Jump to content


Do You Make This Call? ($11 Sng)


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#41 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 21 August 2006 - 02:35 PM

View PostWolvenASE, on Monday, August 21st, 2006, 6:25 PM, said:

What's your problem?You seem to not be able to comprehend the concept that someone might have different views than you do in -one- hand, and without backing up your side with theories or claims, you decide to make petty personal attacks that don't really do much to make you look very mature, let alone intelligent.You're right. I'm not Gus Hansen. I don't have the balls to play 9-2. 6-2 is fine. 9-2? Ew, no, sorry. :club: Seeing about 65% of the flops has obviously worked for me. I am sincerely apologetic if you think I'm cramping Gus' style. But if you aren't going to have anything insightful to add, then I don't even know why you bother in the first place. :D
Im not speaking for strategy here, even though you are responding to him. If seeing 65% of the flops has worked for you, then its the limits youre playing at. No one playing real poker, including Phil Ivey and Gus Hansen, can succeed in tournaments seeing 65% of the flops. Even at donk limits I find it hard to believe that its working for you. Post flop play with crap starting hands means reading the donks, which, if their play is as random and illogical as these latest threads indicate, cant be done.and if you are talking low-limit one table SnGs, I'll just outright call BS. It is impossible to find the implied odds in a one table SnG structure to make playing that loose remotely possible.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#42 Actuary

Actuary

    .

  • Members
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 21 August 2006 - 06:40 PM

View Poststrategy, on Monday, August 21st, 2006, 2:33 PM, said:

It's pretty funny that you and actuary are fast friends--he's often guilty of the same.
:club: hi.let me know when it happens so I can respond directly.You may be the only person who hasn't seen me post 100,000 times that the primary reason I give opinions is to learn from other criticizing them. Obviously, that goes double for hands I post. Defending a position you think (thought) was best facilitates more debate. This came from left field so I hope you return to expand on it.And I'm not friends with OP.Not even sure where you got that.My view on playing the hand is like you, raise/fold preflop.Perhaps he thought I was more civil; but most people know I can be quite sarcastic/*******. However, I like to save that for those who know I'm kidding.You might be feeling a need to knock me down a peg because you see me harassing Copernicus. I'm just grabbing straws since I have no clue.

#43 WolvenASE

WolvenASE

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 21 August 2006 - 07:24 PM

View Postcopernicus, on Monday, August 21st, 2006, 2:35 PM, said:

Im not speaking for strategy here, even though you are responding to him. If seeing 65% of the flops has worked for you, then its the limits youre playing at. No one playing real poker, including Phil Ivey and Gus Hansen, can succeed in tournaments seeing 65% of the flops.
Well that negates the whole point of that paragraph, doesn't it? I see 65% of the flops. Doesn't mean I win every hand in the process either, bud.

Quote

Even at donk limits I find it hard to believe that its working for you. Post flop play with crap starting hands means reading the donks, which, if their play is as random and illogical as these latest threads indicate, cant be done.
Obviously, their play isn't "random" and as "illogical" you may think. I have been consistently been a winner at these limits for a year. I've had my fair share of variance, including being a really big loser for an entire week. I feel with the amount of SNGs I play, I have a fair sample size to really see how well I have been doing, and by results, it's apparent to me that I have something figured out.

Quote

and if you are talking low-limit one table SnGs, I'll just outright call BS. It is impossible to find the implied odds in a one table SnG structure to make playing that loose remotely possible.
Implied odds are bullshit.Firstly, I'm not playing that loose all the time to hit a big hand. Sure, it'd be nice, but I know more often than not, I'll get myself in marginal situations which is fine by me. Just as long as it helps me pick up a nice pot and slowly build up a stack to maximize my bigger hands when I get them.But are you honestly going to tell me what I have done is BS? I'm sincerely shocked that you think this is so improbable. What do you want me to do? Show you why my playstyle works? Maybe post a series of pictures that show my hand stats included in the SNGs that I win or finish ITM?Then again, the whole point of the thread wasn't to prove myself to the Mason Malmuth of FCP, but if you really would like to believe that my style is impossible to consistently play and win at, then I really wouldn't mind proving you wrong. :club:

#44 Actuary

Actuary

    .

