Don't players make moves? Is bluffing non-existant?

[Spekkio]

He's not saying you shouldn't try to read hands. He's saying that you should. But, until you get good at it, make sure you put your money in with the best of it. Think of how many fish start out and think that everyone is bluffing. That's because they THINK they can read what's going on, but they can't. They have no idea. So they put their money in the middle when they are losing.

A newbie playing tight, conservative poker IS the optimal way to play. Any other way will result in a loss of money.

Best way, I guess, to learn to read people is even if you have the nuts, try and put your opponents on hands. Do they have a strong hand ie will they call an all-in from you? Are they weak and will fold if you bet? That's a much less risky, and much more profitable, way to learn to read people.

So you get bluffed out of the winning hand a few times. When people think they can bluff you, they'll bet into your monsters, and you'll still make money in the long run. It's all about winning more than losing, however you do that.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not getting it. That 450 X 47 has to come out of somebodies win-loss colume.

Is this a cruel joke? or has my mother been hiding the fact that I'm retard all my life?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really don't get this - and please understand, I'm not trying to be mean here - you shouldn't expect to win at poker until you do get it. Your expectation by calling is hugely better than it is by folding. The explanations in this thread have been very clear.

[ML4L]

Hey all,

After I posted this, I decided that I should have started a new thread, because what I said doesn't necessarily have to do entirely with Paluka's original post. But, oh well...

Here are some follow-up thoughts:

First, the point of my post was NOT that a player should play like a rock for his entire career. In fact, my point was exactly the opposite. If a player is concerned with maximizing his potential, he needs to become adept at hand reading and playing well in uncomfortable situations. Furthermore, the best way to improve in those areas is to throw one's self into the fire.

But, that fact notwithstanding, this forum can have a tendency sometimes to shame people out of a conservative style before they are ready. One of the primary ways is by making people feel like they are leaving a ton of money on the table by playing conservatively. While this MIGHT be true, it is not necessarily true, depending on the game conditions. In a game where opponents will pay off too much and are not observant, a conservative strategy is not far from optimal, as long as the player does not make the mistake of giving aggressive opponents too much credit for having a hand (I think that this is Paluka's original point, and I agree; no matter one's strategy, seeing monsters that aren't there will really decrease a player's earning potential).

Another point of interest is that Paluka's post was brought on by the diluge of hands from the Party $1000 game. But, two things are true about the majority of the players in that game. One, I'd be willing to bet that most are severely underbankrolled. And two, most are limit players trying their hand at a new game, and frankly, many of those players aren't very good at no-limit (just as a no-limit player moving to limit might be slow to adjust). In any event, both of those conditions are good reason in my mind for a player to play a more conservative strategy...

Anyway, the entire point of my posts was that a player who plays conservatively should not be fooled into thinking that there is something inherently wrong with doing so. Because, the truth is that there isn't. And, getting back to the tenor of the original post, no matter your style, success and hand reading are highly correlated. So, if you are looking to improve, hand reading is probably the area that would pay the biggest dividends.

ML4L

[natedogg]

That's pretty much it. The max limit on the rebuy amount is the crucial factor.

Take two games where everyone has $100. One has a max buyin of $100 and the other is a true no limit game.

You'd have to be more conservative in the max buy in game, even though stack sizes are the same in both games, becuase if you lose, you can only come in for $100, and you have to win TWO big pots to get that $200 stack's money. In a true no limit game, you just buy in for $200 now and you only need one big pot to go down.

Also, the preflop play has to be way tighter, in relation to the blinds, when there's a max buy in. In other words, when the stacks are ALL short, the limiting factor for preflop tightness is pot size. When the stacks are ALL bigger, the limiting factor is your opponents' stack size...which means you can play looser preflop.


natedogg

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much it. The max limit on the rebuy amount is the crucial factor.

Take two games where everyone has $100. One has a max buyin of $100 and the other is a true no limit game.

You'd have to be more conservative in the max buy in game, even though stack sizes are the same in both games, becuase if you lose, you can only come in for $100, and you have to win TWO big pots to get that $200 stack's money. In a true no limit game, you just buy in for $200 now and you only need one big pot to go down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this. Why should the fact that you can't rebuy for $200 affect whether you play marginal spots for your $100 stack? If you're the best player, you should be more willing to play these spots in the max buyin game, since you're trying to build a deep stack asap and bust everyone else. It's the same idea behind playing aggressively in the early stages of rebuy tournaments.

[fimbulwinter]

damn i wish i could take lessons from you. great as always.

fim