another Schneids question
In the video he mentioned that he raises sixes under the gun but foldes fours under the gun. This statement got me thinking, they are basically the same hand so why raise one and not the other. I usually open raise all pairs 6 handed but this has me rethinking this line as they typically are hard to play. Just curious how most play the baby pairs in early position?
|
Re: another Schneids question
66>44
66 flops more overpairs/2nd pairs/etc... plays better vs hands that defend from blinds...gets counterfeited less. there are a bunch of reasons why 66>44. Now in todays online games where you get 3 bet by JTs and they fire 3 barrels it becomes very difficult to play 22-55 OOP. My UTG range is similar to Schneids. |
Re: another Schneids question
I just blindly follow stoxtrader's suggested ranges for every pos. He suggests 55 utg and 33 hj fwiw
|
Re: another Schneids question
[ QUOTE ]
I just blindly follow stoxtrader's suggested ranges for every pos. He suggests 55 utg and 33 hj fwiw [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it is strange that he suggests 33 in the hj when it loses money at that position, and he loses money with it. Start with 33 on the button and increase pair value by one for each place you move away from the button. This would make the minimum 66 for UTG in a six max. |
Re: another Schneids question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I just blindly follow stoxtrader's suggested ranges for every pos. He suggests 55 utg and 33 hj fwiw [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it is strange that he suggests 33 in the hj when it loses money at that position, and he loses money with it. Start with 33 on the button and increase pair value by one for each place you move away from the button. This would make the minimum 66 for UTG in a six max. [/ QUOTE ] how do you know what hands I win/lose with? are you assuming the stats in WITHG are mine? 33 certainly close - its a tweener for sure, and with 3 solid players left to act I think a fold is fine, or a fold is fine anyways, 44 I def. like as an open raise in the HJ. |
Re: another Schneids question
Why are we even discussing preflop in mid-high? Very simple street to play.
OP : I have your ATSB as 33%... but you raise 22 UTG? Maybe time to re-read SSH. |
Re: another Schneids question
Umm.. I actually did think the stats were yours. In fact I assumed most of the book was based around your play.
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I just blindly follow stoxtrader's suggested ranges for every pos. He suggests 55 utg and 33 hj fwiw [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it is strange that he suggests 33 in the hj when it loses money at that position, and he loses money with it. Start with 33 on the button and increase pair value by one for each place you move away from the button. This would make the minimum 66 for UTG in a six max. [/ QUOTE ] how do you know what hands I win/lose with? are you assuming the stats in WITHG are mine? 33 certainly close - its a tweener for sure, and with 3 solid players left to act I think a fold is fine, or a fold is fine anyways, 44 I def. like as an open raise in the HJ. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: another Schneids question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I just blindly follow stoxtrader's suggested ranges for every pos. He suggests 55 utg and 33 hj fwiw [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it is strange that he suggests 33 in the hj when it loses money at that position, and he loses money with it. Start with 33 on the button and increase pair value by one for each place you move away from the button. This would make the minimum 66 for UTG in a six max. [/ QUOTE ] how do you know what hands I win/lose with? are you assuming the stats in WITHG are mine? 33 certainly close - its a tweener for sure, and with 3 solid players left to act I think a fold is fine, or a fold is fine anyways, 44 I def. like as an open raise in the HJ. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, I did assume the stats in the book were yours. I apologize if my assumption was incorrect. |
Re: another Schneids question
i thought the high limits were stox and mid limits were zobags.
this is not true? |
Re: another Schneids question
I may be wrong but I think in the book thread he said none of the stats were his??
|
Re: another Schneids question
[ QUOTE ]
I may be wrong but I think in the book thread he said none of the stats were his?? [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: another Schneids question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I may be wrong but I think in the book thread he said none of the stats were his?? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] He may have said that in a thread, but I think it is a natural assumption to make. I love the book and consult it daily. But some things just differ from my assumptions. For example, when advice is given and then you see several pages of charts, my assumption is that using the scientifice method one could test the advice against the actual recorded results and see that this is indeed the most profitable way to play in that situation. It confuses me when it is not. |
Re: another Schneids question
Am I the only one that thought those are his stats? Maybe with some of Jeff's thrown in there. But his statement "how do you know what hands I play and why would you think those are my stats?" took me by surprise. This almost sounds like "Don't be silly no way I would play like this book says" I think I must be taking his post the wrong way.
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I may be wrong but I think in the book thread he said none of the stats were his?? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] He may have said that in a thread, but I think it is a natural assumption to make. I love the book and consult it daily. But some things just differ from my assumptions. For example, when advice is given and then you see several pages of charts, my assumption is that using the scientifice method one could test the advice against the actual recorded results and see that this is indeed the most profitable way to play in that situation. It confuses me when it is not. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: another Schneids question
the stats for High are definitely his. if you read the book very carefully it becomes completely obvious. he's just kidding around.
|
Re: another Schneids question
[ QUOTE ]
the stats for High are definitely his. if you read the book very carefully it becomes completely obvious. he's just kidding around. [/ QUOTE ] His response does not sound like a person kidding around. In fact, it sounds as though he is offended that someone would believe those to be his stats. |
Re: another Schneids question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] the stats for High are definitely his. if you read the book very carefully it becomes completely obvious. he's just kidding around. [/ QUOTE ] His response does not sound like a person kidding around. In fact, it sounds as though he is offended that someone would believe those to be his stats. [/ QUOTE ] i can't read stox's mind of course, only his book [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. by "kidding around" i meant that he doesn't mean to seriously imply these are not his stats. i'm kinda surpised so many people actually thought they might not be. |
Re: another Schneids question
I don't know why it's such an issue for him. I kind of assumed they were his stats too of course as seems only natural.
But he has vehemntly denied in several threads including in books-pubs forum that the high-stakes player's stats are not necessarily his. This hasn't been just a one-time playful denial from Stox. It seems to genuinely bother him that people make the assumption that they are definitely his stats. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.