Jump to content

Making Bad Plays


Recommended Posts

DrawingDeadinDM posted this in the High Stakes Showdown thread:

KidPoker: Prince, you must read 2+2 yeah?KidPoker: ive talked to a lot of those guys in person. there is stuff y'all just dont getKidPoker: if you NEVER make plays that are seemingly bad you allow your opponent to rule out the possibility that you are making one of those plays. that could cost you money and willl
Thoughts?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It kinda threw me off, and thus why I posted it..But, I think you can advertise with busted flush/straight draws or firing a couple barrels with KQs after you whiff..I don't think you need to repeatedly limp/call with bad suited one gappers OOP.
I think an important consideration in what Daniel is talking about is that it best comes into play in games and situations where you have more experience playing with the same players. There is a large difference between "advertising" to a table of players who you have little experience with and creating an unpredictable playing style with players who you play with on a regular basis. It's of course more of an issue with cash games especially in live settings where you are more likely going to be playing the same set of players or in larger games online where the pool of players who play is smaller.The better your opponents are the less important the expected value of a play in a particular hand becomes as poker isn't just about looking at hands and plays in isolation. If you never limp/call with marginal hands for example than a good player can narrow your range much easier in any given situation.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Daniel making a 'bad play', purely by talking openly about this in chat?I mean, if he thinks he has the measure of these guys (not saying he does, or he doesn't.. I don't know that or care too much), then why not keep quiet about it and keep on exploiting them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't Daniel making a 'bad play', purely by talking openly about this in chat?I mean, if he thinks he has the measure of these guys (not saying he does, or he doesn't.. I don't know that or care too much), then why not keep quiet about it and keep on exploiting them?
A lot of the online poker community have been saying that DN is a big underdog to many of the high stakes onliners. DN obviously does'nt agree and is defending himself/ ragging on their game as I'm sure he feels a little defensive and has reacted this way to perceived conflicts in the past.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of the online poker community have been saying that DN is a big underdog to many of the high stakes onliners. DN obviously does'nt agree and is defending himself/ ragging on their game as I'm sure he feels a little defensive and has reacted this way to perceived conflicts in the past.
Yeah, I hear that. We all have our pride I guess, and don't like getting bashed whatever our profession.I dunno, I just think that he maybe could rise above it sometimes.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what Bob is saying. Against Joe public making bad plays are -EV, but with players that are very good AND know you, they can be made +EV over the life of the game.Like Sammy Farha's overall play in HSP..crazy bad calls preflop, but some very good plays post flop. One thing is for sure, If I ever play Sammy Farha, I am going to put him on a bit of a wider range of starting hands than say Buss, Stupek or Ferguson. Of course it's also true that every play you make can be used against your opponent later. As long as you still have money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of the online poker community have been saying that DN is a big underdog to many of the high stakes onliners. DN obviously does'nt agree and is defending himself/ ragging on their game as I'm sure he feels a little defensive and has reacted this way to perceived conflicts in the past.
Fact is DN has a really small amount of time online to get accurate readings. I mean against PA he ran SOOO unlucky. Had luck not stepped in, PA could very well have been the overall loser in those matches. A lot of us railed those games and the river was not kind to DN. But they only played a relatively short amount of time, so luck/varience is a much bigger factor.Plus the online community is woefully lacking in knowledge of DN's game since most of them have never played him online, and are relying on a very small number of hands and a very few hours of play. I would imagine most poker players,online and not, think they are better than most of, if not all the rest of the players. Of course I am sticking up for DN until I get that email from Jennifer Harmen he promised me. Then I will probably snip at his heals as well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of the online poker community have been saying that DN is a big underdog to many of the high stakes onliners. DN obviously does'nt agree and is defending himself/ ragging on their game as I'm sure he feels a little defensive and has reacted this way to perceived conflicts in the past.
Bingo. One thing I would like to point out is that ps favors the underdog anyway though so bad plays online are +EV obv.
