Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[Sophia]

[Benal]

I need to take a leak now...

[AEKDBet]

I'm curious to what top 3 hands are your biggest losers (BB/hand, not win%')
FYI I play NL almost exclusively. Also what are your biggest winners other than the obvious...

Biggest losers
1) A9s (1.16 BB)
2) 76s (.86 BB)
3) 32s (.71 BB).... but they were soooted

Biggest winners - EXCLUDING AA-TT, AK, AQ
1) ATs +1.31 BB
2) Q9s +.87 BB
3) J4s +.72 BB ....but they were soooted!

AA nabs me an avg of 5.65 BB/hand

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
So I just did a review of my game and I found some leaks that I am plugging now. I thought I would post them, and encourage everyone to do the same. Post a leak that you've found in your game or another's game (or many, preferrably). Sometimes we don't realize some of the most basic mistakes we're making until someone points them out.

My four big leaks from this review:

1. Cold calling an EP raise with suited connector middle cards in late position without 3+ callers in front of me. With 3+ I should probably even considering reraising though ... Um...how do I put this? How 'bout, "No." With 3+ commited to the pot, you *may* *consider* playing QJs-T9s, but not "middle cards," and you're definitely not *raising* them.

2. Failing to raise a middle pocket pair on a ragged flop when I am heads up or against 2 people and the flop only contains one overcard. Too many people come out firing on such a flop with a lesser pair. Wow, that's a mouthful...

3. Failing to raise big suited cards (like KJ, K10, Q10) when in middle position in loose games. Again, this is dependent on the actual situation and game. I wouldn't make it a rule to raise QTs and KTs from middle position.

4. Not folding enough to a surprise turn raise, particularly when that raise is called in front of me. Stubbornly holding onto top pair/no draws when an unimaginative player is telling me I am beaten. Yes, that *would* be a leak

I'll post more as I find them. I hope you do too.

[/ QUOTE ]


I've got a suggestion for a leak:

5. "Trying to come up with 'General Rules' on how to act in all seemingly similar circustances, even though each case is matter for discussion on its own."


Just my thoughts...


Adam

[Sophia]

[Perseus]

count it

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only are your comments unhelpful, but you don't sound like a very good player (particularly if you don't understand why someone would sometimes raise with suited connectors in LP with 4 people in the pot in front for 2 bets). Maybe you should be examining your game instead of making snide comments about mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although my comments contained elements of sarcasm, I believe they still held useful information - especially my suggested "Leak #5". The sarcasm was intended as a way of expressing my discontent for "trying to come up with 'General Rules' on how to act in all seemingly similar circustances, even though each case is matter for discussion on its own." It would be wrong of me to let incorrect "advice" be taken as gospel by those trying to learn from these forums.

Now, the fact remains that perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about.

As a little experiment, though, let's try this:

I'm going to list my reasons against "raising with suited connectors in LP with 4 people in the pot in front for 2 bets" as you have described.

In turn, you respond with your reasons "for" doing so.

MY RATIONALE:

1. Let's take JTs, for example. You are currently at the very least a slight underdog to anyone holding an Ace, King, Queen, or pocket pair in their hand - each of these possibilities is increasingly likely given that someone has open-raised, and there are 3 others who have decided their hands are worth cold-calling the raise.

2. The value of suited connectors in big, multi-way pots stems from catching a big draw and dragging a huge pot when it actually comes through. Otherwise, we want to see the flop as cheaply as possible, but easily release the hand when we miss. By raising, not only are we costing ourselves an extra bet to see the flop, but we risk getting re-raised by someone holding something like AA,KK, or QQ.

3. Further to point #2, by raising the flop we've not only cost ourselves more for the chance to pick up a draw, but we've essentially killed our implied odds of getting action when we do pick up a draw.

For example, instead of re-raising preflop, wouldn't it be nice to have just called preflop, hit an open-ended-straigt-flush draw, then have the original preflop raiser lead the flop, have all/most call one bet behind him, *then* we raise the flop, trapping everyone and building a monster pot? Alternatively, if we miss the flop, we fold.

If we had re-raised preflop, and been fortunate enough to hit the open-ended-straight-flush draw, it would suck to have everyone check to you, then you bet and only build the flop by one bet each.

Please note the differences in the above two scenarios. In the first you are seeing the flop cheaply, *then* building a pot when you have potential. Otherwise you can cheaply release your hand.

In the second scenario, we're paying a hell of a lot for the flop whether or not we even hit a draw, not to mention killing out implied odds the times we do.


Okay, now your turn ....


I am using this example only because this is the one you have put forth and challenged me with. In reality, though, this example should be of minimal concern since the instance when you should actually be cold-calling with high-medium suited connectors is a *relatively* rare occurance compared to other common, more frequent, leaks.


Oh ya, and *that* was one of my original points too: how you were incorrect in saying how *often* one should be cold-calling with suited connectors.

Adam

[Sophia]

[adamstewart]

[sarcasm]

OMG, you've made me have a revelation! I've been playing poker all wrong ...

Not only am I going to start raising and capping with suited connectors ...

... but from now on, whenever I have a gutshot draw, I'm going to JAM THAT POT, CAP IT WHENEVER POSSIBLE. I mean, I'm going to miss it 90% of the time, but boy oh boy, those times that I hit I'll drag a huge pot!

Plus, it'll totally throw an element of deception into my game.

I can't wait.... [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/sarcasm]

Adam

[cpk]

Oh, and one more thing--raising with "implied odds" hands does not "kill" our implied odds. Rather, we convert our implied odds into instant odds. Why get paid by just 2 or 3 of these clowns when our hands come in when we can get paid, in advance, by all of them?

That's what's you're doing when you make speculative raises with marginal hands. And, what's better, is that you will get even more money later anyway. So it's a win-win.

So, in other words, rather than getting nebulous implied odds from 1 or 2 people 18% of the time, we will simply raise now and get contributions from all 5 people, and we will get paid on those contributions 18% of the time. And, most likely, we will get those implied-odds contributions anyway. Plus, because of the bloated pot, we will probably get more action, not less.