| |
Main
Date: 14 Feb 2009 02:51:23
From: browser
Subject: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
I've been playing 2-5NL in Tampa for about 2 years now. I've played several
days a week, so I have a lot of hours at the tables. I've read most of the
main books, and tried to study the game as well as put in the hours playing.
But it seems like I've hit a plateau (or maybe stuck in a rut is a better
description). I don't consider myself a beginner anymore, think I have a
good understanding of the basics of the game, but I'm not sure how/what I'm
supposed to do to get better, or take my game to that "next level" (in
skill, not dollars). I play a TAG game (I think), but overall I am a small
loser as it seems like my small pot wins get offset by a few bad beats in
big pots.
I think one of my weak areas is bluffing, and not knowing how to "make
things happen" when I'm not getting decent cards to play. I'll do the semi
bluffs and continuation bets when I miss the flop, but I just can't seem to
get myself to play trash cards like they're AA like some people seem to do,
and take down big pots with air. So basically I seem stuck at usually
getting my money in ahead when I get cards, and then my success is
determined by the luck of whether I get sucked out on or not. But I rarely,
if ever, actually win pots when I don't have the best hand by getting
someone to lay a better hand down. I don't know how to "make things happen"
at the table when I'm not getting the cards.
So my question is, do good players often win without the best cards? Sure I
see the examples on HSP and other TV shows, but I wonder if they aren't
edited to show the big bluffs. What is it that I should be working on to
try and improve from a low intermediate player to a higher intermediate? I
often hear of the great players "making moves", but I'm not really sure what
"moves" they are referring to. Is it all related to getting better at
reading the other guy--is that the main skill difference between good and OK
players?
Hope this question makes sense, and I am asking it sincerely (unlike all the
political posts). Any input from the assembled expertise will be greatly
appreciated (from conservatives and liberals alike!)
Thanks.
Browser
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 17:33:24
From:
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 16, 4:51=A0pm, "browser" <browser2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Hi Johnny- you and Fang are right about the $100 buy in, but the reason I
> didn't mention it is that my experience has been that for a table that ha=
s
> been open for more than a couple of hours, you end up with most of the
> players having between $300-$500 in front of them, and it's not unusual f=
or
> someone to have $1000. =A0
True, but what you're missing is how those stacks get built, and it's,
as we agree, primarily by getting lucky. So now, to be a winner, you
have the (1) get lucky enough to build a stack to play with, THEN (2)
beat the game. Obviously that's tougher to do than than just the
second step.
Any don't assume that you can't beat a 2/5 game with a $500 buy in
because you can't beat a 2/5 game with a $100 buy in. For the reasons
in my response, it's probably easier if you have any sort of skill and
patience. Maybe not within your comfort zone, but all things being
equal, it's a better game, and actually poker. Personally, I'm a
small loser in these FL cash games (and that's why I quit playing
them), but a fairly consistent winner at bigger buy-in (same blind)
games in LV over a number of years.
Putting 3 -4 buy-ins on the table in 30 minutes in the hope of
doubling up, so then you have a hope to double up to get into real
stack territory, is just not a valid plan for sucess, IMHO.
Good luck.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 19:55:56
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 16 2009 7:33 PM, johnnycoconutsftp wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:51 pm, "browser" <browser2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi Johnny- you and Fang are right about the $100 buy in, but the reason I
> > didn't mention it is that my experience has been that for a table that has
> > been open for more than a couple of hours, you end up with most of the
> > players having between $300-$500 in front of them, and it's not unusual for
> > someone to have $1000.
>
> True, but what you're missing is how those stacks get built, and it's,
> as we agree, primarily by getting lucky. So now, to be a winner, you
> have the (1) get lucky enough to build a stack to play with, THEN (2)
> beat the game. Obviously that's tougher to do than than just the
> second step.
>
> Any don't assume that you can't beat a 2/5 game with a $500 buy in
> because you can't beat a 2/5 game with a $100 buy in. For the reasons
> in my response, it's probably easier if you have any sort of skill and
> patience. Maybe not within your comfort zone, but all things being
> equal, it's a better game, and actually poker. Personally, I'm a
> small loser in these FL cash games (and that's why I quit playing
> them), but a fairly consistent winner at bigger buy-in (same blind)
> games in LV over a number of years.
>
> Putting 3 -4 buy-ins on the table in 30 minutes in the hope of
> doubling up, so then you have a hope to double up to get into real
> stack territory, is just not a valid plan for sucess, IMHO.
>
> Good luck.
You got a better one for this game ?.......... I didnt think so !!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 07:29:56
From:
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 14, 2:51=A0am, "browser" <browser2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I've been playing 2-5NL in Tampa for about 2 years now. I've played sever=
al
> days a week, so I have a lot of hours at the tables. =A0I've read most of=
the
> main books, and tried to study the game as well as put in the hours playi=
ng.
> But it seems like I've hit a plateau (or maybe stuck in a rut is a better
> description). =A0I don't consider myself a beginner anymore, think I have=
a
> good understanding of the basics of the game, but I'm not sure how/what I=
'm
> supposed to do to get better, or take my game to that "next level" (in
> skill, not dollars). =A0I play a TAG game (I think), but overall I am a s=
mall
> loser as it seems like my small pot wins get offset by a few bad beats in
> big pots.
>
> I think one of my weak areas is bluffing, and not knowing how to "make
> things happen" when I'm not getting decent cards to play. I'll do the sem=
i
> bluffs and continuation bets when I miss the flop, but I just can't seem =
to
> get myself to play trash cards like they're AA like some people seem to d=
o,
> and take down big pots with air. =A0So basically I seem stuck at usually
> getting my money in ahead when I get cards, and then my success is
> determined by the luck of whether I get sucked out on or not. =A0But I ra=
rely,
> if ever, actually win pots when I don't have the best hand by getting
> someone to lay a better hand down. =A0I don't know how to "make things ha=
ppen"
> at the table when I'm not getting the cards.
>
> So my question is, do good players often win without the best cards? =A0S=
ure I
> see the examples on HSP and other TV shows, but I wonder if they aren't
> edited to show the big bluffs. =A0What is it that I should be working on =
to
> try and improve from a low intermediate player to a higher intermediate? =
=A0I
> often hear of the great players "making moves", but I'm not really sure w=
hat
> "moves" they are referring to. =A0Is it all related to getting better at
> reading the other guy--is that the main skill difference between good and=
OK
> players?
>
> Hope this question makes sense, and I am asking it sincerely (unlike all =
the
> political posts). =A0Any input from the assembled expertise will be great=
ly
> appreciated (from conservatives and liberals alike!)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Browser
I haven't read the response, so don't know if anyone in FL has
answered with this yet....
...But a big part of the problem is that the buy-in at the place you
play is crap. $100. (All over Florida, that's the cap for any NL
game). So you're playing with 20 BB to start. That's not poker,
that's bingo. Standard raise is to 15 or 20. If you get two callers,
you have a 60 pot with 80 behind, and it's game over. If they have a
pair, they're calling you. On top of that, when you figure 10% of the
money coming off the table per hour or rake, plus probably another 5%
in paying for drinks, plus probably another 5% in tokes, you're faced
with having to get so far ahead so quick (before the money is all
gone), it's almost impossible unless the deck hits you over the head,
and obviously it's not going to do that every time.
So the answer to your question is that, yes, good players often win
without the best cards. But not at a game that is 20BB deep. You
can't make moves because you have no room to move in that game.
Breaking even in this game is a major accomplishment after factoring
in rake and the other costs. Look at it this way, if they hit you
for $5 per half hour rake, then every hour, you have to win 2BB, or
10% OF YOUR BUY IN, just to break even.
