A Play I Make a Lot - Page 4

AtticusFinch · #31 10-25-2005, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i like it better if you are closing or nearly closing the action and if it's a minraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I think this is more important than the particular hand, and that's why I fold in the OP's example, even with a low connector.

schwza · #32 10-25-2005, 05:39 PM

ok, but here it's not a minraise and we're not closing the action. i would call in the spot you described also.

badluckal · #33 10-25-2005, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I think that a MTT is precicely the scenario where you'd want to take these low-risk-high-variance shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

In similar situations in a ring game, the best play IMHO would be to turbo-muck. But in a MTT, where variance is quite high, this play gains strength. I think this is similar to what Strassa was saying with his "retarded two-pair" comments.

#34 10-25-2005, 05:49 PM

Just reread it, thought the raiser was an ep, in that spot, I would fold since I am not closing the action, but if it was 20 more to me (or even 60 more if blinds were 15/30, I like to gamble a little more on the lower levels to try to stack someone) I'd call. Closing the action is key in that scenario to me though, since I'd have bad position, and would have no clue if someone behind me might decide to reraise and cause me to unneccessarily burn chips.

About the lowest suited 1 gapper I'd call with in the situation described is 9Js, and only if I was fairly sure I wouldn't see another raise behind me, and only if the blinds are relatively low compared to my stack.

Exitonly · #35 10-25-2005, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you get thoes marginally +EV draws/crappy two pairs, often enouogh to make them profitable...

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you do, but the variance is so huge it just doesn't seem like it.

I think that a MTT is precicely the scenario where you'd want to take these low-risk-high-variance shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, i did the math to show that it's not good for 94o... i'd like to see someone do the math that it IS good for 23s or whatever you guys are advocating.

Low suited connectors hit more flops than 94o does, but it's two pair is more easily countnerfitted, it's flushes are less likely to be the best hand, and you invest money plenty of the time and don't hit.

Exitonly · #36 10-25-2005, 06:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think that a MTT is precicely the scenario where you'd want to take these low-risk-high-variance shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

In similar situations in a ring game, the best play IMHO would be to turbo-muck. But in a MTT, where variance is quite high, this play gains strength. I think this is similar to what Strassa was saying with his "retarded two-pair" comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way.. Tournaments you want to minimize variancec. Ring games as long as you're making a +EV play you're going to make money, regardless of the variance.. in tournaments you DONT want variance.. you want SHORT TERM succes.

mikeymer · #37 10-25-2005, 06:35 PM

In the UB 100+ with 2500 starting stacks and blinds 5/10, with position i would call a raise with any two suited, any connector, etc... I disagree with exit, as I am willing to mess around with variance to try to accumulate a stack.

Exitonly · #38 10-25-2005, 06:37 PM

5/10 blinds w/ 2500 stacks is considerably different than 15/30 w/ 1500 stacks on Stars, or 10/20 w/ 1000 stacks on Bodog.

Jason Strasser · #39 10-25-2005, 09:56 PM

...........

You can make one pair and it can win pots.

You can bluff and win pots.

You dont need a fckin OESD or TTT flop to be in a good spot.

What about KT4?

badluckal · #40 10-26-2005, 12:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
5/10 blinds w/ 2500 stacks is considerably different than 15/30 w/ 1500 stacks on Stars, or 10/20 w/ 1000 stacks on Bodog.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, it is different.

But with the blinds going up quickly and the weaker players getting eaten up fast, it seems incorrect to me to pass up even marginal +EV early.

When you factor in Strassa's point above that you don't need a big hand to win a pot (the assumption there being that you can sometimes just outplay your opponents), and you think that you quite often have the best of it when all the money goes in, I still am having trouble seeing why I would want to pass up spots early on with small initial risk yet the potential to significantly increase your stack size.

In all seriousness though, you are probably correct. I am a breakeven MTT player after 11 months, probably due to leaks like calling mini-raises out of the blinds with weak holdings.