Different hold em strategies
BertieB...@gmail.com
They all seem to basically say that you should limit yourself to
playing with only good hands although they seem to differ from anything
from only playing top10 to a lot more.
Also, one book I read placed a lot of store in your position etc,
whether there had been any raises, no of limpers etc. whereas the other
book (think it was by phil hellmuth) seems to ignore most of this.
Also, the first book seemed to be a little wary when it comes to
playing hands post-flop (basically, fold if you get raised too much)
where the Hellmuth book advocates a much more aggressive style of never
calling but raising agressively (to see what the other players have).
Any comments on the best approach ?
richiematt
If you stick to conservative play it'll keep you from losing much.
You need to figure out whether you want to learn NL or limit first. It's easier
to play one type when you learn.
Then you can develop a style: loose aggressive, loose passive, tight aggressive
etc. Some players like to see flops, some players like to play only good cards.
The best approach is to be versatile and be able to play different styles
depending on the game you are in.
Raising preflop with 77 like Helmuth or calling is a matter of personal style.
When you get called and miss your 77 on the flop then bet out on the flop it can
be an expensive way to play 77. You'll win more pots but get in more trouble.
Trying playing different styles, from super aggressive to passive. Learn what
cards to play by position, then deviate from it.
Richie
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
TheCamel
that can win me a lot of money". As a result, I (and along with Doyle)
am not much for blind stealing, or calling with an average hand with
nobody in the pot. Don't get me wrong, take money where ever you can
find it, especially against tight players. But I prefer calling
preflop raises with an average hand. I usually will call a big preflop
raise with low suited connectors (4s5s, for example). This is an
attempt to break your opponent. If he has AA, or KK (typical starting
hands for a big preflop raise) and you catch a good flop then you will
be able to take him for all this chips.
TheCamel
be sure to go to AcrossTheFelt.com. It seems mostly beginner players
on that site. Also, its your best chance at winning a big tourney,
smaller group of inexperienced players.....a refreshing change from
many of the bigger sites. Some places, you click on a table and all
the seats are gone before the table even loads up.
MysteriAce
No offense, but I have read a number of your posts, and your advise does
not really make much sense nor does it really appear to say very much,
even though you use a lot of words. Perhaps you could expand on some of
these points with some supportive analysis or reasoning?
"Then you can develop a style: loose aggressive, loose passive, tight
aggressive etc."
Q: If you advocate playing conservatively to start with, why would you
then suggest developing either a "loose aggressvie" or "loose passive"
style of play right after answering the question "should I play limit or
NL"? That seems counter-intuitive.
2nd Q: When is it appropriate to develop and play a loose/passive style?
"Some players like to see flops, some players like to play only good
cards."
Q: How would you suggest not seeing flops in a limit game?
"When you get called and miss your 77 on the flop then bet out on the flop
it can be an expensive way to play 77."
Q: Assuming you raised and figure 77 to be ahead preflop, how exactly does
it "miss...the flop"?
"Trying playing different styles, from super aggressive to passive. Learn
what cards to play by position, then deviate from it."
Q: (Based on previous posts and this one) You seem fixated on the term
"super aggressive". Why "super aggressive" but not "super passive"?
2nd Q: What deviations would you suggest to a beginning player? Once a
beginner learns what cards to play from what position, shouldn't they then
"practice" this knowledge before branching off to look for exceptions?
3rd Q: Do you really feel "qualified" to give advice to beginners on how
to play HE?
~ MysteriAce
"Pop music is hard work!"
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
richiematt
The poster didn't say whether he played NL or Limit. That's the first thing you
need to establish.
When you learn, you need to learn the basics and a conservative style works
best.
After you learn this you need to develop you own playing style.
> 2nd Q: When is it appropriate to develop and play a loose/passive style?
>
> "Some players like to see flops, some players like to play only good
> cards."
Sammy Farha saw almost every flop at the 2005 WSOP. He was one of the chip
leaders after day 2. He was calling raises with "any two cards" hoping to hit.
He plays loose aggressive. That's his style- it works for him and he's one of
the best.
> Q: How would you suggest not seeing flops in a limit game?
>
> "When you get called and miss your 77 on the flop then bet out on the flop
> it can be an expensive way to play 77."
You don't see flops if you play good cards.
> Q: Assuming you raised and figure 77 to be ahead preflop, how exactly does
> it "miss...the flop"?
