hblask

These stats are from over a million hands at Pokerroom: SB BB 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DAJo 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.15 0.09 0.19 0.15 KQo 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.17 So they are positive from all positions. Yes, it is worse in the early positions, and even neutral for KQ in the BB, but I'll take those small gains.These stats do not match my own, because I suck. But with so much negativity on this thread about these hands, how is that negativity reconciled with this real wor

My biggest problem with this type of thinking is, since I am a relative beginner and therefore play against other beginners, assuming that my opponents even know what pot odds are is almost always giving them two much credit. I regularly get my TPTK raised by someone who hit middle pair. When the hands are revealed I am always shocked at how much people will spend, yes spend, on MP into a raised pot. I can't wait to get good enough to move up a few levels and play against people with slightly larger brains, but so far, that's been a break even proposition at best. So I'm trying to adjust

Well, this brings up an interesting question the.... statistics for Pokerroom show that, historically, AJ (both offsuit and on) are +EV from all positions. So how can it be awful? Especially when you consider all the people who fall in love with it and lose big... it seems like it can't be that bad. How does real world data fit the consensus opinion on this thread?

Thank you for a serious reply to what I'm sure is a FAQ. The search function on this site is weak, and besides, most threads are full of garbage so it takes hours to find an answer. This reply should be stickied on a FAQ forum.To reply further to the original poster, I recently got PokerTracker and was sure it would demonstrate what an excellent player I am (not). Overall, I was pleasantly surprised, but the big thing I learned is that if I could let go of my TP/TK more easily, I could double my hourly rate! I was appalled. I thought I was being smart agressive on them, when really they w

Well, it doesn't hurt me much, I've been arguing on Usenet since before www was invented. So I've gotten pretty thick skinned. But seriously, if someone posts a question that's been on before, which is worse: One response that politely says "search on these keywords", or twenty that give a sarcastic "like we need this thread again." How hard is it to be polite, or just not answer? Is it really necessary to prove to the guy who has been here a week that you've been here for two?

I belong to a number of special interest forums in a variety of subject areas, and I just have to say, this site has more dickheads per capita than any of them. Maybe it's just the competitive nature of poker that people feel the need to act all superior, but look through these threads, and count the ratio that have no snotty responses to the number with some bullshit response like "that's been discussed a million times, let's not discuss that again, because I'm so f-ing superior that I can't waste my time helping people learn".Guess what, people come here to learn, and there are only so many

ueThat doesn't really answer the question, but at least now I know who thebiggest prick on this forum is.It would've been shorter to type "This has been discussed in the thread<here>." and it would've actually been informative.

That's exactly why I can't dismiss the Always All In on KK theory out of hand... I see people call with A4, K7, anything, against any bet pre-flop. So let me guess: it depends on the room and who's in there, etc. Oh well, just wondering if anyone had actually seen any numbers or facts.

Skill: Average for low limit roomsStack sizes: 100X BB for the most part

Playing low limit online, several times I have had the good fortune to hit an AA against someone going all in with KK or QQ a couple of times. I explain to them they are being silly (it puts them on full tilt), but there it brings up a serious question:Does going all in on KK pay off in low limit (say <$1) better than playing reasonably and getting money in after the flop?My theory is that only AA will call and an occasional idiot, and the rest ofthe time you buy the blinds, so you end up with small or no gains due to theoccasional AA or bad beat. Plus, by betting aggressively but sensibly

OK, so do you have an approximate dollar level where this occurs online, and one for offline? Basically at the 25 cent level, I could program a robot to be profitable, with creative play adding relatively little value.

Sorry if this question has been asked a thousand times, but here it goes:OK, quick background: I read all the articles and started playing online about 6 months ago in 10 cent rooms. I knew I was supposed to play tight agressive, but knowing is different than doing, so I became tight passive. After a few months of failure, I knew I had to change something, but all I could do was loose passive. And I went up in limits to $1 games. At a time when my wife and baby were in the hospital. You probably have some of my money from that time. Anyway, I finally figured out what tight agressive mean