Figaroo2 said:
Just quickly ....What is the name of the non believer with 88 I want to sit at his tables. I would expect to lose getting it all in on the flop most of the time with just tpgk. The worst I'd expect to see is AQ to be honest.
Two of the other hands show the value of getting the money in on the turn when they stil have drawing chances as there would have been little value once they have missed the river.
KJ hand is a prime example of why not to call raises with garbage like Q8.
On another day you could easily have lost three of these hands to better holdings..4T v AK very lucky.
I see what you mean figaro. Usually with hands like this (except the 4T), i would have followed other lines. Would have definitely gone for some pot control maybe or not have 3bet them pre).
I am trying to follow a certain playing style that is made up of some "controlled aggression".
Meaning if we Cbet 50% ,im pretty sure that alot of people read this as weakness.
where as if we Cbet 75% or even 100%, then most of the time they will snap fold any hand that they might have floated. this is my personal opinion and i dont have concrete data to back it up.
Im speaking more from my own perspective so i would imagine that others do the same thing.
Like i would be more willing to call/float a 50% cbet than a 80% cbet if you get my point.
If we meet resistance with no outs or no hand,we then let it go but if we have outs or a hand, i think its easier to get stack in by the river if not the turn.
another thing i wanted to ask. when we, here in the thread, analyze hands, we talk about solid lines and we make our assumptions based on our hand and villains range and we try to narrow it down street by street and try to see how we could get maximum value or lose the least.
But does anyone ever think abouth the fact that in order for our analysis to work, it would be required for villain to be playing with the exact playing style that we are and following the same rules that we are.
If villain doesnt give a rats ass about position or is unaware that UTG opens have to be tighter than Button opens, then doesnt all of our analysis go down the drain only because it cannot be applied because our assumptions are based on rules that are not being followed be a big chunk of the opposition?
Like if we always put someone who is raising UTG on a strong hand just because thats the right thing to do, who is to guarantee that he even knows this.
Where im going with this is that by assigning ranges based on assumptions that certain hands are played in certain spots in a certain way, doesnt that sometimes not allow us to get the maximum value or doesnt it even allow villains to be able to easier read our hand or (unknowingly) manipulate us, because we follow some rules that either they know we know or they dont know in the first place.
I would really like to become a bit more laggy and through this to make it difficult for villains to put me on a range.
what im talking about here are UTG opens with 45 suited etc. It doesnt mean we have to go crazy if we miss but if we do hit, isnt it more likely that we will get paid off "assuming" we play the hand in the right way and know how to extract proper value from it? or not lose more than we will be able to make back next time we do actually hit our hand.
anyone have any thoughts on this?