If a 7 or a 456 doesn't come on the flop you've missed your flop. Usually an
ace or a k comes and someone has you beat.
> "Trying playing different styles, from super aggressive to passive. Learn
> what cards to play by position, then deviate from it."
>
> Q: (Based on previous posts and this one) You seem fixated on the term
> "super aggressive". Why "super aggressive" but not "super passive"?
Could be either. A super passive player is a calling station. This is the best
style to play against an aggressive player. You ck they(aggressive player) bet,
if they don't have it they try to buy it- you call call call.
> 2nd Q: What deviations would you suggest to a beginning player? Once a
> beginner learns what cards to play from what position, shouldn't they then
> "practice" this knowledge before branching off to look for exceptions?
All players need to know there are different ways to play. that's all.
> 3rd Q: Do you really feel "qualified" to give advice to beginners on how
> to play HE?
Absolutely.
Richie
> ~ MysteriAce
>
> "Pop music is hard work!"
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
MysteriAce
My Q: How would you suggest not seeing flops in a limit game?
Your A: "You don't see flops if you play good cards."
How do you NOT see flops because you play good cards? That does not make
any sense to me. So, if I play AA and raise in a limit game, I will not
see the flop? Or same question, but in a NL game?
My Q: Assuming you raised and figure 77 to be ahead preflop, how exactly
does it "miss...the flop"?
Your A: "If a 7 or a 456 doesn't come on the flop you've missed your flop.
Usually an ace or a k comes and someone has you beat."
So, some follow up on this concept...If the flop is 832, and I raised
preflop, I have missed as well (in other words, I should FEAR the 8)?
What if it is 632?
And, when you say, "Usually an ace or a k comes and someone has you
beat", do you mean "usually" in the sense of "more often than not"? My
math suggests that the upper boundary for an A or K coming on the flop is
~41.43% of the time, assuming that ALL aces and kings are live (meaning
nobody has one in hand). That would mean that in a practical sense, you
will be "beat" by and A or K less often than that...
~ MysteriAce
"Pop music is hard work!"
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
Fuck personal style. It's a stupid way to think about the game.
The only style that makes sense is to look for opportunities to exploit, then
follow up on it.
Gary Carson
Gary Carson
http://www.killtherake.com
http://www.pokermagazine.com
http://www.garycarson.com
richiematt
On Aug 22 2005 1:22 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
> Please explain some more on the following statements:
>
> My Q: How would you suggest not seeing flops in a limit game?
>
> Your A: "You don't see flops if you play good cards."
>
> How do you NOT see flops because you play good cards? That does not make
> any sense to me. So, if I play AA and raise in a limit game, I will not
> see the flop? Or same question, but in a NL game?
If you don't have good cards you fold- you don't see the flop.
> My Q: Assuming you raised and figure 77 to be ahead preflop, how exactly
> does it "miss...the flop"?
>
> Your A: "If a 7 or a 456 doesn't come on the flop you've missed your flop.
> Usually an ace or a k comes and someone has you beat."
>
> So, some follow up on this concept...If the flop is 832, and I raised
> preflop, I have missed as well (in other words, I should FEAR the 8)?
> What if it is 632?
No- obviously there are other safe flops com'n.
> And, when you say, "Usually an ace or a k comes and someone has you
> beat", do you mean "usually" in the sense of "more often than not"? My
> math suggests that the upper boundary for an A or K coming on the flop is
> ~41.43% of the time, assuming that ALL aces and kings are live (meaning
> nobody has one in hand). That would mean that in a practical sense, you
> will be "beat" by and A or K less often than that...
Ok. What I mean is any card from T to A is a scare card. You may be beat.
Someone can also have a bigger pair pre-flop. if you see a flop with 77 and
there are 5 players usually you need a set to continue. That's just basic info.
What's you're point with all this- don't you get waht I'm trying to say?
Richie
> ~ MysteriAce
>
> "Pop music is hard work!"
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
> And, when you say, "Usually an ace or a k comes and someone has you
> beat", do you mean "usually" in the sense of "more often than not"? My
> math suggests that the upper boundary for an A or K coming on the flop is
> ~41.43% of the time, assuming that ALL aces and kings are live (meaning
> nobody has one in hand). That would mean that in a practical sense, you
> will be "beat" by and A or K less often than that...
>
To extend the point you're making, if you have 77 on the button and raise a
couple of midposition limpers and the flop comes A83 rainbow and they check to
you then you'll never learn to beat this game if you don't bet.
