|
|
Great replies! Thanks!
dsmrolla06 - re: increasing chances (not odds) by betting as opposed to calling or checking.
This applies to any street, not just 5th street (river). But you are right of course, it isn't always the case. Though the underlying idea, I believe, is; (Assuming you have some sort of hand to play).
1 - to put pressure on remaining player(s)
2 - to "pay" for information, to find out where you are at in the hand.
I do not profess to know, what a player like Mr. Brunson line of thought is regarding this, but I do know that he is a great poker player. It's one of those things that just rang true & stuck in my head. It is a discussion in itself I'm sure.
acesfullokings - I agree, "Theory and Practise" is a great book. Any comments about what you gained most from it? Sklansky's mind is so far ahead of mine that I have to read his books 2 or 3 times to grasp some of the concepts.
biondino - You are right, most books do start out with the fundamentals regarding the math. But we base our decisions at the table on a ton of incomplete information. Odds, reads on opponents, position, possible draw hands etc.If poker was just all about the math though, as math is absolute, (2+2 = 4, no other way around it), there would be no need read more than one such book, other than differing oppinions on how to interrupt the math (odds etc.).
Once we, as players, have the math down so we know what our odds are etc., where do we go from there or what should we do next to improve our game? I try to ferret out the bits of wisdom beyond the math that poker playing authors put to pen. Their experience is reflected in the words they write as they come from their thoughts & feelings about the subject they are discussing.
One area I am presently trying to improve on is my "instincts". Have you ever called a bet or raise when you know (feel) you are beat despite your odds being good? I know I have, & I'm sure most, if not all of us have. Why is that? That happens to me when I attempt to play solely by the "math".
The law of averages says that in a 10 player ring game, you are dealt the winning cards every 10th hand, or round (orbit) on an average of 1,000's.
Now, the winning hand might be 7-2, a hand I fold pre-flop...LOL.
As one book I've read says, "any dang fool can win money with good cards, a good player can win money with marginal cards". Do we just strictly go by the math or do we try to improve our game beyond the numbers?
Personally, I do not do as well at the tables if I go strictly by the math. How do we win money with marginal cards, odds not in our favour etc.? Good & bad cards seem to run in streaks for me. So to win consistently, we simply play the good streaks & sit waiting & folding during the bad? Would not poker then be just the "luck" of the cards you are dealt?
What has been your experience in this regard?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We read books to improve ourselves. We try out the different systems, strategies & tactics in hopes of finding the ones that work for us on a consistent basis. What works for Bob may not work for Ted. Example right here. Mr. Harrington's strategies & systems appears to work for dsmrolla06 & not so much for Miffed22001.
We must find one that suits our nature. Understanding that nature, then molding it towards the table with the knowledge gained from books, playing & discussions, is how I am presently attempting to improve.
It is my hope that we all gain something from these discussions here on this forum. Thanks again for your input!
|
Personal Improvement from books
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by dsmrolla06
