STL FAN
Rock Star
Silver Level
Skillful play versus card dependency; is there a reason to compare or is there a distinct advantage or disadvantage to either one? This depends on what the situation that would be in comparison too really give a proper answer or it might just be a controversial topic of discussion.
Card dependency comes in many forms; waiting for certain top % of starting hands, will not lay those hands down at any point and then show the hand down on the river, even if they are beat, or might lay the hand down on flop if the person does not get the draw they were looking for but will stick with draw if they get the right flop then only to put all their chips in at this point in the hand on a draw even if they are running against a made hand etc… A person who is thinking on more levels could come up with many card dependency situations as their personal experience grows.
There can be more to this because it is more of a pattern of the person than the cards they hold. Skillful play comes from the information gained from an opponent (‘s) whom does this without regard of how they are tipping their hand at any point from pre-flop to the river.
This lets the person who is countering their play skillfully; knowing the opponent is tipping their hand before the skillful person tips their hand or they could be just playing off the other person; bluffing the scare card. Thus, a leveling situation could occur but only from the perspective of the person who is skillfully playing a person who is card dependent for example, a board reader; whom will adhere to the texture of the board and lay their hand down to save bets without regard of knowing if they are ahead or behind; this type will get a rush from making a great lay down because they saved those chips especially when the reader knows the opponent holds the best hand. Personal experience again dictates how many other situations a person can use in any given situation.
A situation occurred at a satellite tournament that awards one winner to a bigger satellite. Watching how my opponents played their hands, not only by value of selection, but how they entered and stayed in their hands when they were made or when they were still drawing to the board. The writer was playing the ethical and not entering into the religious because of needing to be heads up to be able to capture the one prize; the other players also were doing the same and the writer was attempting to play this style better than the other opponents who were also playing within the ethical.
The writer, who was playing one style, then changed styles when heads up to gain an advantage to draw even. For example, the writer started shoving pre-flop knowing the chip disadvantage would not matter because the opponent would be playing a card dependent situation meaning they were concerned of keeping this advantage because of only one prize and what the prize represented. This allowed the writer to draw even in three hands because of the high blinds and antes (religious play). This is a simple understanding of human nature in these and similar situations when money or one prize is involved.
What happened in the last hand, which actually was the around the fifth hand, and this is where the detailed notes that were taken throughout the satellite came in handy. For example, the writer picked up a hand instead of shoving; changing here actually made the opponent reactive instead of active. Knowing the opponent was searching for a hand to call with; instead of shoving first to act the writer raised the normal 3BB raise of 9000 chips.
The opponent called; here is where the writer knew the opponent, throughout the entire tournament they were not calling with their premium hands and knowing this when they flatted. The writer knew the other player did not hold a hand that would make this writer worry about the hand they held. The writer then put the opponent on Ax or Kx pre-flop, which were significantly weaker holdings than they were playing more aggressively earlier. This opponent had not changed whether or not they knew they were tipping their play in this manner; the writer cannot assume intelligence here and this is why the detailed note taking is a must. The writer has to know as close to 100% (anything less than 80% changes the situation) as possible to trust their reads before putting their tournament life at risk in this or any situation.
The flop came 6c, 6d, 3c, the writer checked to the opponent who instantly shoved their hand. Analysis, the person had either one of two hands or a complete bluff (not likely since this person has been card dependent for the whole game). First, at least an A or K (the second one is more likely), in their hand or the flush draw; or even both; knowing the play of my opponent thus, knowing calling was the proper play. If they held a six they would have been more inclined to check behind to let this writer catch up and possibly hang themselves on the next street of play where the writer might have felt pot committed if this writer chose to bet on the turn.
The check would have been more polarizing than the shove in this situation. Knowing this, called their shove and the opponent drew out the winning hand on the river. The writer held JsJc, the opponent K10c; analysis, the opponent was committed to the flop because of what this writer did by checking and playing weak; compared to how this writer was playing their hands since heads up play started. The opponent; whom was card dependent did not realize the true outs were not as they seemed.
They actually put all of their chips in on a K high draw that would seem to have two over cards and the flush draw; this would by the % have them ahead at this point if the writer held pairs lower than 10’s on the flop (not 100% sure about this but certain enough to say here). Since the true outs were actually just eleven. Counting the only 8 flush cards and the 3 kings leaving this writer with the best hand and marginally ahead. Knowing how hard it is to make straight and flushes in this situation, and understanding playing for these types of hands heads up is not the optimal strategy; also not playing for this type of draw on an already paired board; the writer was willing to take this race.
If the writer had misread the situation then the “supersystem” relays do not put all of your chips in without any outs to improve, so this situation if completely read wrong the writer still had outs to improve (ethical play). On the other hand my card dependent opponent could have been already been drawing dead; also they do not realize the semi-bluff with what they thought must be the best hand in fact did not succeed leaving them with having to make the best hand; not exactly the best situation since they would have been left with less than one blind if the %’s had not come through for them.
