Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon_locke
So I've decided I'm done posting advise/content on here forever. Inevitably I will write something that Mason disagrees with and it will lead to me getting banned anyways. In the hand to think about thread Mason wrote "Thus, when you can have an occasional big swing, such as occurred with my "Hand to Talk About," it can impact your long term results." I merely quoted that and replied playing bad can also impact your long term results (which is undeniably true) and he banned me for a week for insulting him (if you somehow couldn't figure out what my other account was).
For starters the hand he posted is just awful. Thats all there is to it, its horribly played at just about every decision point and if a random poster has posted the exact same hand they likely would be told to move down in stakes, post in the micros or ironically to buy some poker books and learn why its correct to raise pre-flop. Yet simply stating that playing a hand badly will have a stronger impact on your long term results than losing a big pot payed correctly will (which is obviously true) got my account banned for a week
We frequently disagree on a lot of decision points but the justifications that I read are usually, you need to think statistically (and then refuse to ever provide any stats), you need to read this X book I wrote. For the record I've never read the theory of poker, I've never read holdem for advanced players and I've never read the Ed Miller books, or just using extreme examples that rarely happen to prove a point.
Example: We limp TT pre-flop and lead the 844 flop because BB will raise KJo. BB raises KJo. We don't 3 bet for god knows what reason but ignore that part of the analysis and decided to lead the Q turn because BB will obviously call with KJo and BB of course calls with KJ. Now we get to the river and have the easiest bet ever since he's going to check back Ax here but probably call always and never bluff KJ (which he should never have anywyays) so we decide to check the river to induce a bluff from KJ and guess what KJ bluffs the river and we win the greatest hand ever played.
To all of the people that are still trying to improve at limit holdem, Good Luck. I'll still post on here from time to time but I'm done with the free advise, but I will post one last opinion. I think you should raise QQ 8 ways pre-flop. Best of Luck, Jon (If I don't post in the next week, its probably because this account will be banned also).
This post is a good example of why the poster(s) dead..money and dead.money were both banned, and I now assume that these posters were you based on what you just wrote. Here's a couple of specifics:
You wrote:
"We limp TT pre-flop"
Here's what I actually wrote in my article in our Online Magazine (which can be found here):
https://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/...talk-about.php
First, I quote from the "Playing in Loose Games" section in our book
Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players. But, as you state, you've never read any of our books and this one short paragraph is only an introduction to the material in this section.
The general idea is that you extract the most money from your opponents by putting them in a position to make big mistakes. Sometimes that means manipulating the pot size into one that is most likely to be a size where they make errors. Occasionally you make the pot bigger early to make them chase more those times you flop a great hand. Other times you keep it smaller to keep the hand from being a “shootout” where you have to chase just like they will. Of course, it is not worth making these plays if you give up too much by doing it. Only in marginal situations should you make a lesser expected value play for the sake of future benefits. But these marginal situations do come up a lot, so try to recognize them.
Then, I wrote the following in the article
At his point I need to make a comment. Notice in the first excerpt from our book it states “Other times you keep it smaller to keep the hand from being a “shootout” where you have to chase just like they will.” However, in this spot, since there is no raise, the pot hasn’t gotten that big, so for those of you who prefer to raise in this spot with a pair of tens, I have no objection. But partly because I had been in discussion relative to hands like this, my play was to call and then see what would happen.
Notice from this it should be clear that I think that raising with TT in this spot is the correct play, but for other reasons I chose to just call.
Of course, you miss the key point of the article, and that is once the pot has gotten large, which just so happened after the player in the big blind raised, I did not take it to three bets as I think you would with a pair of tens. And why is that? Well here's another excerpt from the article which again comes from the "Playing in Loose Games" section in our book.
For instance, suppose you have two kings or two queens in the big blind. The player under the gun raises and six people call. Our preferred way to play this hand is to not reraise, and then when the flop comes to bet out, unless it includes an ace. You should come out betting enlisting the original preflop raiser to be your unwitting partner to knock people out.
Then you wrote:
"and lead the 844 flop because BB will raise KJo."
Notice that leading the flop is consistent with this last passage from our book which you claim to have never read. As for what the big blind will raise with, I don't know that he would raise with KJo. My assumption when he raised was that he either had a big pair of two large cards (which is typical for many of the players in this game).
The you write:
"We don't 3 bet for god knows what reason but ignore that part of the analysis"
That part of the analysis wasn't ignored. That's the purpose of the two paragraphs I quoted from our book. You also seem to forget that we've had a number of threads relative to these ideas where the reason for making this type of play has been addressed in detail. Plus, I've stated that I'm not going to post the whole "Playing in Loose Games" section, but if you were to read that section, you would see when we recommend to keep these pots small and when we recommend to make these pots large and gain a good understanding, whether you agree with these strategies or not, as to why we recommend making these plays in certain situations.
Then you write:
"and decided to lead the Q turn because BB will obviously call with KJo and BB of course calls with KJ."
But this is what I actually wrote in the article:
The turn was the Q. I bet and my opponent called. Here, in case my hand is best I don’t want to give my opponent a free card, and, in fact, hope he folds.
That sure is a whole lot different from what you just said I wrote. Why is that?
Then you write:
Now we get to the river and have the easiest bet ever since he's going to check back Ax here but probably call always and never bluff KJ (which he should never have anywyays) so we decide to check the river to induce a bluff from KJ and guess what KJ bluffs the river and we win the greatest hand ever played.
and I wrote the following:
The river was the 9. My play was to check to take advantage of his aggressive tendencies, my opponent bet, I called, he showed KSJH, and my pair of Tens won the pot producing a profit of $360.
If you thnk this play is wrong, fine. Vigorous debate is what these forums are about. By the way, I do agree that against most players a bet is the best play.
And speaking of vigorous debate, don't you think that for vigorous debate to happen and be worthwhile it's important that you represent acurately what the person you disagree with has actually said or written. Changing what someone says and then explaining what's wrong with it is not a class move. But I'm sure you already knew that.
MM