Link to post
Share on other sites

theres a fine line between making "bad" plays as an overall +EV strategy, and making bad plays consistently and chalking it up to an imaginary "+EV strategy". For instance, making bad calls for most of your chips or making bad calls on the river can never be +EV...ever...you can try to argue that it'll make people bluff you less so it ends up being +EV in an overall strategy etc.. but even if thats the case, it'll make people v bet you more with a much wider range therefor making it -EV ..making a "bad" call preflop for 1/8th your stack or so _can_ be +EV in certain situations, this might get people to stop re-raising you or to start reraising you oop with a wider range (depending on the player) both of which can be + EV if you know how to play. I'm not going into too much detail on my game but I know I make -EV plays often, way more often than any of my friends, I also probably get twice as much action as them and have twice as many swings...back when I was a regular on bodog I always liked to say that 50% of the people thought I was the worst and 50% of the people thought I was good, this image was created after months of giving insane action against the same players, I put my money in bad often but I was still a big winner in the games even though my swings were WAY nastier than any of the more solid winning players on there that I knew.. Whenever winning player friends of mine watch me play they usually say something I did was "terrible" more than once...most of them are online players. The reason Daniel thinks that most of the online guys play "eerily similar" is because most of the online guys became winners by reading and posting in strategy forums like 2+2 with other winning players, they all play the same because they all learned together or from the same people, it seems that they think a +EV play good and the opportunity HAS to be taken, and a -EV play is bad and should be avoided at all costs..... I was watching a friend of mine, a typical online player, as he was grinding some 2/4 nl games and he was doing stuff that would make me cry if I missclicked and ended up folding the hands he was mucking, like folding 68s to a UTG raise in a six handed game is something I just cant do, at one point the button raised and he folded 55 from the SB saying "--enter cardrunner's instructor name--- says you need to be getting xx to 1 in order to call with a pair oop" then he explained that you're not getting correct implied odds all the time blah blah blah....the funny thing is that he had PAHud running and EVERYONE in the game was extremely solid with almost the same #'s, this is why the online games are so much tougher, is because you'll rarely find a fish that constantly gets in -ev situations. Now, if my friend would be calling with all these "-EV hands" he was folding he'd have more swings for sure, but people would be either forced to make bad calls bad bets or bad folds against him a lot of the time, and that's how he'd be able to crush that game. It seems that in those mid-small limit games everyone is playing text book and the only way they make money is when they get one or to donks in a game or to play exactly opposite as them (with intelligence obv)I kinda digressed, All in all I think Daniel's comments have SOME truth to it but its an easy way to justify certain plays you shouldn't be doing, so believing that bad plays can be +EV is a very dangerous way of thinking as it can severely hurt your game unless you understand what's behind that whole "bad play" theory (which Daniel probably does and most people probably don't). That said, I'll go on a small rant about the online player vs live player debate that DN keeps commenting on. I really think that most online players don't make enough "mistakes" like DN said, but at the same time I think a lot of live players make TOO many mistakes. I haven't watched anyone enough to comment on their play, but one person whom I HAVE watched and seen his hole cards is someone who is very well balanced, in other words I think he takes the good aspects of online play and the good aspects of live play and combines them in order to play really sick. Monkey101 plays the biggest nl games live and online, I've seen him call reraises with a hand one orbit and fold to a reraise with the same hand vs a very similar opponent 20 mins later, this is something an online player generally doesn't do because of the whole -EV +EV thing (if one play is +EV you should almost always do it and if its -EV you shouldn't). I remember asking him once after he raised and folded a suited connector if he always folds that hand to a reraise, he said "it depends, if I'm running bad I'll fold, if I'm running well I'll usually call" this is something a typical online winning player would laugh at, even though they know that "running bad" exists they believe this shouldn't change your game, again because if a play is +EV it should always be made and if its -EV it shouldn't. I guess my point is that the debate is meaningless for the most part because to be a great player you need to understand the "things" that online players understand and live players don't (Daniel included) and you have to understand "things" that live players understand which online players "just don't get" (sbrugby included)...That said, I don't know what a lot of those "things" are, I wish I did b/c I'd be a millionare. I think the best example of someone who "gets it" is Ivey, the dude just knows whats up :club:.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen him call reraises with a hand one orbit and fold to a reraise with the same hand vs a very similar opponent 20 mins later,
