Balancing Ranges or Exploitable because people don't adjust

[Talking Poker]

Two good posts.

I need to think about Storm's more, but it makes sense. At least for the people playing in the 1/2 and 2/4 and 3/6 NL range. Does it make sense below that? I'm not sure. I mean, yeah, against a known TAG type player, certainly, but against the average donk that you have no read on, I don't think so - you'll make the big bluff CR and he'll call and stack you with second pair. Ouch. I still think pure ABC is the way to go at anything from $100 NL and down, barring good reads.

But yeah, for the people stuck in those mid-stakes (by our terms) games, bluffing more postflop is probably a great way to move up.

For me personally, it's a tough spot. My style is probably not the best to crush the 5/10 and higher games, for example... but it works at 1/2 and 2/4. So the question is, do I really WANT to move up again? I beat 3/6 regularly for a pretty long time (post UIGEA) and I did well at 5/10 for a while too... but I just didn't like the swings. Losing a few $1400 or $2200 pots in a session bothers me and affects my game, and the big downswings REALLY do (did someone just say -20 Buy Ins?). The swings at the $200 tables don't really bother me at all. So I dunno.

I guess I'm taking it slowly, and while I won't say I never want to play about 2/4 again, I will say I'm not in a big hurry. So given that, does it make sense for a guy like me to start contesting for every pot, or should I stick with what works pretty well?

I'm asking. I don't know.

[lightfungus]

This is one of the most game-changing threads we have had on this site. I think your question TP boils down to goals, no? Do you want to move up or are you happy grinding?

As for the tag business storm was talking about, do you think that bluffing more postflop before you move up is all about loosening your trigger to get you prepared for the next level? Because I agree with TP that I don't think there are enough instances at .50/1 and below where you can play a very aggressive style postflop without a hand and come out a winner just because of the landscape of those levels.

However, I occasionally find myself pulling the trigger on a bluff in a marginal situation simply because I feel like I need to prove to myself I can do it and prevent locking up at the next opportunity. I understand the need to demonstrate the ability to bluff at the higher levels you play at, as that is the only way to get any action. However, what is the best method to prepare for the next level?

I read in Supersystem (I think), or somewhere where Doyle talked about the whole state of Texas knowing who he was and no one really wanted to play with him. However, he said he basically had to start at games by giving lots of action and throwing away one buyin just so he could get action on the other end...Is this kinda what you were getting at? If so, isn't it best to prepare for the next level by jumping up to teh next level knowing you need to pull the trigger more often? I always thought that's how JD moved up so quickly...

This definitely rambled on, and I am not sure what my point was but I have always felt I am capable of getting to the upper echelon of play but due to time constraints and the need for my BR funds I have never been able to put a run together so I guess I am trying to get an insight into how to move up effectively.

[PShabi]

I'm playing the NL100 game on FTP and the type of play described above is something I rarely, if ever, see.

Sadly, I BARELY play poker anymore. I've been trying to get back into it lately, but lack of great results (i.e. breakeven since last June) and my career taking on a greater meaning have made me lose desire to play. Forcing myself to play for the money was a bad, bad idea.

Anyway, like BL said, the games are just not like that anymore. I agree. I've found a need to be MUCH more creative.

However, in examining my own play recently, I started to wonder if the fact the I seemed to be "contesting every pot" was my downfall. Now, I'm just confused.

WTF?

[melioris]

if you are playing a 6-max game I think the skill lays in understanding how the board on flops and turns play against hand ranges of standard TAGs. My understanding of the OP is that the AG of TAG is particularly important postflop and a lot of advice here is not geared to working that part of the game. The problem with this type of thinking is that is requires more complete HH posting, like recent history as well as stats on villains when posting in the HH section.

[Talking Poker]

*Official request for new video illustrating the style of play you are advocating, Storm*

Thank you.

[Reel Deal]

I second that because, and we can write this off as me being slow, I'm having a hard time grasping all of what BL wrote (for example how do you reconcile paragraph 2 with paragraph 5?). No intent whatsoever of being critical, just would really like to have a complete understanding of what you're saying because I think you're posting some very ++EV (and ++$) advice that is very important. These "playing the player" concepts are what makes this game interesting and is an area I'm trying to focus on more and more.