Sometimes I'll raise on the button with any two cards after a couple of
midposition limpers just because I know if an Ace or King falls I can probably
bet and take it on the flop. And, it doesn't matter whether you're playing
limit or no limit.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
richiematt
On Aug 22 2005 1:39 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
> Fuck personal style. It's a stupid way to think about the game.
>
> The only style that makes sense is to look for opportunities to exploit, then
> follow up on it.
>
> Gary Carson
Everyone plays each hand and looks for opportunities. That's the way it should
be.
The decision to play certain cards in certain situations depends on personal
style. It's different and if you don't know what it is or don't recognize how
other people play- you're can't be as good.
IMO
Richie
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Aug 22 2005 12:45 PM, richiematt wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 22 2005 1:39 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Fuck personal style. It's a stupid way to think about the game.
> >
> > The only style that makes sense is to look for opportunities to exploit,
> > then
> > follow up on it.
> >
> > Gary Carson
> Everyone plays each hand and looks for opportunities. That's the way it should
> be.
Huh? Everyone? Have you ever actually played poker?
>
> The decision to play certain cards in certain situations depends on personal
> style. It's different and if you don't know what it is or don't recognize how
> other people play- you're can't be as good.
It doesn't depend on my personal style. It depends on the personal style of the
other active hands. Players with "personal styles" are very easy to exploit.
It's not a good idea to be one of those players.
_______________________________________________________________
richiematt
On Aug 22 2005 1:45 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
> > And, when you say, "Usually an ace or a k comes and someone has you
> > beat", do you mean "usually" in the sense of "more often than not"? My
> > math suggests that the upper boundary for an A or K coming on the flop is
> > ~41.43% of the time, assuming that ALL aces and kings are live (meaning
> > nobody has one in hand). That would mean that in a practical sense, you
> > will be "beat" by and A or K less often than that...
> >
>
> To extend the point you're making, if you have 77 on the button and raise a
> couple of midposition limpers and the flop comes A83 rainbow and they check to
> you then you'll never learn to beat this game if you don't bet.
>
> Sometimes I'll raise on the button with any two cards after a couple of
> midposition limpers just because I know if an Ace or King falls I can probably
> bet and take it on the flop. And, it doesn't matter whether you're playing
> limit or no limit.
>
>
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.killtherake.com
> http://www.pokermagazine.com
> http://www.garycarson.com
This is an advanced play made by a professional like you. I thought this was
advice for a beginner.
Richie
richiematt
On Aug 22 2005 1:48 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 22 2005 12:45 PM, richiematt wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 22 2005 1:39 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Fuck personal style. It's a stupid way to think about the game.
> > >
> > > The only style that makes sense is to look for opportunities to exploit,
> > > then
> > > follow up on it.
> > >
> > > Gary Carson
> > Everyone plays each hand and looks for opportunities. That's the way it
> > should
> > be.
>
> Huh? Everyone? Have you ever actually played poker?
>
>
> >
> > The decision to play certain cards in certain situations depends on personal
> > style. It's different and if you don't know what it is or don't recognize
> > how
> > other people play- you're can't be as good.
>
> It doesn't depend on my personal style. It depends on the personal style of
> the
> other active hands. Players with "personal styles" are very easy to exploit.
> It's not a good idea to be one of those players.
>
>
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.killtherake.com
> http://www.pokermagazine.com
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
Just because Sammy Farha sees most flops (his style) doesn't mean you know crap
about his cards.
Richie
Gary Carson
On Aug 22 2005 12:50 PM, richiematt wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 22 2005 1:45 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > And, when you say, "Usually an ace or a k comes and someone has you
> > > beat", do you mean "usually" in the sense of "more often than not"? My
> > > math suggests that the upper boundary for an A or K coming on the flop is
> > > ~41.43% of the time, assuming that ALL aces and kings are live (meaning
> > > nobody has one in hand). That would mean that in a practical sense, you
> > > will be "beat" by and A or K less often than that...
> > >
> >
> > To extend the point you're making, if you have 77 on the button and raise a
> > couple of midposition limpers and the flop comes A83 rainbow and they check
> > to
> > you then you'll never learn to beat this game if you don't bet.
