Just keep getting it in ahead

[Vollycat]

defining the real goals of a top-notch cash game player

Make a reasonable consistent rate that can impact the things you want to do or have in your everyday life. Or in the extreme case (top players), live off the winnings so poker is your sole meas of income and you can financially do what you want.

Then there is always, enjoy the game for what it is to the individual. That could be the billionaire that wants to unwind and enjoy table talk, to the nit that won't tip a dealer because he needs money for rent.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

An interesting thread. But part of what makes it interesting is the fact we have a mixture of deep strategic thinking and semantics. But it's good since the more clarity we have between these two the better.

I will make a basic statement.

I believe there is nothing wrong with "getting your money in good" as a goal as long as we agree that odds and stack sizes (implied odds) can have an effect on the equation. And...

Here, I'll shoot another wheel off as long as we are tearing up words.

Being results oriented is a prime goal in poker.

As long as in this case the result is getting our money in ahead more often than not BECAUSE WE understand the ranges represented by our particular opponents well enough along with that above consideration of odds to make that right decision more often.

I have always felt resistance when someone starts speaking in simplistic absolutes. "It is never right to open limp", or "As long as you're ahead when the money goes in..."

These statement are founded on a mountain of assumptions. Dividing the semantics from the strategy is important. So is separating the realistic from the academic. Thus it is RARE in nlhe games with fair skilled players that open limping makes any sense.

I have always felt that certain kind of minds that can handle deep abstraction beyond pure math and strategy have a very difficult to quantify advantage in this game.

Then again I could just be romanticizing an ideal.

 

[damon789]

Let's get it in.. that would be good.

Hey guys,

I've read the following lines in about a dozen threads I've looked through here at CC over the past couple of weeks, usually when someone is complaining about a bad beat or asking for advice on how they played a hand, and every time I do, it makes me want to puke:

"Don't worry about it. Just keep getting it in ahead and you'll make money over time."

or

"Looks good to me, you got it in as a favorite."

As far as I'm concerned, both of these lines have no application to poker strategy. Your goal, especially in cash games, isn't to "get your money in good" or "have the best hand when the money goes in".

Discuss.

In my opinion it all comes down to "correct decisions"

Sometimes the correct decision is to put in all the $$$ when you know you

aren't a Favourite. I think that is where the OP is trying to get people to

think outside the square of "I got it in good!" and "I had the odds to call"

Situational Poker is probably my best guess. Playing the player and the

situation that sort of strategy..... seems like alot of work to me. My brain

is starting to ache as I type this, I gotta go..

 

[tpb221]

This has me confused as all hell.

I think OP your over analyzing. If pre flop I have AA an I call a all-in and lose 10 times in a row what do you think the advice would be? Yep, that's right "keep getting it in ahead".
It's about making the right decisions(positive equity) that will pay off over time nothing more.
If I'm in the sb and the bb will not call a 5bb raise unless he has AA I will be raising 100% of the time(when folded around). No matter what I have I am "getting it in ahead"(positive equity). That's it. If you making neg equity decsions then you will be a loser.

 

[cjatud2012]

This has me confused as all hell.

I think OP your over analyzing. If pre flop I have AA an I call a all-in and lose 10 times in a row what do you think the advice would be? Yep, that's right "keep getting it in ahead".
It's about making the right decisions that will pay off over time nothing more.

I believe the point of the OP is that you could be the favorite when the cards are flipped over, i.e. you got your money in good, but against your opponent's range you were getting crushed, so your results is what made the play look good, not necessarily that it was actually correct.

 

[tpb221]

I believe the point of the OP is that you could be the favorite when the cards are flipped over, i.e. you got your money in good, but against your opponent's range you were getting crushed, so your results is what made the play look good, not necessarily that it was actually correct.

This is what's confusing in the fact I don't think this is what OP meant.
If you got it in bad against opponent's range, people will say that and not 'keep getting it in good' or such.

 

[cjatud2012]

This is what's confusing in the fact I don't think this is what OP meant.
If you got it in bad against opponent's range, people will say that and not 'keep getting it in good' or such.

Well, someone who gets it wouldn't say that, but many players, especially beginners, often just look compare your own hand to your opponent's hand, and then will say that they played it correctly or incorrectly. If that makes sense.

 

[JMcCabe]

Wow...resurrected from the dead. Old thread that is.

cjatud nailed down my point pretty much dead on.

Most beginners are very results oriented when looking at aipf hands or pretty much any ai hands. They base whether or not they, "got it in good," simply based on the cards in each player's hand once their on their backs.

A lot of threads on CC, especially those dealing with bad beats, but also line checks and "did I make the right call" threads back up this misconception by saying things like, "Well, you got it good," meaning simply as a favourite.

What these phrases, especially when misused, fail to consider are things like:

- your opponent's expected range (read my other posts ITT, not just the OP)
- pot odds
- relative stack sizes and SPR
- fold equity
- table image
- metagame principles
- history with opponent
- etc, etc

Your goals can't simply be to get it in good in a vacuum. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if you always get your money in as a favourite against your opponent's specific hand, you're definitely doing something wrong. You're spewing money all over the place, specifically in hands that don't go to showdown.

