Skalansky - Theory of Poker - Question
I'm about 1/2 way through skalansky's theory of poker book, At it seems as if the general point he is trying to make is to always raise. If you have a hand, raise to protect. if you have any kind of draw, raise and semi-bluff... Is this accurate and truly profitable play ? I've only started playing Limit recently (50c/1$ on party) and I'm averaging 7$ per 100BB but I'm strictly playing based on pot odds and betting according to the value of my hand. It seems as if I would raise as much as he suggests that I would lose way more money, especially with the high number of lose players I'm encountering... Could this theory only apply to higher level games where play would generally be tighter ?
Any comments or clarification would be much appreciated....
Nick.
Any comments or clarification would be much appreciated....
Nick.
Comments
What is also true is that most of the time in these games you often have sufficient pot odds to make your calls. While raising can still show a profit in these situations it will also increase your variance whiich can bust you if you don't have a big enough bankroll for the limit you are playing.
In short Sklansky is right but you have to be careful how you apply his lessons.
Hope that helps,
Paul
yoda(?)
Within 15 minutes you should have a good idea of:
1. Who to bluff against.
2. Who to value bet.
Other things to keep in mind - are concepts like pot equity.
If there are 4 people in a pot and you are on a nut flush draw - you should definately be betting and raising.
If I get a real loose table (where few people can be bluffed) I will simply sit and wait for good opportunities.
Remember - the most important thing I try to remember is that it is not the number of pots you win; but how much money you win!