  • Members
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 21 August 2006 - 07:33 PM

in passive games you can see a lot of flops.

#45 strategy

strategy

    Internet expert

  • Members
  • 15,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:strategy
  • Favorite Poker Game:strategy

Posted 21 August 2006 - 09:33 PM

View PostWolvenASE, on Monday, August 21st, 2006, 8:24 PM, said:

I feel with the amount of SNGs I play, I have a fair sample size to really see how well I have been doing, and by results, it's apparent to me that I have something figured out.Implied odds are bullshit.
Classic.

View PostActuary, on Monday, August 21st, 2006, 7:40 PM, said:

You may be the only person who hasn't seen me post 100,000 times that the primary reason I give opinions is to learn from other criticizing them. Obviously, that goes double for hands I post. Defending a position you think (thought) was best facilitates more debate. This came from left field so I hope you return to expand on it.
It seems as though all I ever see you do in your threads is defend your position to the death and take personal offense when people disagree. The most obvious example of this was the thread a few months ago with Smash. I apologize if I misinterpreted something here.Really, I do try to be civil. I don't give people a hard time for sucking; we all sucked at one time or another. I give people a hard time when they make a mistake and try to convince the tourney forum that it isn't so. Blindly accepting what we have to say at face value is bad for obvious reasons, but staunchly refusing to believe what five other people have said repeatedly (as this OP has done) is pretty brainless.
QUOTE (ShakeZuma @ Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, 4:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
seriously though, with that grammar it's really like, I mean it doesn't bother me as much that she gets beat, you know?


#46 WolvenASE

WolvenASE

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 21 August 2006 - 09:58 PM

I've never taken offense to anyone's arguments in saying a play wasn't correct. I'm not going to be passive about it and say I ****ed up. But if someone says it was a bad play all together, of course I'm going to argue against it. Why? Because I want to know it was a bad play, and how am I going to do that if I don't try to justify my play?Really, sure, I understand that you're so civil and awesome. Thank God you're around to help critique people's plays. But frankly, I don't really care what your opinions of my play are, now, because YOU are the one who has taken this to a personal level the entire time. You can't tell me why the play was bad without giving me a shitty half assed response. I honestly, truthfully, and sincerely believe that any advice you, personally, gave me would be worthless. Everyone else's input had been greatly appreciated. Yours, however, is just complete trash. Thanks.

#47 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 21 August 2006 - 10:35 PM

View PostWolvenASE, on Monday, August 21st, 2006, 11:24 PM, said:

Well that negates the whole point of that paragraph, doesn't it? I see 65% of the flops. Doesn't mean I win every hand in the process either, bud.Obviously, their play isn't "random" and as "illogical" you may think. I have been consistently been a winner at these limits for a year. I've had my fair share of variance, including being a really big loser for an entire week. I feel with the amount of SNGs I play, I have a fair sample size to really see how well I have been doing, and by results, it's apparent to me that I have something figured out.Implied odds are bullshit.Firstly, I'm not playing that loose all the time to hit a big hand. Sure, it'd be nice, but I know more often than not, I'll get myself in marginal situations which is fine by me. Just as long as it helps me pick up a nice pot and slowly build up a stack to maximize my bigger hands when I get them.But are you honestly going to tell me what I have done is BS? I'm sincerely shocked that you think this is so improbable. What do you want me to do? Show you why my playstyle works? Maybe post a series of pictures that show my hand stats included in the SNGs that I win or finish ITM?Then again, the whole point of the thread wasn't to prove myself to the Mason Malmuth of FCP, but if you really would like to believe that my style is impossible to consistently play and win at, then I really wouldn't mind proving you wrong. :club:
I didnt say improbable...i said if you see 65% of the flops in low buy in SnGs it is IMPOSSIBLE. and you will have no credibility here if you make asinine statements like "implied odds are bullshit". Perhaps you dont understand them, but whatever youve "figured out", if it had any validity whatsoever, would be consistent with pot odds/implied odds and cash EV. Unless of course your Wow Thats and have figured out how to beat a rigged game.Now run off to general where they might actually believe your BS.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#48 WolvenASE

WolvenASE

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 12:38 AM

View Postcopernicus, on Monday, August 21st, 2006, 10:35 PM, said:

I didnt say improbable...i said if you see 65% of the flops in low buy in SnGs it is IMPOSSIBLE. and you will have no credibility here if you make asinine statements like "implied odds are bullshit". Perhaps you dont understand them, but whatever youve "figured out", if it had any validity whatsoever, would be consistent with pot odds/implied odds and cash EV. Unless of course your Wow Thats and have figured out how to beat a rigged game.Now run off to general where they might actually believe your BS.
Okay MM.Please give me a name on a site you play alot of SNGs at. I would love to see your credentials. I really doubt you know what you're talking about if you're making plays that are justifiable by "pot odds" and "implied odds". You seem to think implied odds are definite. They are not.Like I said, give me a name on a site you play, I'd love to see your credentials, and I'll be sure to start working on my assortment of SNG wins and Flop Seen %'s so that the god of poker strategy himself will be silenced.

#49 mk

mk

    nord-américain racaille

  • Members
  • 9,873 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 04:28 AM

View PostWolvenASE, on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 3:38 AM, said:

Okay MM.
this is probably the funniest part of the thread to me. you're invoking the visage of mason malmuth as if he were some kind of nl tourney expert.

#50 WolvenASE

WolvenASE

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 06:06 AM

Hahaha.

#51 throwemaway

throwemaway

    Finally a big kid now!

  • Members
  • 2,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Normal, IL
  • Interests:Poker, booze, reading, and sports

Posted 22 August 2006 - 06:20 AM

The point I think that everyone is trying to make is that playing an aggressive tourney game in low stakes HE has proven to be the most succesful..Therefore, you should be raising pots or folding, especially when opening a pot in late position..Limping from the button isn't switching it up, its just weak/tight...Limping in is OK with a high implied odds hand (small pairs and suited connectors) but Ace 4 os does not contain high implied odds..Its a hand you want to win the blinds with and get out...The easiest way: Raise pre flop...I don't see any reason to put yourself in situations like this where you have to make tough decisions, because in low buy in tourneys, the money is to be made making simple, straightforward decisions..I mean thats great that you came out ahead in this spot, and really, were all pretty proud of you..But fancy play syndrome just doesn't cut it long run in small stakes sngs..Maybe this helps to clear things up, maybe you still vehementely disagree..Take it for what its worth
|
First blog. I don't really know why you would want to read it but if you do, go ahead..New update! Will update in Feb in light of 4.40 challenge!
http://blogs.texasholdem.com/Throwemaway/index.php

#52 WolvenASE

WolvenASE

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 06:54 AM

View Postthrowemaway, on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 6:20 AM, said:

but Ace 4 os does not contain high implied odds..Its a hand you want to win the blinds with and get out...
I stopped reading after that.You, obviously, have not read any of my posts.

#53 throwemaway

throwemaway

    Finally a big kid now!

  • Members
  • 2,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Normal, IL
  • Interests:Poker, booze, reading, and sports

Posted 22 August 2006 - 06:58 AM

View PostWolvenASE, on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 6:54 AM, said:

I stopped reading after that.You, obviously, have not read any of my posts.
Good response..Wolvenase>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tourney Strat forum
|
First blog. I don't really know why you would want to read it but if you do, go ahead..New update! Will update in Feb in light of 4.40 challenge!
http://blogs.texasholdem.com/Throwemaway/index.php

#54 Actuary

Actuary

    .

  • Members
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 07:46 AM

Strategy,thread with Smash? The one Smash had QQ in BB on Bubble?Or something else...I harldy ever disagreed with Smash.Do you have a link or anymore detail ?I don't mean to sound personally offended.I do wish to learn and admit my shortcoming quite often.Maybe the sarcasm and seemingly offensive stance looks to you as if I"m really offended. Forums don't convey intent too well. Honestly, I don't take a lot of pride in my Poker. Everythnig I know I learned over the last 12 months. Most of it on here.***************************Copernicus,Wouldn't you think at a passive table you could see just about every flop early on?But 65% over entire STT would require a huge stack have been built up, I'd think

#55 WolvenASE

WolvenASE

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 08:33 AM

View Postthrowemaway, on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 6:58 AM, said:

Good response..Wolvenase>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tourney Strat forum
Don't know where you're getting that from. If you read any of my posts, I wasn't playing the hand for "implied odds". Christ.. I've explained that about 4 times now.Anyways, yes, it does involve having a deeper stack. I will play loose as I accumulate more chips, and call more raises, make reasonable raises, and often limp in the first level or two of the SNG. If I'm down to 1000 chips, I become even more aggressive. Rather than shutting down and tightening up, I try to force things to work. I really don't understand why he thinks 65% is impossible. It really, really isn't, and it's certainly more probable in a structure like Full Tilt's, which is the site I currently play at.

