| |
Main
Date: 05 Dec 15:00:01
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Thoughts on limit
|
I suppose being a one trick pony gets a little boring, so I thought I would try
to improve on my other aspects of poker. Before jumping in with OH and OH8,
thought I would start with LHE.
First thoughts; starting hands are much more important than NL, as it is next to
impossible to push people off hands if they have any piece of the flop, and the
implied odds you get are much more limited should you get lucky. One example;
5/10 limit game, 9 handed, 6s7s at button, 4 limpers ahead of me. Limped along
for the ride.
Flop was 5h8dAh, 2 suited, but none of my suit. UTG led out, folds to me, I
raised, blinds folded, UTG called. Turn Ks. UTG checked...I could either check
along for the free card, that's what the flop raise was about, right? But I
decided to put him on a flush draw or second pair at best with the check, so I
bet with the intention of pushing him off at a blank river, and I might even hit
my open-ender...he called...river was a Qs...he checked again...Here goes, ne
last chance for the pot, was quite sure that he had a busted draw now...I bet,
he called, shows me 9hTh to take the pot....hmm...note to self, never bluff
again at limit...
Second thoughts: preflop positions with big pairs...AA, KK but maybe much
more QQ are probably better at MP than LP preflop....its hard to thin the field
with a raise at the button if no one had raised before you...however, in MP, you
can raise any limpers, and people in later positions are more wary of calling 2
bets cold with creative hands, in case it gets raised again. Of course, this is
purely from a point of view of thinning the field, and I suppose its good that
you can value raise with more people calling if you are in LP with a big pair.
I think my mind is too much set on NL, where having your big pairs cracked can
be very expensive. Need to clear my mind on this when playing limit.
Third; People will nearly always get odds for open-enders and flush draws. You
cannot price them out, so just try to charge them as much as possible to
draw. If the hand is heads-up, betting with 2nd pair when in position on a
drawing board is not such a bad idea. You will sometime encounter a
check-raise, but most of the time you will be charging them to draw.
Value betting with 2nd pair when its checked to you is probably not a good idea,
although I am still not set on this one. Normal logic dictates that you will
normally only get calls from a hand that will beat your 2nd pair, but I have
seen calls with T high, bottom pairs etc. Maybe the pot has got so big people
will call even with A or K high. I still haven't worked out why that T high
called.
Preliminarily conclusions: It is a bit like watching paint dry, and certainly a
lot less exciting (frightening?) than NL. You cannot hope to stack anyone with
a decent hand, implied odds matter a lot less, and most actions are mechanical
with little thoughts required as the odds would normally justify calling will
marginal/drawing hands. I can see why people have starting hand charts now. It
is designed for this sort of games.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:23:17
From: Bill Vanek
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
On Tue, 05 Dec 06 15:00:01 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com >
wrote:
>It is a bit like watching paint dry, and certainly a
>lot less exciting (frightening?) than NL.
The upside is that it's much, much faster, at least in LV. None of
those stare-downs while contemplating calling that $15 raise.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:26:07
From: JG
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
Nick,
If you are going to play Limit, play shorthanded (6-max or less). It's
significantly more profitable, in my opinion. In addition, it's also
*much* more fun to play -- you get to play many more hands, and
aggression (betting/raising/semi-bluffing/bluffing) is rewarded.
JG
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:03:48
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
On 5 Dec 2006 07:26:07 -0800, "JG" <HeckaGuy@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Nick,
>If you are going to play Limit, play shorthanded (6-max or less). It's
>significantly more profitable, in my opinion. In addition, it's also
>*much* more fun to play -- you get to play many more hands, and
>aggression (betting/raising/semi-bluffing/bluffing) is rewarded.
He's probably right here. I like full tables personally, but then I'm
a horrible nit playing limit.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 15:05:39
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
Oh, BTW, before any wise-cracks out there saying that it should be a 'one
trick-donkey' rather than a 'one-trick pony, I would like to say that I agree
with that one hundred percent.
On Dec 5 2006 3:00 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> I suppose being a one trick pony gets a little boring, so I thought I would
> try
> to improve on my other aspects of poker. Before jumping in with OH and OH8,
> thought I would start with LHE.
>
> First thoughts; starting hands are much more important than NL, as it is next
> to
> impossible to push people off hands if they have any piece of the flop, and
> the
> implied odds you get are much more limited should you get lucky. One example;
> 5/10 limit game, 9 handed, 6s7s at button, 4 limpers ahead of me. Limped
> along
> for the ride.
>
> Flop was 5h8dAh, 2 suited, but none of my suit. UTG led out, folds to me, I
> raised, blinds folded, UTG called. Turn Ks. UTG checked...I could either
> check
> along for the free card, that's what the flop raise was about, right? But I
> decided to put him on a flush draw or second pair at best with the check, so I
> bet with the intention of pushing him off at a blank river, and I might even
> hit
> my open-ender...he called...river was a Qs...he checked again...Here goes, ne
> last chance for the pot, was quite sure that he had a busted draw now...I bet,
> he called, shows me 9hTh to take the pot....hmm...note to self, never bluff
> again at limit...
>
> Second thoughts: preflop positions with big pairs...AA, KK but maybe much
> more QQ are probably better at MP than LP preflop....its hard to thin the
> field
> with a raise at the button if no one had raised before you...however, in MP,
> you
> can raise any limpers, and people in later positions are more wary of calling
> 2
> bets cold with creative hands, in case it gets raised again. Of course, this
> is
> purely from a point of view of thinning the field, and I suppose its good that
> you can value raise with more people calling if you are in LP with a big pair.
>
> I think my mind is too much set on NL, where having your big pairs cracked can
> be very expensive. Need to clear my mind on this when playing limit.
>
> Third; People will nearly always get odds for open-enders and flush draws. You
> cannot price them out, so just try to charge them as much as possible to
> draw. If the hand is heads-up, betting with 2nd pair when in position on a
> drawing board is not such a bad idea. You will sometime encounter a
> check-raise, but most of the time you will be charging them to draw.
>
> Value betting with 2nd pair when its checked to you is probably not a good
> idea,
> although I am still not set on this one. Normal logic dictates that you will
> normally only get calls from a hand that will beat your 2nd pair, but I have
> seen calls with T high, bottom pairs etc. Maybe the pot has got so big people
> will call even with A or K high. I still haven't worked out why that T high
> called.
>
> Preliminarily conclusions: It is a bit like watching paint dry, and certainly
> a
> lot less exciting (frightening?) than NL. You cannot hope to stack anyone
> with
> a decent hand, implied odds matter a lot less, and most actions are mechanical
> with little thoughts required as the odds would normally justify calling will
> marginal/drawing hands. I can see why people have starting hand charts now.
> It
> is designed for this sort of games.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 10:17:41
From: MysteriAce
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
On Dec 5 2006 8:05 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
> Oh, BTW, before any wise-cracks out there saying that it should be a 'one
> trick-donkey' rather than a 'one-trick pony, I would like to say that I agree
> with that one hundred percent.
You actually HAVE a trick? :)
> On Dec 5 2006 3:00 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > I suppose being a one trick pony gets a little boring, so I thought I would
> > try
> > to improve on my other aspects of poker. Before jumping in with OH and
OH8,
> > thought I would start with LHE.
> >
> > First thoughts; starting hands are much more important than NL, as it is
next
> > to
> > impossible to push people off hands if they have any piece of the flop, and
> > the
> > implied odds you get are much more limited should you get lucky. One
example;
> > 5/10 limit game, 9 handed, 6s7s at button, 4 limpers ahead of me. Limped
> > along
> > for the ride.
> >
> > Flop was 5h8dAh, 2 suited, but none of my suit. UTG led out, folds to me,
I
> > raised, blinds folded, UTG called. Turn Ks. UTG checked...I could either
> > check
> > along for the free card, that's what the flop raise was about, right? But
I
> > decided to put him on a flush draw or second pair at best with the check,
so I
> > bet with the intention of pushing him off at a blank river, and I might
even
> > hit
> > my open-ender...he called...river was a Qs...he checked again...Here goes,
ne
> > last chance for the pot, was quite sure that he had a busted draw now...I
bet,
> > he called, shows me 9hTh to take the pot....hmm...note to self, never bluff
> > again at limit...
> >
> > Second thoughts: preflop positions with big pairs...AA, KK but maybe much
> > more QQ are probably better at MP than LP preflop....its hard to thin the
> > field
> > with a raise at the button if no one had raised before you...however, in
MP,
> > you
> > can raise any limpers, and people in later positions are more wary of
calling
> > 2
> > bets cold with creative hands, in case it gets raised again. Of course,
this
> > is
> > purely from a point of view of thinning the field, and I suppose its good
that
> > you can value raise with more people calling if you are in LP with a big
pair.
> >
> > I think my mind is too much set on NL, where having your big pairs cracked
can
> > be very expensive. Need to clear my mind on this when playing limit.
> >
> > Third; People will nearly always get odds for open-enders and flush
draws. You
> > cannot price them out, so just try to charge them as much as possible to
> > draw. If the hand is heads-up, betting with 2nd pair when in position on a
> > drawing board is not such a bad idea. You will sometime encounter a
> > check-raise, but most of the time you will be charging them to draw.
> >
> > Value betting with 2nd pair when its checked to you is probably not a good
> > idea,
> > although I am still not set on this one. Normal logic dictates that you
will
> > normally only get calls from a hand that will beat your 2nd pair, but I
have
> > seen calls with T high, bottom pairs etc. Maybe the pot has got so big
people
> > will call even with A or K high. I still haven't worked out why that T
high
> > called.
> >
> > Preliminarily conclusions: It is a bit like watching paint dry, and
certainly
> > a
> > lot less exciting (frightening?) than NL. You cannot hope to stack anyone
> > with
> > a decent hand, implied odds matter a lot less, and most actions are
mechanical
> > with little thoughts required as the odds would normally justify calling
will
> > marginal/drawing hands. I can see why people have starting hand charts
now.
> > It
> > is designed for this sort of games.
~ MysteriAce
"Ashes and diamonds
Foe and friend
We were all equal in the end"
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Dec 21:55:16
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
On Dec 5 2006 6:17 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
> On Dec 5 2006 8:05 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > Oh, BTW, before any wise-cracks out there saying that it should be a 'one
> > trick-donkey' rather than a 'one-trick pony, I would like to say that I
> > agree
> > with that one hundred percent.
>
> You actually HAVE a trick? :)
>
yes, and its sort of magical as well....Watch me make stack disappear before
your very eyes....
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:16:32
From: Old Wolf
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
Nick Wool wrote:
> Third; People will nearly always get odds for open-enders and flush draws. You
> cannot price them out, so just try to charge them as much as possible to
> draw.
Identify the table maniac. Then you can use him to price people
off their draws. For example, if you are to his right, then you bet
and he raises so everybody has to pay double to draw. Or if you
are to his left, then you raise when he bets (this has the added
benefit that you get to isolate on him).
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:11:26
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
Some of my thoughts put down in print where I do not have the patience
to put them down myself. All of the problems you have talked about I
encounter every time I play at the B&M casino in DETROIT.
The one main thing I have noticed that has helped me some is the
Check-raise not on the flop, but the turn and river where the bet has
doubled. People are very reluctant to bet that much if they are fairly
certian they are beat. This is of course advise for when you try to
take a pot down with a marginal hand and believe the other player is
drawing or weak. Just calling with a monster in late position and
check/calling in early position is a good way to profit big also
expecially if there are no obvious draws on the board.
Just my take.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:22:56
From: Howard Beale
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
On Dec 5 2006 8:00 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
One example;
> 5/10 limit game, 9 handed, 6s7s at button, 4 limpers ahead of me. Limped
along
> for the ride.
>
> Flop was 5h8dAh, 2 suited, but none of my suit. UTG led out, folds to me, I
> raised, blinds folded, UTG called. Turn Ks. UTG checked...I could either
check
> along for the free card, that's what the flop raise was about, right? But I
> decided to put him on a flush draw or second pair at best with the check, so
I
> bet with the intention of pushing him off at a blank river, and I might even
hit
> my open-ender...he called...river was a Qs...he checked again...Here goes, ne
> last chance for the pot, was quite sure that he had a busted draw now...I
bet,
> he called, shows me 9hTh to take the pot....hmm...note to self, never bluff
> again at limit...
He called you with 10 high, no pair, with you raising and betting? This
is online? I'd follow this guy around wherever he goes. That's unless
it's a typo and you meant to say he showed 8hTh.
I only play live and bluffing is part of my game. It's alot easier to do
live than I found it to be online.
Howard Beale
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 22:25:49
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
On Dec 5 2006 9:22 PM, Howard Beale wrote:
> On Dec 5 2006 8:00 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
> One example;
> > 5/10 limit game, 9 handed, 6s7s at button, 4 limpers ahead of me. Limped
> along
> > for the ride.
> >
> > Flop was 5h8dAh, 2 suited, but none of my suit. UTG led out, folds to me, I
> > raised, blinds folded, UTG called. Turn Ks. UTG checked...I could either
> check
> > along for the free card, that's what the flop raise was about, right? But I
> > decided to put him on a flush draw or second pair at best with the check, so
> I
> > bet with the intention of pushing him off at a blank river, and I might even
> hit
> > my open-ender...he called...river was a Qs...he checked again...Here goes,
> > ne
> > last chance for the pot, was quite sure that he had a busted draw now...I
> bet,
> > he called, shows me 9hTh to take the pot....hmm...note to self, never bluff
> > again at limit...
>
> He called you with 10 high, no pair, with you raising and betting? This
> is online? I'd follow this guy around wherever he goes. That's unless
> it's a typo and you meant to say he showed 8hTh.
>
> I only play live and bluffing is part of my game. It's alot easier to do
> live than I found it to be online.
>
>
>
>
> Howard Beale
Definitely 9T hearts with T high and no pair. I refrain from calling him a fish
because for all I know, he might have been playing me like a fiddle, and saw
through the bluff, and for the price of one more big bet....
I only know that if I were trying to buy this pot in NL, he would have to
have balls like iron to call a 3/4 pot to pot bet that I would put out.
Reraiseing me, of course, would be another matter....
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:59:07
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
David Nicoson wrote:
> Nick Wool wrote:
> > Preliminarily conclusions: It is a bit like watching paint dry, and certainly a
> > lot less exciting (frightening?) than NL. You cannot hope to stack anyone with
> > a decent hand, implied odds matter a lot less, and most actions are mechanical
> > with little thoughts required as the odds would normally justify calling will
> > marginal/drawing hands. I can see why people have starting hand charts now. It
> > is designed for this sort of games.
>
> A lot of the people I know that prefer limit think no-limit is like
> watching paint dry. A limit game presents a lot of decisions that
> matter just a bit, particularly regarding blind defense. That's more
> fun to some people.
>
> I think that the rhythm of NL is like baseball while the rhythm of
> limit is like soccer.
Limit is like boxing. Pot-limit is like wrestling. No-limit is like
Ultimate Fighting.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:03:01
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
On Tue, 05 Dec 06 15:00:01 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote:
>I suppose being a one trick pony gets a little boring, so I thought I would try
>to improve on my other aspects of poker. Before jumping in with OH and OH8,
>thought I would start with LHE.
>First thoughts; starting hands are much more important than NL, as it is next to
>impossible to push people off hands if they have any piece of the flop, and the
>implied odds you get are much more limited should you get lucky.
Starting hands are more important, but position is slightly less important (or
important in a different way). Hands like K9s, Q9s, J9s are generally playable,
whereas they'd be extremely dangerous to play in no limit. I play these from
anywhere unless the game is very active. It's important, though, to know
which players are going to bet and raise any top pair aggressively, and which
ones would pay you off with worse face-junk hands like Q5 and K7.
It's not so much that the hands are better or more likely to be best than in
NL, but the costs of being wrong are going to be smaller in limit. Also, being
a better player, you're going to be able to slow down the action when you're
behind and get more into the pot when you're ahead, so you will end up
winning showdowns with more marginal hands than you'd even play to
the river in NL.
