|
|
#22
10-06-2007, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Things It took me a while to learn part 2, Position
Sherman, I'd say the time factor could very well account for differences in our experience ...
Even though national stereotyping is not nice, I believe it - taken with a grain of salt - has some merit in poker. It's my experience, that especially French and Italian players at ANY level are insanely aggressive, and that many from these countries will prefer a "macho-type" play to a more +EV but less flamboyant play. Which btw. also goes for some South American players. Many Brits are obv. very aggressive, and the same goes for Scandinavians; having Gus Hansen, Martin DeKniff or Patrick Antonius as role models probably doesn't lead to a conservative playing style ... also Germans in general don't appear the least timid to me. Is it wrong to say West Coast players are much more mellow? Obv. the most important is to adjust your game to the table. Some tables are way more passive than others, and c-betting is a must - while some are like playing a bag of rattle-snakes, and a tight, solid approach with less c-betting - just enough to have a chance to be paid off when you actually have a hand - is probably the most successful. 
|
|
#23
10-06-2007, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Things It took me a while to learn part 2, Position
Bond,
Thank you for your advice, it's apreciated, however, I think that donks are calling/leading/ alot more than just on coordinated boards, and I think that continuation betting in position is getting minraised more on a wide variety of boards in these lowstakes tournaments, especially early. I'd much rather have a post, btw, on how to chip up in the first hour, since it seems like these tournaments are becoming mre and mre difficult (for me) to gauge the donk mentality, especially (ironically) since I started thinking more along the lines of a 2+2er recently. Barry
|
|
#24
10-06-2007, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Things It took me a while to learn part 2, Position
[ QUOTE ]
Sherman, I'd say the time factor could very well account for differences in our experience ... Even though national stereotyping is not nice, I believe it - taken with a grain of salt - has some merit in poker. It's my experience, that especially French and Italian players at ANY level are insanely aggressive, and that many from these countries will prefer a "macho-type" play to a more +EV but less flamboyant play. Which btw. also goes for some South American players. Many Brits are obv. very aggressive, and the same goes for Scandinavians; having Gus Hansen, Martin DeKniff or Patrick Antonius as role models probably doesn't lead to a conservative playing style ... also Germans in general don't appear the least timid to me. Is it wrong to say West Coast players are much more mellow? Obv. the most important is to adjust your game to the table. Some tables are way more passive than others, and c-betting is a must - while some are like playing a bag of rattle-snakes, and a tight, solid approach with less c-betting - just enough to have a chance to be paid off when you actually have a hand - is probably the most successful. [/ QUOTE ] Even though I am still playing 4.4/180 or 11/45, I really agree with this. I have a job that allows me to play pretty much whenever I want, so I try to play a few hours--enough to get deep in a 180--in the morning (i.e. mostly against Euros, ~75% Germans) and a few hours in the evening (i.e. mostly against Americans). So I see the difference every day. The Americans are very passive compared to the Europeans--in PT terms, a stereotypical (i.e. an exaggeration to make a point) American villain is something like 40/5/0.3, and a stereotypical Euro is something like 30/20/1.5.
|
|
#25
10-06-2007, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Things It took me a while to learn part 2, Position
Or, how do you make $ CONSISTENTLY when every player at your table has one move: which is to limp call your raise (in position or not) and then to follow your bets almost to the finish line.
Put another way, it seems like your analysis is all well and good for higher stakes games, but we are playing against opponents without reason and I would like to discuss how to beat them more regularly. In that respect, someone like registrar or sherman who actually plays these tournaments regularly would be doing us a tremendous favor if THEY posted an anthology based on their experiences. Not that bonds posts aren't invaluable, they are. Barry
|
|
#26
10-06-2007, 09:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Things It took me a while to learn part 2, Position
[ QUOTE ]
In that respect, someone like registrar or sherman who actually plays these tournaments regularly would be doing us a tremendous favor if THEY posted an anthology based on their experiences. [/ QUOTE ] Second time today someone has requested that I write something of an anthology of micro-stakes MTTs...sigh. I guess I better get to work. Sherman
|
|
#27
10-07-2007, 08:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Things It took me a while to learn part 2, Position
[ QUOTE ]
Great post Bond. Have a few questions. Say the BB/SB start 3betting our button/CO raises. Do we simply tighten up our range? If so then how much tighter should our range be? Also, how do we know that it is a re-steal as opposed to them holding something strong? [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#29
10-07-2007, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Things It took me a while to learn part 2, Position
Position is one of the hardest concepts to explain, and one of the hardest to work out for yourself.
Its easy to explain the theory (Poker is a game of information, if you are playing in position, you know what your opponent has done when you come to act, so you have an advantage) but much harder show why this information is so valuable. As I've moved up the buy-in levels (from $5 to $55) I've realised at each step that its more important than I'd understood previously - and I've no doubt got some way to go. Two illustrations: 1. I was speaking to a friend of mine the other day who plays pretty high stakes 6-max cash. He claimed position was so important that there people didn't defend their blinds - but instead defended their button. 2. In this youtube hand (famously the highest value cash hand in televised poker) Antonio Esfandiari holds AQ in the big blind, and folds to a raise and re-raise from Hansen and Negranu, commenting he doesn't want to play it out of position. I was staggered. If Esfandiari isn't good enough to play that out of position, then who am I? (The answer is if I have an edge on my opponents I can). OP did a very good job of explaining how to adapt your game for the basics of position (especially pre-flop) , but I've still to read a good explanation of why its so important, and although I've managed to work it out, I struggle to explain it to Newbies. BTW, this post highlights the huge range in play at the buy-ins this "Small Stakes" forum covers. You try and of the raising range mentioned from the button in a $55 game, and you'll lose your chips PDQ. BTW BTW small and high aren't opposites. We should have a small and large stakes forum, or a high and low stakes forum.
|
|
#30
10-07-2007, 06:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Things It took me a while to learn part 2, Position
[ QUOTE ]
Or, how do you make $ CONSISTENTLY when every player at your table has one move: which is to limp call your raise (in position or not) and then to follow your bets almost to the finish line. [/ QUOTE ] You just need to adjust so that it is good for you if they do this, i.e. always have a hand and never bluff early.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
