|
silverfist
|
06-28-2006, 03:46 PM
Post subject: Confused about King Yao's Book
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 341
|
|
I've got King Yao's book, and I love it. However, I'm a little confused about the suggested hand chart. On page 169, it recommends calling a raise and two callers with 44/33/22, but not with 88/77/66/55. I'm a little confused about this. Why would one call with the low pairs but not the high pairs? Is it because of card distribution given the number of callers? Or is this just a typo?
|
Discuss Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas at The Lyceum
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
thenonsequitur
|
|
06-28-2006, 04:02 PM
Post subject: Re: Confused about King Yao's Book
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 637
|
|
I think this has to be a typo. Column 4 is defined as a raise and two cold calls, and late position column 4 of 44/33/22 shows up as "Call w/2; Fold". But Call w/2 is defined as call with at least 2 limpers. So Call w/2 can't even apply to column 4 (and if you look at the rest of his tables, Call w/2 only shows up in column 2, where it does make sense).
So I think late position of column 4 for 44/33/22 was supposed be the same as the next biggest pairs, "Fold; Call".
|
|
|
|
silverfist
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 341
|
|
Hmm... That's an interesting typo. Does he maybe mean to recommend calling against two limpers? For all the medium and small pairs, he recommends raising in late position against limpers. That seems like an odd strategy (maybe it's right and I just don't get it?). Perhaps the suggestions got mixed up.
|
Discuss Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas at The Lyceum
|
|
arkitekton
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 269
|
|
I don't see how that can be right unless he figures the value of deception outweighs all other factors. Otherwise, how can he be recommending raising with a pair of threes in the cutoff against two limpers? Strictly on value that's a trip to the poorhouse.
|
|
|
|
pokerfanatic
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 6max limit tables
Posts: 1,968
|
|
I've got King Yao's book, and I love it. However, I'm a little confused about the suggested hand chart.
hand charts are for newbs... they don't matter when you have playing experance, because the hands need adjustment based on situations...
|
|
“Dream as if you’ll live forever. Live as if you’ll die today.” ~ James Dean ~
"Poker is a lot like sex, peoples perceived ability usually blinds the truth" ~ me ~
"God bless him. Got to bet big to win big! GAMB00L!!!" ~ Fnord
|
|
littleogre
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,344
|
|
Sounds like a question for 2+2.
|
|
|
|
silverfist
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 341
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by littleogre
Sounds like a question for 2+2.
|
I thought of that, but the book wasn't published by 2+2, so I came here. I was even a little worried that my post would be locked or something.
Heh. I know that starting charts are for newbs, but I'm a bit of a newb myself  . I don't follow the charts religiously, of course. Against passive, loose tables, I'll limp with speculative hands, even from up front, or call raises with small pairs. Against loose aggressive tables, I'll reraise with hands like AQ against MP and LP raisers, that kind of thing.
I was just really intersted in his suggestions in so far as they deviated from Sklansky's. He steals blinds with more hands than Sklansky, and plays A9-7 quite differently. However, the small PP thing just didn't make sense and doesn't fit his text (he suggests getting in to post with them as cheaply as possible). I was wondering if others had the same reaction.
For now, I'm playing the small PPs fairly conservatively in late position. I tend to open-raise with them, call two, but not one limper and call a raiser with two callers simply for set value. This has worked fairly well for me.
|
Discuss Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas at The Lyceum
|
|
littleogre
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,344
|
|
I don't actually have a 2+2 account but i do lurk over there once in a while and i know the author post there once in a while. King yao also post at major wager. As a matter of fact if you asked him there I doubt he would mind answering.
|
|
|
|
arkitekton
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 269
|
|
Quote:
|
For now, I'm playing the small PPs fairly conservatively in late position. I tend to open-raise with them, call two, but not one limper and call a raiser with two callers simply for set value. This has worked fairly well for me.
|
This sounds about right to me.
Try writing the King. Even Sklansky and Malmuth used to drop by 2+2 forums fairly often to answer questions. Don't know if they still do...
|
|
|
|
littleogre
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,344
|
|
Ok i asked at mw but so far no response. If nobody minds i will post this thread at another poker forum as i'm now very curious myself as to what the answer is.
|
|
|
|
littleogre
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,344
|
|
captainmilktoast offered the following theory.
You gotta figure that the two limpers are on some kinda draw, right? Seems semi-probable that they'd be working on straights and if you're working on getting a set with mid-pairs, there's probably a decent chance that if you hit your set, they'll get their straight?
Does that make sense to any of the finer poker minds out there?
|
|
|
|
pokerfanatic
|
|
06-30-2006, 04:49 PM
Post subject: Re: Confused about King Yao's Book
|
#12 (permalink)
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 6max limit tables
Posts: 1,968
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by silverfist
I've got King Yao's book, and I love it. However, I'm a little confused about the suggested hand chart. On page 169, it recommends calling a raise and two callers with 44/33/22, but not with 88/77/66/55. I'm a little confused about this. Why would one call with the low pairs but not the high pairs? Is it because of card distribution given the number of callers? Or is this just a typo?
|
i think you miss read the chart...
22/33/44... says Call w/ only 2 callers or more other wise fold
55/66/77/88... says you can call or fold, i think, depending of how table i playing and who made the raise that's how i kind of see it anyways...
|
|
“Dream as if you’ll live forever. Live as if you’ll die today.” ~ James Dean ~
"Poker is a lot like sex, peoples perceived ability usually blinds the truth" ~ me ~
"God bless him. Got to bet big to win big! GAMB00L!!!" ~ Fnord
|
|
arkitekton
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 269
|
|
Quote:
|
I was just really intersted in his suggestions in so far as they deviated from Sklansky's. He steals blinds with more hands than Sklansky, and plays A9-7 quite differently. However, the small PP thing just didn't make sense and doesn't fit his text (he suggests getting in to post with them as cheaply as possible). I was wondering if others had the same reaction.
|
No offense meant, but I'm not sure how possible that is. Sklansky recommends raising on the button if first in on crap such as 54 offsuit, 42 suited, and the like (HEPFAP p. 38). Can't get much lighter than that
Quote:
captainmilktoast offered the following theory.
You gotta figure that the two limpers are on some kinda draw, right? Seems semi-probable that they'd be working on straights and if you're working on getting a set with mid-pairs, there's probably a decent chance that if you hit your set, they'll get their straight?
Does that make sense to any of the finer poker minds out there?
|
Assuming the form of your question doesn't disqualify me, allow me a heartfelt "none whatsover."
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
