Stud - style of play - discussion

[Phanekim]

[ QUOTE ]
When I have drawing hands like straights and flushes I use the outs/pot odds as guidelines. It is more in playing single pair and two pair hands that knowledge of your opponent matters. I have played against opponents who wont bet with less than 2 pair and others that just fire away with a low pair until they hit resistance. If you see that your 2 pair outs are limited against the former, then folding may be in order, while against the latter you hold on for dear life even with mediocre one pairs.

Yes. profit is conserved in limit poker by knowing how to fold. Therefore good players can be taken advantage of if you occasionally bluff the flush on 5th or 6th, as long as you play your flush bluff very similar to your flush they will be stuck guessing. The worse an opponent is the more one should play textbook poker against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last stud cash game hand I ever played was against this newb. I had 4 diamonds on my board showing to him, and had been betting the entire way. He calls me down with ace high. Turns out it was good.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
The worse an opponent is the more one should play textbook poker against them.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Last stud cash game hand I ever played was against this newb. I had 4 diamonds on my board showing to him, and had been betting the entire way. He calls me down with ace high. Turns out it was good.

[/ QUOTE ]
[x] Bluffed at a fish
[ ] Rebought and value betted him into oblivion
[x] Better play than calling if you had open deuces
[x] Bluffed at a fish

[Phanekim]

Actually...It was a 10 buck bonus I got at UB like earlier this year. I ran it up to like over 120...until this hand happened.

The real reason I was able to run it up is that i refused to play games where it was full ringed...with 8 people. I tried to play shorthanded 4-6 people. Don't ask me why, I"ve always done that. I just think my edge is greater shorthanded.

So yeah, I bluffed at fish, but if you frequent online cash games, there really aren't any fish out there. So with limited info on him, I did that. I just thought I'd share cause if you play enough hands, you got some interesting stories to tell and would illustrate chucky's point.

Should I have kept going? Probably, but I had cleared my bonus and didn't feel like playing no more.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
Should I have kept going? Probably, but I had cleared my bonus and didn't feel like playing no more.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's cool. The rake is pretty obscene at those limits, so without a bonus or rakeback you're not likely to clear a lot of $$. I was just pointing out that a player like that is very exploitable once you know how to exploit him.

[jadoube]

I think Sklansky was talking about draw /and low ball and not stud when he made these comments.

His point is perfect play before the draw is nowhere near as important as after the draw, and alot of instinctual players don't so well before the draw but play much better than percentage after the draw.

[2461Badugi]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Sklansky was talking about draw /and low ball and not stud when he made these comments.

His point is perfect play before the draw is nowhere near as important as after the draw, and alot of instinctual players don't so well before the draw but play much better than percentage after the draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a Sklansky-infallibility guy, but there is no way that quote could be about draw, it's so wrong. It's less wrong for lowball, but it makes a lot of sense for stud or holdem.

Handreading is huge in all forms of poker, just some more than others. High stud is near the top of the scale. But even in a game like Razz which seems really simple and mechanical when you're learning it, handreading can be a huge advantage.