I don't know why I'm bothering responding to you. I don't think I've seen you make an intelligent post yet, and I'm skeptical you'll correctly parse this one. But I'm not writing for your benefit. I write this so people reading your asinine posts don't get the mistaken impression you know what you're talking about.
You don't. I'm not trying to insult you, but consider listening to some other posters before creating your trollish, half-intelligible rants about big cards and AK and bluffing is FoS.
Here's the main thing you seem to be missing. Poker has four streets of action. We don't just go all-in or fold pre-flop. Sure, if we all have 10BB stacks, there's not a huge difference between Q9s and Q9o. But this is not the case. We're 200BB deep. The ability to flop powerful draws is huge, even if it's only 4% difference in all-in equity. With Q9s we can barrel on most flops, then often fire again on the turn, and sometimes when called we get there and stack our opponent. This value is enormous, and we can't play Q9o in this manner to even close to the same degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outdonked
Good luck on playing and shame on ....., for encouraging other new honest 2+2 beginner players on losing their money by playing inferior starting hands in a RAISED pot just because that hand is suited.
This is really funny coming from you. All you do is post nonsense that will lead new players to rapidly go broke. One can argue to fold Q9s here. It's marginal. I'm not saying we should call with Q9s against all villains, but it's close, whereas Q9o is a very clear fold. And there's nothing wrong with a skilled post-flop player calling with Q9s in position, particularly if he has straightforward, fishy opponents. The point is Q9s vs Q9o is night and day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outdonked
If you got a FD on the flop and missed the turn your garbage Q9s becomes 20% vs. 80% and the AK will not let you get to the river unless the entire stack goes in. What you gonna do? ..., LOL ... call Mama or Lolita?
What? You are seriously confusing to read. Why are you convinced villain has AK? That being the case, we actually have over 47% equity on this flop vs. AK. If we miss the turn, we bet again. It's called barreling. We have tremendous equity against villain's flop continuing range and often pick up the pot on the turn. And even when called, we sometimes hit an out and stack villain. Obviously the A
is the worst possible "out" for us, which is why this situation is a bit murky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outdonked
No! ..., this is all a nonsense of suited or offsuited. the 4% difference means s*** against powerful cards. If the cards have no big-card-value from the start you are on a uphill battle of trying to draw and scream for help when heavy money goes in.
Big-card-value is not that important 200BB deep. Sure, we'd rather have AKs than Q9s. But we'd rather have Q9s than A9o or KTo etc. Since you're focusing on AK, let me ask you this--how comfortable is a player with AK on this flop when we bet into him? What if the turn blanks and we bet into him again? What if the river blanks or worse, completes a draw and we bet into him again? It's not a good spot to be in with just TPTK, which is what you almost always have with AK (when you don't have air).
Quote:
Originally Posted by outdonked
This game is a game of big-cards and flops. We need to play cards that flop big close to the nuts. Near nut flop cards. This is what makes money. Not bluffing or BDSD or BSFD. Bluffing is worth FoS and the BD are worth 1 out also a FoS. The back-door or runner-runner are the most ridiculous consideration a player can count on when he's in a desperate mode and needs help.
AK does not flop close to the nuts, unless suited, but you don't care about suitedness, right? If you want cards that can flop nutted hands, we want suitedness and we want connectedness. Barreling is massively profitable on the right board textures against many villain types. In fact beyond the smallest stakes, bluffing is more important than value betting. For you to say "bluffing is worth FoS" (whatever that means, though I think I get your drift) shows a total lack of understanding of this game. It's not 2003. Value-betting with top pair does not get it done anymore beyond the smallest games.
Read some poker books. Ed Miller, Matthew Janda, Jonathan Little, Will Tipton, to name a few respected authors. See if they support your contention that it's big cards that matter and bluffing is worthless.