|
|
#101
04-03-2007, 08:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: An interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Didn't you say in one post you just started playing last fall? [/ QUOTE ]Rank and authority seems to appeal to you more than common sense. [/ QUOTE ]Say what? I'm just pointing out a player who (I believe) has only played for a few months making a comment to someone else who is really unknown to him that he is "still learning". It sounded funny. 
|
|
#103
04-03-2007, 08:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An interesting hand
Another question if someone can answer it: which pros or at least consistent players at high stakes have responded to this post? What is the consensus from them? (Sorry, I don't know who's who yet.)
|
|
#105
04-03-2007, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it would be different if blinds were .25/.50 or 1/2? Or is this just the way this hand should be played regardless (doesn't "depend" on anything)? [/ QUOTE ]It wouldn't be different because of any blind level. It has to do with the type of players sitting at the table.
|
|
#106
04-03-2007, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Completely shocking and very disappointing advice analysis from Sklansky. Betting it out is the standard play with the prime reason of building the pot. With six players looking at the flop, I am not going to fear that everybody is going to fold if I lead. [/ QUOTE ] What kind of hands will straight forward decent players put you on and then call your bet with that they wouldn't have raised pre-flop? [/ QUOTE ] Time to chime in... I have been thinking about this article in bits in pieces since I read it yesterday evening. Someone on here(I can't remember who) said that straightforward players would only call this flop with two-pair or better. Given this as truth, what value is there in betting the flop? The only hands that will call you are 33, 22, and 32s(maybe a 73 or 72 in the blinds). I guess you might also get a call from an OESD 65s, 54s, and A4s). This is a small part of all these cats' ranges. These are the only hands that you can get to make a mistake on this flop. The more I think about it the more I like the flop check. Having said that, I would have bet in real life... but that's because I'm not that good. There is a lot of talk in this thread about how DS isn't a fantastic NLHE player. I think it is pretty interesting that DS is throwing out "The hand is basic." A lot of people are chastising him for this and how he says "there is not another way to play it." Let's second level DS here. We know that he knows that poker is a highly dependent game with many variables yet he is throwing out these comments. If he is making a bold comment like this he probably feels very strongly about it. I don't think he would put something like that down in writing unless he felt supremely confident that it was indeed the only move. [/ QUOTE ] I think he created a very specific set of conditions with the real intention of saying "look, no everything 'depends'". Too often when discussing the play of a hand we say "it depends" when there are a lot of situations that when you take all the information really doesn't "depend" This hand was just a made up example of that. [/ QUOTE ] I agree.
|
|
#109
04-03-2007, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "far and few between" is the expression on english [/ QUOTE ]Thanks, I thought I got it wrong. English is my third language. [/ QUOTE ] No problem. What is your first and second? German and?
|
|
#110
04-03-2007, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Completely shocking and very disappointing advice analysis from Sklansky. Betting it out is the standard play with the prime reason of building the pot. With six players looking at the flop, I am not going to fear that everybody is going to fold if I lead. [/ QUOTE ] What kind of hands will straight forward decent players put you on and then call your bet with that they wouldn't have raised pre-flop? [/ QUOTE ] Time to chime in... I have been thinking about this article in bits in pieces since I read it yesterday evening. Someone on here(I can't remember who) said that straightforward players would only call this flop with two-pair or better. Given this as truth, what value is there in betting the flop? The only hands that will call you are 33, 22, and 32s(maybe a 73 or 72 in the blinds). I guess you might also get a call from an OESD 65s, 54s, and A4s). This is a small part of all these cats' ranges. These are the only hands that you can get to make a mistake on this flop. The more I think about it the more I like the flop check. Having said that, I would have bet in real life... but that's because I'm not that good. There is a lot of talk in this thread about how DS isn't a fantastic NLHE player. I think it is pretty interesting that DS is throwing out "The hand is basic." A lot of people are chastising him for this and how he says "there is not another way to play it." Let's second level DS here. We know that he knows that poker is a highly dependent game with many variables yet he is throwing out these comments. If he is making a bold comment like this he probably feels very strongly about it. I don't think he would put something like that down in writing unless he felt supremely confident that it was indeed the only move. [/ QUOTE ] I think he created a very specific set of conditions with the real intention of saying "look, no everything 'depends'". Too often when discussing the play of a hand we say "it depends" when there are a lot of situations that when you take all the information really doesn't "depend" This hand was just a made up example of that. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. [/ QUOTE ] And I think most of the issue here is that people haven't been able to step away from the tables they usually play at and consider all the factors given in the example. Betting the flop would be correct against weak players who don't think on multiple levels and call bets here with hands like 88/99.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