> >
> > Sometimes I'll raise on the button with any two cards after a couple of
> > midposition limpers just because I know if an Ace or King falls I can
> > probably
> > bet and take it on the flop. And, it doesn't matter whether you're playing
> > limit or no limit.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary Carson
> > http://www.killtherake.com
> > http://www.pokermagazine.com
> > http://www.garycarson.com
> This is an advanced play made by a professional like you. I thought this was
> advice for a beginner.
There really isn't anything advanced about the idea of bettng when they don't
have anything unless you get fixated on "personal style" and other such silly
ideas.
There's no reason a beginner can't begin with the idea of learning the damn game
-- as opposed to the idea of avoiding risk which it appears you suggest.
Risk avoidance will not get the money and any time and effort spent on learning
that kind of approach is wasted time and effort.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Aug 22 2005 12:52 PM, richiematt wrote:
> >
> Just because Sammy Farha sees most flops (his style) doesn't mean you know
> crap
> about his cards.
Just because Sammy says he sees most flops doesn't mean he sees most flops.
He doesn't see most flops in most 10 handed games, I can promise you that.
He probably would see a lot of flops in 10 handed games against players who
often give up if they don't hit the flop hard. But, that's not his style,
that's his way of exploiting the style of his opponents.
And knowing an opponents cards is only helpful to the extent it helps you
predict how they'll react to a bet. If I know they'll fold then it does't
really matter what the cards are.
I played with a guy last night who would call with damn near any two cards on
the flop, then if he picked up a draw would call again on the turn. He busted
me twice by picking up a draw on the turn and hitting on the river (it was a no
limit game) after I put him allin on the turn. What I started doing was betting
the flop, checking behind him on the turn, then if he checked the river I'd
bet. I started doing that with any two cards and I got all my money back plus
some.
It worked because when he did hit the river he'd bet if there were chips left,
so I knew that I could pick up the pot everytime he missed, and he never got any
extra chips when he hit.
He had a habit that he repeated over and over, his style. I figured out his
style and used it to beat him.
That's how to win at poker.
>
> Richie
_______________________________________________________________
FellKnight
> On Aug 22 2005 1:45 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
> >
> > To extend the point you're making, if you have 77 on the button and raise a
> > couple of midposition limpers and the flop comes A83 rainbow and they
check to
> > you then you'll never learn to beat this game if you don't bet.
> >
> > Sometimes I'll raise on the button with any two cards after a couple of
> > midposition limpers just because I know if an Ace or King falls I can
probably
> > bet and take it on the flop. And, it doesn't matter whether you're playing
> > limit or no limit.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary Carson
>
> This is an advanced play made by a professional like you. I thought this was
> advice for a beginner.
>
> Richie
So beginners shouldn't try to make money?
Fell
--
Visit http://www.fellknight.com for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
(STILL IN BETA MODE)
MysteriAce
waht I'm trying to say?"
My answer is: No, and by the way you go back and forth, I don't think
anyone else will, either.
See imbedded comments:
On Aug 22 2005 11:40 AM, richiematt wrote:
> On Aug 22 2005 1:22 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
>
> > Please explain some more on the following statements:
> >
> > My Q: How would you suggest not seeing flops in a limit game?
> >
> > Your A: "You don't see flops if you play good cards."
> >
> > How do you NOT see flops because you play good cards? That does not make
> > any sense to me. So, if I play AA and raise in a limit game, I will not
> > see the flop? Or same question, but in a NL game?
"If you don't have good cards you fold- you don't see the flop."
That does nothing to answer my question. In fact, you just took a total
180 degree turn on your stance. Which is it? "You don't see flops if you
play good cards" or "If you don't have good cards you fold- you don't see
the flop." Or is it both, in that someone who plays good cards and avoids
playing bad cards never sees the flop in either case? This is thoroughly
confusing.
> > My Q: Assuming you raised and figure 77 to be ahead preflop, how exactly
> > does it "miss...the flop"?
> >
> > Your A: "If a 7 or a 456 doesn't come on the flop you've missed your flop.
> > Usually an ace or a k comes and someone has you beat."
> >
> > So, some follow up on this concept...If the flop is 832, and I raised
> > preflop, I have missed as well (in other words, I should FEAR the 8)?
> > What if it is 632?
"No- obviously there are other safe flops com'n."
You say "No" and "obviously", but you also said "If a 7 or a 456 doesn't
come on the flop you've missed your flop", which doesn't allow for "No"
and "obviously", since you make a statement which is very concise and
leaves no room for exceptions. That's why I asked.
