High Stakes online and B&M

long time reader, just starting to post...

in reading the posts from BK on the 2/4 games, watching the 1/2, 2/4, and 3/6 games on UB, and the 1/2 on stars, it seems as though the 1/2 on stars is rediculously aggressive, (the only one ive actually played). ive watched babyhan go HU and get 3-4 bets in on the turn with TP, big draws, etc. then reading some of the posts from BK and specifically the KJo hand, it seems like these B&M ring games are the same. yet when i watch the UB 2/4 and 3/6 games (HU), they are much slower, and dont even make the turn/river a lot of the time. yet when i play the 30 game at turning stone, and the 40 or 50 game at foxwoods, which ever is running, they arent nearly this aggressive. i want my game to get to the point of making these thin value raises without spewing chips, but is my game selection not allowing me to do this, or is it just something that comes with time? why is one game/site so much more aggressive? or is it the nature of the east coast game vs the west coast game? ive heard there are some differences. anything that i should adjust to? im headed to vegas thursday for the first time, and will probably just bring my normal game, but is there anything that would help me better adjust that i should know before i hop right in a game? thanks

[highlife]

how high do you plan on playing?

[J.A.Sucker]

If you are planning on beating bigger games, you need to realize that your basic strategy is based on position, isolation, and big cards, usually. Most pots are contested shorthanded, and it is best to have the best position. See the hand where BK had 44 and was isolated. He never knew what to do or where he was at. This is the main problem with being out of position with marginal hands. If you are constantly guessing, you are constantly calling. If you are constantly calling, then you're the live one. I'm not saying that calling is always wrong, but you don't want to be there too much. Make your opponents be the ones who are guessing and calling. Most of all, realize that it's hard to be too tight, especially up front, and it's easy to fall into a trap of playing too many hands, especially when you see what looks like a lot of crazy play. It usually isn't. The games are tough and it takes a great player to beat them. Finally, you need to be able to make real-time adjustments to take advantage of great situations with marginal hands and to avoid making big mistakes with others. This skill cannot be explained, but only learned, and some never do.

[Lestat]

Your style should be dictated by the texture of the game and/or that of your opponents.

If you are playing heads up with someone who is almost as likely to fold as he is bluff, then you should adopt a style which becomes more passive in nature. I suspect the difference you are seeing in the big heads-up matches have less to do with what site they are played on and everything to do with how good players adjust to their opponent's tendencies.

[worm33]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, you need to be able to make real-time adjustments to take advantage of great situations with marginal hands and to avoid making big mistakes with others. This skill cannot be explained, but only learned, and Some never do.

[/ QUOTE ]


An incredibly gross understatement.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are planning on beating bigger games, you need to realize that your basic strategy is based on position, isolation, and big cards, usually. Most pots are contested shorthanded, and it is best to have the best position. See the hand where BK had 44 and was isolated. He never knew what to do or where he was at. This is the main problem with being out of position with marginal hands. If you are constantly guessing, you are constantly calling. If you are constantly calling, then you're the live one. I'm not saying that calling is always wrong, but you don't want to be there too much. Make your opponents be the ones who are guessing and calling. Most of all, realize that it's hard to be too tight, especially up front, and it's easy to fall into a trap of playing too many hands, especially when you see what looks like a lot of crazy play. It usually isn't. The games are tough and it takes a great player to beat them. Finally, you need to be able to make real-time adjustments to take advantage of great situations with marginal hands and to avoid making big mistakes with others. This skill cannot be explained, but only learned, and some never do.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I wasn't unsure of what to do except a little on the river. I admitted the pre-flop raise was bad and that was it. I was just posting the hand cause it was more interesting than most hands I played and everyone kept asking me to post more hands.

2nd of all you're advice all weekend to all of my posts has been poor at best. Like far off base. Not sure if you're just having a bad weekend or you're not really on the level you think you are.

[La Brujita]

Wow dude. I was just about to type Sucker has made some fantastic posts recently.

So have you by the way. I am impressed with how good your game has gotten.

Edit to say I looked back at what sucker wrote I thought he was right on with what he said in most of his posts to you.

I don't play 200-400 but what advice was horrible?

[bicyclekick]

The KJ hand, the anemic boy hand, the 44 hand.

[J.A.Sucker]

We can agree to disagree about those hands. They were interesting hands to post, the lot of them, and I don't want to imply that you aren't an excellent player. Still, I stand by everything that I have written in each hand. In each case, I'm sure you had reasons to do what you did because you were there and I wasn't, but typically, I think you are incorrect, especially in the 44 hand. That said, the hands are interesting and have sparked lots of good discussion.

I know my advice works, because I do play big games, have played them for awhile, and have always won. If you play like I do and are worried about being labeled a weak-tight hump, then whatever. I'm sure that my regular opponents, especially in a short game, would strongly disagree with that assessment.

[Schneids]

I've disagreed with most of Sucker's thoughts lately, though I've also seen these games, played with many of the people in them, and was watching BK play some of the time in it. I'm pretty sure Sucker is 0 for 3 with regards to those. I think the issue at hand is many of his posts feel like they have an "I'm always right and that's final" attitude to them. Of course, that's the case of many posters in this forum.