#56 throwemaway

throwemaway

    Finally a big kid now!

  • Members
  • 2,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Normal, IL
  • Interests:Poker, booze, reading, and sports

Posted 22 August 2006 - 08:50 AM

View PostWolvenASE, on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 8:33 AM, said:

Don't know where you're getting that from. If you read any of my posts, I wasn't playing the hand for "implied odds". Christ.. I've explained that about 4 times now.Anyways, yes, it does involve having a deeper stack. I will play loose as I accumulate more chips, and call more raises, make reasonable raises, and often limp in the first level or two of the SNG. If I'm down to 1000 chips, I become even more aggressive. Rather than shutting down and tightening up, I try to force things to work. I really don't understand why he thinks 65% is impossible. It really, really isn't, and it's certainly more probable in a structure like Full Tilt's, which is the site I currently play at.
Oh, so you were playing it for value, I get it..Silly me, and I thought Ace 4 was a weak hand..I said you should limp w/ hands with high implied odds..Otherwise don't do it because limping late position short handed is weak tight!!!(Unless your trapping, which I still think is stupid) I don't think your trapping here with Ace 4...but by your logic so far, that wouldn't really surprise meBut no I understand now..You just have far superior post flop skills than everyone and you always outplay your opponent..We get itDo you find it odd that your the only one who likes your line?
|
First blog. I don't really know why you would want to read it but if you do, go ahead..New update! Will update in Feb in light of 4.40 challenge!
http://blogs.texasholdem.com/Throwemaway/index.php

#57 Actuary

Actuary

    .

  • Members
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 08:57 AM

it's starting to feel like General Forum.I'd prefer not to drive away new blood.Especially if he plays a different style.You can choose to ignore if you wish.

#58 WolvenASE

WolvenASE

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:01 AM

throwme,It seems that every reply you make, it's more apparent to me that you have not ready my posts. Second page, second or third post from the bottom, whichever is the biggest, explains my thought process with limping in on the button with A-4. No, I was not playing for value, and no, I was not playing for implied odds. It's a simple play I make to pick up the blinds, rather than making a noticeable steal by raising everything in late position.

#59 gobears

gobears

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 6,096 posts
  • Location:Los Gatos, CA

Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:12 AM

Problem with Ace rag is that either you win a small pot or lose a big one.Here on the button, I would raise if it was open folded to me. I read your post, Wolven, but I probably have the best hand and I'll bet out with it to take the blinds. By limping, I'm giving two hands that are probably worse than me a free shot to pass me.For this particular hand, the call is reasonable as you're getting 2.5-1 on the river and villain played it like a straight draw that missed. If I was villain, I would have check/raised you on the flop which would probably have bought the pot.
Work to live, don't live to work - Todd Harrison

#60 WolvenASE

WolvenASE

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:27 AM

Thanks for the response. I wish there was just more of that kind of input.I understand that we may have the best hand. However, at the time, my mind wasn't thinking about playing it for value. And yes, I agree completely that you'll win small and lose big. My biggest fear about raising would be being called, having an Ace flop, and then having him suddenly bet out at me. Then, it's more of a difficult spot to be in at that point because I'd probably go all the way to the turn and possibly the river in trying to see if I was good, or if I could possibly force him out of the hand if he was trying to buy it. Again, I just felt it would be too much of a risk.My biggest wish is that you understand my mindset about playing this hand, which so many others seem to not get. I wasn't playing to trap anything.Once again, I appreciate the input, since that -did- have some value to me. I believe it was Actuary that said the most useful thing since then about how raising all the time with a wide range of hands will never allow them to put you on something like a weak ace. Regardless, thanks for your help bud.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users