As you alluded to, this game with this structure is much more luck
oriented than it is skill oriented. If you don't get more good cards
than the math says you will, you'll be toast in the long run.
My advice: Stick with the tournaments in FL. There are some very good
structures not in the different rooms, especially on the weekends.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:51:35
From: browser
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
<johnnycoconutsftp@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1cf1f427-6c42-498f-8449-5fd319044e6b@x9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
I haven't read the response, so don't know if anyone in FL has
answered with this yet....
...But a big part of the problem is that the buy-in at the place you
play is crap. $100. (All over Florida, that's the cap for any NL
game). So you're playing with 20 BB to start. That's not poker,
that's bingo. Standard raise is to 15 or 20. If you get two callers,
you have a 60 pot with 80 behind, and it's game over. If they have a
pair, they're calling you. On top of that, when you figure 10% of the
money coming off the table per hour or rake, plus probably another 5%
in paying for drinks, plus probably another 5% in tokes, you're faced
with having to get so far ahead so quick (before the money is all
gone), it's almost impossible unless the deck hits you over the head,
and obviously it's not going to do that every time.
So the answer to your question is that, yes, good players often win
without the best cards. But not at a game that is 20BB deep. You
can't make moves because you have no room to move in that game.
Breaking even in this game is a major accomplishment after factoring
in rake and the other costs. Look at it this way, if they hit you
for $5 per half hour rake, then every hour, you have to win 2BB, or
10% OF YOUR BUY IN, just to break even.
As you alluded to, this game with this structure is much more luck
oriented than it is skill oriented. If you don't get more good cards
than the math says you will, you'll be toast in the long run.
My advice: Stick with the tournaments in FL. There are some very good
structures not in the different rooms, especially on the weekends.
Hi Johnny- you and Fang are right about the $100 buy in, but the reason I
didn't mention it is that my experience has been that for a table that has
been open for more than a couple of hours, you end up with most of the
players having between $300-$500 in front of them, and it's not unusual for
someone to have $1000. What you end up with is the new people can start
with 100, so they either quickly win an all in pot, and have 2-300, or they
lose, pull out another 100 and repeat until they win a pot, and have 2-300
on the table, (even though they are actually only back to even). So I think
you end up with enough situations with money on the table to try and "play
poker", but you do have to adjust when you're up against one of the 100
stacks. The rake where I play is $5 max, plus $1 for the jackpot. But I see
your point, and of course, you're right, it is crap, and frustrating as
hell. But it's better than 2 years ago, when the biggest game was 2-2
limit. I keep hoping they'll finally change the laws here, and with the FL
government in such a fiscal mess now, I think the need to pay the bills
might finally overcome the antigambling lobby.
I don't like to play online, but I'd be willing to travel to play in
uncapped or higher limit games. But I thought if I can't beat the game
here, then what's the point of doing that. So I keep trying and studying to
see if I can't get better before I move up. I'm not of the school of
thought that you see some people talk about, where they think they will win
more at higher levels because "better" players are there (of course, better
like them), and so they won't get beat by the lucky fish. I figure if I
can't regularly win against fish, no sense playing against sharks. I'd like
to think I'm not a fish, but if I can't win consistently, I may be more of a
guppy than I think!
Got to go now, someone's tapping on my tank!
Browser
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:08:32
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 16 2009 4:51 PM, browser wrote:
> <johnnycoconutsftp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1cf1f427-6c42-498f-8449-5fd319044e6b@x9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> I haven't read the response, so don't know if anyone in FL has
> answered with this yet....
>
> ....But a big part of the problem is that the buy-in at the place you
> play is crap. $100. (All over Florida, that's the cap for any NL
> game). So you're playing with 20 BB to start. That's not poker,
> that's bingo. Standard raise is to 15 or 20. If you get two callers,
> you have a 60 pot with 80 behind, and it's game over. If they have a
> pair, they're calling you. On top of that, when you figure 10% of the
> money coming off the table per hour or rake, plus probably another 5%
> in paying for drinks, plus probably another 5% in tokes, you're faced
> with having to get so far ahead so quick (before the money is all
> gone), it's almost impossible unless the deck hits you over the head,
> and obviously it's not going to do that every time.
>
> So the answer to your question is that, yes, good players often win
> without the best cards. But not at a game that is 20BB deep. You
> can't make moves because you have no room to move in that game.
> Breaking even in this game is a major accomplishment after factoring
> in rake and the other costs. Look at it this way, if they hit you
> for $5 per half hour rake, then every hour, you have to win 2BB, or
> 10% OF YOUR BUY IN, just to break even.
>
> As you alluded to, this game with this structure is much more luck
> oriented than it is skill oriented. If you don't get more good cards
> than the math says you will, you'll be toast in the long run.
>
> My advice: Stick with the tournaments in FL. There are some very good
> structures not in the different rooms, especially on the weekends.
>
>
>
>
> Hi Johnny- you and Fang are right about the $100 buy in, but the reason I
> didn't mention it is that my experience has been that for a table that has
> been open for more than a couple of hours, you end up with most of the
> players having between $300-$500 in front of them, and it's not unusual for
> someone to have $1000. What you end up with is the new people can start
> with 100, so they either quickly win an all in pot, and have 2-300, or they
> lose, pull out another 100 and repeat until they win a pot,
Let me see if I understand what you're saying.
You're saying that if you make it 20 to go you'll get 2 callers and if you
then go allin on the flop you'll get at least 1 caller and maybe 2?
So, on average it will cost you about $142 in blinds before you get AA
(call it $140 to account for those few times you'll get a walk on the big
blind.
Then when you get the AA you'll you'll lose $100 about 30% of the time,
win $200 about 60% of the time, and win $120 about 10% of the time.
Is that what you're saying?
That's a net profit (after toke and rake) of about 50c a rotation.
So if he's not winning then he's just not enough of a nit? Is that the
implication of what you're saying?
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 19:54:15
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 16 2009 6:08 PM, garycarson wrote:
> On Feb 16 2009 4:51 PM, browser wrote:
>
> > <johnnycoconutsftp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1cf1f427-6c42-498f-8449-5fd319044e6b@x9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I haven't read the response, so don't know if anyone in FL has
> > answered with this yet....
> >
> > ....But a big part of the problem is that the buy-in at the place you
> > play is crap. $100. (All over Florida, that's the cap for any NL
> > game). So you're playing with 20 BB to start. That's not poker,
> > that's bingo. Standard raise is to 15 or 20. If you get two callers,
> > you have a 60 pot with 80 behind, and it's game over. If they have a
> > pair, they're calling you. On top of that, when you figure 10% of the
> > money coming off the table per hour or rake, plus probably another 5%
> > in paying for drinks, plus probably another 5% in tokes, you're faced
> > with having to get so far ahead so quick (before the money is all
> > gone), it's almost impossible unless the deck hits you over the head,
> > and obviously it's not going to do that every time.
> >
> > So the answer to your question is that, yes, good players often win
> > without the best cards. But not at a game that is 20BB deep. You
> > can't make moves because you have no room to move in that game.
> > Breaking even in this game is a major accomplishment after factoring
> > in rake and the other costs. Look at it this way, if they hit you
> > for $5 per half hour rake, then every hour, you have to win 2BB, or
> > 10% OF YOUR BUY IN, just to break even.
> >
> > As you alluded to, this game with this structure is much more luck
> > oriented than it is skill oriented. If you don't get more good cards
> > than the math says you will, you'll be toast in the long run.
