Overs buttons

[DeathDonkey]

Your argument against overs seems to be: "the pot size becomes smaller in relation to the bets" which you conclude leads to less advantage in our decisions. Do I understand you right? If so you have it exactly backwards and I can't think of any way that isn't the case. Your opponents' mistakes are larger in smaller pots, so when you get to play with them in smaller pots at double the stakes, their decisions become more meaningful and so do yours. As the game gets more and more like NL, the decisions are everything - that's why good players have a larger advantage in NL than limit.

-DeathDonkey

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument against overs seems to be: "the pot size becomes smaller in relation to the bets" which you conclude leads to less advantage in our decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greater advantage in decisions, but also greater commitment to win a smaller pot. It seems as if loose and aggressive players have a greater advantage in this situation (again assuming a 2x overs), or do you disagree? Can you give some hand examples in a 2x overs situation to help convey your POV to me? I have a very open mind about this, its a concept that has always been troubling to me.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[DeathDonkey]

"greater commitment to win a smaller pot"

I think you are saying "I have to risk more dollars in every pot" which is true, overs buttons make the game a higher stakes game, but you don't risk more in BB's (if you think of BB's as BB's at the larger limit, the over limit) than normal. I don't see why loose aggressive players would have a greater advantage in your mind, I think you are saying because they are more willing to risk their dollars, but that's not the case at all - just like any other poker game, a tight aggressive strategy is best, though you do have to pay attention to special situations where your odds are not what you might expect.

Examples? fish has middle pair, you have top pair, on the turn/river you bet (a double bet because you both have overs buttons) and get called down - you win twice as much money as normal. Fish's mistakes are amplified and you get him to put more dollars into a pot as a big dog.

An example I gave already where strategy comes into play is getting only 9:1 on the turn with a gutshot vs a guy with an overs button might push the implied odds to a call. Likewise, when you have a bluff catcher type of hand and a draw gets in, you have to remember what your true odds are when the guy bets the river - a payoff you might think of as automatic might not be if you are only getting like 4:1 instead of 8:1.

Final example, you have an overpair, flop is two-tone. You are playing NL or overs to NL, you push all in for 2x the pot, fish calls with a naked flush draw - you are very happy to get that much money in the pot as a decent favorite. You have the appropriate bankroll to tolerate the times he hits his flush. This is all overs buttons are to a lesser extent (2x limit I mean).

-DeathDonkey

[vmacosta]

This thread reminds me a bit of the old arguments about what required more skill NL or limit. By now, however, its become pretty clear even to us stubborn limit folk that more decisions means skill/luck ratio increases.

That's why its good to consider donking flops. That's why its good to consider 3betting a bunch pf. That's why its good to consider bluff bet/3betting the turn. etc.

It's also why NL requires more skill and why limit with overs (particularly in the structure bdaddy mentioned) requires more skill.

But when I play live, I usually just wanna chill, eat, joke around, and play the same easy, mellow poker I've played 100ks of internet hands of. So I usually decline overs, admitting some small decrease in profit if I knew what to do with them.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also why NL requires more skill and why limit with overs (particularly in the structure bdaddy mentioned) requires more skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure it requires more skill as much as it rewards more skill.

b