kerplunk

I wouldn't be too worried for Daniel. He hasn't revealed anything about DC's play that numerous others hadn't noticed previously (never fold preflop, never 3bet, etc). And, unless I've missed a key post, Daniel doesn't seem to be giving a great deal of detail as to his particular strategy to combat DC's style, so he's not really giving away any secrets.As to whether all Daniel's talk will get DC to wise up and change his style, well, Dreamclown's in a bit of a bind on that front. First off, if he did change his fundamental approah, it would be glaringly obvious--how could you not notice when s

I play 1000 hands a day and I wouldn't ever pay off this strategy, and as far as NL goes i'm not the common poster. To use this formula at .50-1 would end up either a small profit, staying neutral, or a small loss.you're not paying off the nut flush with KQs? or a higher set with bottom set?It's funny that you bring up paying off a higher set to bottom set, because this is an exact situation that the system fails; it dictates that you get stacked for all your chips without even thinking. So you can't really use it as a selling point for the system. A person using the system loses as much as

Alright, I'm going to take the Sklansky bait and say that, no, I don't see why. Please tell me why, or at least "let others elaborate."I do believe that smash's system works (which speaks to the extremely poor decision-making of many low stakes NL players), but I think the system is exploitable. Much of the exploitation is predicated on first correctly identifying that a player is using smash's system, but that's not very hard to do, given the all-in betting patterns (all-in preflop on an unraised pot? always limping in otherwise? no intermediate bets on any street? move-in artists are pretty

Smash, I haven't tried your system, but from what I know about low limit NLHE, it seems sound to me. I have some questions, though:-What should be the expected BB/100 for someone using this strategy? I read another thread where blink20 said they were at 17bb/100 after 25k hands. Does that sound right?-Does this strategy work on 6max tables as well as full ring games? Does it work better for one than the other?-You state that you should buy in for the full amount, saying the bigger your stack, the better it works. That's basically saying the fish don't care about stack size when it comes to c

From the way that you describe the mechanics of his cheating, I can't believe that a table of players could fail to immediately recognizethat something was up. Like a previous poster said, burning a card early is a pretty big tipoff. I have been known to let this slide in some home games (especially if I'm pretty new to it), but only with extreme amateurs who don't know better, and in games where having to constantly remind them not to burn early would bring down the mood of the game. But burning two cards in the same betting round? To me, that'd be like someone playing basketball who sudden

XXEddie, that's pretty funny. I don't remember this hand, but there seems to be a bit of humor involved. With a hand like A4, it seems unlikely that Marcel actually thinks he has two overcards. Since you say this is was an all-in hand (meaning he'd have to show his A4), it would seem that Marcel was just messing around. On the other hand, it's interesting to think about what Marcel might have been trying to achieve if he didn't have to show his hand. Specifically, I wonder how often Marcel calls out intentionally incorrect predictions. It's fascinating to imagine how Marcel or other high le

Ariston: To me, the "accumulate" philosophy means getting involved in a lot of cheap hands and being willing to mix it up with dead money players, even when you're behind preflop, because you know you can outplay them post-flop. In this case, there's very little "play" left in this hand, so that advantage is lost; you're basically playing this hand to take it down, and there are better spots to do this. Also, if Gavin Griffin is indeed the opponent, he's not exactly dead money.Big-Ern: As I stated before, calling/all-in isn't as unthinkable as I first thought. But I disagree with your assesme

Wow. This question intrigued me enough to finally get me to register and make my first post. This feels like such an ovious fold to me that I'm beginning to wonder if i'm not seeing something. If Daniel answers that either call or all-in is best hear, it will certainly surprise me, but it'll at least confirm that I definitely don't think along the same lines as DN. I also don't play tourneys too much.DN gives 4 possibilities: 2pair, set, A:heart:J, and possibly medium flush. I have pretty good pot odds against 2pair unless he has K (which might be ruled out because DN says the K doesn't scare