|
|
 Originally Posted by griffey24
The primary message was essentially that some hands play themselves, and those hands aren't where the money is made. Winning/losing KK vs AA preflop, QQ vs AK preflop, second nuts vs nuts etc aren't going to vary much from villain to villain. Most hands will end up the same way, so if you ask yourself "Would villain have lost/won as much as I did this hand, if roles were reversed?" - the answer is likely yes.
Poker players really distinguish themselves on all the other hands. The hands where you can legitimately question "would villain have lost/won as much as I did this hand?"
fundamental theory of poker plus i remember some book (e-book/blog?) where some poker ego was saying that his edge was being way better at playing things like KJs than most players. I've been thinking about this heaps recently. Going to review this whole thread in early april, cos there is gold in it.
Originally Posted by griffey24
I HAVE NOOOO CLUE HOW I'M PERCEIVED.
in absence of notes and/or further info just go with the most likely answer perhaps? i.e.
vs regs with loads of volume, you're perceived as per running a report on yourself in HEM/PT
vs unknowns, you're perceived as running as per your HUD stats display that show what you've been doing at this table during this session
vs in betweens, figure out how much this session is contributing to your history via the good ol' hud double click
|
Reply With Quote