| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Mon, 24 Jul 2006, 2:23pm Post subject: Comments: Don't Be a Poker Pansy: Intro
|
 |
|
Straight
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 150
WPP: 76
Location: Wales, UK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 24 Jul 2006, 2:37pm Post subject:
|
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 5719
WPP: 72
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
nh
I love how these players just call my one pair river value bets with the third nuts, instead of raising and me having to pay them off. Oh, and also how every time they bet they basically pin a sign up showing their exact hole cards. I like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 24 Jul 2006, 5:25pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 1553
WPP: 132
Location: Nest of Douchebags
|
|
| I would like to subscribe to your ebook |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 24 Jul 2006, 5:38pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 2195
WPP: 52
Location: NZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 24 Jul 2006, 6:03pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 592
WPP: 146
Location: working myself up to FTR fullhouse status while not giving 1 solid piece of advice
|
|
| my personal favorite is when i have a monster hand and the guy who paid me off with his whole stack shows me his middle pair as if he HAD to call with that hand - whats funny is they always WANT to show me what they called me with - I don't know why - To let me know for certain that they are idiots? Or to show me that they can't be bluffed? Whatever it is, I don't see how it could help them to let anyone know they will stack off with 2nd pair hands - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 24 Jul 2006, 6:50pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 28 Nov 2004
Posts: 637
WPP: 175
Location: Location: Location
|
|
| LimpinAintEZ wrote: | | Or to show me that they can't be bluffed? |
I think this is the reason.
I think they're thinking to themselves something along the lines of "lucky bastard--90% of the time he's bluffing here and I would have caught it with my pair, I got unlucky enough to call the 10% they had something". And of course they think that same thing the nine out of ten times that they lose their stack looking up someone's monster with middle pair. And they use the one time in ten when they pick off a bluff with middle pair to reinforce this fallacy.
So when they "get unlucky" and call your push when you happen to have a monster, they want to prove that they made a good move picking off your probable bluff, and that it was just luck that you had a hand this time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 24 Jul 2006, 7:38pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 185
WPP: 97
|
|
| thenonsequitur wrote: |
I think this is the reason.
I think they're thinking to themselves something along the lines of "lucky bastard--90% of the time he's bluffing here and I would have caught it with my pair, I got unlucky enough to call the 10% they had something". And of course they think that same thing the nine out of ten times that they lose their stack looking up someone's monster with middle pair. And they use the one time in ten when they pick off a bluff with middle pair to reinforce this fallacy.
So when they "get unlucky" and call your push when you happen to have a monster, they want to prove that they made a good move picking off your probable bluff, and that it was just luck that you had a hand this time. |
That's so convoluted I'm surprised they can actually reason it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 24 Jul 2006, 8:36pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 777
WPP: 103
Location: mashing buttons
|
|
this the beginning of something special
thank you DNUTS |
Last edited by flomo on Tue, 25 Jul 2006, 1:10am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 24 Jul 2006, 9:30pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 457
WPP: 181
Location: Philly, Pa
|
|
| Benoso wrote: | Great post.
A lot of players are far too passive, which is good news for me of course.
Nah, in all seriousness though, a lot of players need to grow some bigger balls. |
what should you when you play the complete opposite way, overaggression? i do a lot of the things this post says aggressive players do well, but i give it back at the wrong times being "too aggressive" and not giving respect to raises, reraises, etc. because i think they are maybe making a stand or just bluffing.
i think if i fix that, that's the difference between my "break even" poker and me actually winning money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 25 Jul 2006, 2:42pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight Flush
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 7939
WPP: 71
Location: Marry Me Cheryl!!!
|
|
| Quote: |
I think this is the reason.
I think they're thinking to themselves something along the lines of "lucky bastard--90% of the time he's bluffing here and I would have caught it with my pair, I got unlucky enough to call the 10% they had something". And of course they think that same thing the nine out of ten times that they lose their stack looking up someone's monster with middle pair. And they use the one time in ten when they pick off a bluff with middle pair to reinforce this fallacy.
