Kq In Pushbot Mode
Posted 29 October 2008 - 09:05 PM
Posted 30 October 2008 - 12:12 AM
Posted 30 October 2008 - 12:49 AM
Posted 30 October 2008 - 09:54 PM
I2eloaD on FTilt
Posted 31 October 2008 - 06:58 PM
Posted 31 October 2008 - 07:09 PM
Posted 31 October 2008 - 07:15 PM
Posted 31 October 2008 - 07:20 PM
Posted 01 November 2008 - 04:27 AM
Alan, if you believe you're correct, and you're truly secure with your play, you should be able to let it stand without blowing up and citing your stats and record.I enjoy a good debate and have no problem with strenuous disagreement. What I don't appreciate is when I sense a condescending tone that seems to express an attitude of "you don't know what you're talking about, let me set you straight". If that was not your attitude, I apologise.
A steal is done with ATC. KQo, a top 10% hand, is ahead of much of that range. Where do you get the impression that KQo is only a step up from garbage?Well, wouldn't we agree that ace-rag offsuit is garbage? Yet it's ahead of KQ. So is every pair down to deuces. And aside from Kx and Qx, which make a pretty small proportion of the hands that we'll be up against, I don't believe it cracks 60 percent against random junk hands. To me that's only a step up from garbage, but to each his own.
A steal is done with ATC,I really don't think this is true most of the time (I think people fold 93o and the like in this position pretty consistently), but see above--KQ is not far ahead of ATC.
I'm not responding to Cop because I'm not discussing this hand with him, and he's not discussing it with me. I'm discussing this hand with you.Ummm...we're all discussing it: it's a public forum.
Look, for someone with a lot of tournament experience, your posts DO indicate the style of a tight player that bases all of his play on his cardsSee, right there: that's an insult. You should know that's very insulting to any knowledgeable poker player. The fact is that my position, the action in front of me, my opponents' tendencies (including those still to act), my table image, the effective stacks, the tournament structure, etc. all matter to me more than my cards. But if someone has raised in front of me, and I don't have enough chips to have much FE (and we disagree about that in regards to this hand, but c'mon: it's 2-1 when it comes back around to him), then my cards do matter because I'm going to assume that if I play we're going to be turning our cards face up and going to showdown.
You err on the side of caution in these discussions time and again. This sort of low-risk tightness can win at NLHE MTTs, but every big win require running well.But see, I really don't think I play the way you think I do. In a big MTT, my preferred style is to see a lot of flops with a lot of suited connectors, suited aces, small pairs, etc., and look to hit a big hand and hopefully go up against a player who overplays a top pair type hand (or worse). Ask those who played with me last year even in our little 9-18 man private tourneys: I love me a suited six-five!Now, this is well suited for the long blind levels of a 180--in the early rounds. In that stage, I am definitely a loose, splash around type player (I model myself after Gus Hansen to a large extent--no TAG he I'm sure you'd agree) who prides himself on being able to play well after the flop. And that's not just in terms of draws and trying to get big hands: I think I'm also good at playing hands like medium pairs even when overcards flop and villain is betting (I feel like I can sniff it out when they've got me and when they don't a good portion of the time). But as Dan H. points out in HoH v2, different playing styles converge to a great extent when blinds get high and stacks low. And that's where things are in the hand we're talking about in this thread.Incidentally, I very recently decided, after looking at my results in a variety of formats, that though I really enjoy playing a lot of hands and splashing around in the slow structure 180, it's not that profitable in terms of the time it takes compared to that average $4 return. And I don't feel like I can play the loose style I'm talking about if I'm massively multitabling. So just for the sake of a better hourly ROI, I decided starting tonight (well, last night--Halloween) to just focus on nothing but $5.50 27s, playing as many as I can at a time and playing TAG for the early rounds and then doing a lot of situational shoving in the endgame. If you care to take a look at my Sharkscope graph again, you'll see that I netted nearly another $200 in just a few hours, and I think this is going to be my main pursuit for the foreseeable future (with 180s being an occasional leisure activity).
It's a style far better suited to limit MTTs, where the money has to go in gradually and players can't be blown off of pots. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest you'd make a tremendous limit MTT player, whether in Hold'Em or other games.That's kind of you to say (really), but actually I can't stand limit. Borrrrring and stifling.
People steal from the hijack seat just as much as they do from the CO or Button, and players steal with ATC.Maybe this does go on more than I'm aware, and though I still don't appreciate some of the insulting remarks you've made, I do find it interesting to hear more about this "hijack" concept.But taking it to a multilevel thinking perspective, there's a hitch that occurs to me. Let's say for the sake of argument that all the players involved (in the KQ hand that is the OP of this thread) are knowledgeable, thinking players who have the same understanding that you do: namely, that a raise from the "hijack" seat is likely to be a steal with ATC. You seem to feel this is common knowledge (otherwise you wouldn't assume it to be a steal at all coming from an unknown but "solid" villain). Wouldn't the big stack in the BB then have a strong incentive to play back at the raiser, in fact perhaps shoving on him since it's near the bubble and villain's stack can't hurt the BB too badly in any case? And--taking the multilevel thinking one step further--if our villain in the hijack seat knows the BB knows this, doesn't it actually make it a mistake after all to make this raise against a deepstacked BB?There's an interesting thought to ponder, eh?
Posted 01 November 2008 - 04:41 AM
Posted 01 November 2008 - 04:43 AM
Posted 01 November 2008 - 01:04 PM
For rakeback at:
FTP, BoDog, UB, Absolute, Cake
2008 Neg-O TOC NL Champion
Posted 01 November 2008 - 11:41 PM
Posted 02 November 2008 - 03:02 AM
That you decide to take 'You come across as a tight player' as an insult, Alan, is your choice.No. It was saying I am a "player that bases all of his play on his cards" that I found an insult!
The hand in question is postflop in the later stages of a tournamentYou mean preflop, right?
Assuming you have PokerTrackerI don't have it, was not familiar with it, but I Googled it just now and it is definitely something to think about. Actually, I am a Johnny-come-lately to most of this stuff, in that I just recently got Tournament Indicator a couple weeks ago (all those 180s I won, I did with just the Pokerstars client and my mouse, no help from any software).
If we shove behind the hijack, would that not change BB's course of action? BB may be able to beat or re-bluff a steal attempt, but what are we overshoving with? Even if we were to flat (which I wouldn't necessarily advise here), the BB has to consider whether can beat or bluff two players, and many in BB's spot wouldn't get too aggressive here, especially out of position, without some sort of real hand.Right, but I was broadening the issue out from this specific hand and focusing on the hijack seat's decision as to whether to go for a steal. Taking for the sake of argument your scenario: he assumes he's going to "buy the button" as you said, and thus his move is targeted at the blinds rather than the shortstacks. So my point is: if he raises, and the CO/button/SB all fold as expected, why would the BB just go down meekly? If this is a transparent steal most of the time as you say, and most solid players will know this, then why wouldn't the BB play back at the raiser with just about anything? And then, if it did become common practice for a big stack in a BB to resteal in this situation, wouldn't that then make it a bad idea to go for the steal in the first place unless the BB's stack was more comparable to the raiser's? (This goes along with Phil Gordon's advice to pick on medium stacks rather than big or short stacks.)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users