This isnt standard? I do things like this every session, it depends on slight differences in the situation. maybe its cuz i play live 80% of the time, and thus, only play 1 table so I have to examine every little detail going on.weird that this is news
Link to post
Share on other sites
theres a fine line between making "bad" plays as an overall +EV strategy, and making bad plays consistently and chalking it up to an imaginary "+EV strategy". For instance, making bad calls for most of your chips or making bad calls on the river can never be +EV...ever...you can try to argue that it'll make people bluff you less so it ends up being +EV in an overall strategy etc.. but even if thats the case, it'll make people v bet you more with a much wider range therefor making it -EV ..making a "bad" call preflop for 1/8th your stack or so _can_ be +EV in certain situations, this might get people to stop re-raising you or to start reraising you oop with a wider range (depending on the player) both of which can be + EV if you know how to play. I'm not going into too much detail on my game but I know I make -EV plays often, way more often than any of my friends, I also probably get twice as much action as them and have twice as many swings...back when I was a regular on bodog I always liked to say that 50% of the people thought I was the worst and 50% of the people thought I was good, this image was created after months of giving insane action against the same players, I put my money in bad often but I was still a big winner in the games even though my swings were WAY nastier than any of the more solid winning players on there that I knew.. Whenever winning player friends of mine watch me play they usually say something I did was "terrible" more than once...most of them are online players. The reason Daniel thinks that most of the online guys play "eerily similar" is because most of the online guys became winners by reading and posting in strategy forums like 2+2 with other winning players, they all play the same because they all learned together or from the same people, it seems that they think a +EV play good and the opportunity HAS to be taken, and a -EV play is bad and should be avoided at all costs..... I was watching a friend of mine, a typical online player, as he was grinding some 2/4 nl games and he was doing stuff that would make me cry if I missclicked and ended up folding the hands he was mucking, like folding 68s to a UTG raise in a six handed game is something I just cant do, at one point the button raised and he folded 55 from the SB saying "--enter cardrunner's instructor name--- says you need to be getting xx to 1 in order to call with a pair oop" then he explained that you're not getting correct implied odds all the time blah blah blah....the funny thing is that he had PAHud running and EVERYONE in the game was extremely solid with almost the same #'s, this is why the online games are so much tougher, is because you'll rarely find a fish that constantly gets in -ev situations. Now, if my friend would be calling with all these "-EV hands" he was folding he'd have more swings for sure, but people would be either forced to make bad calls bad bets or bad folds against him a lot of the time, and that's how he'd be able to crush that game. It seems that in those mid-small limit games everyone is playing text book and the only way they make money is when they get one or to donks in a game or to play exactly opposite as them (with intelligence obv)I kinda digressed, All in all I think Daniel's comments have SOME truth to it but its an easy way to justify certain plays you shouldn't be doing, so believing that bad plays can be +EV is a very dangerous way of thinking as it can severely hurt your game unless you understand what's behind that whole "bad play" theory (which Daniel probably does and most people probably don't). That said, I'll go on a small rant about the online player vs live player debate that DN keeps commenting on. I really think that most online players don't make enough "mistakes" like DN said, but at the same time I think a lot of live players make TOO many mistakes. I haven't watched anyone enough to comment on their play, but one person whom I HAVE watched and seen his hole cards is someone who is very well balanced, in other words I think he takes the good aspects of online play and the good aspects of live play and combines them in order to play really sick. Monkey101 plays the biggest nl games live and online, I've seen him call reraises with a hand one orbit and fold to a reraise with the same hand vs a very similar opponent 20 mins later, this is something an online player generally doesn't do because of the whole -EV +EV thing (if one play is +EV you should almost always do it and if its -EV you shouldn't). I remember asking him once after he raised and folded a suited connector if he always folds that hand to a reraise, he said "it depends, if I'm running bad I'll fold, if I'm running well I'll usually call" this is something a typical online winning player would laugh at, even though they know that "running bad" exists they believe this shouldn't change your game, again because if a play is +EV it should always be made and if its -EV it shouldn't. I guess my point is that the debate is meaningless for the most part because to be a great player you need to understand the "things" that online players understand and live players don't (Daniel included) and you have to understand "things" that live players understand which online players "just don't get" (sbrugby included)...That said, I don't know what a lot of those "things" are, I wish I did b/c I'd be a millionare. I think the best example of someone who "gets it" is Ivey, the dude just knows whats up :club:.
