[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a few thoughts while rereading this chapter.

1. Win money, not pots. I often get conflicting thoughts with this when I think about open raising hands like pps and Axs and so forth from MP or LP. I remember reading something in the little green book where Phil talks about if he had raised PF, he wouldn't have won near the money he did as the other guy would have probably folded his suited trash (the flush hit for both of them). I know the pros of raising and so forth as well....I just think it's an interesting paradox.

2. You talk about big pots vs. small pots. However, we don't really define where the line is there. I'm assuming we want to stay away from making the pot over 4 times the remaining smallest stack and folding since that's the committment threshold. However, what size do you think you would call a small stack? You give an example of a $65 and $485 behind and call that small; however, I was thinking that was starting to become a decent size pot.

3. I've been thinking about the AA hand and how the "best" result is not to get all in but rather to have him raise some crazy amount and then fold. So, the concept there is that when you're opponent is getting odds to draw, you want them to call either way; however, you make more money when he folds. When your opponent is drawing and does not have odds, you prefer him to call cuz you make more money that way, but when he folds you make money as well. I think I have that straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find that I have a tendency to play for pots too much as well. Now that I have admitted it to myself I can solve the problem.



Also, I was curious about where the blurry line is when it comes to big pot vs. small pot. Are we saying once 1/3 of the smallest stack goes in we are big pot world?