Quote:
Originally Posted by UpHillBothWays
i think the same as you; however, there are many different ways to win at poker. it's very possible the person in question is far better than i am postflop and has a highly balanced game that i can't extrapolate about from 1 hand.
i know for me, it makes sense to stick with a game that involves being highly selected up front. adding hands like a2s so they can hit low boards, ostensibly b/c i've seen a crusher do it, is almost surely going to end up hurting more than it helps. there are a few hands i'd rarely raise (black or red low suited connectors or of a specific suit, again b/c it only takes 1 of those views to be stuck in people's heads, at least those who i'd want to notice).
so if somebody is adding A2s to their 9handed UTG game, without any other information, i'll certainly consider it in terms of adding it in the back of my mind to "ways to win"; however, for me, i'm going to ignore it as it pertains to my game b/c that's not something i can incorporate individually. i'd need to understand all of the logic behind it and how it meshes with this crusher's game, something i can't get from 1 hand.
EDIT: Also, EXTREMELY good players can succeed with a high win rate in spite of themselves. the #1 trait that i've seen in common across all extremely good players is that they're too loose preflop. you can say "it works for them so it may be right" but in reality it's more likely that if they pulled back juuuuust a bit on the pf selectivity criteria, they'd do even better. sure, maybe i'm wrong here and that each hand they add is marginally positive and there are no hands they lose money with that they choose to play; however, that's probably not the case. yes, there may be hands THEY can play that all others lose money with in a given position, but more than likely they just lose way less money with it and instead earn more with other hands so you can't properly tease out this distinction without a SH*TTON of data.
A couple of points on this:
1. A lot of folks here take the position "learn the right way so you don't have to re-learn later", but I don't think there's anything wrong with a lower limit player erring on the side of tightness. For one thing, her opponents are not going to be able to take advantage of her not having enough 3's and 2's in her range anyway. And for another thing, the reality is that most people have psychological factors that they need to control that will push them towards being overly loose anyway, so playing overly tight and learning self control seems to me to be just as important a skill as any strategic factor. And that brings me to 2.....
2. I've mentioned this before in discussions with DD in other threads, but it's entirely possible that even top live players' pre-flop ranges are going to be too loose. Consider the following factors: (a) they are likely to have the same issues with boredom, impatience, etc., as any other player does; (b) they are likely to have a larger ego regarding their skill than other players do, which will likely lead them to seek out marginal spots because they think they can outplay opponents; and (c) live poker, unlike online poker, does not provide you with the type of feedback that would establish that a play is mathematically -EV over a large sample of hands. Nobody tracks their live play like that.
And I do remember, pre-BF when I played a lot online, both that my database indicated that various hands were -EV that people play live, and further that the best online players played tighter, especially in early position, than what I would consider some of the top mid-stakes live players in LA do now. They weren't TAGs, but they were LAGTAGs, or maybe LAGs in position and TAGs out of position. And it's entirely possible that one reason for that is because those players had databases telling them that some of the hands that top live players like to play, because they don't want to fold, were actually -EV to play in that position.
In any event, I didn't mind OP's raise of A4 suited here. But move it back a position or two and I might....