Probably the best post I've ever read on this forum. Thank you, sir.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This isnt standard? I do things like this every session, it depends on slight differences in the situation. maybe its cuz i play live 80% of the time, and thus, only play 1 table so I have to examine every little detail going on.weird that this is news
not standard at all....a lot of online players would argue in this situation, say you raise 78s to 175 in a 25/50 game with 5k behind and a dude repops to 600 from the button with 6k behind, you call and c/f the flop......20 mins later nothing has changed in the game, you raise 78s with 5k behind and same dude reraises to 600 with 6k behind from the same position, you fold. A lot of people will say "wait, so why did u call the first time and fold the second time? That makes no sense, if nothing has changed in the game why are you making a different play for no reason?" and I live player will often respond "I didn't feel like it". After this an online player might accuse the live player of not knowing the math, or making -ev plays etc, he can easily give the live player a mathematical reason for why one of the two plays was incorrect and why doing one play one time and then folding the next makes no sense.....The live player, might not know exactly how to explain why he did what he did with too much logic, without knowing how to explain it with a certain science behind it he is just "mixing it up", he just knows that if he only calls reraises with big hands he's making a mistake in that people wont give him action postflop when he has a hand. Whatever the reason is he knows its fine and really doesn't affect his winrate too much to make any substantial difference. A lot (note- I am not saying all) of online players just do not realize this at all....
Link to post
Share on other sites

JC- great posts.. I was going to say something like what you said but you said it a lot better, in more detail, and you actually know what you're talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
theres a fine line between making "bad" plays as an overall +EV strategy, and making bad plays consistently and chalking it up to an imaginary "+EV strategy". For instance, making bad calls for most of your chips or making bad calls on the river can never be +EV...ever...you can try to argue that it'll make people bluff you less so it ends up being +EV in an overall strategy etc.. but even if thats the case, it'll make people v bet you more with a much wider range therefor making it -EV ..making a "bad" call preflop for 1/8th your stack or so _can_ be +EV in certain situations, this might get people to stop re-raising you or to start reraising you oop with a wider range (depending on the player) both of which can be + EV if you know how to play. I'm not going into too much detail on my game but I know I make -EV plays often, way more often than any of my friends, I also probably get twice as much action as them and have twice as many swings...back when I was a regular on bodog I always liked to say that 50% of the people thought I was the worst and 50% of the people thought I was good, this image was created after months of giving insane action against the same players, I put my money in bad often but I was still a big winner in the games even though my swings were WAY nastier than any of the more solid winning players on there that I knew.. Whenever winning player friends of mine watch me play they usually say something I did was "terrible" more than once...most of them are online players. The reason Daniel thinks that most of the online guys play "eerily similar" is because most of the online guys became winners by reading and posting in strategy forums like 2+2 with other winning players, they all play the same because they all learned together or from the same people, it seems that they think a +EV play good and the opportunity HAS to be taken, and a -EV play is bad and should be avoided at all costs..... I was watching a friend of mine, a typical online player, as he was grinding some 2/4 nl games and he was doing stuff that would make me cry if I missclicked and ended up folding the hands he was mucking, like folding 68s to a UTG raise in a six handed game is something I just cant do, at one point the button raised and he folded 55 from the SB saying "--enter cardrunner's instructor name--- says you need to be getting xx to 1 in order to call with a pair oop" then he explained that you're not getting correct implied odds all the time blah blah blah....the funny thing is that he had PAHud running and EVERYONE in the game was extremely solid with almost the same #'s, this is why the online games are so much tougher, is because you'll rarely find a fish that constantly gets in -ev situations. Now, if my friend would be calling with all these "-EV hands" he was folding he'd have more swings for sure, but people would be either forced to make bad calls bad