|
|
#11
08-30-2004, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Chapter 7
Regarding no limit with small blinds. As in a cash game or early tourneys. Chapter four says we should play tighter with small blinds. Chapter seven says we are getting great implied odds in no limit. What strategy do you guys think is better and why?
|
|
#12
08-30-2004, 12:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chapter 7
[ QUOTE ]
Regarding no limit with small blinds. As in a cash game or early tourneys. Chapter four says we should play tighter with small blinds. Chapter seven says we are getting great implied odds in no limit. What strategy do you guys think is better and why? [/ QUOTE ] The way you make this decision is by looking at the size of the blinds compared to the size of future bets. In NL where you can often limp in cheap, but still break someone if you hit your hand the implied odds are through the roof. This is also true in limit hold em games with mini blinds or in 7 card stud games where the bring in bet is abnormally low.
|
|
#13
08-30-2004, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chapter 7
Remember also that implied odds require a degree of "hiddenness" if you hit your hand.
For example, if you hold A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and the board is T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], you're not going to get much action if a Q hits so you might be better off folding to a solid bet.
|
|
#14
08-30-2004, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chapter 7
[ QUOTE ]
The way you make this decision is by looking at the size of the blinds compared to the size of future bets. In NL where you can often limp in cheap, but still break someone if you hit your hand the implied odds are through the roof. This is also true in limit hold em games with mini blinds or in 7 card stud games where the bring in bet is abnormally low. [/ QUOTE ] Regarding no-limit, another way to say it would be to look at the size of the blinds relative to the size of the chip stacks on the table. With small blinds in no-limit, you obiously would want to come in with more speculative hands, as, as stated, you can break someone. But this is only worthwhile if the size of the stack you are breaking is significant.
|
|
#15
08-30-2004, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory of Poker: Chapters 5-7 Discussion
I think a combo of the two is good. Start one thread with a question to get the discussion going, and start a second for posters' miscellaneous questions from that chapter.
So far so good, though, as I think the discussion group was an excellent idea.
|
|
#16
08-30-2004, 02:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chapter 7
[ QUOTE ]
In NL where you can often limp in cheap, but still break someone if you hit your hand the implied odds are through the roof. This is also true in limit hold em games with mini blinds or in 7 card stud games where the bring in bet is abnormally low. [/ QUOTE ] This is interesting about the mini-blinds games. I've heard it either way, as in you should play looser cause you get in cheap or tighter because your draws are likely to be expensive relative to the pot. I think a mini blind structure probably increases the relative value of mid/low pocket pairs, while decreasing the value of connectors and suited cards somewhat linearly with the postflop aggression of the rest of the table. Loose limping can also be severely punished. Some one can effectively 3-bet you at any time. (Call the $2, raise to $6.)
|
|
#17
08-30-2004, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chapter 7
[ QUOTE ]
I think a mini blind structure probably increases the relative value of mid/low pocket pairs, while decreasing the value of connectors and suited cards somewhat linearly with the postflop aggression of the rest of the table. [/ QUOTE ] I think it would increase the value of suited connectors as well. The idea being that you sometimes flop a big hand with suited connectors, not necessarily just a draw, and you are risking a relatively small number of chips to see that flop.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
