WTF is with WPEX 2/4 and 3/6 players??

[ewile]

I started a thread similar to this yesterday in this forum. I guess mine sounded a bit more whiney and pathetic, but I pretty much got ridiculed. So at least I feel validated in knowing that other people are having a tough time with these games.

I'm playing on Party now [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Allday Everyday]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mjkidd I agree with what you said as long you meant BPBK instead of TPGK.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Oh, also strong A highs. I didn't want to give away all my secrets...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'll have to look into the virtues of calling. I'm still playing raise or fold against these players. Thanks for the advice guys. I know I have to change my play some way. The players there just aren't good players (at least not in the traditional sense). No sense in playing as if they are I suppose.

[Allday Everyday]

[ QUOTE ]
The players are very aggressive, and aggression masks alot of other flaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean to say that a player's aggression makes up for a lot of other flaws in that player's game? That is, aggression is the skill to have sometimes? Perhaps I was wrong to call these players bad? This 'bad' style is actually good in certain games?

Could it be that while most of these WPEX players obviously lack an understanding of all the poker skills (and noone will change my opinion on this), they are actually, incidentally, playing winning poker against the TAG schooled players??

This would explain both the appalling beats and the dramatic downswings I and others here have experienced exclusively at WPEX.

[mjkidd]

I guess I mean that a very aggressive player is a lot harder to play against than a loose, weak, passive player. A loose, passive player is going to have to get very lucky to take your money; a loose, aggressive player can win when you fold, or when you pay off his strong hands every street with a weak hand. He's in control of the hand, and if he's undaunted by your raises, he's going to stay in control of the hand. His aggression makes him unpredicatible, which is always valuable in poker.

I think that some of the very aggressive WPEX players are skilled, and that makes them tough to play against. Most of them are one-trick ponies though. They are betmonkeys. If you check to them, they will bet. If they are first to act, they will bet. A lot of them have preflop standards, but once they enter a pot, they will bet bet bet. If you raise them with middle pair and they have nothing, they will fold. If you're behind, they'll three bet. You can't fold middle pair most of the time against these guys, so often calling every street with a marginal hand is the best line to take against these guys. It goes against the tight, aggressive philosophy that most people associate with "solid poker," but often meeting aggression with aggression is not the best strategy.

[Allday Everyday]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I mean that a very aggressive player is a lot harder to play against than a loose, weak, passive player. A loose, passive player is going to have to get very lucky to take your money; a loose, aggressive player can win when you fold, or when you pay off his strong hands every street with a weak hand. He's in control of the hand, and if he's undaunted by your raises, he's going to stay in control of the hand. His aggression makes him unpredicatible, which is always valuable in poker.

I think that some of the very aggressive WPEX players are skilled, and that makes them tough to play against. Most of them are one-trick ponies though. They are betmonkeys. If you check to them, they will bet. If they are first to act, they will bet. A lot of them have preflop standards, but once they enter a pot, they will bet bet bet. If you raise them with middle pair and they have nothing, they will fold. If you're behind, they'll three bet. You can't fold middle pair most of the time against these guys, so often calling every street with a marginal hand is the best line to take against these guys. It goes against the tight, aggressive philosophy that most people associate with "solid poker," but often meeting aggression with aggression is not the best strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you say here makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks a lot for the advice. I'm sure there are other things I must change about my WPEX game, but 'calling more' will be a good start.

I believe my problems at WPEX have been exacerbated by my recent inablity to use PT and PAHUD there. I generally 5 or 6 table and don't get to pay the attention I'd like to. If I had stats on these jokers I think I'd have known to call down more...

[mjkidd]

Whenever you're having trouble with your game, no matter what site, reducing the number of tables you're playing is a great start to fixing your game. Just play one or two table and really try to concentrate on the action. No browsing 2+2, no porn, just poker.

Also, don't overdo the calling. Betting and raising still has it's place as well.

[Ricks]

IIRC, GameTime+ works there or you could use PT's GameTime. Do you have PT set up to automatically request HHs?

On second thought, I have my doubts whether PT's GameTime would work in this situation.

[BenA]

After playing at WPX for two weeks, I can safely say the style is unlike anything I've ever seen. But fortunately, I have not been the victim of 2 and 3 outers as much as many here seem to be. I agree with mjkidd, calling becomes a weapon (maybe not with TPTK), but with lots of hands you might raise/fold in smallish pots, because you've seen this particular opponent three-bet PF with T7s. Actually, I've just kind of broken even, but the rakeback is wonderful. I'm trying to adjust as well, but I really do think most 2+2 principles apply. The main thing is just to recognize what kind of situation you've gotten yourself into. If you raise with AQo PF and get 3-bet by some crazy who just loves to isolate, you are in for a ride. But if you hit anything, they are destined to pay you off with their agression.

Basically I want to say this: opponents put their money into pots for various reasons like value, folding opponents, calling to draws, thinking they might have the best hand. When you come across a smart and agressive but ignorant opponent who consitently bets primarily for fold equity and will 3-bet all your decent hands, c/c becomes theoretically correct, especially HU on bigger streets. Let them pay you, and don't sweat the bad beats.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe my problems at WPEX have been exacerbated by my recent inablity to use PT and PAHUD there. I generally 5 or 6 table and don't get to pay the attention I'd like to. If I had stats on these jokers I think I'd have known to call down more...

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're losing to them because, "...they're the worst players on the net," right?

Too bad there isn't a special forum for these whine threads...

[Allday Everyday]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're losing to them because, "...they're the worst players on the net," right?

Too bad there isn't a special forum for these whine threads...

[/ QUOTE ]

With respect, did you really read the thread??

From my original post...

[ QUOTE ]
[I've been on a downswing]...But I'm not here to bitch about that. I know full well poker players make money off other player's mistakes and, truth be known, I probably need to adapt my style of play for these unusual players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm losing to them because they're the worst players on the net? Er, no. Part of the reason I've been losing is because my game has serious flaws. I said that throughout the thread.

My post may not have had much content, but it spawned a half-interesting strategy discussion. Well, maybe it wasn't half-interesting. However, I learnt something.

If you had actually read the thread, you'd have realised this.