bets or bad folds against him a lot of the time, and that's how he'd be able to crush that game. It seems that in those mid-small limit games everyone is playing text book and the only way they make money is when they get one or to donks in a game or to play exactly opposite as them (with intelligence obv)I kinda digressed, All in all I think Daniel's comments have SOME truth to it but its an easy way to justify certain plays you shouldn't be doing, so believing that bad plays can be +EV is a very dangerous way of thinking as it can severely hurt your game unless you understand what's behind that whole "bad play" theory (which Daniel probably does and most people probably don't). That said, I'll go on a small rant about the online player vs live player debate that DN keeps commenting on. I really think that most online players don't make enough "mistakes" like DN said, but at the same time I think a lot of live players make TOO many mistakes. I haven't watched anyone enough to comment on their play, but one person whom I HAVE watched and seen his hole cards is someone who is very well balanced, in other words I think he takes the good aspects of online play and the good aspects of live play and combines them in order to play really sick. Monkey101 plays the biggest nl games live and online, I've seen him call reraises with a hand one orbit and fold to a reraise with the same hand vs a very similar opponent 20 mins later, this is something an online player generally doesn't do because of the whole -EV +EV thing (if one play is +EV you should almost always do it and if its -EV you shouldn't). I remember asking him once after he raised and folded a suited connector if he always folds that hand to a reraise, he said "it depends, if I'm running bad I'll fold, if I'm running well I'll usually call" this is something a typical online winning player would laugh at, even though they know that "running bad" exists they believe this shouldn't change your game, again because if a play is +EV it should always be made and if its -EV it shouldn't. I guess my point is that the debate is meaningless for the most part because to be a great player you need to understand the "things" that online players understand and live players don't (Daniel included) and you have to understand "things" that live players understand which online players "just don't get" (sbrugby included)...That said, I don't know what a lot of those "things" are, I wish I did b/c I'd be a millionare. I think the best example of someone who "gets it" is Ivey, the dude just knows whats up :club:.
JC, just a few questions. Great post by the way.When you say that "I was watching a friend of mine, a typical online player, as he was grinding some 2/4 nl games and he was doing stuff that would make me cry if I missclicked and ended up folding the hands he was mucking, like folding 68s to a UTG raise in a six handed game is something I just cant do"....do you mean when playing shorthanded and/or 6 max nl cash games that you feel that you need to have a wider range of hands played/hour? All I have heard from strong players is that raises from EP just reeks of strength. I know this is a fundamental part of the game, but I would like to have your insight on this. Do you feel the need to "gamble" more and open up your range when playing solid players? Or do you find that playing tight and closing your range is +ev when playing against weak players?I am mainly a cash game player who plays about 10 tourneys online/week. I find that I try and adapt to the game more than anything. I have been getting better at mixing up my play, especially online, but your post can hopefully help me change gears more efficiently when I feel the table is particularly weak or strong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
JC, just a few questions. Great post by the way.When you say that "I was watching a friend of mine, a typical online player, as he was grinding some 2/4 nl games and he was doing stuff that would make me cry if I missclicked and ended up folding the hands he was mucking, like folding 68s to a UTG raise in a six handed game is something I just cant do"....do you mean when playing shorthanded and/or 6 max nl cash games that you feel that you need to have a wider range of hands played/hour? All I have heard from strong players is that raises from EP just reeks of strength. I know this is a fundamental part of the game, but I would like to have your insight on this. Do you feel the need to "gamble" more and open up your range when playing solid players? Or do you find that playing tight and closing your range is +ev when playing against weak players?I am mainly a cash game player who plays about 10 tourneys online/week. I find that I try and adapt to the game more than anything. I have been getting better at mixing up my play, especially online, but your post can hopefully help me change gears more efficiently when I feel the table is particularly weak or strong.
