Jacki Burkhart
long winded rambler...
Silver Level
yeah, I agree I played the flop too fast. although I did not jam. I had 750 and the SB who check raised had 500 and I made it $225....but it has the same effect as a jam.
yeah, I agree I played the flop too fast. although I did not jam. I had 750 and the SB who check raised had 500 and I made it $225....but it has the same effect as a jam.
mbrenneman0
Legend
Silver Level
Post flop skill edge can have a tremendous impact on how profitable hands like A9s can be in EP. Its less likely to be profitable online in full ring than in a live game IMO. The less mistake prone you are postflop (or more mistake prone your opponents are), the wider you can play pre
C
Criminal Bizzy
Rock Star
Silver Level
First I would like to say that this is a very interesting thread to read. I like the goals that you have set for yourself and look forward to joining the conversation on future hands.
Second I want to make it clear that I am not advocating for playing the types of hands that were described in hand #26 and #27, I just want to add some other perspectives to look at so we can continue to discuss the game theory.
I think a key piece of information that is being overlooked in this conversation is the makeup of the table that is described in both scenarios. In both scenarios are the opponents really expecting us to show up with the hands that were played? What is the table image that is being presented and is it possible to exploit that?
The first hand was a lucky one time but lets start to peel back the layers that are here. We know that we have a couple mediocre players that we think we can outplay and one player which we have identified as good and naturally has some "in game respect" for skill. How often is SB showing up with Kx or Qx when they should be raising pretty wide once its "limped" to them from the straddle? This hand is blocking 12 combos of Kx that we lose. More often than not the SB is going to be missing and could be playing anything from suited middle connectors, to suited one gappers, and broadway cards.
The second hand... Are players really thinking about the hand that you call/raise with? The table is described as a softer table and I think if we start to think about the table as whole we can start to spot places where we can carefully take riskier shots at a flop and then continue to play from there. It also seems that the table is not paying attention if we have to inform the dealer that we already raised. So right away we should be excluding the top of the playable hand ranges from villains hand range for being so passive pre-flop. Even though the hand played here can't make a straight, we hold two cards that block a lot of hands from getting completed. When playing against a player who over values over cards, is it better to play aggressively and possibly chase them away or to play passively and extend the players time chasing after their cards?
The point that I am trying to make here is that sometimes mixing it up pre-flop is going to lead to great successes because its not what the players expect from us. They expect us to be playing premium hands that will often be dominating but don't hit the flop. So when a mediocre hand is played it can throw our opponent off because they don't expect a random hand to be played. If we think we can identify what the players expect of us to play then sometimes we can play different hands and hope for the best.
Second I want to make it clear that I am not advocating for playing the types of hands that were described in hand #26 and #27, I just want to add some other perspectives to look at so we can continue to discuss the game theory.
I think a key piece of information that is being overlooked in this conversation is the makeup of the table that is described in both scenarios. In both scenarios are the opponents really expecting us to show up with the hands that were played? What is the table image that is being presented and is it possible to exploit that?
The first hand was a lucky one time but lets start to peel back the layers that are here. We know that we have a couple mediocre players that we think we can outplay and one player which we have identified as good and naturally has some "in game respect" for skill. How often is SB showing up with Kx or Qx when they should be raising pretty wide once its "limped" to them from the straddle? This hand is blocking 12 combos of Kx that we lose. More often than not the SB is going to be missing and could be playing anything from suited middle connectors, to suited one gappers, and broadway cards.
The second hand... Are players really thinking about the hand that you call/raise with? The table is described as a softer table and I think if we start to think about the table as whole we can start to spot places where we can carefully take riskier shots at a flop and then continue to play from there. It also seems that the table is not paying attention if we have to inform the dealer that we already raised. So right away we should be excluding the top of the playable hand ranges from villains hand range for being so passive pre-flop. Even though the hand played here can't make a straight, we hold two cards that block a lot of hands from getting completed. When playing against a player who over values over cards, is it better to play aggressively and possibly chase them away or to play passively and extend the players time chasing after their cards?
The point that I am trying to make here is that sometimes mixing it up pre-flop is going to lead to great successes because its not what the players expect from us. They expect us to be playing premium hands that will often be dominating but don't hit the flop. So when a mediocre hand is played it can throw our opponent off because they don't expect a random hand to be played. If we think we can identify what the players expect of us to play then sometimes we can play different hands and hope for the best.