Re: WA/WB? All The Time!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The ironic thing about making a thread that people see WA/WB in too many places is when they aren't anywhere.

Hand 1, is WA/WB.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many hands that are not going to play perfectly in the Sklansky sense in hand 1. Taking a passive line will loose value in many (most?) situations. Only against a habitual bluffer is this WA/WB.

Re: WA/WB? All The Time!
 

I didn't say you'd play it the same way every time. I just said it was mathematically WA/WB.

Re: WA/WB? All The Time!
 

There are times (certain types of opponents/action) when you'll play hand one as WA/WB. There are also times when you'll play a bit more aggresively. In general though, you shouldn't be using a WA/WB type line with this hand.

Re: WA/WB? All The Time!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Given that, I still don't think #1 applies, because hands that are behind will still pay off. KK and QQ aren't going anywhere, AK and AQ will probably peel one, and even TT-88 (or even lower) might still think they have the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah the more I think about it the more I think this is right (except against a few very passive villains). In a sense you are WA/WB but I agree it's pretty useless to say "You're WA/WB but shouldn't take a WA/WB line."

Re: WA/WB? All The Time!
 

The 1st hand is WA/WB though you might not want to play it as such since worse hands will payoff. Then again you might get a hand like 87s to bluff by playing it WA/WB so you never know. A better example might be something like...

You raise A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and a reasonable player calls in the BB. The flop comes down

J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

And he check/calls. If the turn is the

J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

You should seriously consider going into WA/WB mode.

Re: WA/WB? All The Time!
 

You should seriously write a book. You've already got the flop and turn descriptions in the classic 2+2 style, except you're using just the value/suit instead of the whole card.

I'd demonstrate it if I had the special modpowers to use a <center> tag.