I honestly dont know what "style" is the best, all I'm saying is that if someone raises with a full stack and I have J9s in position I dont think I'd ever fold that. I don't know if its correct or not, but I think I can make it profitable by playing well post flop, it also increases the action I get when I actually have a good hand or hit big.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post by JC.I'm still having a hard time accepting the "wisdom" of most poker forums that label every play as simply+EV or -EV. I am definitely a beginner, and play much lower stakes than a lot of people in this forum, however, I have become a winning player in local cash games after I started making "-EV" plays. Before, I was playing a much tighter, tournament style game that I played online. After reading some threads in strategy, I decided to loosen my game and see the results. I noticed that by making "-EV" plays early in a cash game, like calling small bets on the river with middle pair, or bluffing with air on the river. I feel that, and anyone feel free to correct me here, that by making -EV plays in small pots, will cost you money short term, but later on in the game, you get paid off much more, especially in bigger pots. This is probably nothing new to experienced players, and this might just be considered mixing it up. But a few times, I'll bluff on the river, expecting my opponent to call with a stronger hand, and will then show my bluff, when I do the same thing on a much bigger pot, I tend to get paid off, and I'm usually holding a very strong hand. One last thing I would like to add is that maybe these plays are much more useful when playing live. People pay much more attention to the action on the table compared to online, where opponents are often multi-tabling and are less observant of how everyone is behaving. I for one, am still not convinced that poker can be condensed to + or - EV situations. I suspect that Doyle, Reese, Slim etc do NOT see poker this way, and are proven winning players in the highest stakes.I think that DN is making a very valid point, and I also think that the fact that he does not see every possible play as +/- EV might give him the edge in the long run against a majority of online players. My prediction: DN will be a winning on-line player, mixing it up with the best of them.My 0.02 cents

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great posts JC I like the line of thinking there.Seems like a lot of what has been said here is just a re-iteration or expansion on the Doyle maxim of "Sometimes you give action so that you can get action."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I kinda digressed, All in all I think Daniel's comments have SOME truth to it but its an easy way to justify certain plays you shouldn't be doing, so believing that bad plays can be +EV is a very dangerous way of thinking as it can severely hurt your game unless you understand what's behind that whole "bad play" theory (which Daniel probably does and most people probably don't).
Isn't it just about keeping your range 'optimally' wide? At the highest levels you are going to be playing the same (or similar) good players. One thing good players have in common is the ability to narrow your range quickly and accurately and then make good decisions from there.If DN is occasionally making -EV plays conciously, surely it would be in an effort to make narrowing his range in every other hand he plays that much harder. This would be the big difference though, it would be a preconceived strategy as opposed to a post-applied justification, and from an outsider looking in all but impossible to tell the difference.This would be a pointless exercise in the online world until you getter to the upper echelons as you are not playing against the same opponents and those you do play don't have the skills to accurately pigeon hole you quickly. Discussions from 2+2, CRs etc wouldn't see it as 'acceptable', as villains are not considered to be regular opponents and EV thinking is on a hand by hand basis. DN is just taking it to a session basis (and remembering it is all 1 big session lol)By playing 1 hand sub-optimally DN is increasing his EV on the next 99 because he is against opponents who do notice
Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly dont know what "style" is the best, all I'm saying is that if someone raises with a full stack and I have J9s in position I dont think I'd ever fold that. I don't know if its correct or not, but I think I can make it profitable by playing well post flop, it also increases the action I get when I actually have a good hand or hit big.
