Eugenius
Rock Star
Silver Level
As I've been progressing as a poker player I've been trying to learn to play all of the different "gears" of the game.
When I first started out, I mostly played a "by the book" tight-aggressive style. When I came to California - my style wasn't working in the local card houses anymore (and they are TOUGH).
So, for the last 4 months or so I've been cultivating a new style, where I essentially play way too many hands and to the "untrained eye" come off as a total donkey. Of course, I eventually make a nut hand and end up stacking off some non-believer.
I've been trying to work our the math behind my betting structure where my pattern isn't too predictable when I'm bluffing or betting a weak hand such that my big hands can still get paid well when I actually have it. Generally, I try to bet anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of the pot on my "image plays", and 2/3-1.5 the pot when I actually have it.
Overall I found that I'll generally bleed probably 20-30BB's per hour when using this style while card-dead - some bluffs succeed, but if it's a decent table people will generally catch me. However, when my 47off finally flops the nut strait, I will take down a pot that's anywhere from 50-200BB's. Another benefit of this style is that it generally gets other players to make mistakes - they will all start to trap me, and eventually let me catch up then pay me off.
In general, this style is very hard to quantify properly and I believe it's more of an art than a science to pull off right, but I wanted to see what others had to say about the "action" style of play, in which you try to establish yourself as a maniac to get paid on a big vs. the traditional by-the-book tight-aggressive style.
Anyhow, I wanted to see what others here had to say about this strategy. Discuss.
When I first started out, I mostly played a "by the book" tight-aggressive style. When I came to California - my style wasn't working in the local card houses anymore (and they are TOUGH).
So, for the last 4 months or so I've been cultivating a new style, where I essentially play way too many hands and to the "untrained eye" come off as a total donkey. Of course, I eventually make a nut hand and end up stacking off some non-believer.
I've been trying to work our the math behind my betting structure where my pattern isn't too predictable when I'm bluffing or betting a weak hand such that my big hands can still get paid well when I actually have it. Generally, I try to bet anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of the pot on my "image plays", and 2/3-1.5 the pot when I actually have it.
Overall I found that I'll generally bleed probably 20-30BB's per hour when using this style while card-dead - some bluffs succeed, but if it's a decent table people will generally catch me. However, when my 47off finally flops the nut strait, I will take down a pot that's anywhere from 50-200BB's. Another benefit of this style is that it generally gets other players to make mistakes - they will all start to trap me, and eventually let me catch up then pay me off.
In general, this style is very hard to quantify properly and I believe it's more of an art than a science to pull off right, but I wanted to see what others had to say about the "action" style of play, in which you try to establish yourself as a maniac to get paid on a big vs. the traditional by-the-book tight-aggressive style.
Anyhow, I wanted to see what others here had to say about this strategy. Discuss.
