[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you get away from either MP3 or BB's hand post-flop when playing against an opponent with so little chips?
[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose that's the whole point! (?)
[/ QUOTE ]
YES! You get it!
---
And I can't find the relevant portion of the thread so I'll glom it on here. The question came up whether a typical 2+2er really understands NLHE enough that they should be playing deep stacks, or whether digging into deep stacks is the best way to start learning.
Well, not to pick on any individual (because I've certainly made similar misplays), but
this hand history is typical of what we do before we learn to adapt our play to effective stack sizes. We call reraises with QJs, hoping to get lucky, and forgetting to account for the fact that the reraiser has already stuck in 15% of her stack or more.
But if you play 20 BBL short stacks, you're only playing one stack size (yours). Then as you learn to do it properly, you learn a new size, somewhere around 40 BBL. Now you're playing mostly 40 BBL effective stacks with a few shorter ones. As you get better at adapting to those different stacks, you add in some 75 and 100 and even 150 and 200 BBL stacks when you get them.
Or, on the other hand, you can start out buying in 100 BBL deep to impress the cool kids on uSNL -- no kiddie poker for you, no sir -- and make poor plays because you keep forgetting that your
effective stack size varies from 0.5 BBL to 100 BBL or more.
Start out playing scales, keep practicing, and maybe one day you'll work your way to the
Rach 3. Or start out picking out the Rach 3 note by note because "baby piano" just isn't for you. Your choice.