this helps explain to me why when I see some of the HH's posted with some of the "best" online players, that they are showing down hands that I wouldn't think would ever be in play....makes me wonder if they are showing these hands just to mess with our rookie minds...thanks for great insight JC...J
Link to post
Share on other sites

JC's post is pretty great, as is bob's.for the more mathematically inclined among us, who may cringe at the idea of ever doing anything "-EV" on any hand, think of randomizing your play this way:if, by making a -ev play in one spot, you can lead your opponents to make plays that are MORE -ev in another hand later on in your session, you have made a play that, overall, is +ev. you can call this advertising, metagame, image-related play, "giving action to get action," whatever, but there is a mathematical reason that it works.if, for example, my making a call of a 200 dollar bet on one hand with what is probably a losing hand (without the proper odds to do so) leads my opponent to avoid making a bluff in a 250 dollar pot later that would have worked, i've actually made a +ev play. it just took 2 (plus the 20 or whatever in between) hands to see the full result. or if--and this more directly links to what JC was saying earlier--if i show my opponents that i'm calling reraises OOP with 55 occasionally, even (gasp!) when i don't have the immediate implied odds or ev to do so, i may lead him/her to play big hands more timidly against me in the future and lose a ton of value when i float flops with draws, etc. of course, this is extremely difficult to quantify in any precise way, but the basic logic of it should make sense.that may seem elementary to some, but i'm just trying to illustrate that there is a mathematical foundation to upper level thinking, even if it isn't apparent at first glance. but it's VERY important to note exactly what JC said--that it's very easy for anyone to try to justify making bad plays in this way, often without thinking things all the way through and being honest with oneself about the true effect of such moves, because sometimes, indeed, bad plays are merely bad plays. i should also say that i'm not of the camp that thinks poker ought to be approached entirely mathematically, even if i do think that any game played with a closed set of 52 cards is fundamentally mathematical in nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add two thoughts to this thread, but before I do that let me say that I completely suck at poker. This is especially true when you compare me to the people who have posted in this thread. But I have plenty of experience making bad plays, so I feel uniquely qualified to speak on this topic.1) Those of us who are micro-limit grinders should NOT see this as an excuse to start making bad plays. My thought is until you can play perfect ABC poker (or as close to it as possible) then you shouldn't be worried about "mixing it up" and making -EV plays. Those of us at the micro limits make plenty of -EV plays naturally without needing to add any in so that we seem unpredictable. We already are because of our generally lack of polish at the table. That being said, someone else posted that this is the kind of advice we all want to see because it will let the micro limit fish gamboool more under the premise of "Daniel says to make -EV plays and you'll win more money. Screw you math people, I'm going to do what I want to do~!!!" Definitely - and I hope everyone who doesn't read this forum does exactly that. But the good micro limit players of this forum shouldn't worry about adding -EV plays to their repertoire - we already have plenty of those that we do naturally. Otherwise we'd be high limit grinders.2) All that being said, I have found this useful advice at the 2-7 micro limit TD tables. I sit down and play super-aggressive. I'm content drawing to 8-7's, and feel lucky to draw an at 8-5. If I hit a 10 or better and my opponent is still drawing, I play it like the nuts. Push push push push. Because of my style, I get plenty of pissed off opponents who don't understand TD (or poker) beyond Daniel's chapter in SSII. So they think I'm the world's biggest donkey, and think I must be completely bluffing every hand and pushing every hand because I don't know any better. I've bet and been called by pairs on the river, and been raised by 10-8's (think bottom pair in LHE for those of you who haven't memorized the hand rankings in TD) because they have no concept of where I'm at in the hand. It's super high swings (for a micro-limit bankroll), but I've doubled my meager bankroll in less than a week of serious play at the tables.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...