I also asked if you thought you were qualified to offer advise to new
players. You said "yes", but you make blanket statements that have
"obvious" implicit exceptions without offering any explanations,
exceptions, directions, or reasonings behind them. A new player might
read a statement like the one above and take it as literal.
> > And, when you say, "Usually an ace or a k comes and someone has you
> > beat", do you mean "usually" in the sense of "more often than not"? My
> > math suggests that the upper boundary for an A or K coming on the flop is
> > ~41.43% of the time, assuming that ALL aces and kings are live (meaning
> > nobody has one in hand). That would mean that in a practical sense, you
> > will be "beat" by and A or K less often than that...
"Ok. What I mean is any card from T to A is a scare card."
That also contradicts the above statement of "If a 7 or a 456 doesn't come
on the flop you've missed your flop." Now you allow for some of those
"obvious" exceptions.
"You may be beat. Someone can also have a bigger pair pre-flop. if you see
a flop with 77 and there are 5 players usually you need a set to continue.
That's just basic info."
But I thought people who play good cards don't see flops? How then would
I see a flop with 77 with 5 other players? Or was it that good people who
see bad cards don't see flops? I'm so confused...
And why assume that 5 players see the flop? If 5 players see the flop,
wouldn't ANY card that is not a 7 be a scare card, to some degree? And if
you see the flop heads up because you played "super aggressive" and
raised, then why would any card T-A scare me without corresponding action?
Oh yeah...where is all the action in this? Isn't any of this situation
dependant?
>
> What's you're point with all this- don't you get waht I'm trying to say?
Like I said...no, I don't get it. Thanks for taking time to enlighten me.
~ MysteriAce
"Pop music is hard work!"
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
FellKnight
You really have no idea what Sammy Farha's style is, and why he plays the
way he does, do you? If so, please feel free to explain it, we would love
to hear your interpretation.
Fell
--
Visit http://www.fellknight.com for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
(STILL IN BETA MODE)
--------
FellKnight
> On Aug 22 2005 12:52 PM, richiematt wrote:
>
>
>
> > >
> > Just because Sammy Farha sees most flops (his style) doesn't mean you know
> > crap
> > about his cards.
>
> Just because Sammy says he sees most flops doesn't mean he sees most flops.
>
> He doesn't see most flops in most 10 handed games, I can promise you that.
>
> He probably would see a lot of flops in 10 handed games against players who
> often give up if they don't hit the flop hard. But, that's not his style,
> that's his way of exploiting the style of his opponents.
>
> And knowing an opponents cards is only helpful to the extent it helps you
> predict how they'll react to a bet. If I know they'll fold then it does't
> really matter what the cards are.
>
> Gary Carson
Dammit Gary, way to ruin my challenge.
Fell
--
Visit http://www.fellknight.com for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
(STILL IN BETA MODE)
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Madasia
same as Texas Hold'em, except for 3 hole cards. You must discard one after the
flop.
http://www.pineapple-poker.com/common/jammed-pot-pineapple.html
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
MysteriAce
> Here's an interesting read on Pineapple Poker Strategy, which is exactly the
> same as Texas Hold'em, except for 3 hole cards. You must discard one after
the
> flop.
If you are playing with 3 hole cards and have to discard one after the
flop, how is it "the same as Texas Holdem" any more than Omaha is "the
same as Texas Holdem"?
(note - it's not the same, and the strategies are not the same either)
> http://www.pineapple-poker.com/common/jammed-pot-pineapple.html
>
> On Aug 22 2005 11:21 AM, BertieB...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I've just started playing Hold 'Em and have read a few books about it.
> >
> > They all seem to basically say that you should limit yourself to
> > playing with only good hands although they seem to differ from anything
> > from only playing top10 to a lot more.
> >
> > Also, one book I read placed a lot of store in your position etc,
> > whether there had been any raises, no of limpers etc. whereas the other
> > book (think it was by phil hellmuth) seems to ignore most of this.
> >
> > Also, the first book seemed to be a little wary when it comes to
> > playing hands post-flop (basically, fold if you get raised too much)
> > where the Hellmuth book advocates a much more aggressive style of never
> > calling but raising agressively (to see what the other players have).
> >
> > Any comments on the best approach ?
~ MysteriAce
"Pop music is hard work!"
------
ecr72
> Here's an interesting read on Pineapple Poker Strategy, which is exactly the
> same as Texas Hold'em, except for 3 hole cards. You must discard one after
the
> flop.
