had to share this hand

[robilaruk]

can we all take a breather here? - lots of testosterone flying about

re the stakes - what is difference between playing at the $1/$2 or the $25/$50? feck all if you have the bankroll to sustain it - this has been discussed alot here and is worth revisiting - if you have the necessary buy-ins then the amount (should) mean nothing to you - as you have the comfort of playing and being able to lose

everyone should buy in above their BR limit every so often, just to test the water and play a little scared - its great! but you should not play with scared money every game, if you are, then regardless of your bankroll you are playing at the wrong level and need to step down, to find somewhere that you are comfortable playing at and don't mind the loss. I would guess a lot of professionals would say something similar

its all a matter of scale and confidence - as you may know I am grinding at the Betfair .05/10c NL cash tables at the mo, whilst playing $30 and $50 STT on sporting at the same time - why? coz i have about a fiver on betfair and a lot more on sporting - I can play on sporting no probs, but am sweating on Betfair coz I am under Bankrolled for the level and every loss is a massive blow to me (plus I am shite at cash games )

Damo

[davidireland]

Really i dont see what the big fuss is cause at end of day he's 19k+ and to me that will be the right hand regardless cause he's the one with the cash...ya can say in myth that he was lucky but not really he had good hand and at end of day he's the one rolling in it and i say very well done.

David.

[friskyfitz]

Originally Posted by the mole

Firstly at the point of going all in there was 4k in the pot so winning it there and then is key.

secondly i didnt think at all what he had as i had the nuts at that point, if i let another card out i might not have the nuts anymore and have now lost the power

next there were 2 spades on the flop he couldve been drawing so all in was without a doubt the play

you actually need to play at this level to understand that its all about power, and you have no idea the pressure on you at all times

the pot at this level is worth winning from the off, so really no need to take chances in trying to build it

poker at a good level cannot be played from a book!!!

cheers mcfc couldn't have said it better masell

Only point I will make here is that "the mole" is spot on when he says Power is the key - IT IS!!!!!! FULL STOP

[friskyfitz]

Originally Posted by the mole

You only seem to play the cards, there are a huge number of other factors you must take into account , the table , the players, things that happened previous, its better to win 4k than risk losing 10, etc too many too mention but these factors can be more important than the cards

as for the book reading thing , i have never read a poker book and don't intend to as i find its better to learn from your mistakes

most honest poker answer ever. For anybody to critisise that move.........

YOU ARE PLAYING WITH FIRE!!!!!

[AJ]

You make a big deal of the stakes you are playing at, well it appears you are well outwith you comfort zone. I doubt if every one at you table is in the same mind shape

as for "playing out my comfort zone" lol where do you get this shit from. you know nothing of my roll or game so i don't kbnow how you can make a ridiculas comment like that .

Wasn't going to post on this thread, but changed my mind, i do agree with the first post to a degree. The orginal post on this thread made a comment about it being by far the biggest pot he'd ever won. At $50BB, something like $50,000 is a minimum bank roll prudent for these levels. I don't know (or really care) if you have this.

I'm not short of a quid, the money here doesn't impress me all that much, if you are playing at a level where you are pressured and the win or loss of a single pot makes a major difference to you, then yes, the evidence would suggest you're playing outside of what most people would consider comfortable.

I also read on this thread constantly the game is different at higher levels because people are more agressive, and there is more pressure. Surely a unit of bankroll a BB is the same where ever you are. If people are more agressive, and raise with less hands, then a tight player who is adequetly bankrolled should get paid much easier as when they hit big cards they'll get paid off. It's the same game after all, best 5 cards from 7. Pot odds don't change. There is only pressure if you can be bullied out a pot or a single pot has a major impact on bankroll. If that is the case, then I'd suggest you are playing at too high a level. Short term variance cuts both ways.

I also find your constant dismisal and mocking of "book learning" a very arrogant. If you feel you have nothing to learn from the masters of the game like Harrington, Brunson or Hellmuth, I'd say show me your WSOP bracelets.

[voiceofjoe]

Originally Posted by Foolsgold

I also find your constant dismisal and mocking of "book learning" a very arrogant. If you feel you have nothing to learn from the masters of the game like Harrington, Brunson or Hellmuth, I'd say show me your WSOP bracelets.

Sorry 'Fools' but that statement doesn't cut true, did Brunson,Harrington and Hellmuth learn from books - I don't think so.

Stu Ungar,Scotty Nguyen, Johnny Chan .... none of these will have learned form books either.

I've read HH and my suffered 2 losing months on the trot subsequently.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not putting 'Mole' up with the levels of Stu Ungar etc (- sorry 'Mole' not yet anyway ). But I would suggest that in everything you do, not just Poker, learning by your own experiences and mistakes - for anyone of reasonable levels of intelligence- is by far the better way to go.

And the bit about 'Show me your WSOP bracelets' - whats that got to do with anything on this thread - do they give bracelets for Cash Games on Sporting Odds ???

[pokerjace]

Fcuk it,nice hand.

[robilaruk]

lol - still plenty of testosterone flying about I see

re books: they are a great learning tool (but they are just a tool). The best way of learning is by doing (and has been proved countless times by academics regarding retention of info etc).
Books will teach you things and used in the right way will have a positive effect on your play, but only if you process the information by thinking about it and then using it alongside what you think it means and whats best for you.

re: Brunson, it has been well documented about the time he, Sailor Roberts and Slim put in after games talking and discussing hands and coming up with theories on how best to play in each situation (read the IE article about 4 issues ago). Yes it wasn't a book, but what they were doing was sitting and discussing pot odds and position and using aggression when needed (just like what most of the books say!)

there is nothing wrong in learning, whether it is by reading, hand discussion on forums and/or experience. To dismiss any of these is folly IMO as they all have a place in everyones armoury to a greater or lesser extent.

Glad this has provoked such a good discussion, but maybe we need to stop shouting at each other so much?

Cheers

Damo
ps: WSOP Bracelet - maybe next year, one of us is due a victory

[robilaruk]

different times, different strokes etc can't see how you can use this as an argument for or against really?? - plenty of players around now have spent time reading and posting on forums and discussing strategies and some of them have a bracelet to their name (Fossilman etc) and others have read Doyle and used his strategies (certainly negreanu and I think Ivey as well)

Tho as you said, nothing beats experience

Damo


[quote=voiceofjoe;664371]Sorry 'Fools' but that statement doesn't cut true, did Brunson,Harrington and Hellmuth learn from books - I don't think so.

Stu Ungar,Scotty Nguyen, Johnny Chan .... none of these will have learned form books either.

quote]

[Jonne]

Originally Posted by gazza271

fcuk the plays and %'s, man you must have balls the size of the millenium dome

And a giant E-penis to go with that