committed to 99

[theben]

not sure why you had 35 in the stack, but id call too

[MRBAA]

I see, so your point is it's better to tempt a weaker hand into an attempted steal, then reraise all in and either win it right there or see a flop with a good edge rather than raise right away, announce I've got a hand, and only get called by a range of hands against which I'm less of a favorite?

[swolfe]

[ QUOTE ]
I see, so your point is it's better to tempt a weaker hand into an attempted steal, then reraise all in and either win it right there or see a flop with a good edge rather than raise right away, announce I've got a hand, and only get called by a range of hands against which I'm less of a favorite?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, exactly.

[elus2]

you may as well stick to limit then if you're not going to try and play optimally. you would make more money there since you probably have a better understanding of that game and have acquired the necessary skill set to crush it.

[ChipWrecked]

I have so far played n/l live only
===================================

Is this because you're trying to learn reading players, as opposed to being able to play more hands online?

[MRBAA]

No, actually it's because when I do play live, n/l is often the only available game. Limit is my game of choice, and I typically play a table of limit he and one of limit stud online. If I go to Foxwoods, I'll play limit stud and limit he. But I live near NYC, and in the clubs here, 1/2 n/l is the dominant small stakes game. Often there is no limit game at all, or only a 10/20, often with a fairly tough lineup. So I've gotten started by chance more than by choice, however I am getting interested and would like to become a winning n/l player. It's interesting to me that so many players don't understand the relationship of stack size to the complexity of the n/l game. For me, as a new n/l player, it seems clear that simplifying IS optimal strategy. Now, when I start thinking I'm one of the best 2 players at the table, then a big stack will be optimal.