>
> http://www.pineapple-poker.com/common/jammed-pot-pineapple.html
Please stop spamming your affiliate site with such nonsense. HE is not
the same as Pineapple, you even say so on your website. I'm too damn lazy
but someone should write to UB and Paradise about your tatics of spamming
RGP with links to this post and see how they respond. I imagine it would
be against their rules for affiliates. Most sites have such 'no spamming'
rules in place.
________________________________________________________________________
metallifried
wary of any of Phil Hellmuth's advice. It works well for a high-dollar
player who knows best how to employ these strategies, but against poor
players it will get you in a heap of trouble.
Beating low-limit games is actually remarkably simple: Bet whenever you
have a hand (or a good draw), fold whenever you don't.
richiematt
Ok mysteriAce, you're coming behind me and basically attacking me and being
critical.
My reason for answering questions is to help people, that's it. I don't have the
time to spend proofing every response and making sure everything is perfect.
Get it.
Players that play good cards only don't see as many flops. Dang is that unclear.
What are you trying to do?
I'm not going to waste any more time trying to be nitpicky with you. You're
points are generally correct. Everything is not perfect nor am I, I'm just
trying to help.
If you don't like it sorry,
Richie
richiematt
The thing about style is most good players have a style. They excell at it. You
still can't put them on a hand because they are not predictable.
Being predictable and playing one style is not good poker.
Richie
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
richiematt
> > > http://www.killtherake.com/
> > > http://www.pokermagazine.com/
> > > http://www.garycarson.com/
> > >
> > Just because Sammy Farha sees most flops (his style) doesn't mean you know
> crap
> > about his cards.
> >
> > Richie
>
> You really have no idea what Sammy Farha's style is, and why he plays the
> way he does, do you? If so, please feel free to explain it, we would love
> to hear your interpretation.
>
> Fell
> --
> Visit http://www.fellknight.com/ for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
> (STILL IN BETA MODE)
OK Fell,
Quoting Jon Eaton, "The news is Sammy Farha didn't play a hand." This is from
memory but you can look it up.
I've only watched Sammy play on TV several times and I'm not an authority on his
playing style. I've maybe seen him play three different times on TV.
So what's your point Fell?
You know I was using this as an example of good players that like to see a bunch
of flops.
That's all.
Richie
FellKnight
Instead of just parrotting something you heard at one point, why not
actually think for yourself? That is what irks me the most about your
advice. You simply spew random factoids and they don't make coherent
sense. Sammy Farha played a BUNCH of hands, and called a lot of raises,
that does not make him loose aggressive. Gary Carson hit it on the head.
Sammy knew that at the WSOP, there would be a LOT of scared money, and
that he could outplay a LOT of opponents post flop. Especially at the TV
table, people want to maximize the experience. Sammy adjusted his game
radically (he may normally be loose, but not THAT loose), in order to
exploit his opponents. That is my point. There was a specific reason for
his play.
Fell
--
Visit http://www.fellknight.com for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
(STILL IN BETA MODE)
-----
richiematt
There are good players that see a bunch of flops. Why are you debating that?
Maybe you should define loose aggressive. Is there only one defintion and you
know what it is?
My point is that there are other ways to play poker than the standard way. This
was an example.
I think you are off track here only because Sammy Farha is not even the issue.
Thank you for your post.
Richie
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
BertieB...@gmail.com
metallifried wrote:
> If you're a new player, presumably playing at lower limits, I would be
> wary of any of Phil Hellmuth's advice. It works well for a high-dollar
> player who knows best how to employ these strategies, but against poor
> players it will get you in a heap of trouble.
>
> Beating low-limit games is actually remarkably simple: Bet whenever you
> have a hand (or a good draw), fold whenever you don't.
>
Yeh. Thats basically what the first book says.
I must admit Phil H's book is certainly different. Finding it hard
reading to get my head around some of the stuff as well !
Like the bit about betting after the flop though. I've tried this and
it certainly does seem to allow you to get some read what the other
players have by how they react.
BertieB...@gmail.com
> critical.
>
> My reason for answering questions is to help people, that's it. I don't have the
> time to spend proofing every response and making sure everything is perfect.
>
> Get it.
>
> Players that play good cards only don't see as many flops. Dang is that unclear.
>
> What are you trying to do?
>
> I'm not going to waste any more time trying to be nitpicky with you. You're
> points are generally correct. Everything is not perfect nor am I, I'm just
> trying to help.
