More Poker Stuff for Mickey Crimm

[Barry_Glazer]

13a. Re: More Poker Stuff for Mickey Crimm
Posted by: "mickeycrimm" mickeycrimm@yahoo.com mickeycrimm
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:06 pm ((PDT))

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, b.glazer@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Supersystem recommends a very aggressive approach, which some
players can get away with, and with which others struggle -- a few
other authors have been brave enough to say that this style is not
appropriate for most players, as it requires a fairly advanced
ability to "read" other players, which, while a critical poker skill,
is not usually one acquired early in one's playing history.
>
> --BG

In Doyle's day the NLH games had a pretty stiff ante along with the
blinds. You had to play alot of hands or get antied off. I think
his thought process while playing the big pairs, small pairs, big
aces, and suited connectors is what needs to be paid attention too.
One has to develop a fundamental game first, then move up to the
advanced concepts.

And Doyle is not the last word. I think one needs the input of
several sources before deciding how one should proceed in any given
situation in the game.

Agree 100% about reading multiple books; each one may or may not provide some nugget that will either fit one's own style of play and comfort zone, or help the player find a new or different style and comfort zone -- it only takes one good hand won that would otherwise have been lost to make up for the cost of a good book many times over, in any but the smallest no limit games.

And just as Harrington's book emphasizes tournament poker, Doyle's emphasizes cash games - it even took Doyle a while to realize that the very tight game that many cash players played was not going to work in a tournament with ever-increasing blinds.

Certainly the "structure" of a cash game - are there antes, how big are the blinds compared to the bets that are actually made (not the size bets that SHOULD be made, but that are actually made), will provide a fundamental difference in whether one should play agressively or can be "tight" as the underlying strategy -- with, of course, enough variation to keep 'em guessing as to what the heck you're doing this time.

--BG

···

==============

[Mickey]

> 13a. Re: More Poker Stuff for Mickey Crimm
> Posted by: "mickeycrimm" mickeycrimm@... mickeycrimm
> Date: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:06 pm ((PDT))
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, b.glazer@ wrote:

Agree 100% about reading multiple books; each one may or may not

provide some nugget that will either fit one's own style of play and
comfort zone, or help the player find a new or different style and
comfort zone -- it only takes one good hand won that would otherwise
have been lost to make up for the cost of a good book many times
over, in any but the smallest no limit games.

And just as Harrington's book emphasizes tournament poker, Doyle's

emphasizes cash games - it even took Doyle a while to realize that
the very tight game that many cash players played was not going to
work in a tournament with ever-increasing blinds.

Certainly the "structure" of a cash game - are there antes, how big

are the blinds compared to the bets that are actually made (not the
size bets that SHOULD be made, but that are actually made), will
provide a fundamental difference in whether one should play
agressively or can be "tight" as the underlying strategy -- with, of
course, enough variation to keep 'em guessing as to what the heck
you're doing this time.

--BG

The games that I am shooting for are the SBNLH games of Las Vegas.
They are tourist fueled. NLH is one of the trendy things the
tourists are doing today. It's the reason so many poker rooms
sprouted up in recent years. The tourists are requesting it so many
houses had to put in poker for competitive reasons.

In these games the play is so bad that just a sound fundamental game
will get the money. And there are so many games that you just don't
have to sit in a game that's even halfway rocked down.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, b.glazer@... wrote: