[xxrod17xx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This brings a question into my mind of how much do you rely on SPR's? It seems as though Qtip hasn't managed to get near his favorable/target SPR so he almost playing the hand like walking on eggshells.

Is this the correct thing to do? Does REM take over at any point? (Take over is perhaps the wrong word). Against the range of the villain here, we're ahead of the vast majority of his range, and can get excellent value out of over pairs TT-QQ, should we not bet because we've got a high SPR?

On one hand, I see exactly what Qtip is saying with dealing with a c/r, puts you in an awful situation, according to SPR you played it right.

On the other hand (without being results orientated) REM says you probably left a hell of a lot of value on the table which may have paid you off.

Seems like they are working 'against' each other (yes, I know the principles aren't meant to be direct comparisons, just two separate tools).

- Confused and trying to learn, don't flame me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peleus:

Well...I see what you're saying, and my answer would be summed up in one type of concept.

You don't think about what his range is but rather what his range is if you get all in. I mean, as sunny has said and others here, if his range is only pps here and he's the type to get in 11 times the pot with an overpair, my line blows something fierce.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do understand this concept of what his range is when the money gets in, but are we going to get all-in every pot? I know I am missing something here. Aren't you missing out on value in smaller pots with crappy SPR's? Idk the more this thread goes on the more I learn about the concepts in this book, but this is not clicking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats half my thinking as well.

But then I also know Qtips reply will be along the lines of you shouldn't be going past the commitment threshold of putting 10% of your stack in, without being committed to the hand. On the flip side you should be trying to get all in if you are committed, and welcoming aggression. I think he is correct in this as well.

I think this is actually a good example the more I think about it of a well played hand based around commitment, and deciding if you are committed or not, rather then trying to do an in between line of yeah get some value but what do I do if he pushes. Well done Qtip on that point.

As another interesting note, we're saying here that Qtip played well as he is planning around commitment, and playing slower as he has an awkward SPR. On the flip side we're saying the villain played poorly, why is that? Isn't the villain facing the same problems? Bar 3 betting the flop to achieve a lower SPR in the first place, isn't the villain also playing 'correctly' on these principles? Surely the possibility or having AA above us shouldn't change the way we play the hand dramatically between the two.

I would absolutely love and appreciate Sunny's opinion on how he would play AA in this situation, and how you can balance out REM / SPR's to try and maximize overall value (I know he commented briefly before). Even if he tell's me I'm totally off the concepts in his book.

- Peleus

[/ QUOTE ]

Using all this with the commitment threshold clears everything up for me. Thanks so much.