![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tied Up Too Tight
Jun. 7th, 2006 06:24 pmPart of the problem with my style of play is that, when things start going wrong, and people start check-raising your continuation bets or check-raising you on the turn (needless to say you have missed both times) is that "they are on to me; they are trying a resteal". And, at $5-$10 and above, there might be an element of truth in this line of thought (although less than some people think).
However, I have discovered through many episodes of such experiences that my opponents are not "on to me". They are simply hitting the flop with tedious frequency. If I carry on playing in exactly the same way (rather than falling into the trap of aggressively three-betting the turn with AK-high), then all of a sudden everyone is folding to my continuation bets and the garden is rosy once again.
Absinthetics wrote a very interesting post on a particular type of $5-$10-and-above strategy that is a small development of the style that I have developed. Since he said that this was a style that completely threw him, and he couldn't work out how to beat it, I was somewhat pleased.
The difference between the strategy he talks about (it's a kind of passive-aggressive algorithm) at $$5-$10 and at $2-$4 is that you do not have to call down with ropy hands so often, because your opponents will be trying it on less often (or, at the times I play, hardly at all). However, at $15-$30, the style he talks about is probably the predominant winning style.
It comes back to the scissors-paper-stone argument. If you are against this kind of player and he raises your big blind again, and you have AJ off and you know that there is a good chance that you arein front, but you are out of position, how do you play it?
What you really want is for a few other players to three-bet him a bit more often, or for a few other players to limp with monsters, thus discouraging the broad range of hands with which this player raises. But, there is no school of fish at this level. There's just a large number of other players saying: "You catch him out". And so the prisoner's dilemma works in favour of this kind of player.
I'll come back to this absinthetics post at a future date, because it's a bery interesting one for current online play. Anyone who tried it in a standard loose-fest would get killed. It only works when the majority of players are relatively competent and tight-aggressive and when a significant number of them are multitabling and do not want to go to war. The best way to play this kind of guy is to either sit on his left and go to war, or to sit on his right and limp with Aces or Kings.
+++
Of other posters, Double As pondered the pointlessness of tournaments. I have wondered myself why such an obviously good player insists on playing satellites and the like when he could just win the money in the cash game and pony up the entry that way.
And Terrence Chan is talking about the difficulties of Heads Up play. 400 hands per hour at total focus? Or 200 hands per hour with a bit of time to surf the web or chat with friends via IM? It's a tough one. I've found 4-tabling less tiring the more I have played it this month. 400 hands in 90 minuites was leaving me knackered a week or so ago, but now I'm into the rhythm of it. The fact that I am currently winning fuck-all is a minor irritation.
+++++
And finally a big Up for Virgin, who might run the worst software in the UK, but know how to handle regularplayers. A live freeroll next Friday at the Kensington Roof Gardens. Free buffet, a chance to meet other players, sounds like fun. B there or B square....
+++++
A few other players have been questioning what is going on in their poker playing li
However, I have discovered through many episodes of such experiences that my opponents are not "on to me". They are simply hitting the flop with tedious frequency. If I carry on playing in exactly the same way (rather than falling into the trap of aggressively three-betting the turn with AK-high), then all of a sudden everyone is folding to my continuation bets and the garden is rosy once again.
Absinthetics wrote a very interesting post on a particular type of $5-$10-and-above strategy that is a small development of the style that I have developed. Since he said that this was a style that completely threw him, and he couldn't work out how to beat it, I was somewhat pleased.
The difference between the strategy he talks about (it's a kind of passive-aggressive algorithm) at $$5-$10 and at $2-$4 is that you do not have to call down with ropy hands so often, because your opponents will be trying it on less often (or, at the times I play, hardly at all). However, at $15-$30, the style he talks about is probably the predominant winning style.
It comes back to the scissors-paper-stone argument. If you are against this kind of player and he raises your big blind again, and you have AJ off and you know that there is a good chance that you arein front, but you are out of position, how do you play it?
What you really want is for a few other players to three-bet him a bit more often, or for a few other players to limp with monsters, thus discouraging the broad range of hands with which this player raises. But, there is no school of fish at this level. There's just a large number of other players saying: "You catch him out". And so the prisoner's dilemma works in favour of this kind of player.
I'll come back to this absinthetics post at a future date, because it's a bery interesting one for current online play. Anyone who tried it in a standard loose-fest would get killed. It only works when the majority of players are relatively competent and tight-aggressive and when a significant number of them are multitabling and do not want to go to war. The best way to play this kind of guy is to either sit on his left and go to war, or to sit on his right and limp with Aces or Kings.
+++
Of other posters, Double As pondered the pointlessness of tournaments. I have wondered myself why such an obviously good player insists on playing satellites and the like when he could just win the money in the cash game and pony up the entry that way.
And Terrence Chan is talking about the difficulties of Heads Up play. 400 hands per hour at total focus? Or 200 hands per hour with a bit of time to surf the web or chat with friends via IM? It's a tough one. I've found 4-tabling less tiring the more I have played it this month. 400 hands in 90 minuites was leaving me knackered a week or so ago, but now I'm into the rhythm of it. The fact that I am currently winning fuck-all is a minor irritation.
+++++
And finally a big Up for Virgin, who might run the worst software in the UK, but know how to handle regularplayers. A live freeroll next Friday at the Kensington Roof Gardens. Free buffet, a chance to meet other players, sounds like fun. B there or B square....
+++++
A few other players have been questioning what is going on in their poker playing li
