Live Poker Adjustments/Considerations/Tendencies (Discuss please)

[LuckyLloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, i just realized this post is a grammatical nightmare. This is what happens when you have to write with Wordpad.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, not important.

I would only add that general live players have different leaks and tendencies wherever you play. For example:

UK players veer on the tight weak side of things and like to make bad laydowns; bet to find out where they are way too much, etc. Irish players are generally looser and gamblier and basically never make any tough folds ever.

Bad Swedish players never, ever give up and do actually try and win every, single pot etc, etc.

And just like I am doing here, it is so easy to generalise and put people in big boxes. But you get so much information over a couple of levels in big buyin; long structure; deepstack events that can be turned to your advantage and help you to work out what leak applies to what player in what situation.

Anyway, end ramble. Great post - the quality of your english is very unimportant. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[mastr]

love the post agree with most except #9 which i strongly disagree with

[registrar]

[ QUOTE ]
love the post agree with most except #9 which i strongly disagree with

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way? I've only broadly skimmed the whole post but #9 seems broadly valid. As a contrived example, if you have 200bbs and, for whatever reason and holding, you are brewing a big pot and a marginally +EV situation against a bad player as SB v his button, I think it's generally wise to let this go. There will clearly be other more +EV spots in position. Live and deep, I think the 'pass up small edges for bigger edges later' argument is way more valid than it can ever be online.

[shaundeeb]

[ QUOTE ]
love the post agree with most except #9 which i strongly disagree with

[/ QUOTE ]

yup having 2x starting stack 54% of the time is awesome cuz you can play more hands without limiting the fact you cover those horrible players even if you spew a bit .

[IcarusJam]

I'm really really interested in the theory of #9, because it is good to look at specific early hands vs a weak field as a snowball effect.

As obvious as this may be, a lot of it is field size, and bankroll. If your roll is 500k in a 1k event, and u can go home and play online MTT's or Cash or whatever you play and make money, i say the reverse Gigabet #9 can have some incredible value, assuming specific things backing it up, and that it's a freezeout and not a rebuy. Make sense to anyone besides me?

IJ

[Copernicus]

from a pure math point of view #9 is obviously correct. Sklansky demonstrates that early on in TFAP. However there are so many compensating factors in the translation from hypothetical "coin flip" games to poker that its practical application becomes much muddier. It really comes down to "how big an edge can you pass up because you have a skill advantage over the field", and from the respected pros Ive discussed this with, the general answer is that you can't pass up +EV opportunities against any reasonable field of players very often and expect to win. The player with the most influence on my game in this regard is Andy Bloch, because of his more mathematical approach to the game, and he is (or was 3 years ago anyway) clearly in the "you can't pass +EV situations up" camp.

[JP OSU]

This post is fantastic, I have more live experience than most of you guys and this is exactly what I try to tell people when they ask how I succeed at live poker...

[Bond18]

[ QUOTE ]
love the post agree with most except #9 which i strongly disagree with

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why number 9 is in question form and not a statement. Can you elaborate on why? I just can't come to a conclusion myself and i need you smart guys to tell me what to do (and none of that was sarcastic.)

[MrTimCaum]

awesome thread bond. mastr told me about it this afternoon at bellagio on the first break and I had to check it out. we briefly discussed #9 and in the last few months I've come to believe that there is validity to that point. I can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head, but I think the way Timex explained it is really solid.