Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
In my mind, "competent" and "good" are not the same thing. If I look at a player and say "I think that guy is competent at poker" I mean something much weaker than "I think that guy is good at poker."
Edit: To elaborate slightly, I think a break-even player is competent.
I see, when a player is described as "competent", I interpret that to mean that he knows what he's doing and can at least beat a game as soft as 8/16.
I wouldn't consider a breakeven 8/16 player to be competent.
Possibly "not terrible" or "moderately okay", but not "competent".
Anyway, I think even for a "not terrible" player, we should increase his range to at least
[77+, A9s+, ATo+, KTs+, KJo, QJs] if he has an open limping range here, and [55+, A8s+, A9o+, K9s+, KTo+,QTs+,QJo, JTs, T9s] if he does not.