[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Philip, I was all sold on the idea of the full buy-in and now you go and make this long-winded and boring display of logorrhea to put me back on the fence! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But at risk of beating a dead horse, you don't have to choose one or the other. I think you should take occasional shots at deep-stack play. If you feel like you're making good decisions and are adequately bankrolled, keep going. If you have hands where you think you misplayed the later rounds, back off, post hands, analyze, ruminate, and grind a bit on shorter stacks until you feel solid again. That way you'll have the benefit of both kinds of feedback -- maybe you make a lot short stacked and marginally lose a little bit deep stacked -- and you can take pride in your progress while planning to address your deficiencies.

Matt,

Good catch, and I should have noticed that. This thread must have been from the "dead period" in the fall where I wasn't participating.

Pokey makes some good points and does so persuasively. But I don't see anywhere above, until your post, that someone calls any of his ideas into question. He's obviously a very gifted player and teacher, but we should be a little more skeptical and not take everything a good player says as though handed down on stone tablets from Sinai. Sure, as a newbie it's wise to trust those with experience. But we learn from discussing our points of disagreement.

Just as a loose end, here's one more critique of the OP: For every full house-versus-straight or quads-versus-full house or straight flush-versus-quads you can pull out where you wish you were deep stacked, you could just as easily be on the losing end and pay off deep stacked. That's relevant only inasmuch as a good player would get away from those losing hands. The FH-straight-two pair hand is interesting but only shows that bad players take two pair too far, which obviously will benefit good postflop players. I don't think you can assume that readers of this forum don't take two pair too far just because they read this forum, so the example is really irrelevant to the OP. If the river is the K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] instead of 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] then the T9 has limited how much he loses instead of how much he wins. How results oriented!

But regardless, I'm not saying anything new. This topic was already talked to death two months ago. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]