First 2 days of online play

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
ATo is marginal, ATs is much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure but if ATo is marginal, then how good is ATs when you get an A-To kind of flop? That is, you make a pair rather than a flush?

--Zetack

[Zetack]

I agree Lee Jones's book is great, despite some minor flaws pointed out on these forums. I haven't read Helmuth's book, but rarely have I seen a piece of work as pilloried. If so many posters think its a load of crap, I'd be careful using it as a guide. As far as HPFAP...I'm not sure its a great thing for a new player to muddle their thinking with its sophisticated, contradictory, and often inaplicable to micro limits advice.

Just my 2c.

--Zetack

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure but if ATo is marginal, then how good is ATs when you get an A-To kind of flop? That is, you make a pair rather than a flush?


[/ QUOTE ]
On a T-8-6 rainbow board as this was it is very good. On an Ace high board it will often still be the best hand. On a K-T-9 board with a possible flush then it's not so great. I don't understand what you're getting at. If your implying that having them suited matters very little in a typical loose low limit game I think you are way off. Some of the biggest pots you will win are with these exact hands when you catch the flush. My point about the NL comparison is that good NL players will not let you have the odds to chase the flush and may get tricky with an AK type hand to trap you. This is not much of a concern in limit play.

[Aviston]

[ QUOTE ]
My point about the NL comparison is that good NL players will not let you have the odds to chase the flush and may get tricky with an AK type hand to trap you. This is not much of a concern in limit play.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my NL experience this is right on the money. Which is why I seem to be having such a difficult time adjusting to limit style play. I'm rather used to winning easily with TPTK and therefore have been playing them very aggressively through all streets. On UB, it seems that people are quite passive and therefore aren't reraising when I have TPTK even if they have a set or 2 pair. Because I'm not shown to have the inferior hand, I am betting out through the turn and river and losing the majority of the time. They won't stay in, however, if the flop misses them, and so I find a lot of people folding on the flop to my raises/bets. Hence, as I said earlier, I seem to be losing way more money when I lose than I am winning when I win. Ho hum, what to do, what to do? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ZootMurph]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree Lee Jones's book is great, despite some minor flaws pointed out on these forums. I haven't read Helmuth's book, but rarely have I seen a piece of work as pilloried. If so many posters think its a load of crap, I'd be careful using it as a guide. As far as HPFAP...I'm not sure its a great thing for a new player to muddle their thinking with its sophisticated, contradictory, and often inaplicable to micro limits advice.

Just my 2c.

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil's book, as a whole, is not very good and you can buy Hold Em Poker by Sklansky (not to be confused with HEPFAP), and get much better and more useful technical information. However, there are things in Phil's book that I found useful, which is why I recommend it. Specifically, reading players (his categorization of player types into animal types really helped me learn to read players better), and discussion of proper tight play make the book worth buying.

I recommend Sklansky AFTER Phil so that Sklansky can clear up a lot of issues Phil messes up or doesn't explain properly.

So, I think it is a good natural progression to go from Lee Jones, who gives a lot of good basic information and sets up a solid foundation, although offers a weak/loose approach, to Phil who helps with reading players and a tighter approach, to Sklansky, who offers up more calculations, information, and a better tight/aggressive approach.

[Aviston]

I have most of the books mentioned and I did in fact start out with Lee Jones's book and then moved on to Phil's book (I grabbed an ebook version for a few dollars and figured 'meh, why not?').

Anyway, I believe that my previous statement about being willing to lose money was taken a bit too far. I won't hang out day after day losing money; I am fully aware that poker is about making money. However, spending my first few days learning from other, better, players while finding out where my limit skill lies isn't really bothering me. Of course, it probably helps that while I'm losing money on my limit play, I'm winning money on my NL play and therefore breaking even (roughly) between the two.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure but if ATo is marginal, then how good is ATs when you get an A-To kind of flop? That is, you make a pair rather than a flush?


[/ QUOTE ]


I don't understand what you're getting at. If your implying that having them suited matters very little in a typical loose low limit game I think you are way off. Some of the biggest pots you will win are with these exact hands when you catch the flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anybody critisizing his PF play, just his postflop. PF ATs is better than ATo obviously. However, post flop when you pair but don't make the flush or draw, you essentially have A-To.

If A-10o is marginal why? Isn't it because if you pair the aces you could be outkicked and if you pair the tens you worry about overcards and if no overcards fall then the bunching under makes you worry about straights? A-Ts is in the same boat on this flop. You do have the extra equity here of a possible runner runner flush (although you lose that on the turn) but otherwise its the same as A-10 off.

That said, this is a good flop for A-10 and should be played aggressively on the flop.

I see a lot of writing that explicitly says, or at least implies that a suited hand is a lot stronger than the unsuited version of that hand. Thats true pre-flop, but its only true postflop if you catch you flush or draw. Once you miss the flush, your hand is no better than the unsuited version.

--Zetack

[Aviston]

I didn't raise preflop due to my position. I don't feel A-10s is a good enough hand for early position raises. Perrhaps I'm wrong.

That being said, if I had been in later position facing a bet with this flop, I'd have certainly raised. However, after betting out in early position, and facing a raise, it stopped me cold (which I admit, it shouldn't have).

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, I believe that my previous statement about being willing to lose money was taken a bit too far. I won't hang out day after day losing money; I am fully aware that poker is about making money. However, spending my first few days learning from other, better, players while finding out where my limit skill lies isn't really bothering me. Of course, it probably helps that while I'm losing money on my limit play, I'm winning money on my NL play and therefore breaking even (roughly) between the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey I'm fine with that approach. When somebody said something to the effect of: its all about the money, well at .25/.50 the money is essentially meaningless except as a way to keep score. Playing in games that you think help you to learn probably has as much value as playing in a different game where you might score four or five extra bucks but learn less.

Of course, I'm not sure that the "tougher" micro games necessarily help you to learn any more than the "easier" ones. Sure they might be tight and harder to squeeze money out of, but are they likely tight in the same way as a tight 3/6 game? Or is it just a different type of micro idiocy?

Also, to whoever suggested that the weekly 2+2 micro games give you the good player experience I just have to laugh. I suspect you'll rarely, if ever, see another game that plays like that one, so where's the learning experience there?

--Zetack

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
If A-10o is marginal why? Isn't it because if you pair the aces you could be outkicked and if you pair the tens you worry about overcards and if no overcards fall then the bunching under makes you worry about straights?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds about right.

[ QUOTE ]
I see a lot of writing that explicitly says, or at least implies that a suited hand is a lot stronger than the unsuited version of that hand. Thats true pre-flop, but its only true postflop if you catch you flush or draw. Once you miss the flush, your hand is no better than the unsuited version.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but either is very strong with this flop. And I still fail to see your point. You often miss the flop with many strong starting hands. You sometimes hit the flop and win. You hit more flops and win more pots if they are suited. But yes if you miss the flush then it no longer matters.

If I somehow knew the flop would come 10 high I would raise pf with either every time as either is then a very strong holding.

Sorry if it appears I'm being argumentative but I'm just not sure if you are saying ATs is not that good of a hand or that being suited doesn't really matter or something else that I'm just too dense to see.

Edit: After rereading the posts I'm assuming you're saying ATs isn't strong enough to raise with in EP. I think it is but agree that limping isn't horrible. I think it would be a huge mistake, however, to not raise it in late position if there has been no raise yet.