Comment on Greenstein Rating

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
People in the game I play in would likely be able to beat the games most people play in without looking at their cards until after the flop (if their opponents didn't know).

Barry

For the record, I dispute that as long as we are talking ring games 15-30 or above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if the right crew of big game players will play straight hold'em with Jennifer, she will promise to take every flop. She calls it Jen hold'em. I don't think she's had a losing session at it.

Many years ago, on evenings when the big no limit hold'em game in Northern California wasn't available, I used to do this in the second biggest game. It forced me to take flops and feel out what people were doing. Actually, if I sensed my opponent was weak, I wouldn't look at my cards until the unlikely event that I was called on the river. I had no problem beating the game. It used to look like a magic trick when I would check raise my opponent on the turn or river and show my goofy hand.

Phil Ivey plays pot limit Omaha intending to play almost every flop. This last WSOP, check the hand records: he told me his missed out on ten flops then entire final table and won the event. These occasional folds only happened because it was raised and reraised in front of him.

One of Phil's training techniques is to play low limit and try to win every hand. He feels it teaches him how to bluff more effectively. (When his book comes out, that should be interesting!)

The point is, part of playing at the next level is playing poker without regard to your cards. I haven't had a chance to look at Dan's books yet, but he played poker when he raised with 6-2 offsuit last year knowing that his opponents would fold. I have occasionally been in situations where I knew I could raise the correct amount to make my opponents fold, but I had to check to see if my hand was strong enough that I had to do something to make them call instead.

Barry

[bobdibble]

[MicroBob]

This post is as fascinating as some of the best stuff in your book.
I find some of this stuff truly incredible....yet I actually believe it of course.

THIS truly drives home the idea of a 'next level' of play (or in my case...about 23 levels higher) that is out there.

[Ryan Beal]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is as fascinating as some of the best stuff in your book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That was a very interesting post, Greenstein. It reminds me of why I ultimately enjoyed your book. Perhaps someone can con you into writing more in the future.

[MicroBob]

I was just perusing through some of the interesting articles in the July edition of the 2+2 internet-magazine (upper-left corner on the green bar) and then was thinking about Barry's post about 'Jen Holdem' and 'Ivey aggression' and it occured to me, "Wouldn't it be great if Barry wrote regular articles around here?"


Not sure if Barry has the interest to do that. He already has his blog afterall (and I hear that he plays occasioally too!!)
But I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who would absolutely love it if ideas and stories like those from his last post or 'tales from the "big" game' appeared in a regular article in the 2+2 mag.


On top of that, 2+2 is paying $200 per article!!
So in a little over 4 years of writing an article every month Barry will have earned an extra BB for the big-game at the Bellagio (by which time, the 'big' game might be 'bigger' than 4k/8k anyway for all we know).


Obviously the $200/article part isn't an incentive for Barry.
But if he is interested in posting his thoughts around here in article form every once in awhile there would most certainly be a crowd of 2+2'ers happily taking in every word.


(speaking of the internet-mag...Mason's 80/160 diamond-flush hand made for very interesting reading imo. NH!! haven't read David's 2-7 lowball article yet)

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, if the right crew of big game players will play straight hold'em with Jennifer, she will promise to take every flop. She calls it Jen hold'em. I don't think she's had a losing session at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'd like to invite Jen to play "Jen Hold 'em" in the Party 30/60 games. If she got these mad poker skillz, let us all see them. Then we'd have documented proof of how good she is. Personally, I think she'd get killed trying to do that.

[royaltrux]

I am no where as experienced as you so take this for what it is. You totally missed the whole point of what Barry was talking about. He was talking about a live situation where you have a lot more information due to physical mannerisms to the strength of your opponent.

Live and online are two different beasts. If you are want to play Jen go to FullTilt. I've seen her there a bunch of times. They just started hand histories so you can "kill" her as you say and post it for us all to admire.

Sorry for the sarcasm.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
You totally missed the whole point of what Barry was talking about. He was talking about a live situation where you have a lot more information due to physical mannerisms to the strength of your opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry's comment about "Jen Hold 'em" was silly, she would get killed playing that way against any table that included a mix of good opponents. The "proof" of that is she always wins, nobody always wins at hold 'em. She could get away with that only in the most loose/passive games, in those games you don't need to read tells, you just need to be able to read hands.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are want to play Jen go to FullTilt. I've seen her there a bunch of times. They just started hand histories so you can "kill" her as you say and post it for us all to admire.


[/ QUOTE ]

Does she play "Jen Hold 'em" on Full Tilt? If so, I may take you up on the offer. I'm certainly not saying I play better than Jen or Barry. I am saying I think anybody that saw 100% of the flops in a reasonably difficult game is going to be a big loser. I picked Party 30/60 because I'm most familiar with it and perhaps because it would be to my benefit $$$ wise.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for the sarcasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

thatsalright.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
She could get away with that only in the most loose/passive games, in those games you don't need to read tells, you just need to be able to read hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is she'd have a tougher time beating those games than the "tougher" ones, only because nobody lays down a pair for anything. Without the option to bluff, her win rate pretty much would be dependent on value-betting, and when she has to play every single one of her hands . . .

I'm not a pro, but I have a hunch that in some ways that'd be a tough game to crack.

[royaltrux]

I hate to admit this but I read Play Poker Like the Pros and Hellmuth said that Ted Forrest did a experiment where he played every hand besides 3 of a kind in O8 for a long extended period of time and came out of it ahead.

He admitted that he couldn't do it and didn't recommend it but said Ted had accomplished it.

Who knows.