Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Tournament Poker > One-table Tournaments
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-01-2005, 10:30 AM
ripped ripped is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 0
Default Re: Why being a luckbox far outweighs being weak-tight early on

This is a brainless call. To fold this would be silly and not because of the results but because of the pot odds you were getting as well as the fact you were already invested even though it was only 30 chips but if you hit you take down a monster. Very Weak tight fold here.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-01-2005, 11:23 AM
maryfield48 maryfield48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Posts: 144
Default Re: Why being a luckbox far outweighs being weak-tight early on

[ QUOTE ]
This is a brainless call. To fold this would be silly and not because of the results but because of the pot odds you were getting as well as the fact you were already invested even though it was only 30 chips but if you hit you take down a monster. Very Weak tight fold here.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Invested"? WTF does that mean? Once you have personally put some chips in a pot it alters the decisions that you make from that point on? Look I know the WPT & ESPN guys misuse the term constantly, but "pot-committed", which is the concept I think you are going for here, has to do with the odds that the pot are giving you relative to the size bet you have to put in to stay in the hand. You can be pot-committed without having put any money in yet - because the odds the pot is giving you make a call +EV.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-01-2005, 02:57 PM
jgunnip jgunnip is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ann Arbor
Posts: 14
Default Re: Why being a luckbox far outweighs being weak-tight early on

Ok, BB raised to 125 and got two limpers to call before it can back to me. Is this fold really that stupid with two limpers still up behind me? If the answer is yes than this "silly" thread has thought me a good lesson that I will be thankful for.

The deciding factor for my fold was the two people behind me and that this was still just level 1 and if I've got a bunch of opponents that want to get crazy than I'll let them and keep my chips. If I could have called and closed the action I no doubt would have done so.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-01-2005, 03:15 PM
J-Lo J-Lo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1
Default Re: Why being a luckbox far outweighs being weak-tight early on

I might be weak tight, but i don't mind this fold. If you call and fold on flop you are left w/ 645. I'd much rather have 740-- because anytime u get ~600 you start to get desperate at the 800 chip game. However, ~600 is very close to the perfect sized stack to start doing some PVS's. Meh i fold, and keep my ROI below 10%.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-01-2005, 03:26 PM
The Yugoslavian The Yugoslavian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Orange County
Posts: 130
Default Re: Why being a luckbox far outweighs being weak-tight early on

[ QUOTE ]
Man, this hand sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing the converter is a total JOPKE.

Bah....go look at the pretty converticized $215 hand I played! You gotta have that donk in your DB and provide insight.....

Yugoslav
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-01-2005, 03:57 PM
ripped ripped is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 0
Default Re: Why being a luckbox far outweighs being weak-tight early on

you get desperate with 600 chips in level 2?

the extra 95 chips to possibly triple up or better here is well worth it.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.