I'm experimenting with marginal plays in the hopes of gaining info about how I am perceiving the other players. Trying to make the final table each week only complicates matters. But, that's my problem. Here is the problem for all of us:
There are two players I have focused on that are in direct opposition. Both are top five players this season. As they are consistent at making the final table I don't think luck is the predominant factor for either one (although it is early in the season). Player 1 calls a lot, folds a little, and rarely raises. Player 2 raises a lot, folds a lot and rarely just calls.
Logic, experience and many books tell me that player 1 is a fish and player 2 is either a shark or a maniac. How can these opposing strategies both be successful? Can a fish or a maniac be successful in the long term? Further, can you force other players to mix it up? Would you want to?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think player 1 can be succesful in small tournaments and sit n go's. But in a larger tournament will be punished for that type of play. If you chase hand after hand after hand looking for that flush, straight or just waiting for your ace to pair chances are over the long haul you will be on the losing end more often.
ReplyDeleteWould love to know the two players so I can comment further.
"Fold more, bluff less."