>One example;
>5/10 limit game, 9 handed, 6s7s at button, 4 limpers ahead of me. Limped along
>for the ride.
>Flop was 5h8dAh, 2 suited, but none of my suit. UTG led out, folds to me, I
>raised, blinds folded, UTG called. Turn Ks. UTG checked...I could either check
>along for the free card, that's what the flop raise was about, right? But I
>decided to put him on a flush draw or second pair at best with the check, so I
>bet with the intention of pushing him off at a blank river, and I might even hit
>my open-ender...he called...river was a Qs...he checked again...Here goes, ne
>last chance for the pot, was quite sure that he had a busted draw now...I bet,
>he called, shows me 9hTh to take the pot....hmm...note to self, never bluff
>again at limit...
This is a reasonable place to bluff in limit. Just not to THAT guy. You don't
have to be successful very often at all for it to be profitable. I would have
contemplated simply checking the turn.
(If this guy was particularly sophisticated, he might have put you on exactly
the lower straight draw. My wild guess is that he was just a calling station,
though, and should be on your buddy list.)
>Second thoughts: preflop positions with big pairs...AA, KK but maybe much
>more QQ are probably better at MP than LP preflop....its hard to thin the field
>with a raise at the button if no one had raised before you...however, in MP, you
>can raise any limpers, and people in later positions are more wary of calling 2
>bets cold with creative hands, in case it gets raised again. Of course, this is
>purely from a point of view of thinning the field, and I suppose its good that
>you can value raise with more people calling if you are in LP with a big pair.
You don't necessarily care if the field is thinned. This is a myth. Even
though you win less often with a lot of callers, the more people call with
junk preflop, the higher your equity is relative to the other players. I
usually cap preflop and on the flop given the opportunity. Your aces
will be cracked, often. It won't cost much unless you keep driving
the action when it should be obvious you're PROBABLY beaten. On
the occasions when you're DEFINITELY beaten, you should dump the
hand, but this is not very common. Getting whipsawed between
two hands that beat you is the main situation where it is an expensive
mistake not to dump it.
>I think my mind is too much set on NL, where having your big pairs cracked can
>be very expensive. Need to clear my mind on this when playing limit.
>Third; People will nearly always get odds for open-enders and flush draws. You
>cannot price them out, so just try to charge them as much as possible to
>draw. If the hand is heads-up, betting with 2nd pair when in position on a
>drawing board is not such a bad idea. You will sometime encounter a
>check-raise, but most of the time you will be charging them to draw.
Check-raising when YOU can is also important. Try to be aware of when you
can chase people out with a check-raise, and whether this is likely to achieve.
Sometimes you are in a situation where you don't care if people call OR fold.
In that case get as much money in the pot as you can.
>Value betting with 2nd pair when its checked to you is probably not a good idea,
>although I am still not set on this one. Normal logic dictates that you will
>normally only get calls from a hand that will beat your 2nd pair, but I have
>seen calls with T high, bottom pairs etc. Maybe the pot has got so big people
>will call even with A or K high. I still haven't worked out why that T high
>called.
Value betting with thin value is very dependent on who you're playing. There
are players so bad you can value bet into them with ace high. Here is one
(rare) situation I value RAISED with ace high on the river in a three way
pot.
William Hill (£2/4), Christmas Eve last year, I don't have the hand history
because I was playing it on the family computer at home. I have AKs in the
SB, and it's capped five ways the betting from the small blind. I flop a
gutshot to broadway and the nut flush draw. The flop action is capped
three ways, driving the other two out. So is the turn, which puts two
suits on the board. I miss my draws on the river, too, and am left with
ace-high. The MP player is an almost solid player who has been
calling but not raising, and has been whipsawed between me and a later
MP player, who is an utter maniac who has been raising with nothing
on previous hands. I'm not going to drive them out with a bet. But
I think my ace high might be good against the maniac.
I check, the solid player checks, the maniac bets. I think the solid player
also has AK. So I RAISE. The solid player folds, and the maniac calls,
with king high. The solid player bitches me out because he did in fact
have AK (and the other flush draw) and was "entitled" to half the pot.
