playing and raising every hand

[MadAdo]

If you have such player in your table, you are lucky! All you need to do is polarize hand to take advantage of aggression in every hand played ...

[MyDogsRMyHomies]

i saw a guy play aggro cards i saw a raise once real cool stories brah

[GatitaLindax]

are you talking about me?, because im won the game yerterday and in some hands i was playing very agressive, but not all the time, just when i have potential hands. So, for me is just strategy, but i understand your feeling bro.

[tex]

I played opposite waited for a good 60% starting hand that didnt come until my relative stack size was to small to see a flop .The big were
raising were had to go all in or fold,Tounament poker you have know how fast blinds go up in order to know how loose or tight to play.

[Drock1116]

Its sooo funny when you pull an okey doak on a player that is aggressive. I live for it.

[2sweet247]

There a lot of morons that play this way. They usually get knocked out though after awhile.

While this can be true..sighs my problem is that have already knocked me out with their 8 3 os flopping 2 pairs

[TheHaversham]

It is absolutely ESSENTIAL that you put yourself in scenarios where you flip for your tourney life because u needa take a risk to build a huge stack.

This is absolutely not true. Playing optimally for hours hoping to get it in on a coinflip is not a path to consistent success. In certain situations, you might settle for a flip against the top end of someone's range, but that is generally not the ideal, as, if you are correctly ranging opponents, you will only get it in ahead. You can't always be correct, but most solid players look to AVOID flips for their tourney life.

I played opposite waited for a good 60% starting hand that didnt come until my relative stack size was to small to see a flop .The big were
raising were had to go all in or fold,Tounament poker you have know how fast blinds go up in order to know how loose or tight to play.

While this can be true..sighs my problem is that have already knocked me out with their 8 3 os flopping 2 pairs

You guys are missing something fundamental to today's poker. In the early days, nobody was playing much no-limit holdem, so when Doyle's masterpiece came out, he pointed out that playing the top 20% of hands with aggression was a winning strategy against players who played too many hands too passively. Then, the poker boom hit, and everyone did that. Dan Harrington's tournament strat masterpiece Harrington on Holdem then defined a new version of tight aggression, and yet more got on board. But the reality is that winning poker - and Doyle had already pointed this out - is generally more efficient when you play against the grain of the table. So if everyone is tight and aggressive, loose and trappy become the winning strat. But then Negreanu turned the poker world on it's head again, demonstrating a loose aggressive strategy that still generally holds sway over the old-timers and Harringbots, who continue waiting to try to win the occasional big pot vs taking constant stabs at the smaller pots.

Many top players know both styles inside and out, can recognize them, and can attack or defend appropriately. Factor in the ideas that simple math and multitabling have brought to the concept of reducing variance, and you end up with what you are experiencing: players you think that are playing bad that are absolutely crushing tournaments, while you fold and fold and fold waiting for AK or AA to get all your chips in with. By that point, your stack is all but irrelevant to them, if they've built their stacks well. And if they KO early, on the next without a second thought.

I mentioned this once in another thread, how after some instruction from some nosebleed friends I slashed my ITM% almost in half (meaning I cashed much, much less), while blowing my profit through the roof by almost 700% (meaning that when I DID cash, it was very rarely for the minimum, and often in the top 3).

Just some food for thought.

[lorenz0wns]

This is absolutely not true. Playing optimally for hours hoping to get it in on a coinflip is not a path to consistent success. In certain situations, you might settle for a flip against the top end of someone's range, but that is generally not the ideal, as, if you are correctly ranging opponents, you will only get it in ahead. You can't always be correct, but most solid players look to AVOID flips for their tourney life.





You guys are missing something fundamental to today's poker. In the early days, nobody was playing much no-limit holdem, so when Doyle's masterpiece came out, he pointed out that playing the top 20% of hands with aggression was a winning strategy against players who played too many hands too passively. Then, the poker boom hit, and everyone did that. Dan Harrington's tournament strat masterpiece Harrington on Holdem then defined a new version of tight aggression, and yet more got on board. But the reality is that winning poker - and Doyle had already pointed this out - is generally more efficient when you play against the grain of the table. So if everyone is tight and aggressive, loose and trappy become the winning strat. But then Negreanu turned the poker world on it's head again, demonstrating a loose aggressive strategy that still generally holds sway over the old-timers and Harringbots, who continue waiting to try to win the occasional big pot vs taking constant stabs at the smaller pots.