Card dependency comes in many forms; waiting for certain top % of starting hands, will not lay those hands down at any point and then show the hand down on the river, even if they are beat, or might lay the hand down on flop if the person does not get the draw they were looking for but will stick with draw if they get the right flop then only to put all their chips in at this point in the hand on a draw even if they are running against a made hand etc… A person who is thinking on more levels could come up with many card dependency situations as their personal experience grows.
There can be more to this because it is more of a pattern of the person than the cards they hold. Skillful play comes from the information gained from an opponent (‘s) whom does this without regard of how they are tipping their hand at any point from pre-flop to the river.
This lets the person who is countering their play skillfully; knowing the opponent is tipping their hand before the skillful person tips their hand or they could be just playing off the other person; bluffing the scare card. Thus, a leveling situation could occur but only from the perspective of the person who is skillfully playing a person who is card dependent for example, a board reader; whom will adhere to the texture of the board and lay their hand down to save bets without regard of knowing if they are ahead or behind; this type will get a rush from making a great lay down because they saved those chips especially when the reader knows the opponent holds the best hand. Personal experience again dictates how many other situations a person can use in any given situation.
A situation occurred at a satellite tournament that awards one winner to a bigger satellite. Watching how my opponents played their hands, not only by value of selection, but how they entered and stayed in their hands when they were made or when they were still drawing to the board. The writer was playing the ethical and not entering into the religious because of needing to be heads up to be able to capture the one prize; the other players also were doing the same and the writer was attempting to play this style better than the other opponents who were also playing within the ethical.
The writer, who was playing one style, then changed styles when heads up to gain an advantage to draw even. For example, the writer started shoving pre-flop knowing the chip disadvantage would not matter because the opponent would be playing a card dependent situation meaning they were concerned of keeping this advantage because of only one prize and what the prize represented. This allowed the writer to draw even in three hands because of the high blinds and antes (religious play). This is a simple understanding of human nature in these and similar situations when money or one prize is involved.
What happened in the last hand, which actually was the around the fifth hand, and this is where the detailed notes that were taken throughout the satellite came in handy. For example, the writer picked up a hand instead of shoving; changing here actually made the opponent reactive instead of active. Knowing the opponent was searching for a hand to call with; instead of shoving first to act the writer raised the normal 3BB raise of 9000 chips.
The opponent called; here is where the writer knew the opponent, throughout the entire tournament they were not calling with their premium hands and knowing this when they flatted. The writer knew the other player did not hold a hand that would make this writer worry about the hand they held. The writer then put the opponent on Ax or Kx pre-flop, which were significantly weaker holdings than they were playing more aggressively earlier. This opponent had not changed whether or not they knew they were tipping their play in this manner; the writer cannot assume intelligence here and this is why the detailed note taking is a must. The writer has to know as close to 100% (anything less than 80% changes the situation) as possible to trust their reads before putting their tournament life at risk in this or any situation.
The flop came 6c, 6d, 3c, the writer checked to the opponent who instantly shoved their hand. Analysis, the person had either one of two hands or a complete bluff (not likely since this person has been card dependent for the whole game). First, at least an A or K (the second one is more likely), in their hand or the flush draw; or even both; knowing the play of my opponent thus, knowing calling was the proper play. If they held a six they would have been more inclined to check behind to let this writer catch up and possibly hang themselves on the next street of play where the writer might have felt pot committed if this writer chose to bet on the turn.
The check would have been more polarizing than the shove in this situation. Knowing this, called their shove and the opponent drew out the winning hand on the river. The writer held JsJc, the opponent K10c; analysis, the opponent was committed to the flop because of what this writer did by checking and playing weak; compared to how this writer was playing their hands since heads up play started. The opponent; whom was card dependent did not realize the true outs were not as they seemed.
They actually put all of their chips in on a K high draw that would seem to have two over cards and the flush draw; this would by the % have them ahead at this point if the writer held pairs lower than 10’s on the flop (not 100% sure about this but certain enough to say here). Since the true outs were actually just eleven. Counting the only 8 flush cards and the 3 kings leaving this writer with the best hand and marginally ahead. Knowing how hard it is to make straight and flushes in this situation, and understanding playing for these types of hands heads up is not the optimal strategy; also not playing for this type of draw on an already paired board; the writer was willing to take this race.
If the writer had misread the situation then the “supersystem” relays do not put all of your chips in without any outs to improve, so this situation if completely read wrong the writer still had outs to improve (ethical play). On the other hand my card dependent opponent could have been already been drawing dead; also they do not realize the semi-bluff with what they thought must be the best hand in fact did not succeed leaving them with having to make the best hand; not exactly the best situation since they would have been left with less than one blind if the %’s had not come through for them.