|
|
|
|
#1
11-01-2007, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one. I'd rather be HU with some weak tight guy who folds too much. [/ QUOTE ] I don't I have ever seen that from Sklansky, but this sounds like some of the early discussions about implicit collusion (see Morton's Theorem). If you have a strong hand and get one caller with a marginal hand, the caller is acting incorrectly. But if you get multiple callers with marginal hands, the resulting size of the pot could be giving each caller proper odds, so that each is now making a correct decision. 
|
|
#2
11-01-2007, 03:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
[ QUOTE ]
If you have a strong hand and get one caller with a marginal hand, the caller is acting incorrectly. But if you get multiple callers with marginal hands, the resulting size of the pot could be giving each caller proper odds, so that each is now making a correct decision. [/ QUOTE ] For one thing, when most of the people in the hand are playing unsuited broadway cards, they "get in each other's way" and a hand such as 98s can go up in equity. For another, not everyone is making good calls in a multiplayer situation. What might be right for 22 and 98s can still be wrong for K7. Anyway, the real point is that if you have AA, it's your equity in the pot that matters, not your probability of winning the pot. Anyone drawing to a gutshot getting 15:1 understands the basic principles involved here :-) (BTW, not responding directly to you so much...)
|
|
#4
11-03-2007, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
IMO, Stox's book is the definitive book on Limit Hold'em play for middle and high stakes games.
As for small stakes, just get SSHE.
|
|
#7
11-06-2007, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
[ QUOTE ]
As for small stakes, just get SSHE. [/ QUOTE ] This is bad advice in general, and it points out the basic problem with this book and its readers. You do not want SSHE for small stakes games, you want SSHE for loose games against bad players.
|
|
#8
11-06-2007, 01:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As for small stakes, just get SSHE. [/ QUOTE ] This is bad advice in general, and it points out the basic problem with this book and its readers. You do not want SSHE for small stakes games, you want SSHE for loose games against bad players. [/ QUOTE ] well i'd say especially for loose/passive ones...
|
|
#9
11-07-2007, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As for small stakes, just get SSHE. [/ QUOTE ] This is bad advice in general, and it points out the basic problem with this book and its readers. You do not want SSHE for small stakes games, you want SSHE for loose games against bad players. [/ QUOTE ] B&M
|
|
#10
11-16-2007, 12:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As for small stakes, just get SSHE. [/ QUOTE ] This is bad advice in general, and it points out the basic problem with this book and its readers. You do not want SSHE for small stakes games, you want SSHE for loose games against bad players. [/ QUOTE ] B&M [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, pretty much always as it turns out. The point I was making though is that we should stop talking about attributes that aren't important. (Granted, the book does this too. The title has "Small Stakes" in it, when actually that has nothing to do with it.) Technically B&M has nothing to do with it either, although conditions are almost always right there for low limits. The attibutes you're looking for are loose opponents who go too far with their hands. Online/BM doesn't matter, high/low limits doesn't matter.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
