Can an abc predictable preflop player beat 100-200?

[Peter_rus]

[ QUOTE ]
If I played 100% predictably and simultaneously perfect game theoretical limit poker, is that exploitable? Is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's possible to find perfect game theoretical limit poker for more than 2 players on a table- then yes it will be unexploitable (I've read that guys in Alberta finded estimation of equilibrium strategy for limit HU). But i believe this strategy is very far from ABC. btw - seeking it is actually unpractical cause even though it's unexploitable it's not optimal (not gaining maximum EV) against any line up.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats the whole point. It IS flawless and unexploitable. The people that are exploitable are the laggy's that are making donkey plays getting caught with there pants down. When they are making donkey plays they are hands that are not profitable from the positions they are playing them. They think they can overcome this by "outplaying" the opponent postflop. Maybe they can maybe they can't. That is the argument isn't it? I say they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're suggesting that the ability of other players in the pot isn't a contributing factor to the range of hands that are profitable to play?

[DpR]

[ QUOTE ]

If I played 100% predictably and simultaneously perfect game theoretical limit poker, is that exploitable? Is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

This fairly accurately describes how I attempr to approach to the game as a multitabler. IMO, it is not exploitable (to the extent I could perfect it).

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
It always bugs me when players complain about losing when they had "the best hand." No. Wrong. Whoever has the best hand at the end wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It is funny to hear a guy complaining about having his AA outdrawn by say TT on the flop. The fact is that the guy with TT could also complain (if he didn't flop a set) that he got outdrawn preflop. I mean, it's not like the guy with AA used his vast experince and poker savvy to have AA dealt to him.

[skp]

Mike, I am not sure if you were disagreeing with me or just posting an add-on comment. My only point was that ABC poker with a dash of decption was all you needed to beat the 50-100 games because most games usually had a player or two that who were playing poorly. In the 2p2 games, presumably, no one was a poor player. So, ABC ain't gonna get the job done there.

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a good thought. There are, essentially, two types of player who play different (that is, non-ABC) from the crowd: the great and the dismal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'll buy that. Which is why I consider myself to be ABC (again, I stress with a dash of deception). I also don't consider it one bit disparaging when someone else calls me ABC. In any game that I have played in, it has been more than enough to bring home the bacon.

[Peter_rus]

[ QUOTE ]

Interesting post. Couldnt miss not to post there.I want to disagree with Pete Sometimes abc is good just to change gears or vs certain opponents (not neccesary fish).

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't see a point of disagreement. Changing gears is equal to "mix it up" and "unpredictability" at least in my mind. It's ok when ABC is a part of you mixed strategy - it's not ok when it's the only strategy you play.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
How and why pete? If i'm getting it in with the best of it how wil i lose? they are the ones spewing in with the worst of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise in the hijack with AJo. CO 3bets. blinds fold, you call. Flop comes Q94r. Now what?

[andyfox]

I'm with you, I'm the same type of player. Part of it, I'm sure, is that I have far less gamble in me than the more adventurous types. So if I lose one session and win the next, my numbers, in the 40-80 game, might look like -$600, $1200, net +600, whereas a better player would have, sitting in my seat, perhaps gone -$900, $1800, net +900.

Sklanksy's analogy with sports, I think, is apt. You don't have to be a scrath golfer to do well. You can shoot 80 because there are plenty of 90 shooters. I simply don't have the talent to be a 70 shooter at the poker table, so to attempt some of the things that the 70 shooters attempt (and succeed at) would be -EV for me.

[Abbaddabba]

I think more often it's a matter of not recognizing a marginal difference between 3betting or folding; raising or calling; folding or raising, etc.

The 40/25/1 hijack opens and you have A10off on the button. A lot of people say, Duh - that's a standard 3bet. Other people say, no - the correct thing to do is fold.

When you think it's the right move, it becomes "abc" to you.