So when they "get unlucky" and call your push when you happen to have a monster, they want to prove that they made a good move picking off your probable bluff, and that it was just luck that you had a hand this time.
|
purely and simply a lack of second level thinking. They cant see beyond the cards you should have and what the board shows; no interpretation skills. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 26 Jul 2006, 3:58am Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 67
WPP: 110
|
|
I'm obviously not a fan of passive play, but you're telling people to start bluffing. On loose tables, what's the point?
I can see a c-bet or a semibluff here and there, but not much more.
Why bluff people who will call anything down to the river? You stand to win small pots and get smacked in the head with reverse implied odds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 26 Jul 2006, 4:09am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
| Yakuman wrote: | I'm obviously not a fan of passive play, but you're telling people to start bluffing. On loose tables, what's the point?
I can see a c-bet or a semibluff here and there, but not much more.
Why bluff people who will call anything down to the river? You stand to win small pots and get smacked in the head with reverse implied odds. |
Absofreakinglutely. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 26 Jul 2006, 5:04am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 2195
WPP: 52
Location: NZ
|
|
So you're saying you:
a) never continuation bet,
and
b) never give someone poor outs to draw?
Those are the two biggest money earners in no limit hold'em. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 26 Jul 2006, 5:35am Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 608
WPP: 120
Location: Poland
|
|
| LimpinAintEZ wrote: | | my personal favorite is when i have a monster hand and the guy who paid me off with his whole stack shows me his middle pair as if he HAD to call with that hand - whats funny is they always WANT to show me what they called me with - I don't know why - To let me know for certain that they are idiots? Or to show me that they can't be bluffed? Whatever it is, I don't see how it could help them to let anyone know they will stack off with 2nd pair hands - |
Haha, yeah that's funny, I see it everytime, guys call off entire stack on river and show down bottom pair like they wanted to say "WTF fullhouse??? I was SURE that you had missed AK!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 26 Jul 2006, 8:36am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Posts: 3173
WPP: 88
Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
|
|
DNuts - can I ask a favour? While I agree a certain other poster's strategy posts are too basic, too rigid and as aresult could hamstring them beyond the first few days, I think something important is missing here - you're assuming too much about the knowledge and "feel" of the average beginner.
Telling a newbie poker player to be aggressive ABSOLUTELY requires a clear definition of "good" aggression vs "bad" aggression - when to do it, how far to go, how to spot weakness (I have lost countless $$$ being aggro for the sake of it when I should have been considering position/oppo bets/oppo stats etc etc before doing so).
Aggression used at the wrong time and place - and a newcomer will have, initially, very little instinctive idea of when to do so correctly - is a FAR bigger spew than over-passivity during the first stages of learning. There's a fine but vital line between aggression and recklnessness. Would you mind adding another post that explores this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 26 Jul 2006, 12:49pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1920
WPP: 121
Location: St. Louis
|
|
| biondino wrote: | DNuts - can I ask a favour? While I agree a certain other poster's strategy posts are too basic, too rigid and as aresult could hamstring them beyond the first few days, I think something important is missing here - you're assuming too much about the knowledge and "feel" of the average beginner.
Telling a newbie poker player to be aggressive ABSOLUTELY requires a clear definition of "good" aggression vs "bad" aggression - when to do it, how far to go, how to spot weakness (I have lost countless $$$ being aggro for the sake of it when I should have been considering position/oppo bets/oppo stats etc etc before doing so).
Aggression used at the wrong time and place - and a newcomer will have, initially, very little instinctive idea of when to do so correctly - is a FAR bigger spew than over-passivity during the first stages of learning. There's a fine but vital line between aggression and recklnessness. Would you mind adding another post that explores this? |
Absolutely. I actually started another post after reading johnnybuz's reply, but haven't finished it yet. The follow-up post continues to talk about aggression, specifically being selectively aggressive and the dangers of being overly aggressive.
