|
|
#22
09-13-2005, 10:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: unfluctuation
[ QUOTE ]
1st of all, timtim=fish [/ QUOTE ] rofl [ QUOTE ] you should ONLY do this if your opponents are 100% sure that you ALWAYS rais premium hands. [/ QUOTE ] I think this is what Tommy is angling at, the metagame deception value. Or just maybe he's lost interest and can't bring himself to raise [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] 
|
|
#23
09-13-2005, 11:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
"yeah cmon tommy, i'm trying to understand, but this is a little much."
I stopped raising with anything but big pairs from the big blind in shorthanded games two years ago. About half my table hours are at shorthanded play, and all of my hours are cash-game B&M. I estimate my current earn rate at shorthanded to be 3BB per hour. I made a steady living playing hold'em for 13 years while frequently raising from the big bling with all pairs down to 99, with big aces, and some big kings, and occasional other hands as well. I am very familiar with the betting patterns and situations and the meta-game effects that flow from those raising decisions. None of you are familiar with any of the betting patterns I have been exploring during these last two years. And there's no way I could explain them because it's all very personal and fresh, what happens at four in the morning, with a handful of guys, night after night. That's why I report these hands. I find it all fascinating, as a scientist/artist dude. And I'm not saying that my results would go up or down if I were to revert to the way I used to play the big blind. It could be that my advantage comes mostly from never tilting even a teensie weensie bit, and maybe it doesn't even matter what I do with AK from the BB. I have no idea. I'm just saying, until you've walked in my shoes ...
|
|
#25
09-13-2005, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
[ QUOTE ]
2nd. hands like 99 and KQs are SOO different that raising with such broad range of hands has enough deception to begin with. [/ QUOTE ] Something that you state as fact but actually is an opinion. You haven't made a qualitative argument why this is the case let alone quantitative one. First of all let's define a broad range of hands. Second of all every hand you mention is a high quality hand so your opponents have now deduced you have a high quality hand if you raise with this "broad range" as you put it from the BB. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily but just coming here and declaring you're right doesn't convince too many people in my mind. I also think that the Tommy's post in this thread are very pertinent and I'm not sure if the deception part is the key to the reason why you raise with the hands you mention or that this "broad range" of hands offers sufficient "deception."
|
|
#27
09-13-2005, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
[ QUOTE ]
I made a steady living playing hold'em for 13 years while frequently raising from the big bling with all pairs down to 99, with big aces, and some big kings, and occasional other hands as well. [/ QUOTE ] I genuinely hope that this was not a typo.
|
|
#29
09-13-2005, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
He didn't say he's folding AK to a raise, he's only calling raises and that he's not raising himself. Do you ever fold AK after the flop in a short handed game? Even if he checks his option he didn't say he never wins with AK. Apparently your claim is that not playing AK as fast as possible from the BB pre-flop dooms one to failure in a short handed limit game? Not disagreeing with you necessarily just wondering if you can elaborate. Perhaps I don't understand your point.
|
|
#30
09-13-2005, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: unfluctuation
[ QUOTE ]
I stopped raising with anything but big pairs from the big blind in shorthanded games two years ago. [/ QUOTE ] To your knowlegde, have any of your opponents caught on to this yet?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
