A post I've wanted to write for a long time (LONG)

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
but I don't conjure hands out of thin air. I don't 3bet T9s, and I hardly ever chk/rz a turn completely naked.

[/ QUOTE ]

im pretty sure that doing these particular moves is not how you beat "tight" games.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are right, I shouldn't have guessed why Gerry thought the games were horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. I guess an admission of error, even if only a part of it, is laudable.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are looking for OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

You post there too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have anything, ya know, benefitial to add?

If not, I don't think I'll continue to participate in your attempted thread hijack. It's nothing personal. In fact, I'm surprised this is coming from you. It's just that the boards have enough clutter with stuff like what you are writing. I don't want to catch myself doing that, too.

Josh

[Dantes]

You realize that most of the people who play 30/60+ 3+ table right? They have no idea how their opponents play outside of whatever they have set up for their HUD. But you're supposed to just magically OUTPLAY everyone post flop? Ohhhhh kay. Good thing this wasn't an egomaniacal post.

[lil feller]

Hi Josh,

While I, and i'm sure others, appreciated what you took the time to write, you aren't exploring new territory here. In fact, the only reason you're getting such a volume of responses is the brash and condescending manner in which you presented it. No offense intended.

I enjoy reading your posts, especially the ones I disagree with, as you at least take the time to include a "why" with your "what".

Ultimately, however, your post boils down to two often tred topics.

#1. Success in poker comes not from our own skill, but from the difference in skill between us and our opponents. Granted there are different kinds of skills, and different skills serve different purposes on every betting street. To assume, however, that beating a bunch of "17/10 nits" is easy, is foolish. If these players have the discipline to play that solid, against standard oppositon, it won't take them to long to asses your style of play, and adapt accordingly. Nobody with the discipline to play winning 17/10 poker lacks the intution required to make such adjustments. Doing so, however, requires attention to every detail of the opponentes game. Why bother? They can just as easily ignore you, or go to a game with 6 other 38/14 monkeys and play 600 hands an hour with out thinking. Don't assume just because these people choose not to try outwit that they are incapable of doing so. To make that assumption would be a huge mistake.

#2. Success in poker is realized by recognizing that difference in skill, and exploiting it. Tommy wrote a wonderful post on "making a difference" that explained this, albeit using a vagueness that only Tommy has mastered. I suggest you search it.

I look forward to another one of your poker epiphanys, hopefully the next one will be slightly better received, and much more original.

lf

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
You realize that most of the people who play 30/60+ 3+ table right? They have no idea how their opponents play outside of whatever they have set up for their HUD. But you're supposed to just magically OUTPLAY everyone post flop? Ohhhhh kay. Good thing this wasn't an egomaniacal post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Three tabling allows for tons of opposition observation.

This isn't egomaniacal at all. I'm sorry if it came off that way.

Josh

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have anything, ya know, benefitial to add?

[/ QUOTE ]
You've amended some of your spew in light of my comments, was this not progress, of a sort?

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Josh,

While I, and i'm sure others, appreciated what you took the time to write, you aren't exploring new territory here. In fact, the only reason you're getting such a volume of responses is the brash and condescending manner in which you presented it. No offense intended.

I enjoy reading your posts, especially the ones I disagree with, as you at least take the time to include a "why" with your "what".

Ultimately, however, your post boils down to two often tred topics.

#1. Success in poker comes not from our own skill, but from the difference in skill between us and our opponents. Granted there are different kinds of skills, and different skills serve different purposes on every betting street. To assume, however, that beating a bunch of "17/10 nits" is easy, is foolish. If these players have the discipline to play that solid, against standard oppositon, it won't take them to long to asses your style of play, and adapt accordingly. Nobody with the discipline to play winning 17/10 poker lacks the intution required to make such adjustments. Doing so, however, requires attention to every detail of the opponentes game. Why bother? They can just as easily ignore you, or go to a game with 6 other 38/14 monkeys and play 600 hands an hour with out thinking. Don't assume just because these people choose not to try outwit that they are incapable of doing so. To make that assumption would be a huge mistake.

#2. Success in poker is realized by recognizing that difference in skill, and exploiting it. Tommy wrote a wonderful post on "making a difference" that explained this, albeit using a vagueness that only Tommy has mastered. I suggest you search it.

I look forward to another one of your poker epiphanys, hopefully the next one will be slightly better received, and much more original.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

Three points.

1.) If this came off brash (or, rather...SINCE this came of brash)...my sincerest apologies.

2.) This post isn't directed at people who can beat the tar out of tight games. I **know** that those people exist, and I'm glad they do, because they can hopefully contribute to the discussion (should they choose).

3.) I have seen no threads like this is the last 6 to 12 months. I'm sorry if it's often discussed. Can you please point me to threads regarding these topics...I'm not so egotistical to think that my game can't improve, and if there are threads out there that will help me, I'd love to peruse them

Thanks, and again, sorry for the tone.

Josh

[LarsVegas]

Josh to be honest, if all you can come up with is a winning $15/30 player finding a few $50/100 games tough, you don't really have much of a point or an argument here. Maybe he doesn't consider himself to perfect postflop player either yet.

I don't know why you are using this as an argument to back up your claim that a lot of winning $15/30 and $30/60 players focus only on finding games with loose play preflop. You yourself are saying you would have trouble beating $100/200, can't a $15/30 winner find a few $50/100 games horrible?

And also, preflop looseness is not the be all or end all of limit Holdem, but it sure is ONE very nice factor to a game, if it's there. There are certainly others too, but PARTICULARLY I think as you escalate up the limits, preflop looseness is one way to beat very experienced and aggressive players slightly over time.

I think Paluka have touched onto this earlier, saying he is equal at best postflop to most of his high-limit opposition, but he gains his edge preflop. You will also see Stoxtrader entering full games at almost the highest online limits, playing against some of the world best online $500/1000 players, but possibly having an edge even over them as they have a hard time adjusting, or being bothered adjusting, to proper tight play once the game gets more than 3 or 4 handed.

lars

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've made a lot of money at poker, and I've NEVER read a poker book.

[/ QUOTE ]

So uh, whats up with that?

Why not just buy a book and read it? You *might* just learn a thing of two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously though. I really am curious....

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I wasn't 100% truthful.

After playing for about 2 years, I hit a downswing. People suggested that I read HPFAP. I borrowed a copy of it from Sooga, and started to read it. I read the first 15ish pages, then glanced at a couple other chapters and found it very very obvious. I really don't enjoy sitting down and reading books, so I don't think it's +Life EV for me to read it.

Other books on limit holdem haven't been quoted as often or preached to me as much, so I figure nobody has reinvented the wheel as far as limit holdem books go, yet. IF I hear of a book that far surpasses HPFAP, I'll likely read it.

I've suggested to TONS of friends who want to learn poker to read books first. I wish somebody would have told me that before I lost thousands climbing the learning curve.

If I were to more seriously pursue NL or stud or omaha, I would certainly try to find a book to read first, to accelerate the learning process.

Hope this makes sense.

Josh

[stoxtrader]

tight games may or may not be good on an absolute basis, two important factors there is your skill, and the post-flop skill of your opponents.

on a RELATIVE basis, tight games blow.