> >
> > My advice: Stick with the tournaments in FL. There are some very good
> > structures not in the different rooms, especially on the weekends.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Johnny- you and Fang are right about the $100 buy in, but the reason I
> > didn't mention it is that my experience has been that for a table that has
> > been open for more than a couple of hours, you end up with most of the
> > players having between $300-$500 in front of them, and it's not unusual
for
> > someone to have $1000. What you end up with is the new people can start
> > with 100, so they either quickly win an all in pot, and have 2-300, or
they
> > lose, pull out another 100 and repeat until they win a pot,
>
>
> Let me see if I understand what you're saying.
>
> You're saying that if you make it 20 to go you'll get 2 callers and if you
> then go allin on the flop you'll get at least 1 caller and maybe 2?
>
> So, on average it will cost you about $142 in blinds before you get AA
> (call it $140 to account for those few times you'll get a walk on the big
> blind.
>
> Then when you get the AA you'll you'll lose $100 about 30% of the time,
> win $200 about 60% of the time, and win $120 about 10% of the time.
>
> Is that what you're saying?
>
> That's a net profit (after toke and rake) of about 50c a rotation.
>
> So if he's not winning then he's just not enough of a nit? Is that the
> implication of what you're saying?
OK .. NOW THIS IS WHY YOUR SHIT ABOUT POKER ISNT WORTH READING !! That
is the silliest thing I have ever read about poker !
You are a decent writer .. but man u dont know dick about poker !!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2009 04:26:52
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 15, 4:04=A0am, funky cold medina <kellywon...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> > They could be sitting on your left and disrupt
> > your game by raising every bet you make.
>
> This can be a very good thing. =A0:)
Yes it can! But I'll admit to being a wimp when playing out of
position. The first two or three seats on the left can be the worst
because sometimes you can't see the player. Given a choice - the table
end seats are the best so you don't encounter this problem.
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2009 01:04:27
From: funky cold medina
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 14, 11:51=A0pm, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> They could be sitting on your left and disrupt
> your game by raising every bet you make.
This can be a very good thing. :)
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 23:51:51
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 15, 1:36=A0am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com > wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be smart to show a bluff if you never intend to do it again i=
n
> that game, as a setup?
There are several factors to consider. Here's just a few. Has the game
been friendly and profitable? Is it a bad game and about to break up?
If it's a good game and you just made someone angry and on tilt they
might get up and leave. They could be sitting on your left and disrupt
your game by raising every bet you make. That could mean no more cheap
flops for you. It depends on the game, the players, and the
circumstances but overall it's not a good play.
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 20:31:07
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 14 2009 1:51 AM, browser wrote:
> I've been playing 2-5NL in Tampa for about 2 years now. I've played several
> days a week, so I have a lot of hours at the tables. I've read most of the
> main books, and tried to study the game as well as put in the hours playing.
> But it seems like I've hit a plateau (or maybe stuck in a rut is a better
> description). I don't consider myself a beginner anymore, think I have a
> good understanding of the basics of the game, but I'm not sure how/what I'm
> supposed to do to get better, or take my game to that "next level" (in
> skill, not dollars). I play a TAG game (I think), but overall I am a small
> loser as it seems like my small pot wins get offset by a few bad beats in
> big pots.
>
> I think one of my weak areas is bluffing, and not knowing how to "make
> things happen" when I'm not getting decent cards to play. I'll do the semi
> bluffs and continuation bets when I miss the flop, but I just can't seem to
> get myself to play trash cards like they're AA like some people seem to do,
> and take down big pots with air. So basically I seem stuck at usually
> getting my money in ahead when I get cards, and then my success is
> determined by the luck of whether I get sucked out on or not. But I rarely,
> if ever, actually win pots when I don't have the best hand by getting
> someone to lay a better hand down. I don't know how to "make things happen"
> at the table when I'm not getting the cards.
>
> So my question is, do good players often win without the best cards? Sure I
> see the examples on HSP and other TV shows, but I wonder if they aren't
> edited to show the big bluffs. What is it that I should be working on to
> try and improve from a low intermediate player to a higher intermediate? I
> often hear of the great players "making moves", but I'm not really sure what
> "moves" they are referring to. Is it all related to getting better at
> reading the other guy--is that the main skill difference between good and OK
> players?
>
> Hope this question makes sense, and I am asking it sincerely (unlike all the
> political posts). Any input from the assembled expertise will be greatly
> appreciated (from conservatives and liberals alike!)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Browser
See .. this kind of stuff is the thing that is most frustrating to me , as
I read shit from people who are newer to poker .
Poker isnt a masquearde ball.. it isnt a costume party. It isnt a
collection of chameleons.
First of all.. PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY DO ..Little mousey , nerdy people play
like little mousy nerds.. big dumb , tough acting brutes try to play like
big tough brutes. Air head blonds play like airhead blondes
You are what you are in a poker game .
This shit that has been written , and sold as poker stategy and gaming
literature is mostly bullshit !!
You dont pick out a personna in the table of contents , and then craft
your entire being after the pages selected. You can't just change what you
do in a poker game, to a degree mentioned here.
People want to think they can , but they are wrong !!
I was in a slump about 20 years ago , and going through a spell of self
doubt, and was whining to a friend whose opinion I respected. Finally hew
got tired of listening and said the following
"Try having a big hand in a big pot ".JUST HAVE WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO
HAVE !!
Best advice I ever got .!!
You can spend all the time you want trying to outplay your own image of
yourself , or you can just have the right fuckin hand at the right time .
Some people got it and some people aint !!
You will know soon enough .
This is not to say that you cant alter what you do , but this entire line
of advice dealing with RECRAFTING AN IMAGE IS JUST PLAIN BULLSHIT !
GET THE BEST HAND AND BET EM SO MUCH THEIR EYES BLEED !! They will make
mistakes that allow you to take their money .
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:52:44
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:bdik66xef7.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 14 2009 1:51 AM, browser wrote:
>
..................
>
> First of all.. PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY DO ..Little mousey , nerdy people play
> like little mousy nerds.. big dumb , tough acting brutes try to play like
> big tough brutes. Air head blonds play like airhead blondes
>
> You are what you are in a poker game .
>
> This shit that has been written , and sold as poker stategy and gaming
> literature is mostly bullshit !!
>
> You dont pick out a personna in the table of contents , and then craft
> your entire being after the pages selected. You can't just change what you
> do in a poker game, to a degree mentioned here.
>
> People want to think they can , but they are wrong !!
>
...........
True, but misleading in a very important way. It is possible to fish out
other parts of your personality and let them play a few hands now and then.
(the inner nerd or brute or blonde will regain control automatically soon
enough) With a little stage managing, it's possible to keep people guessing
about "who" is playing this hand. I love Gary Carson's distinction between
being a nit and having everyone know that you're a nit.
Of course your point about playing a big pot when you hold a big hand is the
payoff to the exercise. But having the big hand when it isn't obvious to
all is what lets you build the big pot.
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 20:12:06
From: gtech1
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
Carson has it right. You aren't going to win at 2/5 playing the style you
described. You need to either drop down to 1/2, or start mixing up your
play.
On Feb 14 2009 2:51 AM, browser wrote:
> I've been playing 2-5NL in Tampa for about 2 years now. I've played several
> days a week, so I have a lot of hours at the tables. I've read most of the
> main books, and tried to study the game as well as put in the hours playing.
> But it seems like I've hit a plateau (or maybe stuck in a rut is a better
> description). I don't consider myself a beginner anymore, think I have a
> good understanding of the basics of the game, but I'm not sure how/what I'm
> supposed to do to get better, or take my game to that "next level" (in
> skill, not dollars). I play a TAG game (I think), but overall I am a small
> loser as it seems like my small pot wins get offset by a few bad beats in
> big pots.
