No, I'm not suggesting dropping coins in that bathroom vending machine. This time it is about an article I read over at Bill Rini's joint. The article says that there are just two bets available. He's simplifying things like those folks from Washington. They are always going to make it easier for us. Of course they end up with a stack of IRS stuff and the author over at Bill's really doesn't tell us much but keeps it shorter.
Every time you make a bet or raise in Texas Hold’em poker, get used to thinking of your action as either one of the following:\
• A bet for value.
• A bluff.
I guess he doesn't want to make it complex by mentioning check and fold. That might overwhelm us. I love the KISS principle and use it all I can. There is another leg on that table and that's over-simplification. It is a popular ploy. You see it pledge week on PBS.
everyone, betting is a big problem without clear guidelines. Science loves a given and ancient Greek guys codified such thinking. You get black and white answers. Scientist's results put people on the moon. Poker players reach the moon by tilting,.
Poker is frustrating and doesn't reward the clearest thinker that has simplification down to his version of science. And I fear that's where the author ended up. Seems he made his destination one of Dante's circles instead but he's announcing a 70% return on your play. He isn't getting technical here so I don't know just what it is 70% of. If that is for total chips invested, where do I sign up?
OK, what's missing? Well, there is a blocking bet. There is the check-raise against an active-aggressive. And, at a no-limit table, we never get around to sizing bets and that is paramount. Value takes on all new issues.
As a former computer programmer, you work with the design specification. If they are clear you end up with a great application. If you take the author's article as the design, you miss the whole point. Conditional execution is the programmers term. He implements it with complex decision trees.
You run that program at the tables and you are a fish with a big target on your back. Fuel55 made a blogging profession out of those players. He loves implied odds. Value bet – schmalue bet! The idea he has is to stack such players.
What the article really is became an exercise in semantics. He trys for a point and misses. Lord knows my blogs honor such efforts. You start toward your lofty goal and get bogged down. Hemingway's clarity isn't around for either of us.
I dug out an old game and have been playing it. Hence, fewer posts. I did play a bit of stud. I even played a bit of Stud8 – which I do poorly. Winning but playing micro limits to maintain that single figure amount I accidentally left on UB. I'm a week away from any possible bonus deposit that'll let me play normal poker. It is hard to get too excited over playing .10-.20. Although, I've run into a lot of really decent players at that level. It is maybe even better than most up to 3-6. Of course it can be a donkfest but those guys play 1000-2000 PLO over on Tilt are proving that the value-bluff premise is good enough for them.