ECOAP ME 1st level

[AlanG]

[AAroddersAA]

Going to respectfully disagree with the above.

Certainly some weak players will call because they do not have the nerve to push and their hand is too good to fold, and then give up when another barrel comes.  Good players can often smell that and exploit it.

This is true in some situations but this is not one of them. We are being asked to put one third of our stack into the pot on the flop. It is not realistic to expect him to give up on the turn that often especially after the super strong donk bet. If we call on the flop then we are expecting a shove on the turn and we should be snapping it off as we are basically putting him on a smaller overpair. As far as some players calling because they do not have the nerve to shove, calling is a better play than shoving in this spot. Also it smells nothing like weakness to me, more like the opposite not a spot to try and exploit.

However I think it is quite a legitimate option, in position, to pay for another street and re-evaluate based on the extra information.  The float shows strength, and a lot of players would shut down in BB"s spot here if they do not have it.   It is clear from the post that he studied the BB carefully, and felt there was now enough evidence of strength to get away, with a decent fighting stack.

The evidence was the same on the flop, what we expected to happen has happened. We should be calling IF we call on the flop (which I don"t think we should). We should only be calling the flop to call the turn and NEVER EVER fold no matter what the turn is.

[Jon MW]

I like the maxim of "play big pots with big hands" and think we should fold the flop - but I completely agree that if you"re not folding the flop then you should be expecting the rest of your stack to go in.

If you"re going to fold to leave yourself with a decent fighting stack then you should be doing it on the flop. Paying to see another street and then re-evaluating with extra information isn"t a bad concept in general but I don"t think you should be paying over a quarter of your stack to get that extra information.

[TheSnapper]

I disagree John, yes Player C will cash often but he will only turn a small profit imho. He will very seldom have a large stack approaching the bubble and will often point to losing flips at crucial times. Player B will also lose the odd flip but they won"t be terminal as they"ll usually be for a small percentage of his stack.

Oh and btw for more on Player C, see Player A.

Who is more likely to win?

Player A: has a way he thinks will win at poker - he sticks to this plan, he plays like this all the time, he never changes

Player B: changes how he plays depending on the stage of the tournament, the size of his stack, the size of his opponents stack and on how his opponents are playing.

Are you really suggesting that never changing your approach is a better way than moving through the gears?

How about Player A"s plan, what is it?

[Jon MW]

I disagree John, yes Player C will cash often but he will only turn a small profit imho. He will very seldom have a large stack approaching the bubble and will often point to losing flips at crucial times. Player B will also lose the odd flip but they won"t be terminal as they"ll usually be for a small percentage of his stack.

Oh and btw for more on Player C, see Player A.

Who is more likely to win?

Player A: has a way he thinks will win at poker - he sticks to this plan, he plays like this all the time, he never changes

Player B: changes how he plays depending on the stage of the tournament, the size of his stack, the size of his opponents stack and on how his opponents are playing.

Are you really suggesting that never changing your approach is a better way than moving through the gears?

How about Player A"s plan, what is it?

It"s irrelevant - given vaguely equal talent then whoever doesn"t adapt to their circumstances isn"t going to do as well as those that do.

Obviously if you"re much better than your opposition you don"t need to worry about adapting to the circumstance to beat them - but most of us, most of the time, don"t have that luxury.

[TheSnapper]

I disagree John, yes Player C will cash often but he will only turn a small profit imho. He will very seldom have a large stack approaching the bubble and will often point to losing flips at crucial times. Player B will also lose the odd flip but they won"t be terminal as they"ll usually be for a small percentage of his stack.

Oh and btw for more on Player C, see Player A.

Who is more likely to win?

Player A: has a way he thinks will win at poker - he sticks to this plan, he plays like this all the time, he never changes

Player B: changes how he plays depending on the stage of the tournament, the size of his stack, the size of his opponents stack and on how his opponents are playing.

Are you really suggesting that never changing your approach is a better way than moving through the gears?

How about Player A"s plan, what is it?

It"s irrelevant - given vaguely equal talent then whoever doesn"t adapt to their circumstances isn"t going to do as well as those that do.

Obviously if you"re much better than your opposition you don"t need to worry about adapting to the circumstance to beat them - but most of us, most of the time, don"t have that luxury.

It"s not irrelevent if part of the plan is to adapt to the circumstance to beat them. But you must adapt correctly!

Sticking to a plan is not wrong if the plan is sound.

My original point though is, if your plan is to wait for the nuts, folding in marginal spots, you will end up regularly surrendering large amounts of equity and never allow yourself a chance to get lucky ( steal some of your opponents equity ).

[Jon MW]

...
It"s not irrelevent if part of the plan is to adapt to the circumstance to beat them. But you must adapt correctly!

Sticking to a plan is not wrong if the plan is sound.

My original point though is, if your plan is to wait for the nuts, folding in marginal spots, you will end up regularly surrendering large amounts of equity and never allow yourself a chance to get lucky ( steal some of your opponents equity ).

Well quite, but despite saying that part of one"s plan could be to be adaptable you still seem to be implying that you there are only 2 ways of playing - which was the main issue I had with your original multiple choice to start with.

[TheSnapper]

...
It"s not irrelevent if part of the plan is to adapt to the circumstance to beat them. But you must adapt correctly!

Sticking to a plan is not wrong if the plan is sound.

My original point though is, if your plan is to wait for the nuts, folding in marginal spots, you will end up regularly surrendering large amounts of equity and never allow yourself a chance to get lucky ( steal some of your opponents equity ).

Well quite, but despite saying that part of one"s plan could be to be adaptable you still seem to be implying that you there are only 2 ways of playing - which was the main issue I had with your original multiple choice to start with.

My two examples were either end of the spectrum John, a spectrum that includes far too many playing styles to mention. As with most examples, mine focus on extremes to make a point, does"nt necessarily ignore the many varied styles in between or suggest that I am ignorant to their existence or merits.

I will add though, the key factor in adapting is assessing the field and adjusting accordingly, in some scenarios the correct adjustment is to nit it up but I dont think that is correct in this event barring some extreme table draw scenario.