>
> I think one of my weak areas is bluffing, and not knowing how to "make
> things happen" when I'm not getting decent cards to play. I'll do the semi
> bluffs and continuation bets when I miss the flop, but I just can't seem to
> get myself to play trash cards like they're AA like some people seem to do,
> and take down big pots with air. So basically I seem stuck at usually
> getting my money in ahead when I get cards, and then my success is
> determined by the luck of whether I get sucked out on or not. But I rarely,
> if ever, actually win pots when I don't have the best hand by getting
> someone to lay a better hand down. I don't know how to "make things happen"
> at the table when I'm not getting the cards.
>
> So my question is, do good players often win without the best cards? Sure I
> see the examples on HSP and other TV shows, but I wonder if they aren't
> edited to show the big bluffs. What is it that I should be working on to
> try and improve from a low intermediate player to a higher intermediate? I
> often hear of the great players "making moves", but I'm not really sure what
> "moves" they are referring to. Is it all related to getting better at
> reading the other guy--is that the main skill difference between good and OK
> players?
>
> Hope this question makes sense, and I am asking it sincerely (unlike all the
> political posts). Any input from the assembled expertise will be greatly
> appreciated (from conservatives and liberals alike!)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Browser
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 21:03:13
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 14 2009 11:12 PM, gtech1 wrote:
> Carson has it right. You aren't going to win at 2/5 playing the style you
> described. You need to either drop down to 1/2, or start mixing up your
> play.
Yes, theres nothing wrong with being a nit, but there is with being a nit
and have everybody know you're a nit.
Two possibilities that might result from playing 1/2. One is that you're
more likely to have opponents who aren't paying attention to whether
you're a nit or not. The other is the more likely, you'll tend to have a
wider range of opponents, not all of which are playing all the time. In
most rooms the 2/5 games will be a consistent lineup and the 1/2 games
more random walkins.
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Feb 2009 16:43:32
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 14 2009 11:03 PM, garycarson wrote:
> On Feb 14 2009 11:12 PM, gtech1 wrote:
>
> > Carson has it right. You aren't going to win at 2/5 playing the style you
> > described. You need to either drop down to 1/2, or start mixing up your
> > play.
>
> Yes, theres nothing wrong with being a nit, but there is with being a nit
> and have everybody know you're a nit.
>
> Two possibilities that might result from playing 1/2. One is that you're
> more likely to have opponents who aren't paying attention to whether
> you're a nit or not. The other is the more likely, you'll tend to have a
> wider range of opponents, not all of which are playing all the time. In
> most rooms the 2/5 games will be a consistent lineup and the 1/2 games
> more random walkins.
You got no clue of the amazing difference beteween 2-5 in Florida , and
the game at Cherokee .
All kinds of in and outs in the 2-5 games . Shit loads
The games in Florida are unlike anything , anywhere else !!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 09:02:29
From: funky cold medina
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 14, 7:59=A0am, "garycarson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu >
wrote:
>
> Never again allow the term tight/aggresive or the term bad beat to enter
> your head and you'll be off to a good start in fixing the problem.
>
Just out of curiosity, why don't you like the term bad beat (being
serious) Gary? I see it as a language tool to describe situations
where you have a high/very high probability of success and exploit it,
yet lose due to an opponent whom is able to draw a card(s) that had a
very low probability (measured against the remaining cards in the
deck) of appearing.
It's just a simple non-math way to put this (for us non-math
people) . Especially in discussing situations where all your chips
are in the pot and opponent is able to draw to a one or two outer on
the turn/river. Maybe it's best to just describe a specific hand in
detail on it's own merit, but 'bad beat' is something that people can
easily process as a general concept.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 15:37:40
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 14 2009 12:02 PM, funky cold medina wrote:
> On Feb 14, 7:59 am, "garycarson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Never again allow the term tight/aggresive or the term bad beat to enter
> > your head and you'll be off to a good start in fixing the problem.
> >
>
> Just out of curiosity, why don't you like the term bad beat (being
> serious) Gary?
Our hero already has a mindset which puts way too much emphasis on being
ahead at all times. Thinking in the terms of TA or bad/beat tends to
re-enforce that thinking and it just gets him in trouble, making it hard
for him to think about the game in a variety of ways.
Read his response in this subthread -- when he thinks about changing his
game he doesn't think about looking at things from a different point of
view (a perspective of odds, for example), he still thinks in terms of
good hand/bad hand.
I see it as a language tool to describe situations
> where you have a high/very high probability of success and exploit it,
> yet lose due to an opponent whom is able to draw a card(s) that had a
> very low probability (measured against the remaining cards in the
> deck) of appearing.
It's not about communication, it's about mindset. Well, in his case it's
a little about communication. Use of the words in speech tends to
reenforce his opponents thoughts that he's just a nit.
>
> It's just a simple non-math way to put this (for us non-math
> people) . Especially in discussing situations where all your chips
> are in the pot and opponent is able to draw to a one or two outer on
> the turn/river. Maybe it's best to just describe a specific hand in
> detail on it's own merit, but 'bad beat' is something that people can
> easily process as a general concept.
Read my chapter on Poker Theories and how theoretical perspectives will
influence how you think and your ability to exploit opportunities.
My book is mostly on limit hold'em, but the idea that no-limit hold'ed is
special is part of his problem.
http://garycarson.blogspot.com/2009/02/theories-of-poker.html
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 10:35:49
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"browser" Usenet Poster
browser2920@yahoo.com Post #1 of 3 (1 views) Copy Shortcut Feb 14,
2009, 2:51 AM
Poker question: "making something happen" Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
"I've been playing 2-5NL in Tampa for about 2 years now. I've played
several
days a week, so I have a lot of hours at the tables. I've read most of
the
main books, and tried to study the game as well as put in the hours
playing.
But it seems like I've hit a plateau (or maybe stuck in a rut is a
better
description). I don't consider myself a beginner anymore, think I have
a
good understanding of the basics of the game, but I'm not sure how/what
I'm
supposed to do to get better, or take my game to that "next level" (in
skill, not dollars). I play a TAG game (I think), but overall I am a
small
loser as it seems like my small pot wins get offset by a few bad beats
in
big pots.
I think one of my weak areas is bluffing, and not knowing how to "make
things happen" when I'm not getting decent cards to play. I'll do the
semi
bluffs and continuation bets when I miss the flop, but I just can't
seem to
get myself to play trash cards like they're AA like some people seem to
do,
and take down big pots with air."
Maybe you're mistaken in how often that actually happens per a
particular player.
"But I rarely,
if ever, actually win pots when I don't have the best hand by getting
someone to lay a better hand down."
And what does that tell you, Grasshopper.
"I don't know how to "make things happen"
at the table when I'm not getting the cards."
Folding bad cards is making something happen.
"So my question is, do good players often win without the best cards?"
Good players often win with the best cards, that's a better
perspective. Bluffing is overrated. Think of bluffing as "picking off"
a hand now and then under the right circumstances but not as part of a
strategy.
"Sure I
see the examples on HSP and other TV shows, but I wonder if they aren't
edited to show the big bluffs."
Partly, and partly the fact that most of those guys are gamblers.
"What is it that I should be working on to
try and improve from a low intermediate player to a higher
intermediate?"
Put it this way, concentrate on patience and folding losers and not
buffing with crap.
"often hear of the great players "making moves", but I'm not really
sure what
"moves" they are referring to."
It's getting your money in when you have the best of it. Maximizing a
winner.
"Is it all related to getting better at
reading the other guy--is that the main skill difference between good
and OK
players?"
The main difference is minimizing your own mistakes.
