[LandonM]

[ QUOTE ]


What you call stylistic I call contrary to the advise in Sklansky on Razz. To date that is the most spot on book about any poker game I have read, he nailed 3rd street so well there is no need to deviate from the recommended course.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Two things.

1) The play very well may be contrary to what a book says (even Sklansky on Razz!)

2) You don't seem to understand that calling 3rd in this situation isn't a gesture of "passivity" (since you keep calling it "tight passive"). It is a trap, meant to mask a monster hand and to elicit more action.

Juicing the pot early on in order to have the 'proper odds' to call another street is a reasonable philosophy for people who lack sufficient right brain skills to deviate from "standard play" in certain situations.
Here, even in spite of the pot odds, calling 3rd to obtain better action would indeed imply a degree of "tactical commitment" to the pot even if you bricked on 4th.

Sometimes, I forget that all poker players are, fundamentally, either creative or procedural in nature. While creative players can be aware of the proper procedural plays and act in spite of them, procedural players are usually stymied by the creative play, since their methodology is functionally rigid.

Again, let me address the three critical precepts that you don't seem to be getting which warrant a call in this very specific situation.

1) Welcoming action while holding a monster. Implied Odds.
2) Masking your monster hand. Deception.
3) Establishing the ability to bluff paired 2's and A's in the event of a brick, without telling your opponent on 3rd that's what you have.

For the rest of my life, I wish nothing more than to have ABC gamers to my table. Their play is infinitely manipulatable and they're easily deceived, and the beauty of it is, they just don't know it (and they never will)
I know precisely what they're doing (because I've read the books too), but they have absolutely no idea what I'm doing.