twizzybop said:
Granted it may not fit the description but it is a viable tactic that has been and used by plenty of hyper aggresive folks. We folks at CC aren't the only ones learning and playing the game as well. Just because someone plays a certain way doesn't mean he/she won't switch in mid-stream. It can/has and does happen.
Certainly. But if you have a read, stick with it, and alter it if you find he has the capability of being tricky. I have yet to find a reason to believe this read is incorrect, and I'm not going to alter my gameplan due to paranoia.
What? You must not have understood: He raises on average about 30% of his preflop hands. How many of those hands do you think have me beat right now?
At least 60-65% of that 30%.
Incorrect. I think we've found the source of the problem.
Yeah until he does turn over the A,10.. K,10.. Q,10.. High pocket pair and then you look like an amateur cause you didn't take into account every possible strategy/skill he has in his repetoire. Then the assumption that it is indeed a steal will make you look foolish.
Yet it isn't even a steal if he does bet(then it becomes a value bet) and value bets aren't even a steal.
I don't mind looking like an "amateur," as long as I show long term profit. Even the worst maniac on the planet gets dealt pocket aces from time to time. But I'm not going to play suboptimally because of paranoia.
Does "how will it make you look if you lose" actually factor in to this discussion, to you?
Yes until he re-raised for either the A,10 or any A X card. You can't determine yet if he has A,10 or A X just because he called your re-raise on the flop. Right now again you are betting into him, if he was betting into you it would be a diffrent story. Position here is the key and in this scenario you don't have it.
Since you think that 65% of his
hands are better than mine, I can understand your reasoning. However, 65% of his holdings are not better than mine; this is where your mistake lies.
I read it all just fine, I just don't get into hope/wish/luck pissing contests very often at all especially when I am 1st to act. That is why I love this hyper aggresive person, he has you by the nuts because he has position.
Being that one must need a good hand to come out of the BB while acting 1st which in your case you didn't have a good hand. You shown that by calling his pre-flop raise. Yet you only shown that you have paired the 10 which now your weakness (pre-flop call)shows that you don't have a greak kicker for that 10. It is an easy read on the player who is in the blinds(that didn't show strength by re-raising pre-flop) . Now the hyper-aggresive player who's in position has a read on you which is much better then having a read on the cards. Something you need to work on, reading the player and not the board. Stop stereo typing players.. Yes we can label one as hyper-aggresive, passive aggresive, a rock, et-cetra. Yet to discount that they can change strategy in the middle of any hand is to believe they only play one certain way(Period). The saying goes "Mix it up" so those who are labeled as such, I am sure as well also "Mix it up".
What good are reads if you discard them? Sure people can "mix it up," but you're suggesting that I pay no attention to labels that people have deserved, while simultaneously claiming that I should "read the player and not the cards" while simultaneously saying that my hand is not good enough to play out of the BB.
Yet it isn't always the way with a hyper-aggresive player. Keep generalizing and stereo typing those players, to constantly think that is the way they always play is stereo typing. Even a rock can all of a sudden become the hyper-aggresive. Now if the hyper-aggresive has changed in this hand, then what you going to think?
It will definatly throw you off your game into again guessing what hands he may or may not have.
And he would have earned himself a new note in the long list of the ones I already had on him: "can be tricky." But before he shows that he's capable of it, I won't discard what I know about him due to paranoia.
If you, in limit shorthanded poker, do not raise when you think you have the better hand, you're missing out on a lot of profit. If he thought I was just bluffing, this would be an okay way to play it. But why would he think that? If he believes me when I tell him I have a top pair, he also knows I'll be forced to call a raise from him. Not raising is terrible.
I don't need to think, I know when I have the better hand. I don't pussy foot around, slow play, check raise. No fancy pants play here.. Either you have the hand or your don't, throw out the occasional bluff(semi bluff), feeler bet to see where everyone stands. I told you plenty of times, one must pay to beat me. If I am beat and I know it.. no need to screw around and try to outbeat someone when there are plenty of other battles/times I can outbeat them.
I have no idea how your answer ties in to what I wrote.
And again I have to ask: What does "hyper aggressive" describe to you?
Any 2 Card player, which we shouldn't discount that he doesn't have any other skills or strategies in his repetoire.
For the third time in the same post, I will point out that I do not trust paranoia to guide my way of playing. Reads and probabilities do the trick for me. It's worked so far.
Don't give generalized advice that in no way takes into account who you're playing against. If a rock had raised, I would have folded. I've folded much stronger hands than this in the big blind.
Are you not wasting money on a marginal hand? Last I recalled 10,8 is marginal, so yes it takes into full account who you are playing against. A marginal hand is a marginal hand no matter how you try to slice and dice it.
I was not wasting money on a marginal hand. I was making money on a marginal hand; I have the best hand 3 times out of 4 on this flop (I'll show you further down). Did you somewhere get the idea that I lost this pot? Not that it matters whether I won it or lost it, but you keep confidently claiming that he must have had a better hand, and I don't know what gives you that idea.
I never said you have to have a monster hand. Just a little more the marginal will do especially when you are 1st to act.
Where do you draw the line?
In closing: There are 1300 possible starting hands. My read (and it's a fairly solid one) suggests that he raises on average 30% of them. That's 450 hands. You claim that 65% of these (about 300) have me beat on this flop, and try as you might, AA-TT, AT-9T, 55, 22, T5, T2, does not sum up to 300. To sum up:
AA-JJ: 6*4 = 24 hands.
TT: 1 hand (only two remaining 10s)
AT-9T: 8*6 = 48
55, 22: 6*2 = 12 hands.
T5, T2: 4+4 = 8
52: 6
Sum: 99.
94/450 = 0.22.
He has me beat on this flop 22% of the time.
And that's not even taking into account the fact that the 30% preflopraise stat is adjusted for ALL positions, and that he (if he has any knowledge) would be a lot more open to raise with weaker holdings on the button. And it's not even taking into account that he would want to isolate the limper! And I'm even allowing the possibility for T5, T2, 52 - hands that shouldn't be in his preflop raise range even if it was 50%.
No, Twizzy, he does not have a better hand than me 65% of the times on this flop.