"Reading" is a matter of determining the capability of an opponent
based on your observations of betting patterns and cards played. You
can't take "reads" too literally; bad players can still be holding good
hands.
If, as you say, you have a small loss overall, that's probably pretty
good. I'd recommend playing limit and you won't have your gains wiped
out on few big pots.
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 15:15:04
From: browser
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"Travel" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:1234630595.92525@pokermagazine.com...
> "browser" Usenet Poster
> browser2920@yahoo.com Post #1 of 3 (1 views) Copy Shortcut Feb 14,
> 2009, 2:51 AM
> Poker question: "making something happen" Reply
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> "I've been playing 2-5NL in Tampa for about 2 years now. I've played
> several
> days a week, so I have a lot of hours at the tables. I've read most of
> the
> main books, and tried to study the game as well as put in the hours
> playing.
> But it seems like I've hit a plateau (or maybe stuck in a rut is a
> better
> description). I don't consider myself a beginner anymore, think I have
> a
> good understanding of the basics of the game, but I'm not sure how/what
> I'm
> supposed to do to get better, or take my game to that "next level" (in
> skill, not dollars). I play a TAG game (I think), but overall I am a
> small
> loser as it seems like my small pot wins get offset by a few bad beats
> in
> big pots.
>
> I think one of my weak areas is bluffing, and not knowing how to "make
>
> things happen" when I'm not getting decent cards to play. I'll do the
> semi
> bluffs and continuation bets when I miss the flop, but I just can't
> seem to
> get myself to play trash cards like they're AA like some people seem to
> do,
> and take down big pots with air."
>
>
> Maybe you're mistaken in how often that actually happens per a
> particular player.
>
>
>
> "But I rarely,
> if ever, actually win pots when I don't have the best hand by getting
> someone to lay a better hand down."
>
> And what does that tell you, Grasshopper.
>
>
> "I don't know how to "make things happen"
> at the table when I'm not getting the cards."
>
> Folding bad cards is making something happen.
>
>
> "So my question is, do good players often win without the best cards?"
>
> Good players often win with the best cards, that's a better
> perspective. Bluffing is overrated. Think of bluffing as "picking off"
> a hand now and then under the right circumstances but not as part of a
> strategy.
>
>
>
> "Sure I
> see the examples on HSP and other TV shows, but I wonder if they aren't
>
> edited to show the big bluffs."
>
> Partly, and partly the fact that most of those guys are gamblers.
>
>
> "What is it that I should be working on to
> try and improve from a low intermediate player to a higher
> intermediate?"
>
>
> Put it this way, concentrate on patience and folding losers and not
> buffing with crap.
>
>
> "often hear of the great players "making moves", but I'm not really
> sure what
> "moves" they are referring to."
>
> It's getting your money in when you have the best of it. Maximizing a
> winner.
>
>
> "Is it all related to getting better at
> reading the other guy--is that the main skill difference between good
> and OK
> players?"
>
> The main difference is minimizing your own mistakes.
> "Reading" is a matter of determining the capability of an opponent
> based on your observations of betting patterns and cards played. You
> can't take "reads" too literally; bad players can still be holding good
> hands.
>
> If, as you say, you have a small loss overall, that's probably pretty
> good. I'd recommend playing limit and you won't have your gains wiped
> out on few big pots.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
> Visit www.pokermagazine.com
>
Thanks, Travel. You make a lot of good points. It may be that when I see
someone come over the top of a $100 bet with $300, and the bettor folds, and
then the guy turns over air, it makes such an impression on me that I
remember it more than the times when the same thing happens, and the bettor
calls with the nuts, and I think "what was that guy thinking raising with
air?".
I'm real patient, but that does tend to reinforce my nit image when I'm not
getting very good cards, which in turn limits the action I get when I do
finally get a hand.
You're probably right about limit, but here in FL the biggest game is 2-4,
and it's tough to get ahead with the rake/dealer tip. Plus, it's 8-10
people seeing the flop, and then 6-8 staying to the river, so it seems that
luck plays a very large role in those games.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 15:19:55
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:15:04 -0500, "browser" <browser2920@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Thanks, Travel. You make a lot of good points. It may be that when I see
>someone come over the top of a $100 bet with $300, and the bettor folds, and
>then the guy turns over air, it makes such an impression on me that I
>remember it more than the times when the same thing happens, and the bettor
>calls with the nuts, and I think "what was that guy thinking raising with
>air?".
Certainly beats CALLING with air.
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 07:59:59
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
You"re a nit and everybody you play with knows it.
Never again allow the term tight/aggresive or the term bad beat to enter
your head and you'll be off to a good start in fixing the problem.
On Feb 14 2009 2:51 AM, browser wrote:
> I've been playing 2-5NL in Tampa for about 2 years now. I've played several
> days a week, so I have a lot of hours at the tables. I've read most of the
> main books, and tried to study the game as well as put in the hours playing.
> But it seems like I've hit a plateau (or maybe stuck in a rut is a better
> description). I don't consider myself a beginner anymore, think I have a
> good understanding of the basics of the game, but I'm not sure how/what I'm
> supposed to do to get better, or take my game to that "next level" (in
> skill, not dollars). I play a TAG game (I think), but overall I am a small
> loser as it seems like my small pot wins get offset by a few bad beats in
> big pots.
>
> I think one of my weak areas is bluffing, and not knowing how to "make
> things happen" when I'm not getting decent cards to play. I'll do the semi
> bluffs and continuation bets when I miss the flop, but I just can't seem to
> get myself to play trash cards like they're AA like some people seem to do,
> and take down big pots with air. So basically I seem stuck at usually
> getting my money in ahead when I get cards, and then my success is
> determined by the luck of whether I get sucked out on or not. But I rarely,
> if ever, actually win pots when I don't have the best hand by getting
> someone to lay a better hand down. I don't know how to "make things happen"
> at the table when I'm not getting the cards.
>
> So my question is, do good players often win without the best cards? Sure I
> see the examples on HSP and other TV shows, but I wonder if they aren't
> edited to show the big bluffs. What is it that I should be working on to
> try and improve from a low intermediate player to a higher intermediate? I
> often hear of the great players "making moves", but I'm not really sure what
> "moves" they are referring to. Is it all related to getting better at
> reading the other guy--is that the main skill difference between good and OK
> players?
>
> Hope this question makes sense, and I am asking it sincerely (unlike all the
> political posts). Any input from the assembled expertise will be greatly
> appreciated (from conservatives and liberals alike!)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Browser
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 14:12:41
From: browser
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"garycarson" <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu > wrote in message
news:vc6j66xo01.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> You"re a nit and everybody you play with knows it.
Well there's no doubt that on the nit-maniac scale I come out way up on the
nit side. But in a way, I guess that's part of my question of what to
change. I play the premium hands, plus small pairs, suited connectors, try
to vary my bets, pay attention to position, etc. But a lot of sessions, I
don't get many of those hands, and so when I finally do bet, my nit image is
even more strongly reinforced. So does becoming less of a nit mean playing
"worse" hands more often? That's where I get confused. Lots of books talk
about the dangers of playing too many hands, so I try and stay away from the
trash.
How does one go about loosening up the nit image without just starting to
playing more bad hands?
>
> Never again allow the term tight/aggressive or the term bad beat to enter
> your head and you'll be off to a good start in fixing the problem.
OK, they're out of my head. Now I'm a solid, super unlucky player instead.
I feel better already! Suddenly I know exactly what I need to do to
improve. ;)
>
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 15:44:33
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 14 2009 2:12 PM, browser wrote:
> "garycarson" <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
> news:vc6j66xo01.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >
>
>
> > You"re a nit and everybody you play with knows it.