Many top players know both styles inside and out, can recognize them, and can attack or defend appropriately. Factor in the ideas that simple math and multitabling have brought to the concept of reducing variance, and you end up with what you are experiencing: players you think that are playing bad that are absolutely crushing tournaments, while you fold and fold and fold waiting for AK or AA to get all your chips in with. By that point, your stack is all but irrelevant to them, if they've built their stacks well. And if they KO early, on the next without a second thought.

I mentioned this once in another thread, how after some instruction from some nosebleed friends I slashed my ITM% almost in half (meaning I cashed much, much less), while blowing my profit through the roof by almost 700% (meaning that when I DID cash, it was very rarely for the minimum, and often in the top 3).

Just some food for thought.

idk, if you wanna have sick scores like shaun deeb you're going to want to take flips for your tourney life to accumulate a big stack although you have to take 'em in the right time like in the middle of a tourney, obv not in the beginning because if u win a flip in the beginning you're still nowhere near the FT.

http://officialpokerrankings.com/ful...2501E.html?t=3

^that's shaun deebs acc on FTP. as u can see all his major bustouts happen 65% of the time during the middle of a tourney. the reason being he takes those flips in which if he wins it sets up his deep runs to the FT, a crushing 18% which is almost double the average player

[TheHaversham]

idk, if you wanna have sick scores like shaun deeb you're going to want to take flips for your tourney life to accumulate a big stack although you have to take 'em in the right time like in the middle of a tourney, obv not in the beginning because if u win a flip in the beginning you're still nowhere near the FT.

TEDSFISHFRY Poker Results and Statistics - Official Poker Rankings

^that's shaun deebs acc on FTP. as u can see all his major bustouts happen 65% of the time during the middle of a tourney. the reason being he takes those flips in which if he wins it sets up his deep runs to the FT, a crushing 18% which is almost double the average player

Thank you for posting Deeb's stats, but that is not an accurate analysis of how or why he is so successful. Here is a quote from the man himself:
"I mean, we always talk about the +EV of a hand," the 25-year-old New Yorker said in online vernacular. "Say someone opens [raises], I three[-bet, or reraise], they four-bet [re-reraise]. It would often be right to five-bet, but because it's the main event, if they have [a superior hand] 50-50, you can't make that commitment. Why commit to 50-50 when I can commit one-tenth of my stack to hands I have a better chance of winning?"

While it's true that when he's 50-tabling, he's far more likely to push the edges with a 52/48 edge, that is more a factor of using multi-tabling to reduce variance. But when he's playing one tourney, and for whatever reason that has exceptional importance - like when he is in the main event, or when a freeroller has $0 and is playing for $1 - then taking 50/50's when there will be countless 80/20's in your future is just bad poker.

[TheHaversham]

idk, if you wanna have sick scores like shaun deeb you're going to want to take flips for your tourney life to accumulate a big stack although you have to take 'em in the right time like in the middle of a tourney, obv not in the beginning because if u win a flip in the beginning you're still nowhere near the FT.

TEDSFISHFRY Poker Results and Statistics - Official Poker Rankings

^that's shaun deebs acc on FTP. as u can see all his major bustouts happen 65% of the time during the middle of a tourney. the reason being he takes those flips in which if he wins it sets up his deep runs to the FT, a crushing 18% which is almost double the average player

Coinflips in poker are inevitable, but there are times when you will take one and times when they are to be avoided. This is really a mistake many amateurs make because they simply think in terms of "well, I got my chips in and I wasn't behind." What the pro's understand is controlling the situations in which they are willing to flip. The reason Deeb takes flips in the mid-game is generally because he understands his opponents well enough and knows that they SHOULD be folding if he puts them to that question. And, since many of his opponents now understand that, they will occasionally gamble with him, knowing that their particular skill-sets give them more leverage the longer they are in the tournament. Deeb is not a short-stack player - I've played with him on many occasions, and he is simply one of those who can afford the risk and max out the reward, so he starts taking the risks that you and I might wait until 10-20bbs to risk when he is down to 50-65bbs. In the tournies he plays, that will bust you half the time, but the other half it will give you 100+ bbs. I guarantee you that Shaun would be the first to tell you that he's not looking to flip a coin for 100+ bbs in the middle of a tourney. That's not to say he won't, but it's not generally by his own choice (i.e, he might 5-bet QQ if he's certain his opponent has AK, but if the opponent doesn't let go, Deeb isn't going to give up his aggro image).