>
> If you don't like it sorry,
>
> Richie
>
Guys. I'm certainly not qualified to comment on whos right or wrong
here but thanks for all the advice.
In fairness to Richie, hes offered advice on many of my stupid newbie
posts so I can't knock the fella for trying to help...
Vegard
>Oh yes, and one more thing. If you want a great site to play on then,
>be sure to go to AcrossTheFelt.com. It seems mostly beginner players
>on that site. Also, its your best chance at winning a big tourney,
>smaller group of inexperienced players.....a refreshing change from
>many of the bigger sites. Some places, you click on a table and all
>the seats are gone before the table even loads up.
Are they on a network or stand alone? Is the bonus easy to clear?
Michael Sullivan
> The thing about style is most good players have a style. They excell at
> it. You still can't put them on a hand because they are not predictable.
What most *good* players have is not just a style, but a particular kind
of style that is hard to exploit. You can't put them on a hand because
their style includes making sure than any action they take could mean
more than one thing.
Bad players also have styles. But bad player's styles are much easier
to exploit. Good players often change their style in order to exploit
the styles of the bad players. Bad players keep doing what they always
do and expecting different results.
> Being predictable and playing one style is not good poker.
How does this not contradict your assertion that good players have "a
style"?
Michael
RedKnave
>[snip]
>
> There's no reason a beginner can't begin with the idea of learning the damn
game
> -- as opposed to the idea of avoiding risk which it appears you suggest.
>
> Risk avoidance will not get the money and any time and effort spent on
learning
> that kind of approach is wasted time and effort.
>
>
> Gary Carson
Would I be off-base in thinking that this is a (one of probably many)
fundamental answer to the whole Travel vs all others discussion? (Not
intending to hi-jack the current thread. It just struck me as being very
relevant, and I'm asking if, in fact, it is.)
----
Gary Carson
I have no idea. I killfilled Travel months ago and have no clue what that
discussion is about.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Travel
The first thing one would recommend to a new player is to play tight, or
"conservatively", until you -get the hand of it-. This isn't suggesting
risk avoidance, it's merely common sense.
As far as personal style, I think Gus Hansen has done pretty well with a
definite personal playing style. I think this is all Richiematt meant.
Fellknight, and MystriAce (sp, whatever) are sandbaggers, Gary Carson
"me too! suckups", and you can ignore these idiots.
And to address the above poster about risk avoidance. No, that's not
what it's all about. It's about beating loose games, and the best way to
do it.
Not raising pre flop with six drawing hands against you, isn't "risk
avoidance".
You need to evaluate your hand at the flop, in loose games. You can't
very well to this if you're foolishly evaluating your chances to win,
pre flop, with two cards, and raising.
Don't be persuaded by the misinformed comments about raising pre flop in
loose games. I play mainly 10/20, 15/30, and believe me I know about
raising pre flop, and dominant hand considerations.
We're talking about loose games, not tight/aggressive games, soft or
otherwise.
The pots are big in loose games, anyway.
You'll get plenty of action when raising on the flop in loose games, and
you'll be doing it when you know where you stand against all those
drawing hands. You, as the good player, can analyze the significance of
the flop, you're opponents can't.
The risk avoidance is, not throwing away chips, with the added
attraction of not revealing hand "strength", by raising pre flop, in
loose games.
Also, Peg Smith, and Gary Carson don't killfile anyone. Most especially
when they say they do :-)
---
NEW EPISODE of Poker Updates is now available at:
http://www.PokerUpdates.com
---
Post Anonymously to RGP :
http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
---
FellKnight
> Fellknight, and MystriAce (sp, whatever) are sandbaggers, Gary Carson
> "me too! suckups", and you can ignore these idiots.
lol. I'm a sandbagger now?
sandbagger n.
To downplay or misrepresent one's ability in order to deceive someone,
especially in gambling.
How so?
Fell
--
Visit http://www.fellknight.com for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
(STILL IN BETA MODE)
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sullivan
> I didn't see anything wrong with Richimatt's comments.
Now there's a surprise.
Michael
Travel
took cheap shots at, this individual's well meaning post; for the sole
purpose of appearing superior.
Not sandbagging in the sense of misrepresenting your ability. You
display your lack of ability, clearly, and accurately. You do that,
fine.
---
Watch the NEW EPISODE of Poker Updates now at:
http://www.PokerUpdates.com
(no signup needed to watch)