|
|
|
|
#1
12-14-2005, 02:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
We are essentially just debating a read here right? Jason thinks he is a tight/passive PF player with relatively static raising standards.
You belive he is capable of making adjustments based on position and table texture. I guess the real thing to be debating is where the information for your read came from...ie what have you observed? Because the statisical information seems to favor Jason's read. 
|
|
#2
12-14-2005, 03:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
[ QUOTE ]
Because the statisical information seems to favor Jason's read. [/ QUOTE ] Where did you get the impression that a 13/8 is unduly tight with his PFR standards after a limper?
|
|
#4
12-14-2005, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Because the statisical information seems to favor Jason's read. [/ QUOTE ] Where did you get the impression that a 13/8 is unduly tight with his PFR standards after a limper? [/ QUOTE ] I was just wondering what specifically made you think that he was not.
|
|
#5
12-15-2005, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Because the statisical information seems to favor Jason's read. [/ QUOTE ] Where did you get the impression that a 13/8 is unduly tight with his PFR standards after a limper? [/ QUOTE ] I was just wondering what specifically made you think that he was not. [/ QUOTE ] 8% PFR was enough, for starters. I also took a shot at thinking that a 13/8 might actually be capable of thinking about the game beyond just the cards he's holding, since he appears capable of at least some thought.
|
|
#6
12-15-2005, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Because the statisical information seems to favor Jason's read. [/ QUOTE ] Where did you get the impression that a 13/8 is unduly tight with his PFR standards after a limper? [/ QUOTE ] I was just wondering what specifically made you think that he was not. [/ QUOTE ] 8% PFR was enough, for starters. I also took a shot at thinking that a 13/8 might actually be capable of thinking about the game beyond just the cards he's holding, since he appears capable of at least some thought. [/ QUOTE ] No, where did this read come from? [ QUOTE ] but my read is that he's aggro and decent but overaggro in the wrong spots and definitely capable of realizing his position and concepts like isolation etc) [/ QUOTE ] Why do you believe he is "definitely capable". I mean you bolded the words, so there must be some specific instance that jumps to your mind that makes you this sure. I am just wondering what made you sure enough to bold your words as if there can be no doubt about this read.
|
|
#7
12-14-2005, 04:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
The more poker you play the more you should realise that AQo is virtually never fit to cold-call with.
Only on extremely rare occasions and under perfect conditions would I even consider an isolation 3-bet with it and even then it's marginal at best. If ANY limper and ANY raiser are already in front, forget it, even if one's a fish and the other a donkey. The hand is weak, vulnerable and you're paying too much to even try. You do have a positional advantage, however. You get to see what's going on in front of you and that is precisely what enables you to MUCK IT without getting involved ass-backwards to begin with! This opinion, of course, will get me branded as a weak-tight nit. But I don't care. Do yourself a favor. Muck first and ask questions later.
|
|
#8
12-14-2005, 04:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
[ QUOTE ]
Only on extremely rare occasions and under perfect conditions would I even consider an isolation 3-bet with it and even then it's marginal at best. If ANY limper and ANY raiser are already in front, forget it, even if one's a fish and the other a donkey [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't take perfect conditions at all. Auto-folding this, especially if it's a loose raiser in front of a loose limper is losing money. Especially if you can fold everyone else out behind you with a 3 bet with position. I'd suggest practicing postflop play with this hand if you're really that worried about it against weak players. [ QUOTE ] The hand is weak, vulnerable and you're paying too much to even try. [/ QUOTE ] In many cases, you may also have the best hand. b
|
|
#9
12-14-2005, 04:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
Welcome to the forum. I'd like to ask you to please stop reading strategy posts and also to never change your mind about this poll [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ] Muck first and ask questions later. [/ QUOTE ] hmmm...my motto is to raise first and think later; it makes my thinking easier. -WT
|
|
#10
12-14-2005, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
[ QUOTE ]
The more poker you play the more you should realise that AQo is virtually never fit to cold-call with. [/ QUOTE ] I teach my wife that she should never coldcall as the 1st one in. Then, when she's not looking, I coldcall raises with AQ all the time. You can play this hand to fit or fold profitably under almost all table conditions. I only fold against the tightest raisers, and only 3-bet against the loosest, and feel that, after struggling with this hand for ages, I finally have AQ figured out... -Eric edit: just realized that this is not the OP, but the "first unread" post in this thread I'm visiting for the first time... In teh hand, I like a 3-bet, calling next, folding last.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
