tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on

[Oink]

The first: I cc KJs and fold KJo. Dunno if KJs is a 3-bet. I like fluffs arguments for 3-betting T9s. I guess those apply to a KJs hand as well.


Second: I always cc here.

[Absolution]

Both seem like easy folds, especially at these levels. Call if you like to play dominated pretty hands for 2 bets. But, it's online poker and folding is boring.

[Entity]

Based on what I've seen from unknowns at these limits I think both are folds but T9s is probably slightly closer to a hand that you could play profitably than KJs. KJo is an easy fold here (3-betting it is nuts in this spot) and while I wouldn't really say that calling with KJs is a huge leak I think if you did it 100% of the vs an unknown at the lower limits you'd be in a bad spot more than a good one.

Rob

[Robin Foolz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the game is presumably high raked

[/ QUOTE ]

This should make us fold more often, but there should still be cases where CC and 3bet are correct.

The 3bet case (for me) is when the raiser is very loose, and one or both of the blinds are bad and will call for 1 or 2 bets indiscriminately. In this situation we will have basically even equity, but the 3bet gives us a significant postflop strategic advantage, and adds value to our stronger 3bets. When we win after 3betting, we expect that the pot will generally be large. This should negate the impact of the rake somewhat, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

good thoughts fluff. i'm not sure i agree about 3betting though. i'm not sure what you mean about strategic advantage; in the 1/2 game we gotta make a hand, which means we flop big, or we ain't winning a darn thing in multiway pots. everyone showsdown, and the use of meta down there--is it really necessary? also by 3 betting we bloat the pot, which may dispel the blinds into joining thus losing some of our implied odds in the process. imo if we want a family pot, best way to do this is to leave it at 2 bets if possible for the blinds to want to jump in. i agree that the game has to be loose and passive for this to happen according to plan.

[Robin Foolz]

now several things i dislike about 9Ts in the context presented by heis. firstly, the raiser is a lag, but still utg. he may be a lag but his range is tight utg right?; we've been given no descriptions of the blinds; we may get re-raised or capped which destroys our implied odds; rake; our hand is a fit or fold hand, we have no sd value unless we flop a strong, and we're unlikely to win this unimproved or if we even pair up, especially in the 1/2 game where every1 sd; we're at the butt end of several broadway straights if we do make straights; we're behind a bunch of higher frush combos; rake... and something along those lines.

[Heisenb3rg]

Just wanted to say my thoughts.. Im by no means sure of the answer and wish there was some quantitative way to analyse the situation.

Since the 1/2 games on average play fairly loose passive, dont we then expect the SB and BB to likely CALL the raises and therefore the most probable scenario is 4-5 way multiway pot in position with hands that play great multiway??

I know theres the whole implied odds thing since its a raised pot... Sklansky advocates folds with suited connectors in similar spots in HP4AP, however I always assumed because thats when the opnener has a tight range.

Here the opener and the caller have a fairly loose range (T9s hand they're loose for shorthanded, which is SUPER loose for ring).

I thought they were both easy calls (KJo is an easy fold), but tennanbaum thought T9s was an easy fold.
I hate preflop [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Hobbs.]

fwiw, I played with Tanenbaum in the Wynn 30 game a couple of months ago and he came off as nothing more than a Vegas nit. Granted he's better than Roy Cooke, but not by much.

[sethypooh21]

Assuming KJs (obviously KJo is a fold at any limit without a read), I can see folding either/both at 1/2. But at like 5/T, I don't see folding either, and KJs is closer to a 3b then to a fold here. But then, I've been accused of growing LAGGY...

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, I played with Tanenbaum in the Wynn 30 game a couple of months ago and he came off as nothing more than a Vegas nit. Granted he's better than Roy Cooke, but not by much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats interesting that you would say that Hobbs. I have never played with either of these guys so maybe my opinion on them should not be valued that highly. Nevertheless I will disclose my thoughts.

Roy Cooke: First of all, I love Roy Cooke's Cardplayer column and I have read both of his books, "Real Poker 1" and "Real Poker 2". I thought both of Roy's books were outstanding and they really helped me make big strides in my developement stage. His books are simply compilations of his old Cardplay articles but the thought process that Roy puts into every stage of every hand is expert and timeless. I personaly feel sorry for anyone who has not read these books. I am convinced that Roy Cooke is a big winner at limit holdem. No one has taught me how to think through a hand better than Roy Cooke.

Barry Tanenbaum: Whenever I read Cardplayer my first instinct is to look for Roy Cooke's column. When I'm done reading Roy's work, the next thing I do is look for Barry Tanenbaum's article. I have never been disapointed with Barry's work and I have been looking forward to reading his new book. Given the stage of limit holdem I am in right now, there is a good chance I may not learn anything new from Barry's book, but I love reading holdem books, especially by authors I highly respect. Just by reading his past Cardplayer articles, I am convinced that Barry, like Roy, has made a lot of money playing limit holdem over the years.

[Tryptamean]

I call both and expect one or both of the blinds to come along pretty often. Dunno why some posters are afraid of it getting capped... and even if it did, it would be at least a 4 way pot with good multiway hands.