Multiple rebuys and other matters

[jsawe]

Once again the specter of certain playing styles has raised the ire of some members of the forum. Instead perhaps you should embrace the opportunity being presented to you.

About I year ago, I noticed certain players going allin with junk and rebuying. At first I was annoyed , then quickly realized exactly what they were doing.

Now I digress for a moment. The average number of rebuys in a Vegas rebuy tourney is three. In 2004, Dan Negreanu rebought 27 times in a $1000 tourney. When asked latter why he did it he said he didn't mind giving away the money because he could win in back latter. He came second in that tourney and quadrupled his money. The point is - if you are not rebuying some of the time you may be playing to tight.


So what is happening in our games - certain players are willing to make multiple rebuys believing (correctly) if they amass a huge stack they can do very deep into the tourney and show a profit.


The second criticism is about "donk' plays. Yes there are some absolutely bad donk plays - hell I make a few myself. But last night a particular hand came up which evoke a sharp and furious discussion. So let me explain for those who don't understand.

There are some players at NDB who are playing the new style of poker. It usually works best with a big stack - thus the rebuys. It is not based on the ABC system of cards and pot odds, nor the attack situational style of lowball, but a hyper - aggressive style based on the betting patterns of the opposing players, the position at the table, fold equity, and other factors, all rooted in the idea that most old style players are trying to avoid being eliminated. These hyper-aggressive players don't really care about their cards - actually the best can play without even looking at them pre-flop. They bet constantly about 2/21/2 times the BB- knowing if they win one in three they break even. If they hit a huge hand they are more likely to get paid off, but always they are willing to shove allin with nothing. They are never afraid to be eliminated.

One of the main attractions for me at NDB is that we have a handful of such players - some more masterful than others. I see this as an opportunity to learn and possibly improve my game - so gentleman and one lady - please continue to teach.

[islandtime2]

Some of the so called "new play" is really "old play" just showing more confidence in "reads". That is what I think happened in last nights play you refer to. By all accounts I know of the one players hand was defined as big cards after calling the pf raise. From there the board had all low cards so it seemed a good assumption his big cards had missed and a good spot to fire away. Unfortunately timing was off and opponent had decided to take a shot with low cards and hit big and was not going anywhere. Maybe the participants can chime in on really happened.

[jsawe]

Good point - Stu Ungar used to play like the new breed of players.

[UIIIU]

Originally Posted by jsawe

Good point - Stu Ungar used to play like the new breed of players.

poker is ever changing tho and believe it has to go through cycles since every style usually has a counter style. This being said Stu did pioneer the LAg style and crushed the game simply because the majority of players were rocks back then also have to give him credit as a player too. Nowadays your seeing Lag becoming alot more popular which leads me to believe a more conservative approach will pay off in the future. A table full of lag players with one pretty tight player is alot different than one lag player on a table full of tight players.

But with this said identifying ranges with lag players is tough to establish with any accuracy so the tight player must utilize the 3 bet pre at times to keep them on somewhat of as chain. To avoid being grinded down by letting go of all of the small pots. If your losing all the small pots even getting in good with the big pots just simply wont cut it believe brunson stressed this point back in the day

I think the most important part that has been emphasized to death is identifying the table itself and adapting your play to something that gives you the best chance to win. There will never be one style set in stone as the best.

[islandtime2]

From what I have read about Stu Unger he had a phemomenal memory just as TJ Cloutier did. Both of them reportedly could recall how a particular player handled a situation thousands of hands ago (even years ago) so again I think we are back to reads. If you are good at reading your opponents hands (or range of hands) and how they would play them in a particualr situation and you bet accordingly you will appear to be a lag to many. Add in an understanding of the opponents psychology at the time and you manipulate it accordingly and its game over more often then not. Many try to play lag by the book but without the other attributes they will get crushed - my field experiments to date support that conclusion. Maybe eating alot of fish will help?

[UIIIU]

ungar didnt just have a good memory he had a photographic memory and a genius IQ does not mean he didnt have a Lag style its just a grouping based on statistical analysis of past play tendencies there are alot of great players who fall in this category and there are a lot of donks and there always will be. From what ive read about stu he was great when he was winning but could not handle losing and when he was down he would just play like an absolute maniac throwing chips around prolly why he went from being a millionaire to being broke like 3xs in his life

[alby_00]

I thinks his addictions may have contributed to his downswings..even amplified them. He'd lose, get wasted, lose more, get more wasted until he woke up broke with the Ho's gone.