blonde poker forum

I was reading somebodies poker blog recently where he went on about boomsticking, I didn't have a clue what he was talking about but he went on to give a vague description of it.

supposedly this is when you go all in when you have AK or KK early on in an STT and you are in early/middle position no matter if there has been limpers or raisers before hand.
Am I correct in thinking this? Whats your views on this approach? Also, anyone know why its got such a stupid name?

I can't say I know but if I was forced to guess I'd say it's a reference to Evil Dead - Army of Darkness in which Bruce Campbell introduced his shotgun to a bunch of medival peasants as his 'boomstick'.

the driver club in golf is sometimes known as the boomstick.

Thats what I was thinking lol.

Yo she bitch, Lets Go!

I don't like the boomsticking early on with AK.

Don't see the long term profit on that one.

so would you do it with KK?

No, goes against my STT style. I'd prefer it if no-one notices I'm at the table for as long as possible.

All-ins early on raise eyebrows.

Can't argue agaisnt anyone doing it with KK though. You get plenty calls, and plenty double ups I'm sure.

the boomstick is an adaption of Sklansky's "teach a novice to play the wsop" is it not?

In that, in one of his books, he told his rookie to go all in with AK and any pair and take their chances to neutralise the skill edge the opponents will have. I belive in practice it drove the opponents mad as they could only call with AA.KK maybe AK/QQ. I beleive a lady playing this reached day 2.

Perhaps cf Tiffany Williamson and those debates last year.


I prefer the subtler approach for SNGs personally   

lorinda used to post about doing this in low buy in sngs with AA. apparently you often get called.

I have always considered these huge over bets with monsters or AK just plain daft, especially early doors in a comp.

But I'm beginining to wonder.

All passed to me in the Cut-Off yesterday, very first level of a $250 Freeze (so one assumes reasonably decent players), so I made it 70 with KK. (Blinds 10-20).

BB moves ALL-IN.....!

He HAS to have AK, it's almost the standard play by many folks online. Obviously, I called in a flash.

He turned over AA....

OK, his "my overbet suggests weakness" ploy sucked me in a treat, if indeed that was his thinking. But if so, surely he'd lose more customers than enough, & would rarely get paid except in the rare case such as my KK.

Maybe I ought to try it, but it really don't sit well with me.

Never assume anything in the world of online poker!!  :D

You are not wrong there.

LOL!

"This is my BOOMSTICK!"

Nowadays I am finding this more common practice. They will move all in with AA  on the basis that you wont call unless you have a good hand like qq or kk. They believe that if you had a weaker hand such as 77 or 88 you will fold. When asked by myself "well surely a smaller bet will bring more value to your hand you must want a caller" the reply was " I dont want to be outdrawn, so I want to make you pay" ...I gave up asking after that !!!!

Players dont seem to be able to play from the flop with AK. If they dont hit they dont know what to do, so they go all in at the start so as to avoid having to make the decision later....The trouble is when it works they believe that this is the correct play at all times. Maybe when there are more live poker events players will learn that there is much more to the game than ALL IN.

It happens in live Poker, too, though much less.

In the 2005 Deauville EPT I shared a table with a young American who, for 3 whole days, made the same play every single time - All-In!

He had clearly doubled up very early, so was almost always in a position to bust anyone, but it was my view that the kid just could not play.

There was much mocking when he ran his 5-5 into AA till he rivered his set.

He Finalled........

But how often would he need to get paid to make it worthwhile?

Plus he won't find himself with several callers, one of which may flop a small set or two pr and bust him anyway.

I find it can pay, if you do it with big hands then eventually someone gets sick of you and makes a mistake.
In some of the blonde stt's i type in "aces" everytime i raise, nobody ever believes you and i find people play back at you more if you have folded to a reraise or shown down AJ.

I wouldn't do that. I think it's wrong to declare an actual hand, whether you have it or not

Well, on the few occasions he DOES get paid, he gets paid mighty big, so yes, that's a good take on it. But I don't think it's a ploy I would try, it's just not my style. Maybe it should be! I've tried it once or twice, but it never worked so I pretty much abandoned it except in special circumstances - you just know certain players cant resist the challenge.

Possibly but you need to bear in mind there are usually around 7 blondeites there and they don't believe anything i say.

I don't believe you.

(Really just my excuse to say it's BUBBLE TIME in the Laddies $250, so gotta go...)

I think a lot of it has to do with the quality of your opponents. At the levels I usually play at there is a high likelihood that there is at least one mentalist (and frequently a table full of them) who are willing to play bingo if you go all in on the first hand.

well done on the 3rd place tikay :)up

Not gonna get into another argument about this but it's astonishing to me that you think this guy can't play. Looks like he's close to a million now in tournament winnings including internet play.

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=39856 (http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=39856)

Wish I couldn't play as well as him  ;)

Is his strategy purely the all-in play, like Tikay suggests? Intriguing if it is.

lol no, the last time tikay was posting about this I linked to his trip report where he went into detail about the way he was playing. I believe he's mates with Matros, Lindgren etc. Very well respected player.

I think it's a bit like if I watch one Brazil match and then conclude from that that Ronaldo is a crap player, without taking into account any other games he's played.

I have also seen a tikay newspaper article where he called zeejustin a rock. I think he must have something against American teenagers ;goodvevil;

Based on what I saw in Deauville, it most definitely WAS my view that the guy could not play. Clearly, I was wrong - but please note I did poke fun at myself, & my ability to make such a judgement, by adding the rider "He Finalled....."

If I sat with a guy tomorow who had one move, & one move only - all-in - I would make the same judgement though. And in MOST cases, I'd be right. I trapped the fella very early doors (before he became a huge stack) with Aces, & he sucked out on me, but that proves nothing.

What is Zeejustin's "real" name, as I don't recall ever commenting on ZeeJustin, as I barely recognize the name, but it may well be that I was talking about his "real" name, in which case It looks like I got it badly wrong.

My lack of respect for American Teenagers? Guilty as charged, I'm sorry. On the whiole you are probably right. I tend to categorize them too easily, I accept that. I have seen too many who are ill-mannered, & who have no idea of the value of money, but I'm wrong to lump all of them into such category. Though if you'd been in Vienna (E-WSOP) this year, you'd see my point!

Justin Bonomo (I think)

I only played with him the once, but it was for 3 days straight. And thats the only move he made in 3 days.

tikay, I'm nit picking. i apologise. If someone could be bothered to I'm sure they could find faults in 99% of my posts. It's only cos 99.9% of the stuff you write is so good that it jumps out to me when I think you've made a slight misread.

ZJ was knocked out of an EPT with KK all in preflop against Pascal Perault's KQ. you phrased it in a Racing Post article IIRC something like; "PP doubled up with KQ which was a great surprise to the rock who held KK."

I'm making mountains out of molehills, I'll STFU now  :-X

Don't worry fella, I love this sort of debate, & I really do, & I don't believe you are nit-picking for one moment.

I recall the KK v KQ hand in that comp as if it were yesterday, my recollection is purely & simply of astonishment at Pascal's extreme good fortune which, I believe, he put to good use by winning the comp. I think I musta been trying (badly...) to make the point about what I considered a dodgy play by Pascal. But if Justin really is as loose as is suggested, Pascal's play in that coup was not as bad as I thought.