Online Poker v. Live Poker
I just read this post on rgp.
All I can say is that he must play poker online a lot.
You can get away with playing like that online because most of your opponents are not paying attention at all to any mistakes you're making.
But in live poker games where even the really bad players are paying attention, once you come in for a raise in EP then fold to a re-raise once you've just got a target painted on your forehead. If you do it twice you're dead.
If I raise with AQ and get reraised, I'm dumping it, and if there's an EP raise,
I'm probably folding AQ. For me to get burned with AQ, I would need to raise in
EP with AQ and just get called, or, AK raises from MP/LP, and I would call
there.
All I can say is that he must play poker online a lot.
You can get away with playing like that online because most of your opponents are not paying attention at all to any mistakes you're making.
But in live poker games where even the really bad players are paying attention, once you come in for a raise in EP then fold to a re-raise once you've just got a target painted on your forehead. If you do it twice you're dead.
Labels: when to fold
posted by Gary Carson at 3:15 PM
5 Comments:
He can't do it online either! Online players might not pay much attention but they generally note who raised.
You're dead? Why? They are going to start coming over the top of your EP raises with weak hands? Bring it.
This is of course nonsense. Considering that the majority of most player's re-raise range dominates AQ, and that you're out of position, and that there's a huge amount of money behind, you must fold. If you believed villain was on a re-steal, you might get involved but even then you have a lousy hand.
The reality is you should have folded AQo in early position anyways to avoid just this problem. It's been 28 years since supersystem was published and explained exactly this situation, and people are still screwing it up. And of course we have Gary to continue the misconception.
Wayne, whether or not you should fold AQo from early postion depends on a log of things.
When Brunson wrote that book hold'em was played with a single blind and no ante and most players had a very tight range of raising hands. Under those conditions it's probably not even worth playing JJ from early postion against many lineups.
Brunson's game plan was pretty much designed around playing a lot of hands in position to pick off easy to read players in front of you.
To DMW, I'll address your comment in a later post, I'm going to do some detailed analysis about that.
To Dr. Zen, the lineup online changes so often that at any given time most players at the table will be unaware of your recent playing history related to a habit of raise/fold.
Gary, your comment is simply factually false. NL games with multiple blinds were common in Brunson's era, and indeed I think there's even a discussion of such a game somewhere in Supersystem (or possibly Wisdom of a Poker Champion).
Furthermore, you're showing a conceptual error here. How you want to enter the pot in NL is mostly a function of pot size and stack size. How the money got in the pot isn't that important ie. 1 blind vs. 2 blinds vs. antes vs. blinds + antes are all more similar than you suggest. Other than re-ordering the action on the first betting round and offering small discounts, there's really not much difference.
Doyle's advice about AQ applies as much to today's deepstack game as it did when SS was written. Anyone who thinks AQo is a highly playable NL hand needs to be beaten over the head with an implied odds bat.
Post a Comment
<< Home