An interesting hand

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
one question RE: the title of the article. If "it doesnt always depend" then why did D.S. have to outline such a specific set of parameters?

[/ QUOTE ]Because the point he's trying to make is that a lot of players act contrary to the parameters that have been set up by the situation they are in, and do so without a good reason. In a sense, he has put up a test to see how many people will recognize that a certain set of parameters basically limits our options as to how a hand can be most profitably played. He is saying, once you are constrained by the playing style of your opponents, stack sizes, etc. it no longer depends, and these situations DO occur in poker.

I'll also add that I think a lot of the problem here is that that most of us are not used to playing with "decent, straightfoward" players, so we struggle with that parameter a bit. We are used to dealing with "crummy, nonsensical" players at the lower levels and "excellent, tricky" players at the higher levels.

I'm willing to bet (a small sum, though [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) that the average 5/10 B&M game probably plays a lot like what he's describing.

[/ QUOTE ]

the 5/10 i played at the bellagio in december played like 100NL at best. Although im sure the games david plays in are much tougher than the public games filled w/ tourists that i played in. I agree with what you're saying i just think the article could have been worded better. People do invent reasons to take non-standard lines too often, but a lot of times there are legitimate reasons to play a hand differently, and in the case of the hand in question, its not at all uncommon for table conditions to dictate a different line than he suggests.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
That would be a different deal.

But really the games I play are much more similar to the first scenario than the second so whoever is better there is the one I look up to for advice, and it is not Sklansky in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]The scenario constructed was 5/10 B&M, though, which doesn't make it inapplicable to the games I play, but it does require some thought as to how to use his point in a different environment.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
the 5/10 i played at the bellagio in december played like 100NL at best. Although im sure the games david plays in are much tougher than the public games filled w/ tourists that i played in.

[/ QUOTE ]Fair enough- I'm really talking out of @#$% there anyway [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you're saying i just think the article could have been worded better.

[/ QUOTE ]Also a fair point. Part of me thinks he may have worded it the way he did specifically to provoke a reaction- certainly the example he chose was for that reason.

[ QUOTE ]
People do invent reasons to take non-standard lines too often, but a lot of times there are legitimate reasons to play a hand differently

[/ QUOTE ]I do think he stated this in the article, but that the line he took should be the default, or baseline from which we'd need to have a good reason to deviate.

[ QUOTE ]
and in the case of the hand in question, its not at all uncommon for table conditions to dictate a different line than he suggests.

[/ QUOTE ]This I will defer to you as a more experienced/knowledgeable player than myself, but I have no reason to doubt you on this.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree no one is stacking off w/ 99, QJ, etc. However if you c/r both of these hands are instamucking. If you have an agressive image then either of these hands may raise you, which will earn you more than if you had c/r. Also it gives them the opportunity to mistakenly call down more than one street. Also, even solid players have leaks and make mistakes, and its entirely possible that someone may call 2 decent sized bets w/ 99 or QJ type hands. FWIW i definitely wouldnt advocate betting every street, but sometimes leading flop and then checking the turn will entice someone to stab at the pot on the river or look you up a little lighter than normal.

[/ QUOTE ]Ok, I'll buy it. I can see how our image would make a different play more optimal.

Once again, though, I do believe Sklansky was setting up the call/check/check line as being the default, baseline from which we'd need a reason (like a looser image) to deviate.

[raistlinx]

For those intersting in hearing more Sklansky discusses this hand here:

http://www.holdemradio.com/podcasts/...041707seg1.mp3

[raistlinx]

And more here:
http://www.holdemradio.com/podcasts/...041707seg2.mp3

[HesseJam]

a more clearcut scenario for slowplaying from today (although pot-limit):

PokerStars Pot-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (7 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

SB ($83.25)
BB ($98)
UTG ($18.50)
Hero ($98.50)
MP2 ($100)
CO ($99.40)
Button ($131.85)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with 7, 7. MP2 posts a blind of $1.
[color=#666666]1 fold</font>, Hero calls $1, MP2 (poster) checks, CO calls $1, Button calls $1, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: ($6) 9, 9, 7 [color=#0000FF](6 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, [color=#CC3333]Hero bets $3</font>, MP2 calls $3, CO folds, Button calls $3, SB calls $3, BB folds.

Rem: Not exactly slow playing but against so many opponents I would be inclined to raise more. Here, I just want to know who has got a nine. Two guys call - looks good!

Turn: ($18) 3 [color=#0000FF](4 players)</font>
[color=#CC3333]SB bets $5</font>, Hero calls $5, MP2 calls $5, Button calls $5.
One sweetener raise, one overcall -&gt; looks even better.

River: ($38) 7 [color=#0000FF](4 players)</font>
[color=#CC3333]SB bets $10</font>, [color=#CC3333]Hero raises to $66.15</font>, MP2 folds, [color=#CC3333]Button raises to $122.85</font>, SB calls $64.25 (All-In), Hero calls $23.35 (All-In).
River a seven! Payday!

Final Pot: $324.60

Results in white below: [color=#FFFFFF]
SB has Th 9s (full house, nines full of sevens).
Hero has 7s 7h (four of a kind, sevens).
Button has 5d 9d (full house, nines full of sevens).
Outcome: Hero wins $291.25. Button wins $33.35. </font>