This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I guess I was saying was that, even if you play every day, to focus on "weekly goals" rather than "daily goals," because your numbers needed on a daily basis change depending on how many days you play (i.e., 2740/day only works if you play 365 days). You know you will take days off (live tourneys, sick, etc.), but you probably won't take more than 2 weeks off (hense the 50 week goal). But it sounds like you have it in control.
Wow, I would have folded that.
I agree completely that I should've bet full pot or at least closer to it. However, this is a continual problem that I'm going to have. Playing so many tables, it just doesn't allow me to fully think out my bet sizing each and every time, so I have to go with a default of ~2/3 pot in normal situations. Obviously in some big hands I'll think it out, but taking this hand for example- it was just a standard c-bet, and pragmatically I just can't think out the bet sizing on each and every c-bet. Clearly I could drop down in the number of tables I play, but I think that'd hurt my overall earnings.
Do you vary your bet sizing at all? I've never played so many tables, but I would think that this kind of hand comes up a lot, especially in PL/NL games. I think you might be successful if you gave this kind of hand a name so you can remember to treat it as a category in and of itself. I don't know what to name it. I mean, I'd be honored if you called it a Fred, but you can call it whatever you want. But if you can quickly see the stack sizes and say, oh, that's a Fred, you can pick the right c-bet size and get rid of a leak like this.
I vary my bet sizing depending upon what I'm trying to accomplish....if its on the river and I have the nut high and theres no low out there and I know hes weak then obviously I'll bet small. If I think hes a fish who will call anything and I have a monster then I'll bet huge. But on somewhat standard hands like this where its a marginal flop and I have raised preflop, I generall don't think too much about it....again not intentionally, its just a time issue with playing too many tables.Fully understand what you mean by grouping hands(and I'll definitely go with "Fred" if I can ever incorporate this into my play), but this situation is far too broad imo to instantly recognize. Will see what I can do though. Definitely looking to always get better.
In the actual hand, it was NL and he just went all in for $207. If it were PL, he could've raised to $130 and left himself with $77. Imo thats absolutely no different than just going all in since hes 100% committed his stack to the hand by doing this, and if I call then I've 100% committed to calling his all in on the turn no matter what comes.Moreover, I disagree with the premise that we, as winning players, should want to avoid games that raise more tough decisions. The more tough decisions, the more opportunities for us to demonstrate our superior play over weaker players, which obviously leads to more money.
This is a tournament concept where you would turn down small edges in order to wait for a bigger edge because if you lose on that small edge then it would prevent you from getting that bigger edge later since you'd be out of the tourney. In a cash game where you can just rebuy if you lose that small edge, its not applicable imo. Keep in mind, I'm still not saying it was the right play; Just disagreeing with the line of thought that we should ever pass on an edge in a cash game in which we're properly bankrolled for.
Yeah, it seems like this should almost always be your approach in a cash game. (unless you don't have the proper bankroll, which IMO is a separate issue to deal with) Even if the edge is relatively small, you want action that is +EV. Unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible.
yea sure, post them.
Holy Poop. Guy should change his name to "Quarter Me".
Heh, fwiw though he actually is an excellent player and this hand was taken at the tail end of my session after the fish left.
I don't think it's difficult to put SB on 23, the only other things I'd do this with are maybe a bad flush/iffy low, where the aim is kind of the same. Clearly he's counting on some fold equity. The problem in this case is that you have someone behind you left to act, and if he's a sharp player and figures you to call light, maybe he calls with a bad flush, or 89/QK, or even a better two pair?Sometimes this call makes sense, but given that you're not last to act and you're risking $1 to win $0.50, I think it should be used pretty sparingly. Worth a thought, but I would dump this.
I like the villain's play, he just ran into Assani's (superior) hand and had to catch a perfect river to 3/4 it. He had a flush draw and a pair of 9's (which should not be discounted in this situation. When two nut lows are splitting, the high is often won by a single pair, sometimes even a mid-pair.), which is enough to push this, IMO.
Agree with you completely here. Especially with our history(we're both regulars in these big games) and the aggressiveness of our games when they're 3 handed, theres nothing wrong with the way he played it here.
The $1 to win $.5 is the key part that is still making me think it may have been an ok fold. With that said, I don't think you can possibly give the 3rd player credit for a straight, much less a flush. With the low draw out, with the other two players both being in the blinds, and with us both checking to him twice, I just can't see how he can check the turn there. Furthermore if I call I think he has to fold anything less than a set. Sure he coud've backed into the lower straight, but thats obviously not going to be the case the great majority of the time. SB's play reeks of a low for the same reason: He wouldn't want to check the turn with a low draw out there when theres a decent chance he currently has the best high(unless he has both the 23 and a decent high hand, but again thats more likely to not be the case), although becuase hes out of position I will say that its more likely for him to have me beat for high than the other opponent.Overall, it obviously doesn't matter a ton. I'm just not happy that I folded INSTANTLY when I think its clearly a close decision.
Yeah, and because of it, the fish have left. I'm having a hard time finding even a few decent 50NL tables to play on right now.
fixed.
I've wondered this myself
Interesting... I'd think this would greatly concern Assani.What is the shortstacker technique the OP of the above thread practices?... sounds like it is generally not looked upon kindly.
Looks like he plays with a smaller BR than most of the other players, and shoves all in with anything JJ or better.
This is how Slotboom won a great portion of his cash playing PLO in the "old days"
Do you mean smaller buy-in? I guess that would result in smaller BR requirements as well. I would think he would have fewer easier decisions to make (i.e. all-in for certain hand ranges) and it would allow him to play at higher stakes then his BR would normally allow.
I'm just inferring from that thread, but it appears he sits down with the table minimum.
Thanks.
correct, BR = Bank Roll vs. buy-in (what you sit down with)
sorry, no clueMrPhoenix said:
lolmex said:I was watching Dentist for a few while waiting for a Tourney to start and he posts this gem
zam88: geez, i can watch an entire porn clip between hands it is taking so long
Skimmed the OP, but not really interested in reading through the entire long thread...does full tilt ever send a rep into the thread to explain?Mr.Pack said:
Absolutely, this seems like a perfect spot for this play. A bare A2 makes a lot of sense given that he flatted on the button and has called down on flop and turn. And the range of hands that would call a normal bet (1/2 to full pot) on the river where you would scoop or 3/4 is not that wide. The best way to play this, IMO, is to do what you did and put him in the nauseating position of having to risk $170 to win $30. Given that the only hands that can scoop you are A255, A277 and A2JJ, and the only hands that 3/4 you are A455, A477 and A4JJ, and given that he's shown no post-flop aggression yet, you're pretty safe.I was going to bring up the idea of check-raising AI on the river, but I don't think that leaves you any fold equity in a 100BB game. Open shove is the only way to go. If this were a quiz question, I don't think I would give partial credit to any other answer.Assani Fisher said:
I don't really think I SHOULD get nearly that many VPPs/FPPs, as it really didn't hurt me that much at all(pretty much just made me wait around for 30 minutes before beginning my session), but I guess it can't hurt to try.
Hello Assani, Thank you for contacting us at PokerStars. I have forwarded your email to the department responsible for handling this matter. They will get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience, cooperation and for choosing PokerStars. Regards, TomVPokerStars Support Team
This is the voice of experience.
You'll get no argument from me on that. There were certain stakes/games that I crushed pretty regularly in ePoker. It just wasn't enough, and I always found an excuse (much like Assani is here) to play higher stakes, or play more hours than my plan allotted, etc. I wasn't in it just to execute the plan, and I was not emotionally divested. Deep down, I wanted my thrill.This is the voice of experience.
