|
|
 Originally Posted by surviva316
You're known for having a knack for putting people on very specific hands. Did the popularization of combinatrics and ranges and all that stuff ever make you rethink your approach, or do you still pretty much stick to the instincts and "feel" involved in how granular you are with your hand reads?
Also, are do you often "level" people by lying about what you think your opponent has, or are your poker soliloquies pretty much just you thinking your actual process through out loud?
Finally, what are your thoughts on young hot-shot online players? Anyones in particular you have respect for? Any specific thoughts on nutsinho (it's my understanding you guys used to hook up a lot at 6m tables on PS)?
Well, even when I do call out people's hands, I'm essentially breaking down ranges and when I call out a specific hand it's because that is the most likely hand in their range based on my read. As you have seen, sometimes I'll call out a player's hand, but call anyway even though I'm beat! The reason for that is based on the pot odds I'm often getting, and even though I think I'm beat, I'm not 100% sure. So for example, if I'm 70% sure they have it, but the pot is laying me 5-1 odds, I still would call the bet because I think bluffs represent 30% of their range which is still profitable in the long run.
I don't really use lying there actually.
I have respect for TONS of them, just to name a few Tom Marchese, nutsinho, and Phil Galfond. I've discussed poker with all these guys and actually had a very valuable training session with Nutsinho, Marchese, and Bill Reynolds in Monte Carlo a couple years ago. Was very helpful.
|
Reply With Quote
