TexasHoldemPoker-UK

[bodnotbod]

I've posted my stats elsewhere on the forum but they're on a rubbish sample size at the moment. And I keep forgetting to point out I play fixed limit: I'm very unfashionable there, aren't I?

Any of you got stats you can share?

It's always nice to have something to aim for (or laugh at)...

[Andy]

You play fixed limit?

How long does the average game take and how many chips do you start with? I can imagine that fixed limit must get pretty frustrating?

[bodnotbod]

A tourney usually lasts just a little over an hour. If the heads up comes down to two even stacks it might go on for an hour and a quarter.

This is at Pacific which - according to a structure post I found - has the slowest burning tournaments. I played a few Party low buy-ins and it was f*cking ludicrous (low buy ins you get 800 chips, higher ones you get 1000 I think).

I don't find it frustrating *at* *all*.

Obviously something a NL player will miss is putting in a good pre-flop raise with a premium hand.

[at this point I wrote 6 paragraphs of strategy and then realised they apply equally to NL, so deleted them all. Clearly I'm having trouble defining what's different or not stating the obvious].

I think, perhaps, limit plugs a possible hole in my game. Most of my nasty moments come when I figure someone's on a bluff (I was really over-paranoid about bluffs when I started 2 months ago, I never gave credit for the fact someone might have *cards*!)

So, when I play NL I have great opportunities for going all-in after a limper only to have them reveal their trap. I still get hit this way in limit more often than I'd like, but obviously my loss is, well, limited ;o)

Conversely bad opponents obviously don't go out in the first 3 hands, that simply isn't possible. However, they still seem to make a good fist of going out in the first 15 hands, at which point I may not have played *anything* yet.

What you tend to find is that people will draw out on you in the early stages (hence being ultra-tight with starting requirements), but any gamblers who are in at the later stages I now know all about their over-aggression and hope to trap them. They also seem to go into a kind of shock if they hit final 4 since, one assumes, this happens rarely. You start to see their decisions take a looong time as their mind tries to cope with the concept of being in the prize.

I think the people I have most trouble with at the moment are the early aggressors who know how to switch their game in the final stages.

They've often gambled their way to a big stack and then really know how to punish the smaller stacks at the end and respect letting 2nd biggest help knock the other 2 of us (cos I usually am the one of the shorts) out. They normally then blow it heads up because they may only see that part of the game once a month.

In criticism of myself, I think I've got the discipline to crawl into 3rd when I'm lowest stack with 4 remaining. However my 3rds are much higher than 1sts and 2nds, so I think I'm probably playing too conservatively in the latter part of the middle stages.

Not figuring on changing my tactics too much though, cos my statistics are too small a sample, and I'm winning.

Erm.... arse! I've written another 8 paragraphs that apply to NL, haven't I?

Let's start again.

"Don't you find limit frustrating?"

No.

There. That didn't hurt, did it?

[bodnotbod]

Forgot to say, you start with only 800 chips. But blinds increase only every 15 hands and start at 10/20 then 15/30 , 25/50 , 50/100 , 75/150...

This compares favourably to other structures which typically may start higher and go up every 10 minutes or 10 hands.

I find this gives me a lot of time to figure out how people play, easily enough to divide between

maniac / loose agg / tight agg / tight nervous.