Can an abc predictable preflop player beat 100-200?

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been haivng a discussion with different people lately about whether a abc predictable preflop player can beat higher games. Can someone playing very tight solid poker beat higher games? Or do they have to mix it up? And if have to mix it up in what way do you need to mix it up to vere from solid pro play?

If a player plays solid and doeswn't make mistakes how can he not beat any game? I understand that hourly rate might be better if he made some plays sometimes but wouldnt he still win? And when making plays isn't it to create an illusion of gambling and to actually play solid poker? It almost sounds like people think you can't play solid poker and beat higher games. That you need to be getting out htere doing unorthodox things all the time?

So what do you guys think does solid abc take the money or will he lose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Best you could hope for: you will lose at exactly the rate of the time collection or rake. If all play well how can anyone win? ABC wins against players who don't know their ABC's. If all know their ABC's you can only get an edge by out smarting your opponent.

I think that you are hoping that your opponents will make theoretical errors so big in their attempts to outsmart you that you will get an automatic profit by playing systematically. This seems unlikely. Even a computer program that was good enough to beat tough games would have to have a randomizer built into it of some sort to accomplish this.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
See the counter argument to this would be the predictable player is waiting to pick off the spewing thinking player. In a sense catch him with his pants down. He's getting out there stealing with alot of cheese and i'm sitting back waiting for big hands to pound him with.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is hard to know what you mean by predictable. But your example here fails. Suppose he knows you will only call with the correct pot odds, and if you raise (since you are not tricky) he can simply fold. He gets an automatic long term profit by just betting into you every time, whether he has anything or not. You will not be able to trap him frequently enough to offset this.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this will be an insightful post...maybe it won't...


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice disclaimer! I found your post moderately insightful, btw!

Definitely think I may be a bit too predictable at times. But I play lower limits and have been doing quite well, so don't want to really try and switch anything up too much right now.

I'm sure you do have to get more crafty at high limits, but I'm not certain what the best way is to learn such a style. Obviously, many 'tricky' players are just plain bad. Seems it can be a fine line, and I'm interested in understanding, for the future, how to best go about learning such a style. The post on hasuwisp is a good example. He can appear fishy, but in reality many think he is very good. Curious how he learned to play.

[blankoblanco]

YOU JUST GOTTA KNOW WHEN TO HOLD EM AND WHEN TO FOLD EM

[Stake Monster]

To reply to fishboy's comments: I think you're discounting the fact that poker is a mental game even moreso than it is about the cards you're dealt. Personally, I love playing people who play very abc poker, as it's easy to outplay them postflop, and easy to steal pots from them. If someone only raises 0-10% hands pf, I can usually narrow down their hands very easily, and I know when they hit the board or not. They're much easier to play than people who play aggro, as you can't narrow their hands very well.

I do believe a good player needs to mix it up, and be unpredictable, to maximize winnings. I can see an abc type player winning just fine, but I do think playing a varied game can net you more money in the end.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree there are both great and dismal 'non-ABC's'. But I'm sure there are also many 'non-ABC's' that fall everywhere in between these two extremes as well. Why can't we have unorthodox players who are break even?

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hey Sergey. What specific types of non-fish do you think it's good to play ABC against, and why?

Also, can you please coach me!!

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is a contributing factor. But how can you prove to me that its enough of a factor to be straying from standard optimal play. I'm not saying there are not times you can stray. But i'm saying most stray too far and become spewers. If i play abc it is impossible to stray too far as i'm not straying at all. Anotherwards yes there may be times where the right play(well more profitable play) may be to stray from the chart. But who is more expoiltable? The guy making the chart correct play all the time. Or the guy who is out there straying in no man's land sometimes? He may be right to stray but maybe not, he may be straying too far. How does one prove they are straying appropriately? Not sure if this is coming out clear. What i mean is the strayer is more exploitable because he is more likley to be starying to far. As if i play abc i don't leave myself open to make mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are playing 4 handed, and an 80/3 (extreme example) passive call station limps in. You are on the button w/ A2o, and the blinds are reasonably tight. Hand chart says fold, right? many here, though, would likely agree this is a clear raise, and that by playing 'ABC' and folding, you are 'straying' very far, and actually making a reasonably significant 'mistake'.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is a contributing factor. But how can you prove to me that its enough of a factor to be straying from standard optimal play. I'm not saying there are not times you can stray. But i'm saying most stray too far and become spewers. If i play abc it is impossible to stray too far as i'm not straying at all. Anotherwards yes there may be times where the right play(well more profitable play) may be to stray from the chart. But who is more expoiltable? The guy making the chart correct play all the time. Or the guy who is out there straying in no man's land sometimes? He may be right to stray but maybe not, he may be straying too far. How does one prove they are straying appropriately? Not sure if this is coming out clear. What i mean is the strayer is more exploitable because he is more likley to be starying to far. As if i play abc i don't leave myself open to make mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are playing 4 handed, and an 80/3 (extreme example) passive call station limps in. You are on the button w/ A2o, and the blinds are reasonably tight. Hand chart says fold, right? many here, though, would likely agree this is a clear raise, and that by playing 'ABC' and folding, you are 'straying' very far, and actually making a reasonably significant 'mistake'.

[/ QUOTE ]


Lets take it to another level and say that you know both blinds are v v v v v v v loose at defending, but are not anything special postflop.


Now you can also make a case for overlimping.

[siegfriedandroy]

ahhh, schneids- always at the next level! Are you thinking along THFAP, which says to sometimes limp a10, etc (can remember exactly what it was, maybe even aq), so you don't bloat the pot, and allow your opponents to make mistakes by calling w/ lower pairs?