>
> Well there's no doubt that on the nit-maniac scale I come out way up on the
> nit side. But in a way, I guess that's part of my question of what to
> change.
Stop focusing on what you do and just change how you think.
I play the premium hands, plus small pairs, suited connectors, try
> to vary my bets, pay attention to position, etc.
You don't need to vary one thing to convice opponents that your
unpredicable, just expand your concept of how you define a situation.
There's a lot more to a situation than your cards and your position.
But a lot of sessions, I
> don't get many of those hands, and so when I finally do bet, my nit image is
> even more strongly reinforced. So does becoming less of a nit mean playing
> "worse" hands more often? That's where I get confused. Lots of books talk
> about the dangers of playing too many hands, so I try and stay away from the
> trash.
>
> How does one go about loosening up the nit image without just starting to
> playing more bad hands?
Stop thinking in terms of good hands/bad hands. Think in terms of good
situations/bad situations.
Suited ace rag is a terrible hand, but suited ace rag on the button with 4
limpers in front of you is a great situation.
>
> >
> > Never again allow the term tight/aggressive or the term bad beat to enter
> > your head and you'll be off to a good start in fixing the problem.
>
> OK, they're out of my head. Now I'm a solid, super unlucky player instead.
> I feel better already! Suddenly I know exactly what I need to do to
> improve. ;)
Okay.
Get rid of the term "solid" also.
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 18:30:40
From: Sam
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
Browser:
I'm a very conservative, tight player... and successful.
I would suggest that you foster whatever image you want and then use it to
exploit others.
For example, (I am only talking about tourneys, BTW), after playing tight
for 45 minutes or so, I find I can do a sudden all-in raise with a very good
(but maybe not the best) hand. Folks will fold, thinking that if he bets he
has it. I can do this a few times and it helps.
Don't be afriad to do this under the right circumstances.
Mel
"browser" <browser2920@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:499717ac$0$4884$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "garycarson" <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
> news:vc6j66xo01.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>
>
>
>> You"re a nit and everybody you play with knows it.
>
> Well there's no doubt that on the nit-maniac scale I come out way up on
> the
> nit side. But in a way, I guess that's part of my question of what to
> change. I play the premium hands, plus small pairs, suited connectors,
> try
> to vary my bets, pay attention to position, etc. But a lot of sessions, I
> don't get many of those hands, and so when I finally do bet, my nit image
> is
> even more strongly reinforced. So does becoming less of a nit mean
> playing
> "worse" hands more often? That's where I get confused. Lots of books talk
> about the dangers of playing too many hands, so I try and stay away from
> the
> trash.
>
> How does one go about loosening up the nit image without just starting to
> playing more bad hands?
>
>>
>> Never again allow the term tight/aggressive or the term bad beat to enter
>> your head and you'll be off to a good start in fixing the problem.
>
> OK, they're out of my head. Now I'm a solid, super unlucky player
> instead.
> I feel better already! Suddenly I know exactly what I need to do to
> improve. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 07:28:52
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
In ring games bluffing too often is a guaranteed formula for losing.
The conditions on the table must also be capable of warranting a
bluff. You bluffing bet is camouflage for a bad hand that just looks
good so your bluff has to make some sense if you're going to pull it
off successfully. Did a possible flush, straight, or pair hit the
board on the river? Never show you cards after you successfully
bluffed. Remember, in a NL game you are often playing the player so
that means you must have been at the table long enough to profile
them.
Happy bluffing.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 22:36:00
From: Dutch
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote
> In ring games bluffing too often is a guaranteed formula for losing.
> The conditions on the table must also be capable of warranting a
> bluff. You bluffing bet is camouflage for a bad hand that just looks
> good so your bluff has to make some sense if you're going to pull it
> off successfully. Did a possible flush, straight, or pair hit the
> board on the river? Never show you cards after you successfully
> bluffed. Remember, in a NL game you are often playing the player so
> that means you must have been at the table long enough to profile
> them.
>
> Happy bluffing.
Wouldn't it be smart to show a bluff if you never intend to do it again in
that game, as a setup?
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 00:25:41
From: Steam
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 14 2009 10:36 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote
> > In ring games bluffing too often is a guaranteed formula for losing.
> > The conditions on the table must also be capable of warranting a
> > bluff. You bluffing bet is camouflage for a bad hand that just looks
> > good so your bluff has to make some sense if you're going to pull it
> > off successfully. Did a possible flush, straight, or pair hit the
> > board on the river? Never show you cards after you successfully
> > bluffed. Remember, in a NL game you are often playing the player so
> > that means you must have been at the table long enough to profile
> > them.
> >
> > Happy bluffing.
>
> Wouldn't it be smart to show a bluff if you never intend to do it again in
> that game, as a setup?
No.
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Feb 2009 06:48:30
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 15 2009 12:36 AM, Dutch wrote:
> "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote
> > In ring games bluffing too often is a guaranteed formula for losing.
> > The conditions on the table must also be capable of warranting a
> > bluff. You bluffing bet is camouflage for a bad hand that just looks
> > good so your bluff has to make some sense if you're going to pull it
> > off successfully. Did a possible flush, straight, or pair hit the
> > board on the river? Never show you cards after you successfully
> > bluffed. Remember, in a NL game you are often playing the player so
> > that means you must have been at the table long enough to profile
> > them.
> >
> > Happy bluffing.
>
> Wouldn't it be smart to show a bluff if you never intend to do it again in
> that game, as a setup?
More TVSM idiot logic.. how would you know you wont need to do it again ?
Showing a bluff is for fools !! and children
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 00:06:14
From: Dutch
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:uiml66xo2h.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 15 2009 12:36 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote
>> > In ring games bluffing too often is a guaranteed formula for losing.
>> > The conditions on the table must also be capable of warranting a
>> > bluff. You bluffing bet is camouflage for a bad hand that just looks
>> > good so your bluff has to make some sense if you're going to pull it
>> > off successfully. Did a possible flush, straight, or pair hit the
>> > board on the river? Never show you cards after you successfully
>> > bluffed. Remember, in a NL game you are often playing the player so
>> > that means you must have been at the table long enough to profile
>> > them.
>> >
>> > Happy bluffing.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be smart to show a bluff if you never intend to do it again
>> in
>> that game, as a setup?
>
> More TVSM idiot logic.. how would you know you wont need to do it again ?
If you NEED to do it, that will be obvious to everyone at the table, so the
fact you showed earlier will be meaningless.
>
> Showing a bluff is for fools !! and children
Some pros recommend doing it occasionally, Dan Harrington for example. They
do it in televised games as well.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 00:37:40
From: Steam
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 16 2009 12:06 AM, Dutch wrote:
> "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:uiml66xo2h.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Feb 15 2009 12:36 AM, Dutch wrote:
> >
> >> "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote
> >> > In ring games bluffing too often is a guaranteed formula for losing.
> >> > The conditions on the table must also be capable of warranting a
> >> > bluff. You bluffing bet is camouflage for a bad hand that just looks
> >> > good so your bluff has to make some sense if you're going to pull it
> >> > off successfully. Did a possible flush, straight, or pair hit the
> >> > board on the river? Never show you cards after you successfully
> >> > bluffed. Remember, in a NL game you are often playing the player so
> >> > that means you must have been at the table long enough to profile
> >> > them.
> >> >
> >> > Happy bluffing.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't it be smart to show a bluff if you never intend to do it again
> >> in
> >> that game, as a setup?
> >
> > More TVSM idiot logic.. how would you know you wont need to do it again ?
>
> If you NEED to do it, that will be obvious to everyone at the table, so the
> fact you showed earlier will be meaningless.
>
And why exactly would it be obvious to everyone at the table?
