|
|
#21
04-12-2006, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
I don't think instantly leaving the table is a bad strategy.
Obviously if there is someone there who is absolutely terrrrrible then leaving is extremely weak. If it is just a standard table i don't see any problem with leaving. I wish i left and opened up a new table more often than i do. 
|
|
#22
04-12-2006, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to hear a little about how he decided what "straightforward" play means. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe "systematic" is a better term, but that implies rigidity, which is not good. They are definitely flexible and they do make reads. But their overall strategy is systematic, similar to your guidelines for hand raising ranges. They have simply expanded it to almost the entire level of play. A lot of it has to do with the fact that they seem know most of the +EV spots and exploit them. For example, if you raise in LP and get one caller and they check to you, with a 70% of pot cbet, you will win roughly x% of the time, depending on the board texture. This is a +EV sit, and they bet it almost every time, certain scary boards being the exceptions. There are many of these +EV sits, and they seem to have identified almost everyone and exploit them without fail. This also falls under my comment of mistake free poker. If you check in a +EV sit without a read, it is a mistake, which they rarely do. In regards to the question of bluffing, that simply falls under the defiinition of +EV sits. However, they don't tend to bluff everywhere you would by playing FPS. They tend to bluff in the most +EV sits, so again, somewhat systematic. [ QUOTE ] A large part of mistake free poker is making plays. Of course, "making plays" is very very broadly defined. [/ QUOTE ] When I say "making plays", I mean that they rarely make bluffs outside of the defined +EV situations. They make plays, but rarely in -EV situations. However, someone who is playing just a few tables, and has a very good read on an opponent, can make that same play in an otherwise -EV situation, and it be +EV because of their read. [ QUOTE ] so it breaks down to finding that perfect number of tables where you will achieve the highest $/hr.. im not really sure what yer getting at. holla [/ QUOTE ] What I am getting at is most of the focus of the forums tends to be on reads, not a systematic approach to winning on as many tables as possible. Yet the players who pull the most do the latter... [ QUOTE ] to say that you don't want to talk about ptbb/100 when you're talking about "winning the most" makes no sense. [/ QUOTE ] No, I am saying that the player with the highest PTBB is no where near the largest money winner. It is the players with the most hands and a decent PTBB who are winning the most. So my comment meant that I am not looking for the person who can extract the most from a few tables, rather the player who can extract the most overall. And with the exception of a single player, it is always those who play as many hands as possible while maintaining a decent PTBB that win the most. And of them, most seem to run a fairly systematic approach. It is really just common sense, the more tables, the less your reads, so you need to compensate somewhere if you are still going to win. And I think they are accomplishing that by identifying as many +EV sits as possible and exploiting every one while playing as close to mistake free poker as possible. If this is true, then I am just curious why there is very little to no focus or discussion on this approach.
|
|
#23
04-12-2006, 03:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
[ QUOTE ]
If this is true, then I am just curious why there is very little to no focus or discussion on this approach. [/ QUOTE ] It is. Analyzing all the hands with no reads is directly akin to this. Discussing "how to play multiple tables" isn't exactly an interesting discussion.
|
|
#24
04-12-2006, 03:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
[ QUOTE ]
It is. Analyzing all the hands with no reads is directly akin to this. [/ QUOTE ] Yes and no. Yes it is because hands without reads are part of the equation. No it isn't because discussing a specific hand does not define the overall equation. [ QUOTE ] Discussing "how to play multiple tables" isn't exactly an interesting discussion. [/ QUOTE ] No it's not. But with the right focus, the results of the discussion would carry far greater value than any single hand analysis.
|
|
#25
04-12-2006, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It is. Analyzing all the hands with no reads is directly akin to this. [/ QUOTE ] Yes and no. Yes it is because hands without reads are part of the equation. No it isn't because discussing a specific hand does not define the overall equation. [ QUOTE ] Discussing "how to play multiple tables" isn't exactly an interesting discussion. [/ QUOTE ] No it's not. But with the right focus, the results of the discussion would carry far greater value than any single hand analysis. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps we could come up with many common-ish scenarios and we could have a few threads talking about ABC poker, and we could come to some consensus about what the default plays in each spot would be...an "ABC Poker Playbook" of sorts. This seems to be what you're looking for, no ? KoW
|
|
#26
04-12-2006, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It is. Analyzing all the hands with no reads is directly akin to this. [/ QUOTE ] Yes and no. Yes it is because hands without reads are part of the equation. No it isn't because discussing a specific hand does not define the overall equation. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. Furthermore, I suppose it's silly to say that they have "no reads," since I'm sure they pick some up, even when 10 tabling. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Discussing "how to play multiple tables" isn't exactly an interesting discussion. [/ QUOTE ] No it's not. But with the right focus, the results of the discussion would carry far greater value than any single hand analysis. [/ QUOTE ] I just have a problem thinking about how to even begin said discussion. Just talk about overall style? Talk about focus? If you've got any ideas, feel free to start the thread, or put them here so somebody else might start it. I only play 4 tables, so I don't really know how much I would really be able to contribute.
|
|
#27
04-12-2006, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we could come up with many common-ish scenarios and we could have a few threads talking about ABC poker, and we could come to some consensus about what the default plays in each spot would be...an "ABC Poker Playbook" of sorts. This seems to be what you're looking for, no ? KoW [/ QUOTE ] God forbid the fish get their hands on such a playbook. Although, if one were feeling ambitious (and had enough respect to get it published/distributed) a straightforward guidebook to playing SSNL-MSNL could probably make a lot of money these days. But as I depend on the fish for my income, I hope nobody does that anytime soon.
|
|
#28
04-12-2006, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we could come up with many common-ish scenarios and we could have a few threads talking about ABC poker, and we could come to some consensus about what the default plays in each spot would be...an "ABC Poker Playbook" of sorts. This seems to be what you're looking for, no ? [/ QUOTE ] I'm not looking for anything. I already know the scenarios. My question was really just an observation that there is little to no discussion on general +EV sits, which I thought was peculiar.
|
|
#29
04-12-2006, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
[ QUOTE ]
My question was really just an observation that there is little to no discussion on general +EV sits, which I thought was peculiar. [/ QUOTE ] Feel free to start some. The MSNL playbook would be sweet, but would also require a LOT of effort, that I don't think many (any?) people have the time/drive to do.
|
|
#30
04-12-2006, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Perhaps we could come up with many common-ish scenarios and we could have a few threads talking about ABC poker, and we could come to some consensus about what the default plays in each spot would be...an "ABC Poker Playbook" of sorts. This seems to be what you're looking for, no ? KoW [/ QUOTE ] God forbid the fish get their hands on such a playbook. Although, if one were feeling ambitious (and had enough respect to get it published/distributed) a straightforward guidebook to playing SSNL-MSNL could probably make a lot of money these days. But as I depend on the fish for my income, I hope nobody does that anytime soon. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. It's all in here though. It's fairly common to see posters such as ameoba, soah, big jim, and many others who fully explain their thought processes to say: ... Against an unkown my default here is X, but in this situation I think Y is better because... Perhaps it would be fun and insightful to catalog hands with responses such as this for a while and make your own personal playbook. I would hate for it to get published though! Greg - I didn't mean to imply that you need of this info yourself :-)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
