prayingmantis FE article (LC)

[curtains]

Yea but that was how you were playing at the time...Im sure you don't anymore, although in that situation against an anonymous opponent, its usually correct to do so.

[Sykes]

This is a really pointless debate because it totally depends on the opponet.

While the theory is that that the lower the limits, the more likely you are going to be called by crap, there are opponets that will fold with half their stack in the BB.

So, it totally depends. There is no ABC answer.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
btw I have some theories about that article in that it's not completely true. There are plenty of situations where I believe a higher buyin opponent is MORE likely to call than a lower buyin opponent because they understand you may be pushing a very wide range and they will be correct to call with their mediocre hand in this circumstance, although its possible I'm wrong about this.

I just felt that I encountered less resistance in the $33-$109s when stealing late in a sit and go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course my point in that article was somewhat simplistic (or actually was presented in a somewhat simplistic way, in order to deliver a basic point to people who were still completely unaware of it), and as a result it is obviously not completely true.

However, I believe that the main idea still stands and is true in general: the lower you go down in limits, people (you might say: the majority of people, or the "standard opponent") will be more willing to play more hands with you, with some important tendency to play the same very hands as the caller or aggressor without considering the difference (this is the meaning of not understanding the gap concept). As a result of this misunderstanding, a general approach would always be to play somewhat tighter as the aggressor, when the limits go down. That was the idea behind this FE article. Surely one can find many exceptions for this, as this is not a rule or law by any sense. And the notion that at some point when you cross a certain buy-in people will be actually willing to call MORE than at a previous point is also valid, and is an aspect of one of the more paradoxical phenomena in poker, that is, from a certain point and on the play of the best player and fish might _seem_ to be very similar, while different from the play of ok-"good"-"very good" players.

[citanul]

i repeat my boooooooitude for not being able to see this picture.

citanul

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
i repeat my boooooooitude for not being able to see this picture.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone I asked last night could see it.

Apparently posting pictures is also rigged, [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].



Yugoslav

[gisb0rne]

[ QUOTE ]
It's easy to play poker when you know your opponent is pushing any 2. Just becomes a simple math problem. If I recall this call wasn't even close...it was something like +1.5% against any 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's +0.6% against any 2 according to PT.

[curtains]

Ok, you are correct. However I had been playing with FJ a lot at this time and was basically sure that he was pushing with any 2. +.6% is enough for me but I agree it's not some absurd amount, meaning if I didn't feel sure he had any 2, I should probably fold.

[downtown]

I posted a discussion of this article here a few days ago. If anyone wants to address it or revive it, it didn't get much attention. It's relevant to this discussion, but my question focused more on the move up to $55 and $109.