The intelligentsia has arrived
Sep. 10th, 2005 08:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksI'm afraid that I have a prejudice against fat (as in, quite obviously badly obese) young adults. It's vaguely understandable in kids if the parents are bad, although kids have so much energy, I never quite worked out how anyone managed to build up calories in their body before the age of 10. And with people slipping into middle age, well, I don't like it, but I can see how it happens. But for anyone between, say, 16 and 30, obesity strikes me as an advertisement for lack of willpower.
As such, the sight of Eric Frolich when he became the youngest-ever winner of a WSOP bracelet depressed me. My god, I thought, surely the man is at least 40. He's a ringer. Beard, "clothes designed for comfort" and, well, a lot of weight.
However, the man is redeemed, at least in my eyes. Last night I watched the ESPN coverage of his win, and during his ESPN interview, he commented that last year he had been too young to play, so he had played "vicariously" through his friend David Williams.
Now, as far as I am concerned, a 21-year-old who can casually drop the word vicariously into a poker interview is definitely okay by me. Still, Frolich won the bracelet, so what does he care what I think. I'm sure all the attractive women will suddenly be pulled towards his "great personality" of "wonderful sense of humour" or (insert any other synonym for "one hell of a bulging wallet").
Candidate for "wanker of the tournament" was clearly Todd something-or-other, who is DanDruff on Pokerstars. Oh well, at least it gave Norman Chad someone to criticise. With luck, Todd will have watched his performance on ESPN and will be cringing with embarrassment. Incredibly, not one of the other players threatened to lamp him one if he didn't shut the fuck up.
And, from the highlights that we saw, he wasn't a very good player. In fact, I don't think that I have spotted so many tells in such a short period of time in my life. And yet, he got through to third in a very large field. What does this say? Presumably, that the limit events now have one hell of a lot of dead money in them. Perhaps this might be an area to go into training.
As such, the sight of Eric Frolich when he became the youngest-ever winner of a WSOP bracelet depressed me. My god, I thought, surely the man is at least 40. He's a ringer. Beard, "clothes designed for comfort" and, well, a lot of weight.
However, the man is redeemed, at least in my eyes. Last night I watched the ESPN coverage of his win, and during his ESPN interview, he commented that last year he had been too young to play, so he had played "vicariously" through his friend David Williams.
Now, as far as I am concerned, a 21-year-old who can casually drop the word vicariously into a poker interview is definitely okay by me. Still, Frolich won the bracelet, so what does he care what I think. I'm sure all the attractive women will suddenly be pulled towards his "great personality" of "wonderful sense of humour" or (insert any other synonym for "one hell of a bulging wallet").
Candidate for "wanker of the tournament" was clearly Todd something-or-other, who is DanDruff on Pokerstars. Oh well, at least it gave Norman Chad someone to criticise. With luck, Todd will have watched his performance on ESPN and will be cringing with embarrassment. Incredibly, not one of the other players threatened to lamp him one if he didn't shut the fuck up.
And, from the highlights that we saw, he wasn't a very good player. In fact, I don't think that I have spotted so many tells in such a short period of time in my life. And yet, he got through to third in a very large field. What does this say? Presumably, that the limit events now have one hell of a lot of dead money in them. Perhaps this might be an area to go into training.
Dan Druff & AK
Date: 2005-09-10 05:09 pm (UTC)There are a couple of threads regarding dan druff on 2+2 under the WPT forum if you search back a little if you are interested.
I have noticed a couple times in recent threads where you have AK and TPTK out of position on a drawing board. Although I don't play limit anymore I thought I would make a couple comments. In the situation where a flush draw is out there and a nearby straight card comes on the turn, I would frequently go into check/call mode rather than bet out. This way if you are headsup it will only cost you 2 bets to see the river intead of risking it being 3 by being raised. Plus if you are against an aggressive opponent with a flush draw only or a pair and a draw, then check/calling will often get him to bluff off an extra bet because he already bet the turn, whereas he would have folded or checked down the river.
My other comment, and I apologize if I have not read something in previous entries that shows you are already doing this, is that a lot of players don't checkraise the turn enough after leading on the flop, as recommended in HPFAP when you are against aggressive oppenents and especially when you think the last player will bet and you can confront a player in the middle with calling two bets in 3 way situations. Letting them know you like to checkraise a lot also can turn them more passive in hands with you which allows you to often get free turn cards with a draw or to see a cheaper river with a marginal holding. The reason a lot of battle hardened players on the net don't seem to do this is because so many fish will call those checkraises and suck out on the river and just cost you another bet. But in the long run making them pay more to play with your good holdings adds significantly to your bottom line.
BluffTHIS!
Re: Dan Druff & AK
Date: 2005-09-10 06:57 pm (UTC)Your observations are correct. I moved away from check-call mode and check-raise on the turn mode a while ago. I have played a couple of hands more pasively than I normally would against opponents whom I know are likely to bet out even to the end with just a drawing hand. But I think that a new approach of slightly less consistently aggressive play on the turn might be a good idea.
I think that part of the reason why I have been forcing myself to continue on the turn is that my instincts were often faulty here, and I wanted to check. However, a bet caused my opponent to fold (and sometimes caused two opponents to fold). But your line of thought appeals more to my "natural" style of play.
Some experimentation required.