[smokingrobot]

Man hell yeah, i love the 4-bet like a fat kid likes fatty fat fat stuff.

I was just gonna make a post about how i feel the 4-bet has gone outta style at the tables, everyone 4-bets all-in, but nobody 4-BETs, you know what i mean?

i was gonna pose the question - when are we 4-betting but not all in?

I think the 4-bet is solid gold.

But - What if i always 4-bet all in with JJ+

Think about Shania with this one too - My first 4-bet all in is with QQ say. Sheer luck its against a nit with J10s.
(That last statement is integral i think to our answer)

Next time I 4 bet all-in, I'm going to save it for my premium hands, AA, KK, AKs.

Now my 4-bet all in represent a wider range than just KK+ say.

What if i did it with JJ the first time? Is JJ too big a risk to 4-bet all in? I think Jacks are underestimated as a pocket pair personally, I go nuts with Jacks because Jacks are the nuts at these limits. I think people are overestimating their unmade connectors at this limit moreso than playing their pocket pairs hard. Does this include the TAGs? I'd have to go over my PT database, but recently I busted heads with my 99 against a TAG who 4-bet me all-in with AKo (i had a better read on the situation than it seems with only that last situation along with other metagame b.s. etcs)

Maybe at NL50 this is pointless to worry about. Against a TAG, would we be able to pull this off?

I think i still stand by the 4-bet vs the 4-bet all-in, but I would want to hear other people's thoughts on proper PF conditions that would warrant the 4-bet VS the 4-bet all in.

I hate to conclude with this, but it I think its 100% true: if you don't have a read on your opponent, that 4-bet is better than a 4-bet all in, you're saving some money. And by read, i mean more than just x/x/x numbers. I would want to see some showdown data on the mf'er.

seacrest out.