 

[c9h13no3]

This thread gets a gold star, because its special.

Seriously, you may understand how to play poker, but this thread teaches no one.

 

[vanquish]

didn't you hear, c9? he doesn't want to teach anyone, he wants everyone else to teach each other stuff while he looms in the background and makes vague statements

 

[JMcCabe]

didn't you hear, c9? he doesn't want to teach anyone, he wants everyone else to teach each other stuff while he looms in the background and makes vague statements

lol....exactly....or do I?

 

[RamdeeBen]

Strange Thread by a strange OP. Of course getting your money in when you're favourite is a good idea and indeed even when you do lose, if you keep on doing so, it's impossible to lose over a large time period.

 

[cjatud2012]

Strange Thread by a strange OP. Of course getting your money in when you're favourite is a good idea and indeed even when you do lose, if you keep on doing so, it's impossible to lose over a large time period.

did you even read the thread?

 

[JMcCabe]

it's impossible to lose over a large time period

Except for maybe all of the hands you lose without showdown...

 

[KardKlub]

When people critic hands posted on here they are given only a small sample of the information that was available at the time.

What your saying is there is no point to hand discussions full stop without the full 100 percent info. As a basic answer is no good.

Getting it in ahead with the info supplied is a good answer when replying to a thread with out having to write a bible. The people who leech around that section usually have a good understanding of the game and the phrases used to describe plays.

 

[JMcCabe]

Wow...I really thought this thread was dead and buried. Not really sure why it was suddenly resurrected.

PO, that link went to a dead link for me. Want to paraphrase?

KK, I agree that using the phrase, "getting it in good" is fine, so long as it's properly defined. The problem I kept coming across in thread after thread was that it was quite often being misused.

I think I covered this point in the bulk of my posts in this thread, most of which weren't really that "vague" (I'll admit, the first few were to get the ball rolling).

Getting it in good does not equal getting it in as a favourite when the cards are on their back. It takes a lot of other things into consideration. That doesn't mean there's not point to hand discussions. It just a reminder that you need to consider other factors when discussing hands.

/thread?

 

[fx20736]

Wow...resurrected from the dead. Old thread that is.

cjatud nailed down my point pretty much dead on.

Most beginners are very results oriented when looking at aipf hands or pretty much any ai hands. They base whether or not they, "got it in good," simply based on the cards in each player's hand once their on their backs.

A lot of threads on CC, especially those dealing with bad beats, but also line checks and "did I make the right call" threads back up this misconception by saying things like, "Well, you got it good," meaning simply as a favourite.

What these phrases, especially when misused, fail to consider are things like:

- your opponent's expected range (read my other posts ITT, not just the OP)
- pot odds
- relative stack sizes and SPR
- fold equity
- table image
- metagame principles
- history with opponent
- etc, etc

Your goals can't simply be to get it in good in a vacuum. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if you always get your money in as a favourite against your opponent's specific hand, you're definitely doing something wrong. You're spewing money all over the place, specifically in hands that don't go to showdown.

Since it is a pretty common practice in Cash games to get AIPF with AA & KK this question as far as preflop strategy really comes down to deciding best action with QQ & AK. Vs an unkown in micros it is virtually impossible to know whether they would fold to a 4bet once they 3bet you and they have position. Also sometimes you are put in the situation where a player opens from LP and you 3bet from the blinds with QQ & AK and he 4bet shoves. Often he is doing so with TT 99 or even any 2 Broadways. Without history you're just guessing. So how do you calculate equity here if you aren't sure what percentage of his 3bet range villain stacks off with? If he 3bets 7% but will call 4bets or 5 bet shove with 2% of his range than 4betting QQ & AK would be -EV but if he 3bets 7% but calls of stack with 5% then it would be +EV. Furthermore if villain were to flat your 4bet or even if you were to flat a 3bet with QQ and the flop comes down 9 high how could you possibly know where you stood if villain shoves?

It seems to me that every time there is talk about getting all in preflop it really comes down to what to do with QQ & AK. Without a decent history that tells me otherwise I fold these hands to a 3bet and OOP and flat if I am heads up and IP vs 3bettor from the blinds.

 

[rssurfer54]

It seems to me that every time there is talk about getting all in preflop it really comes down to what to do with QQ & AK. Without a decent history that tells me otherwise I fold these hands to a 3bet and OOP and flat if I am heads up and IP vs 3bettor from the blinds.

i dont know if youre a nit or im bad (not trying to be critical). Im somewhat more than usually getting it in with qq and ak. but I guess the looser you play in general the more you should be getting it in with these hands right?

 

[fx20736]

i dont know if youre a nit or im bad (not trying to be critical). Im somewhat more than usually getting it in with qq and ak. but I guess the looser you play in general the more you should be getting it in with these hands right?

How's that working out for ya?

 

[vanquish]

you're folding QQ and AK to a 3bet?

 

[rssurfer54]

im down, but its only a few hands, i dont play enough volume because of school

 

[rssurfer54]

and btw im not disagreeing, im just curious.