If there are big enough fish and calling increases the chances of them contributing to the pot by a significant margin, then there are plenty of spots where it's correct to slowplay AA/KK pre, IMO.
I always see this argument and can't understand why we want to let two cards realize equity for a cheaper price and let the pot go 3 way with premium hands that want lower spr /more money in pre and less people in the pot as they don't improve post flop very often at all
You're just underestimating how bad a fish can be. There are people who play so bad that they lose 200 an hour in a 2/5 game. Against those players, it pays to ensure they get to see the flop.
You're just underestimating how bad a fish can be. There are people who play so bad that they lose 200 an hour in a 2/5 game. Against those players, it pays to ensure they get to see the flop.
Your only mission at the table is to get maximum value on each street so you can beat the rake and return also a profit at the end.
Without any reads about how tight the opponent is PF and how loose is posflop playing slow premium hands PF is quite -EV.
imo
Your only mission at the table is to get maximum value on each street so you can beat the rake and return also a profit at the end.
Without any reads about how tight the opponent is PF and how loose is posflop playing slow premium hands PF is quite -EV.
imo
Your whole statement is a contradictory to itself and mostly wrong.
At 10/20 the fish are where the $$$ is and everyone else is trading coolers. Yes some regs/pros are better than others but thanks to live poker variance they arent going to beat decent but worse regs/pros for anything of significance