I also added a little to the intro post that serves somewhat of a disclaimer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 27 Jul 2006, 9:05am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1892
WPP: 109
Location: surfing in a room
|
|
nice post.
as a newbie i was playing tight and something between aggressive and passive. bet your hands, folds your rags and take only 100% opportunities to steal.
after reading HOH 1 & 2 i got more aggressive with cbetting and sandwich moves, thinking of first-in-vigorish and things like that. trying out all those moves cost me a significant part of my BR. I learned it the expensive way, that playing aggressive might make u more money, but it takes far more skills. you have to know your position (never thoght of it much until reading books) and develop a good timing. against super-loose players with nearly no preflop strategy, those kind of french player you meet 80% of your time at EverestPoker, u cant steal anything with a 4BB raise as long any player has any 2 suited cards or broadways.
dont confuse getting aggressive with loosening up.
iīm still a beginner myself but thatīs the things i learned the last weeks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 01 Aug 2006, 8:05pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 1013
WPP: 103
Location: Hartford, CT
|
|
| mrhappy333 wrote: | | can we see some examples of aggresiveness? I always wonder what hands I should be aggressive with? Is bottom pair good enough to re reaise someone? I never know, and I hate when I try to be aggressive and someone has a hand, and takes alot of my chips. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 11 Aug 2006, 3:15pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 296
WPP: 90
|
|
| johnnyBuz wrote: | | Benoso wrote: | Great post.
A lot of players are far too passive, which is good news for me of course.
Nah, in all seriousness though, a lot of players need to grow some bigger balls. |
what should you when you play the complete opposite way, overaggression? i do a lot of the things this post says aggressive players do well, but i give it back at the wrong times being "too aggressive" and not giving respect to raises, reraises, etc. because i think they are maybe making a stand or just bluffing.
i think if i fix that, that's the difference between my "break even" poker and me actually winning money. |
This post really hit home. As a beginner, I worked on getting more aggressive but like JohnnyB says, I would tend (and still do to a smaller extent) to get carried away. Check raise me will you .... well take this over the top push ... oops ... he REALLY did have pocket Qs.
In any case, there is a learning curve to this aggression stuff. Thanks for the original post DaNuts. Keep it coming and perhaps talk a bit about "how much" aggression and how a player can get to the "promised" land in a steady measured way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 09 Jun 2007, 12:43pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 1013
WPP: 103
Location: Hartford, CT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 20 Dec 2008, 12:09am Post subject:
|
|
|
Two Pair
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 35
WPP: 125
|
|
| This post is awsome man you make two really good points in it that force feeding new players information is not the route to go becuase it effects there thought process as they grow as players and move up in limit and I think your right players should not be feed information like it is a get rich quick scheme becuase it is poker is a skilled game a think mans game that if played right over the long haul you can make a great live off of but first off you must think and grow rich . Your second point was awsome to passive is very bad becuase you allow better players to draw or redraw on you becuase you did not make them pay for there mistakes let there mistakes make you money dont let it be the other way around. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 17 Jan 2009, 3:30pm Post subject: thanks for the post
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 65
WPP: 84
Location: Alabama
|
|
Great post!
I find myself being "pushed off" marginal hands because of my being a passive player...I can usually make it to the money but only just. Im trying to learn when to be aggressive.
I think the odds charts have a certain value, though..to let the beginners (like myself) know when to throw something away that "looks" marginal but due to position, pre-flop raises, etc. is a good hand to hold on to.
My two cents worth,
birdman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 17 Jan 2009, 4:29pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 659
WPP: 86
Location: Norway
|
|
Why is aggression good?
1. Bigger pots
2. Can win without showdown. (stealing equity)
3. Gain more information. Lose less with second best hand.
Aggression for the sake of aggression is no good. Understand the reasons behind your actions and chose your spots. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 17 Jan 2009, 10:32pm Post subject:
|
|
|
High Card
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 5
WPP: 121
|
|
| Sir Pawnalot wrote: | Why is aggression good?
1. Bigger pots
2. Can win without showdown. (stealing equity)
3. Gain more information. Lose less with second best hand.
Aggression for the sake of aggression is no good. Understand the reasons behind your actions and chose your spots. |
This is right on the mark. Always know the reason you are making a raise. And even more importantly, stick to those reasons. If you raise w/ bottom pair to see if you are ahead and get re-raised, you probably need to let it go unless you have an ironclad read on you opponent. On the other hand, if you have top 2 and value bet and get re-raised you should already know if you are going to call with intention of check raising the turn or re-raising the flop. Sure you won't always be making the right decision, but you will be starting to think about the whole hand and not just the flop |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted FTR $300 Freeroll at PokerStars - Nov 28 @ 8pm ET
