Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« November 2005 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Wednesday, 2 November 2005
Passive play
Topic: Poker
Below I attach a hand history of a pot I won today.

The reason I show it is that I think it illustrates one of the differences I encounter in online play, as compared to live play. I mean the tendancy of online players to bet highly marginal hands that would nearly always be checked in the games I play in the Vic or at the Gutshot club. I call it 'must-bet-something disease'. Look at that last bet of ?80. What hand is he beating? What inferior hand is going to call here?

It's partly because of betting like this that my style of play is more passive than most people's. I'm prepared to go into check and call mode far more readily than most people. It suits a culture in which aggressive play is considered a virtue.

I'm not saying that passive is always right or that aggressive is always wrong. Context determines everything. But I see a lot of advice telling people to play aggressively and not much telling people how to let the aggressors hang themselves. In particular, I hear people talking about wanting to 'win the pot there and then'. They are usually talking about winning the blinds by making big pre-flop raises in competition play with hands like TT, JJ, QQ. How, I wonder, do they expect to win competitions if all they get with these hands are the blinds?

Being passive isn't about being weak. In many ways it's as risky as being aggressive. Perhaps more so. You have to be able to determine whether the cheap cards you've given could have hurt you. I can't say I liked the club on the turn or the ten on the river. But I still felt right in calling. I think I got more action this way than betting aggressively.

Texas Hold'em No Limit EUR 3,00/6,00 - Table "Torino"
Game ended 2005-11-02 16:41:38 GMT+01:00

Players:
bojjen (EUR 691,75 in seat 1)
hansom (EUR 790,45 in seat 2)
cleotrille (EUR 74,00 in seat 3)
falunerik (EUR 970,85 in seat 4)
snoop78 (EUR 117,65 in seat 5)
DavidYoung (EUR 485,48 in seat 6)

Dealer: falunerik
Small Blind: snoop78 (3,00)
Big Blind: DavidYoung (6,00)

DavidYoung was dealt: Ad - Jc

bojjen Fold
hansom Fold
cleotrille Call (6,00)
falunerik Raise (20,00)
snoop78 Fold
DavidYoung Call (14,00)
cleotrille Call (14,00)

Flop As - 2c - Ac

DavidYoung Check
cleotrille Check
falunerik Bet (32,00)
DavidYoung Call (32,00)
cleotrille Fold

Turn As - 2c - Ac - Qc

DavidYoung Check
falunerik Bet (65,00)
DavidYoung Call (65,00)

River As - 2c - Ac - Qc - Ts

DavidYoung Check
falunerik Bet (80,00)
DavidYoung Call (80,00)

falunerik shows: Ah - 9c (three of a kind, aces)
DavidYoung shows: Ad - Jc (three of a kind, aces)

DavidYoung wins: EUR 414,00 (with three of a kind, aces)
Rake: EUR 3,00

Friday, 4 November 2005 - 1:21 PM GMT

Name: Richard Gryko

Its rare that I find myself so completely baffled by something you've written, Dave. A post extolling the virtues of passive play, using as its example a hand where your use of it resulted in winning one third of the amount that an aggressive approach may well have yielded.

Now, your point about passive play is not the issue here, I agree that in the online games of today letting people hang themselves is often a good plan. I just find it bizarre that your example demonstrates the disadvantages of playing in such a manner when its supposed to be supporting your point.

Frankly, it looks to me like a classic example of taking a valid concept and misapplying it.

Regards,
Richard

Friday, 4 November 2005 - 2:05 PM GMT

Name: David Young

I don't think I get more out of this hand by raising on the flop or turn. Or indeed by betting at any stage. I think if I do that, I run into the hazard of only getting action if I'm beaten. The jack kicker can be an asset (as it was) or a liability, so I think that being passive gets me the best outcome whichever it is.

Tuesday, 29 November 2005 - 5:57 AM GMT

Name: Miros

I actually agree with David here. In a tournament no but in a cash game yes, switch off, let the aggressor take the lead. A jack kicker may look attractive but it isn't beating much except the likes of A-rag, which he happens to have. Don't forget that his A9 is in fact the very next lowest hand down from your AJ so you only won by a pip. You certainly didn't have a monster once the flush has popped up. Let Gryko go bananas with his AJ and ultimately he'll be alright.

View Latest Entries