Originally Posted by Trabendo_daze
Just because a strategy doesn't fit into your standard box does not mean it is incorrect and definitely does not mean it's worth calling people "droolers".
Experiment. Learn from evidence not from books written so long ago?
If I write a post and it says I 4bet 86o I'm a total fish drooler what have you but if Tom Dwan 4bets 86o it's okay right?
So standard all the time, no critical analysis, good lord man, I really can't do these hand analyses anymore
You have 5 high. You can't win the pot by fold equity, you aren't setting up future cbets. Not to mention, most flops you just limp, and then fold, thus lighting $2 on fire (or whatever BB is).
How often are you going to smash a flop with 5-4? I dunno 90%+ you're folding flop or some later street.
Not to mention the times you flop a draw, and what do you do with said draw? If you had taken the initiative, maybe you win the pot with no showdown.
We won't flop a big hand often enough. We are playing bingo. And what about the times you do flop a pair? Is it good? Probably not.
Agression wins pots alot. Taking the passive route is referred to as "loose passive".
Definition of loose passive: A player who is loose with hand selection (5-4s), and passive with betting. $2 adds up.
And why would you compare yourself with Tom Dwan? You think Tom Dwan would limp into a multi-way pot with this hand? For some reason I think he'd raise, if he were to play it... but what do I know?
And we aren't talking about 4b with 6-8o, we are talking about limping in with 5-4s. Not the same thing. So the comparison seems irrelevant.