I post that partly as a brag, but partly because there are situations
like this that come up infrequently, but where an expert play can be
VERY profitable. When you can pay an extra bet for even a slight
chance at winning an entire pot instead of half of it, or bluffing a
very tight player to get to a showdown with a "showdown muppet"
who shows down lots of losing hands, it is a huge error to be stingy
with that bet.
>Preliminarily conclusions: It is a bit like watching paint dry, and certainly a
>lot less exciting (frightening?) than NL. You cannot hope to stack anyone with
>a decent hand, implied odds matter a lot less, and most actions are mechanical
>with little thoughts required as the odds would normally justify calling will
>marginal/drawing hands. I can see why people have starting hand charts now. It
>is designed for this sort of games.
About 95% of your hands are brainless hands that almost play themselves.
But there are lots of opportunities for deceptive play. One thing that occurs a
lot is you are in a situation where, effectively, one choice is as good as
another. You could call, or raise, and the EV is about identical. Randomize
those decisions if you recognize them. (And occasionally make "bad"
decisions if you're playing people who play more than mechanically, but
I see little reason to sacrifice much EV for unpredictability's sake when
you can get a lot of the same benefit without paying for it, though in
actuality, you don't know for a mathematical certainty when the EV is identical
in most cases anyway.)
Starting hand charts are also good in this game, and it's a good set of
training wheels to start playing. Just playing good starting hands in an
ABC way will make you money if you select good tables. But it won't
make you much.
It also won't give you a heart attack to have some asshole constantly
coming over the top of you and you have to decide whether or not to
call with some marginal bullshit, because the maniac does this with
all kinds of stuff, and your top pair is probably good. But of course
you won't profit as much from these maniacs.
I find my most profitable sessions in limit, though, are where I very
carefully pick a table, where the waiting lists are short enough I can
be selective about my seat and actually sit to target one or two very
loose ATM type players, and where I then get even marginally decent
hands to bust them with. You do not bust people in one hand in
this kind of game, but the ATM type players will slowly pay you off.
It can be just as satisfying to stack someone over the course of a
half-dozen hands as in one. And unlike NL, the idiot won't stack
you in a hand with a ridiculous suckout and then leave.
I'm not sure now is a great time to switch to limit, though it is
good practice. The caliber of player playing limit is much higher
than that of NL donks. If you can play 10,000 hands of 5/10
limit in this environment and show a reasonable profit at it,
I would say you are probably a pretty good poker player.
My main advice is stay away from tables full of grinders.
There's no profit at all there. You need at least one and
preferably two extremely loose players (although a table
full of merely slightly too loose unskilled players is also
marginally profitable).
If anyone knows where there are tables full of extremely loose
players like you find in B&M land, I'd be thrilled to hear it.
(And open to Americans of course.)
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:46:19
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
> It's not so much that the hands are better or more likely to be best than in
> NL, but the costs of being wrong are going to be smaller in limit. Also,
being
> a better player, you're going to be able to slow down the action when you're
> behind and get more into the pot when you're ahead, so you will end up
> winning showdowns with more marginal hands than you'd even play to
> the river in NL.
I direct you to a famous quote by yours truly:
"Kudos to limit players.....as you have WAY more patience than I do. Your
game is all about
percentages of bets, while my game is all about moving in with QQ on a
flop of AKx."
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:46:27
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Thoughts on limit
|
Nick Wool wrote:
> Preliminarily conclusions: It is a bit like watching paint dry, and certainly a
> lot less exciting (frightening?) than NL. You cannot hope to stack anyone with
> a decent hand, implied odds matter a lot less, and most actions are mechanical
> with little thoughts required as the odds would normally justify calling will
> marginal/drawing hands. I can see why people have starting hand charts now. It
> is designed for this sort of games.
A lot of the people I know that prefer limit think no-limit is like
watching paint dry. A limit game presents a lot of decisions that
matter just a bit, particularly regarding blind defense. That's more
fun to some people.
I think that the rhythm of NL is like baseball while the rhythm of
limit is like soccer.
|
|
