, well my opponent probably has one of those because....... Could it be that shorthanded limit poker is not that complicated, that once we've taken the lead we should keep it up in most cases until someone lets us know we're beat? This is just a general observation, and not a knock on any particular poster. I do the same microanalysis of hands sometimes, but I just wonder if it could be the wrong approach.

[milesdyson]

too general, really. i have not noticed these hands you speak of, either.

Most of the time it will be a hand such as KK on an JQ27A board with pfr donking the river?

In this case this can be analysed, most of the times people will give quite probable correct ranges for opponents which include aces.

I think your post needs to be a bit more informative and direct.

True

[Benman]

I don't really have any particular ones in mind, either. It's just a basic feeling that limit poker generally, and more specifically short handed limit poker, is more about betting patterns and default actions and less about careful analysis of the board. Maybe I'm just being lazy, but I have decent long term results and try not to put my opponents on a hand that often when I've been the aggressor. I just bet and pray! Oh well, hope I didn't take up too much of anybody's time. Have a happy holiday!

Limit is a science

[ QUOTE ]
Let me start out by saying I find this forum absolutely essential. I've plugged so many leaks it's not even funny.

Nevertheless, I wonder if we take it too far in trying to outthink ourselves in our card reading skills. Many times on this forum I see people who've been on the gas the whole hand freeze up when an overcard hits. They rationalize, well my opponent probably has one of those because....... Could it be that shorthanded limit poker is not that complicated, that once we've taken the lead we should keep it up in most cases until someone lets us know we're beat? This is just a general observation, and not a knock on any particular poster. I do the same microanalysis of hands sometimes, but I just wonder if it could be the wrong approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes we do overthink the situation. Firing a bet each street with the lead and only stopping when faced with aggression is a good way to play some players. BUT non-thinking aggressive play will get you into trouble against other TAGS or, even worse, 2+2ers.

[Benman]

True, but what if the fold equity we create by being the aggressor in a particular hand always merits continued betting unless "x" happens, where "x" is something besides a mere overcard. Let me respond to you another way--if limit is a science, that doesn't necessarily make it a difficult science. The origin for my stupid little musings here is that I just finished the very interesting book "Blink", about intuitive thinking. The author tells the story of a Chicago heart doctor who invented a very simple algorythm (just a short flow chart really) that tells ER doctors how to respond to patients with potential heart attacks. What's interesting is that the algorythm only takes into account three different pieces of information, where conventional medical wisdom prior to that was that the more data you have about a heart patient the better you can make an accurate diagnosis between heart attack or something harmless. Surprisinly, the "thinnly sliced" algorythm was far more accurate than all the conventional medical wisdom before that. I wonder if certain common situations in limit hold'em might not yield themselves to simple rules and algorythms, without complicated analysis of boards and hands. For example, if you were the lone aggressor both pre-flop and flop, and now face one opponent on the turn, could it be that a turn bet is always the best play, regardless of what the turn card is? I wouldn't be surprised if very simple "truths" such as this (not saying this is one of them) emerge from the science of limit poker, and I agree it's a science.

[Wynton]

I've made somewhat similar points before. (Look for my thread on "betting rhythms" in MUSH.) I wouldn't say that we spend too much time "thinking," but I do believe that we don't spend enough time taking into account betting patterns and whether particular players are reacting in a reflexive manner.