Yuck.

How about the information we're giving away here?

I dont think we give THAT much information away. In fact, we may be sending MIXED information. Certainly we pop back with QQ, KK and AA. The more hands we add to this range, the harder it is on our opponent.

If I start to get deep stacked I will usually add a hand or two into the mix, say J10 and 89 maybe every 4th to 6th, sometimes it works sometimes not. I have also 3rd raised with air but only to someone who I think can lay down JJ QQ and AK

exactly my point. Though, I take the mike matasow approach, and usually flat call raises with hands like AK and AQ.

In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not.

Are we min re-raising with those QQ, KK, and AA? Holy implied odds, Batman!

I guess, when you say it like that david, you're right. If you were to use this play, Id generally do the same amount for any hand.

I guess I'm really stupid. if blinds are 5/10, isn't 40 a 4x raise? not a min raise?

the min-raise is on the re-raise. re-raising to 80 after the initial raiser made it 40 to go.

Ivan; Actually, a literal min-raise would be to 70. 10 being the big blind, if I take it to 40, the raise is 30, the next raise must be 30 more, 30+40 = 70.

David; Sklansky works under a lot of principles that are--in theory--perfect. 'A straightforward person will only re-raise AA or KK'. But, if I straightforward players knows that I know they're straightforward and I'll take advantage of them raising without position against me, they may very well be more inclined to re-raise with QQ or JJ, knowing fairly well that I won't play back without AA or KK because I'll have to give them credit for AA or KK.

See? That's fun.

In reality, the most straightforward players do not auto-fold or smooth call with QQ here all the time--that's just silly--and they certainly don't always re-raise AA and KK. We're assuming that the straightforward player at somepoint MUST mix their game up--so is it ALWAYS AA or KK on the third raise, or always QQ/JJ if they smooth call? Methinks not.

Quite frankly, I've become quite a bit disenchanted with Sklansky's mid/upper limit NL advice in the recent months. The more I watch the high limit (5/10 and better) NL games, the more I realize that his advice will truly not make you a winning player much above 2/4.

Go read the High Stakes NL threads on Sklansky's own site. He routinely gets ripped by some of the best HSNL players around--KaneKungFu123, to name one.

A min-raise preflop, with position, is absolutely awful in this situation. What if the villain smooth calls? They're straight forward, so what's our hand range? TT-QQ? Or just JJ and QQ? So, the flop comes AJ4r. Villain leads out, are we auto-folding, 'knowing' that this has to be a set? Cause quite frankly, a perfect straight forward TAG would likely lead this flop with a set.

..or he might put us on a hand like KK and try and represent the Ace--whoops, we're talking about the theoretical perfect player.

There's not much difference between 2x and 2.5x..other than pot odds, forcing someone to a decision when they'll be playing OOP, building a pot with a strong hand, winning it preflop more often, looking cool--if only poker were played in a vacuum.

The same thing struck me. I don't like it much at all because I'd not raise the big pairs the same way for sure.

Did the passage previously state what range the straightforward player would put in the 1st reraise with?

I mean, if she'll get aggressive with any middle connector, pocket pair up to QQ, then I think we have to raise a lot more than min; otherwise, we're giving her every reason to come off of her little pattern. If the Reraise means 99+, then our raise can be a bit smaller, but I still hate, hate, hate the minraise.

If I min-raise, I hear about it all day long.

He's representing aces, the only hand better than my cowboys.
I can't call and give him a chance to catch.
I can only fold, if I believe him. Or...

"I re-raise. I'm all in."

That line has always bugged me a little. Couldn't Mike let him represent aces again on the flop? I think he overbets here, doesn't he?

In retrospect there is a couple things that are wrong with both the first and last scene, but heads up things are of course different. But I do see your point, would a smooth call from Mike have him repping Aces?

I hate at the start Mike says "hez too smart to be trapped", but on the final hand, he trapped KGB.

Let's hijack this thread

If Rounders was bases on Party Poker, Mike would have turned over 99 for quads in the first scene to take down KGB's Aces Full

no

****ing mike. Couldve gone to that goulash joint...BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO

How about that soft game in Queens? Or the 10/20 at the Chesterfield?

After beating chan in 1 pot, how could he?