|
|
#13
08-31-2005, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you should be limping all that often. [/ QUOTE ] I agree, but the 2/4 tables are much less aggressive in general. So when you limp you are less likely to get raised. The problem is that there will probably be many limpers behind you. This may or maynot be good for your hand. So why not fold, play really tight, but play 3 or 4 tables instead. 
|
|
#14
08-31-2005, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Not to sound like a dick...but.... I laugh at your $200. [/ QUOTE ] Right now, I'd blow the inmates of Cell Block D at San Quentin to only be down 50 BB's right now. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know where Beer is at, but I am in the midst of a 150 BB freefall at card rooms 2/4 and 4/8, I hate the 3/6 structure. Although since it came on the heels of a 200bb up swing I can't complain too much. This game is like a god damned rollercoaster ride.
|
|
#15
08-31-2005, 03:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
This is a valid point, Jon. I don't enjoy multitabling stud, and rarely do it. I'll usually play a table of stud and one of holdem. I never play more than two tables total, since I don't find it enjoyable. Most of the folks I know who play poker for a living or as a side source of income do play four or more tables (unless they play much higher), and I agree that giving up a little marginal value by limping less in favor of playing more tables is almost surely more profitable.
But since I'm not interested in maximizing the money I make, but rather in maximizing the amount I win at my single table, I think limping lots of hands is +EV for me since the other players generally will pay me off if I hit, the game's not that aggressive and I'm much better than almost all my opponents so I want opportunities to play with them. The big difference between this and 3-6 (which I also play alot) is that it's much less worthwhile to raise to try to thin the field or win right there, since the underante at 2-4 vs. the overante at 3-6 drastically changes your risk/reward equation.
|
|
#16
08-31-2005, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
I just got over a month-and-a-half long slide where nothing held up and the fish crushed me. now, i can't seem to lose a hand. who knows? keep at it.
|
|
#17
08-31-2005, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
I just got over a month-and-a-half long slide where nothing held up and the fish crushed me. now, i can't seem to lose a hand. who knows? keep at it. [/ QUOTE ] Same here.. Same exact thing.
|
|
#18
08-31-2005, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
If you are "eternally" running bad at low-limit stud, AND, as you insist, you are playing well, then I can come to only one conclusion...you are delusional.
It's not possible to play well at low limit stud and lose on a consistent basis.
|
|
#19
08-31-2005, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
It's not possible to play well at low limit stud and lose on a consistent basis. [/ QUOTE ] Depends on your definition of consistant. I've played 1000 hands and been even.
|
|
#20
08-31-2005, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
We're talking low-limit here which I take to be 5-10 or under.
I seldom have a losing session and is seems to me that I can say the same about most of my respected opponents. Low-limit stud is where I return to gather the funds that I can lose elsewhere. I'm not trying to brag or aggrandize my poker abilities. I freely admit to struggling at higher limit stud or at other limit games. However, low-limit stud is, or should be, a slam dunk.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
