Paradigm for Stud/8 -- Critique Wanted, Please

[AlanBostick]

Yeah, you scooped a monster pot. We've all scooped monster pots. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

But these monster pots are few and far between. How much do they really contribute to our hourly rates?

What led me to the thinking that went into my original post is the sense that where I seem to throw away the most money are the hands that go (AB)CD-brick-brick-brick, and the lummox who led the betting with his unimproved split nines takes my money. (How many times have you seen this at the showdown: bitter old guy, facing a bet or two picks up his downcards, shows them to his neighbor, and says "Look at this: straight draw, flush draw, low draw!" and mucks?)

In a heads-up hand, if I make my low on fifth street, I've got three betting rounds to use to take advantage of my freeroll and two more cards to use to try to make my freeroll good. If instead I'm just drawing to my low I'm in deep kimchee -- unless enough of my outs are scoop outs.

Oftentimes, one makes one's low on fifth street and one's opponent drops out. That's a good thing. It means that you win the entire third- and fourth-street action rather than chopping up the antes and the bring-in.

I'm certainly not saying that my five-cards-with-two-extras paradigm is correct, and I very definitely want to find out what's wrong with it. I just don't feel like I've found out.

I'd love to see what Ray Zee or David Sklansky had to say about it.