When I feel that I "need" to make a bluff, there is nothing obvious about
it. It has to be a spot where it appears liikely enough that you do have
a hand.
> >
> > Showing a bluff is for fools !! and children
>
> Some pros recommend doing it occasionally, Dan Harrington for example. They
> do it in televised games as well.
When did Dan Harrington ever recommend showing a bluff? He recommends
bluffing ocassionsally, because he recommends varying your play, but when
did he recomend showing it?
He may have, my memory is not perfect, but I don't remember reading that.
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 02:24:41
From: Dutch
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"Steam" <a74baac@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:k7ln66x8vq.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 16 2009 12:06 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:uiml66xo2h.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> > On Feb 15 2009 12:36 AM, Dutch wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> > In ring games bluffing too often is a guaranteed formula for losing.
>> >> > The conditions on the table must also be capable of warranting a
>> >> > bluff. You bluffing bet is camouflage for a bad hand that just looks
>> >> > good so your bluff has to make some sense if you're going to pull it
>> >> > off successfully. Did a possible flush, straight, or pair hit the
>> >> > board on the river? Never show you cards after you successfully
>> >> > bluffed. Remember, in a NL game you are often playing the player so
>> >> > that means you must have been at the table long enough to profile
>> >> > them.
>> >> >
>> >> > Happy bluffing.
>> >>
>> >> Wouldn't it be smart to show a bluff if you never intend to do it
>> >> again
>> >> in
>> >> that game, as a setup?
>> >
>> > More TVSM idiot logic.. how would you know you wont need to do it again
>> > ?
>>
>> If you NEED to do it, that will be obvious to everyone at the table, so
>> the
>> fact you showed earlier will be meaningless.
>>
>
> And why exactly would it be obvious to everyone at the table?
Because the only time you NEED to bluff is when you're short-stacked and
desperate
> When I feel that I "need" to make a bluff, there is nothing obvious about
> it. It has to be a spot where it appears liikely enough that you do have
> a hand.
That's not need, it's want.
>> >
>> > Showing a bluff is for fools !! and children
>>
>> Some pros recommend doing it occasionally, Dan Harrington for example.
>> They
>> do it in televised games as well.
>
> When did Dan Harrington ever recommend showing a bluff? He recommends
> bluffing ocassionsally, because he recommends varying your play, but when
> did he recomend showing it?
>
> He may have, my memory is not perfect, but I don't remember reading that.
I can't recall the name of the book, I deleted the pdf version I had. It was
the first of a set of three I believe.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 04:59:16
From: Steam
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 16 2009 2:24 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
> Because the only time you NEED to bluff is when you're short-stacked and
> desperate
>
> > When I feel that I "need" to make a bluff, there is nothing obvious about
> > it. It has to be a spot where it appears liikely enough that you do have
> > a hand.
>
> That's not need, it's want.
>
If you're being that literal and talking abut a tournament, then it's
usually harder to pull off, yes. But when the amount in the pot is
enough, your opponent doesn't like the card that just hit, and is ready to
fold, and the action is consistent with how you would play with a real
hand, then you "need" to bluff as well.
> >> >
> >> > Showing a bluff is for fools !! and children
> >>
> >> Some pros recommend doing it occasionally, Dan Harrington for example.
> >> They
> >> do it in televised games as well.
> >
> > When did Dan Harrington ever recommend showing a bluff? He recommends
> > bluffing ocassionsally, because he recommends varying your play, but when
> > did he recomend showing it?
> >
> > He may have, my memory is not perfect, but I don't remember reading that.
>
> I can't recall the name of the book, I deleted the pdf version I had. It was
> the first of a set of three I believe.
The tournament books you mean (Harrington on Hold em). That doesn't sound
right, but I'm not going to argue it right now. I certainly don't want my
opponents to find reasons to be calling me, I'd rather steal pots
uncontested for the most part.
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Feb 2009 19:33:18
From: Dutch
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"Steam" <a74baac@webnntp.invalid > wrote
> On Feb 16 2009 2:24 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
> The tournament books you mean (Harrington on Hold em). That doesn't sound
> right, but I'm not going to argue it right now. I certainly don't want my
> opponents to find reasons to be calling me, I'd rather steal pots
> uncontested for the most part.
I agree, that's how I think, except perhaps with AA, however I think that
strictly speaking according to percentages you want callers (one at least)
with premium hands like AK or big pairs. That's why I think that a person
who infrequently bluffs, like me, could benefit from showing.
I know this probably sounds silly, but another thing I consider is manners.
I find bluff-showing to be a little classless.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Feb 2009 21:34:32
From: Steam
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 17 2009 7:33 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "Steam" <a74baac@webnntp.invalid> wrote
> > On Feb 16 2009 2:24 AM, Dutch wrote:
> >
> > The tournament books you mean (Harrington on Hold em). That doesn't sound
> > right, but I'm not going to argue it right now. I certainly don't want my
> > opponents to find reasons to be calling me, I'd rather steal pots
> > uncontested for the most part.
>
> I agree, that's how I think, except perhaps with AA, however I think that
> strictly speaking according to percentages you want callers (one at least)
> with premium hands like AK or big pairs. That's why I think that a person
> who infrequently bluffs, like me, could benefit from showing.
>
> I know this probably sounds silly, but another thing I consider is manners.
> I find bluff-showing to be a little classless.
I just don't like to show anything unless I have to, they can think I had
this, or think I had that, but I want to leave a little doubt in their
minds. I don't know if I want callers with AK, unless I hit the flop.
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Feb 2009 15:59:43
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:uiml66xo2h.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 15 2009 12:36 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote
>> > In ring games bluffing too often is a guaranteed formula for losing.
>> > The conditions on the table must also be capable of warranting a
>> > bluff. You bluffing bet is camouflage for a bad hand that just looks
>> > good so your bluff has to make some sense if you're going to pull it
>> > off successfully. Did a possible flush, straight, or pair hit the
>> > board on the river? Never show you cards after you successfully
>> > bluffed. Remember, in a NL game you are often playing the player so
>> > that means you must have been at the table long enough to profile
>> > them.
>> >
>> > Happy bluffing.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be smart to show a bluff if you never intend to do it again
>> in
>> that game, as a setup?
>
> More TVSM idiot logic.. how would you know you wont need to do it again ?
>
> Showing a bluff is for fools !! and children
>
Doggie, use the brain that must be in there somewhere.
I once raised with K2o on the button and ended up with a full house.
I won on the river uncontested and showed it.
The BB insisted he 'knew I had nothing'.
12 hands later I got him to go 4 bets preflop and call down with 67 on a
flop of 644
Of course I had Aces.
Showing you can bluff often makes people think you ALWAYS bluff.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 22:54:04
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 15 2009 1:36 AM, Dutch wrote:
> "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote
> > In ring games bluffing too often is a guaranteed formula for losing.
> > The conditions on the table must also be capable of warranting a
> > bluff. You bluffing bet is camouflage for a bad hand that just looks
> > good so your bluff has to make some sense if you're going to pull it
> > off successfully. Did a possible flush, straight, or pair hit the
> > board on the river? Never show you cards after you successfully
> > bluffed. Remember, in a NL game you are often playing the player so
> > that means you must have been at the table long enough to profile
> > them.
> >
> > Happy bluffing.
>
> Wouldn't it be smart to show a bluff if you never intend to do it again in
> that game, as a setup?
If a nit shows a bluff then it's a pretty good bet that he does not intend
to be bluffing again any time soon.
________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Feb 2009 06:50:51
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 15 2009 12:54 AM, garycarson wrote:
> On Feb 15 2009 1:36 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote
> > > In ring games bluffing too often is a guaranteed formula for losing.
