|
|
 Originally Posted by Fnord
Originally Posted by Miffed22001
is this so true at high stakes if we assume a real fish doesnt sit down.
What happens if this is the only scenario, i.e you play high stakes poker with the top pros.
They play with an Ante and fight for blinds. That being said, a lot of middle to high stakes games have a texture where there are 1-3 live ones at the table, a few medicore players and a few strong players fighting it out.
Different game, but same adjustment. I made a lot of money at 2/4 and 3/6 when I figured out that the multi-table nits gave up way too much value by letting me have my way with the terrible players. When a terrible player enters the pot, you don't need as much of a hand, when you can lock-up position and dead blind money.
Another thought exercise... What's the difference between you posting a blind and a guy who plays way too many hands, out of position and plays badly post- flop? The later is probably worth a lot more money than your blind. Hence, it's more important to get more than your fair share of the sucker's action than it is to lose the least from your blind.
can this work as effectivly for NL games as it does lhe?
In limit teh fishy can only lose a limited fixed amount per hand (afterall, he/she thinks its only one more bet) and isnt scared particularly if we bet/raise every street against him for value.
the fish dont like it afterall when we raise a few too many streets for value...
|
Reply With Quote