Difference In Stakes

[DrZebra 0]

I just wanted to point out that if one play is optimal in one size NL game, it may not be optimal in another.There's a post on here about 'Could I do it' (referring to letting go of KK preflop) and although it would be an insta-push in the stakes he's playing, it would be suicide at certain limits.It's just like I tersely said in MasterLP's hand-posting: villain's range is widened because he could be ANYBODY.If I tell my sister: hey let's sign you up for Party and get 75 bucks free. I'll play the raked hands. A month later she might say: 'hey I've still got 90 bucks on there, let's play some .5/1 NL.' For her it's exciting and when she sees that she's got AK she's going to love it.If my sister has 5k on her account, I'm going to be playing on it, she's not sitting 25/50.discuss...

[Money022 0]

I think this is a great point for discussion.I play what's considered micro limits for NL ring games and I feel that you sometimes need to play hands differently because of the way your opponents play their hands back at you. Weaker players=weaker moves which means you have to suck them in a little differently. I just posted a hand in a $25 NL game where I flopped top set heads up after being reraised by my opponent PF. Half of the responses wanted me to play the hand much faster than I did. I think most of the players are used to playing a little higher limits and might not have realized the adjustments you might make to come down to the level of your average micro limit fishy. Certain approaches work better at certain levels. I think it's important to keep the stakes in mind when determining the best way to extract the most chips, or know when to fold a hand you normally would not.

[Scott3705 0]

I just wanted to point out that if one play is optimal in one size NL game, it may not be optimal in another.There's a post on here about 'Could I do it' (referring to letting go of KK preflop) and although it would be an insta-push in the stakes he's playing, it would be suicide at certain limits.It's just like I tersely said in MasterLP's hand-posting: villain's range is widened because he could be ANYBODY.If I tell my sister: hey let's sign you up for Party and get 75 bucks free. I'll play the raked hands. A month later she might say: 'hey I've still got 90 bucks on there, let's play some .5/1 NL.' For her it's exciting and when she sees that she's got AK she's going to love it.If my sister has 5k on her account, I'm going to be playing on it, she's not sitting 25/50.discuss...

I always think of this thread whenver you posthttp://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...c=40139&hl=Regardless, this comes down to be an ADD inflicted online player or attentive. Withing low stakes NL, there are tons of really bad players and a bunch of fairly talented players, and a bunch of weaktight 8 tabling players. If we don't pay attention to any of them... then the bad players make up the biggest % of these levels and playing everyone like they were an idiot would be +EV. However, if we pay attention and realize that there are the loose calling stations, the weak tighties, and the talented players and we take the time to identify them, then adjusting the way we play each player is going to be higher +EV than grouping everyone in Gen Pop.

[DrZebra 0]

I always think of this thread whenver you posthttp://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...c=40139&hl=Regardless, this comes down to be an ADD inflicted online player or attentive. Withing low stakes NL, there are tons of really bad players and a bunch of fairly talented players, and a bunch of weaktight 8 tabling players. If we don't pay attention to any of them... then the bad players make up the biggest % of these levels and playing everyone like they were an idiot would be +EV. However, if we pay attention and realize that there are the loose calling stations, the weak tighties, and the talented players and we take the time to identify them, then adjusting the way we play each player is going to be higher +EV than grouping everyone in Gen Pop.

yes Gigabet's dilemma blew my mind and I've since had some time to become confident in my understanding of it. (judging from your posts, you too have grown as a player since.)as for the discussion here, it's not "grouping everyone in Gen Pop" it's giving everyone a higher standard dev. it's a mathematically sound idea...

[Scott3705 0]

yes Gigabet's dilemma blew my mind and I've since had some time to become confident in my understanding of it. (judging from your posts, you too have grown as a player since.)

I never really looked into gigabet theory after that. i graduated college and don't have time for tournies that much anymore.I can't imagine you find logic in that play still tho.

as for the discussion here, it's not "grouping everyone in Gen Pop" it's giving everyone a higher standard dev. it's a mathematically sound idea...

I'd agree with that. however, it's something that would be difficult to put in practice. As in the set over set thread, you have a guy that you have substantial amount of information to create a read. I think you would have to consider this more at lower samples and against relative unknowns that you're seeing for the first time.Edit: So I would imagine my most truthful response would be stakes matter until you know otherwise. But it is possible to know otherwise.

[MasterLJ 0]

I never really looked into gigabet theory after that. i graduated college and don't have time for tournies that much anymore.I can't imagine you find logic in that play still tho. I'd agree with that. however, it's something that would be difficult to put in practice. As in the set over set thread, you have a guy that you have substantial amount of information to create a read. I think you would have to consider this more at lower samples and against relative unknowns that you're seeing for the first time.Edit: So I would imagine my most truthful response would be stakes matter until you know otherwise. But it is possible to know otherwise.

QFT.Phil Gordon says that 1 in 20 decisions of his are changed by reads, but that's what differentiates good players from great ones.

[DrZebra 0]

I never really looked into gigabet theory after that. i graduated college and don't have time for tournies that much anymore.I can't imagine you find logic in that play still tho.

LOL,it's a play that wins tourneys...LOL

...Stakes matter until you know otherwise. But it is possible to know otherwise.

agreed

QFT

never did know what this stands for quit ****ing tripping... qualify for transparency? quality for trial... quell foreign tiffs quick french tramps...

Phil Gordon says that 1 in 20 decisions of his are changed by reads, but that's what differentiates good players from great ones.

he's so full of ****. i saw him advise people not to study the math so deeply. he wants to be the "everyman" poker pro.

[Scott3705 0]

LOL,it's a play that wins tourneys...LOL

Don't wanna even start up on it again, but that play qualifies as one of the worst played hands of all times. I don't dispute that Gigabit theory is probablya winning strategy (mainly because I don't know that much about it) but that play is awful any way it's sliced. Copernicus promised to do the math but never did, but I'm sure he'd be able to come up with something that does not look in favor of the play from any form of equity standpoint.

[DrZebra 0]

Don't wanna even start up on it again, but that play qualifies as one of the worst played hands of all times. I don't dispute that Gigabit theory is probablya winning strategy (mainly because I don't know that much about it) but that play is awful any way it's sliced. Copernicus promised to do the math but never did, but I'm sure he'd be able to come up with something that does not look in favor of the play from any form of equity standpoint.

methinks LoL /LOL is cyprean for sw but menotsurein summary:what is Qft?i hate phil gordon...

[MasterLJ 0]

QFT = quoted for truth.Stakes do matter, until you have other information.

[DrZebra 0]

Don't wanna even start up on it again, but that play qualifies as one of the worst played hands of all times. I don't dispute that Gigabit theory is probablya winning strategy (mainly because I don't know that much about it) but that play is awful any way it's sliced. Copernicus promised to do the math but never did, but I'm sure he'd be able to come up with something that does not look in favor of the play from any form of equity standpoint.

and don't you know that whenever you skim a tourney-thread and come across "it's a move that wins tournaments" it's inevitably negative ev...

[enter any statement here] until you have other information.