> > > The conditions on the table must also be capable of warranting a
> > > bluff. You bluffing bet is camouflage for a bad hand that just looks
> > > good so your bluff has to make some sense if you're going to pull it
> > > off successfully. Did a possible flush, straight, or pair hit the
> > > board on the river? Never show you cards after you successfully
> > > bluffed. Remember, in a NL game you are often playing the player so
> > > that means you must have been at the table long enough to profile
> > > them.
> > >
> > > Happy bluffing.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be smart to show a bluff if you never intend to do it again in
> > that game, as a setup?
>
> If a nit shows a bluff then it's a pretty good bet that he does not intend
> to be bluffing again any time soon.
intend to be ?
WTF is that ?
bluffing is something that pops its opportunistic head up when you have a
good read on your opponent
What is this "one time " BS?
This is where people like you lose all credibility when it comes to poker
!!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 09:59:24
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"browser" <browser2920@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:499677f9$0$17027$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
It sounds like you have a moderately complicated problem. First, as you
say, you're in a rut. Second, you think varying your game means making big
successful bluffs.
Have all those books you've read included some fluffier ones? I'm thinking
particularly of "According to Doyle" (AKA "Poker Wisdom of a Champion") and
"Championship Hold'em."
Attitude is important, and if you hold your mind right as you read those
"cute" stories you can get a clue to what winning attitude might be.
Two easy ways to play off your well-established tight/aggressive image:
Very rarely, open UTG for a raise at the high end of your range (you DO vary
your opening raises mostly randomly, right?) with a defensive hand (small
pair, middle suited connectors, even less, but meeting 2 requirements:
unlikely to flop pretty but dominated, and able to flop something with some
meat to it). Pure steal. If you don't take the blinds or catch a great
flop, you're finished. That fold is part of the strategy: you WANT people
to think you laid down a nice hand.
Somewhat often, play against a raise (and even a call, but not a raise and a
reraise, and very thoughtfully against a raise and two calls) from late
position with defensive hands. There's a lot of art to the mixture of
calls, small raises and big raises in this spot, and I'm not touching that
part. It's the playing at all that goes against your image.
And be sure to sandbag occasionally and make sure that if the victim doesn't
say anything, you do. You don't want your checks and calls to be too
inviting.
It wouldn't be a terrible idea to take some notes at the table
occasionally--when I do it, it's usually just hands dealt, hands played,
hands won and some impressions of game conditions. I regulatly see when I
look over the notes later that I wasn't playing the way I thought I was, or
didn't make an adjustment I thought I had made. If anyone makes a comment,
I say "It's an exercise." I think it tends to make people attack me a
little more, but not much more.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 14:25:38
From: browser
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"Stephen Jacobs" <jacosa@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:wJqdnQuoxp7IQQvUnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "browser" <browser2920@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:499677f9$0$17027$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> It sounds like you have a moderately complicated problem. First, as you
> say, you're in a rut. Second, you think varying your game means making
> big successful bluffs.
>
> Have all those books you've read included some fluffier ones? I'm
> thinking particularly of "According to Doyle" (AKA "Poker Wisdom of a
> Champion") and "Championship Hold'em."
>
> Attitude is important, and if you hold your mind right as you read those
> "cute" stories you can get a clue to what winning attitude might be.
>
> Two easy ways to play off your well-established tight/aggressive image:
>
> Very rarely, open UTG for a raise at the high end of your range (you DO
> vary your opening raises mostly randomly, right?) with a defensive hand
> (small pair, middle suited connectors, even less, but meeting 2
> requirements: unlikely to flop pretty but dominated, and able to flop
> something with some meat to it). Pure steal. If you don't take the
> blinds or catch a great flop, you're finished. That fold is part of the
> strategy: you WANT people to think you laid down a nice hand.
>
> Somewhat often, play against a raise (and even a call, but not a raise and
> a reraise, and very thoughtfully against a raise and two calls) from late
> position with defensive hands. There's a lot of art to the mixture of
> calls, small raises and big raises in this spot, and I'm not touching that
> part. It's the playing at all that goes against your image.
>
> And be sure to sandbag occasionally and make sure that if the victim
> doesn't say anything, you do. You don't want your checks and calls to be
> too inviting.
>
> It wouldn't be a terrible idea to take some notes at the table
> occasionally--when I do it, it's usually just hands dealt, hands played,
> hands won and some impressions of game conditions. I regulatly see when I
> look over the notes later that I wasn't playing the way I thought I was,
> or didn't make an adjustment I thought I had made. If anyone makes a
> comment, I say "It's an exercise." I think it tends to make people attack
> me a little more, but not much more.
>
>
Thanks for the comments. I realized after reading your post that one thing
I almost never do is play back against a bet or raise unless I think I've
got near the nuts. I think I reflexively give the bettor or raiser "full
credit" for having what they are representing, rather than playing back to
see if they really have it. I think that's an area I can definitely improve
on, and would probably start picking off more hands than I do now.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 07:26:30
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Feb 14 2009 8:59 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote:
> "browser" <browser2920@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:499677f9$0$17027$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> It sounds like you have a moderately complicated problem. First, as you
> say, you're in a rut. Second, you think varying your game means making big
> successful bluffs.
>
> Have all those books you've read included some fluffier ones? I'm thinking
> particularly of "According to Doyle" (AKA "Poker Wisdom of a Champion") and
> "Championship Hold'em."
>
> Attitude is important, and if you hold your mind right as you read those
> "cute" stories you can get a clue to what winning attitude might be.
>
> Two easy ways to play off your well-established tight/aggressive image:
>
> Very rarely, open UTG for a raise at the high end of your range (you DO vary
> your opening raises mostly randomly, right?) with a defensive hand (small
> pair, middle suited connectors, even less, but meeting 2 requirements:
> unlikely to flop pretty but dominated, and able to flop something with some
> meat to it). Pure steal. If you don't take the blinds or catch a great
> flop, you're finished. That fold is part of the strategy: you WANT people
> to think you laid down a nice hand.
>
> Somewhat often, play against a raise (and even a call, but not a raise and a
> reraise, and very thoughtfully against a raise and two calls) from late
> position with defensive hands. There's a lot of art to the mixture of
> calls, small raises and big raises in this spot, and I'm not touching that
> part. It's the playing at all that goes against your image.
>
> And be sure to sandbag occasionally and make sure that if the victim doesn't
> say anything, you do. You don't want your checks and calls to be too
> inviting.
>
> It wouldn't be a terrible idea to take some notes at the table
> occasionally--when I do it, it's usually just hands dealt, hands played,
> hands won and some impressions of game conditions. I regulatly see when I
> look over the notes later that I wasn't playing the way I thought I was, or
> didn't make an adjustment I thought I had made. If anyone makes a comment,
> I say "It's an exercise." I think it tends to make people attack me a
> little more, but not much more.
YOU CANT BE SERIOUS !! Stop worying about the horses .. JUST LOAD THE
WAGON !!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 14:27:47
From: browser
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:6e4j66xip.ln2@recgroups.com...
> YOU CANT BE SERIOUS !! Stop worying about the horses .. JUST LOAD THE
> WAGON !!
That's a great saying...but what the hell does it mean in regards to this
post?
>
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> Voltaire
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2009 14:31:43
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Poker question: "making something happen"
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:27:47 -0500, "browser" <browser2920@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>news:6e4j66xip.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> YOU CANT BE SERIOUS !! Stop worying about the horses .. JUST LOAD THE
>> WAGON !!
>That's a great saying...but what the hell does it mean in regards to this
>post?
It means "I'm a retard. Disregard everything I say."
|
|
