Main event fml spot vs Jake Cody

[nirvana]

Conversely, I think the only player at the table I'd pretty happily snap jam this against is Shaun's friend Jake.

Having no self perceived edge is incredibly liberating

[Tal]

Conversely, I think the only player at the table I'd pretty happily snap jam this against is Shaun's friend Jake.

Having no self perceived edge is incredibly liberating

Don't get me wrong. I think Jake's range here is far wider than the average player's but that isn't justification for the consequences of running into the top of his range with the bottom of ours.

[MANTIS01]

Conversely, I think the only player at the table I'd pretty happily snap jam this against is Shaun's friend Jake.

Having no self perceived edge is incredibly liberating

Don't get me wrong. I think Jake's range here is far wider than the average player's but that isn't justification for the consequences of running into the top of his range with the bottom of ours.

I think it is

[theprawnidentity]

The better the player, the less ABC you should play because they are smart and will see that is what you are doing?

I understand what you're saying but theres no need to try and out fox the fox when there's easier pickings to be had elsewhere.  On a side note though, if I did manage to out fox the fox, that would make me verrrryyyyyy foxy.

[Tal]

I can't honestly understand the logic of putting 80bb in the middle with AK against the only player at the table we have any worries about.

In a vacuum, it's an obvo-jam, but this is contextually a very different situation. We can play very ABC against Mr Cody and then do our best Phil Ivey impression with the other seven players.

To me, the way this is being discussed by people whose opinions obviously carry greater weight than mine just seems bizarre. We end up some of the time being asked how we lost our chips and having to explain we got into a pissing contest with the only bloke with a badge and a bracelet at the table, being outlasted by three old ladies, a man who rustles pigs, a banker, a satellite winner who has never played live before and Wyoming Willie, the 1954 All-American Poker Series Kansas City Stud Lowball winner.

Not sure I agree with the highlighted bit. The better the player, the less ABC you should play because they are smart and will see that is what you are doing?

This is kind of my point. The two of them haven't tangled all day until this hand. Both of them know where the juicy stacks are and that each others are the most difficult ones to get chips out of.

My point is, play straightforward and cautious poker against Jake and then normal, clever stuff to attack the others. As the table gets tougher, you widen your range and play more subtly against the stronger players gradually.

[edgascoigne]

Wyoming Willie tho

[Tal]

Wyoming Willie tho

That man's got a tongue that could make a hooker blush.

[cambridgealex]

I can't honestly understand the logic of putting 80bb in the middle with AK against the only player at the table we have any worries about.

In a vacuum, it's an obvo-jam, but this is contextually a very different situation. We can play very ABC against Mr Cody and then do our best Phil Ivey impression with the other seven players.

To me, the way this is being discussed by people whose opinions obviously carry greater weight than mine just seems bizarre. We end up some of the time being asked how we lost our chips and having to explain we got into a pissing contest with the only bloke with a badge and a bracelet at the table, being outlasted by three old ladies, a man who rustles pigs, a banker, a satellite winner who has never played live before and Wyoming Willie, the 1954 All-American Poker Series Kansas City Stud Lowball winner.

Exactly.

[stato_1]

Yeah but if we're 3b folding AKs vs jake probably don't have an edge to preserve

[cambridgealex]

I can't honestly understand the logic of putting 80bb in the middle with AK against the only player at the table we have any worries about.

In a vacuum, it's an obvo-jam, but this is contextually a very different situation. We can play very ABC against Mr Cody and then do our best Phil Ivey impression with the other seven players.

To me, the way this is being discussed by people whose opinions obviously carry greater weight than mine just seems bizarre. We end up some of the time being asked how we lost our chips and having to explain we got into a pissing contest with the only bloke with a badge and a bracelet at the table, being outlasted by three old ladies, a man who rustles pigs, a banker, a satellite winner who has never played live before and Wyoming Willie, the 1954 All-American Poker Series Kansas City Stud Lowball winner.

Not sure I agree with the highlighted bit. The better the player, the less ABC you should play because they are smart and will see that is what you are doing?

This is kind of my point. The two of them haven't tangled all day until this hand. Both of them know where the juicy stacks are and that each others are the most difficult ones to get chips out of.

My point is, play straightforward and cautious poker against Jake and then normal, clever stuff to attack the others. As the table gets tougher, you widen your range and play more subtly against the stronger players gradually.

Yes I agree with what you are saying, though I think you have the terms slightly the wrong way around, but what you mean is exactly in line with my thoughts.

Playing ABC vs Cody would be to jam here imo. And we don't need "clever stuff" to attack the others. We need ABC stuff there.

Jake played the following hand vs one of the guys in this hand. He raised with 88 from early position. The chap called with 95 suited. 982rainbow flop, Jake bet 1200, the chap raised to 2800, Jake made it 5800, the chap made it 11200, Jake shoved for 27k, the guy called.

That is pretty ABC from Jake and he's just been gifted 90 big blinds. Passing up this edge in favour of future situations like that with a 2 hour clock and plenty of time to wait to "cooler" the others is definitely the way forward. If he goes after me again and again then I'll have to adjust, but since this is the first time that we've battled I think jamming could be a mistake.

[George2Loose]

In my experience of playing Jake he will go up against your first time more often than not. He won't pass up the op esp with your stack size here Probably why he's won a comp or two

[Tal]

I can't honestly understand the logic of putting 80bb in the middle with AK against the only player at the table we have any worries about.

In a vacuum, it's an obvo-jam, but this is contextually a very different situation. We can play very ABC against Mr Cody and then do our best Phil Ivey impression with the other seven players.

To me, the way this is being discussed by people whose opinions obviously carry greater weight than mine just seems bizarre. We end up some of the time being asked how we lost our chips and having to explain we got into a pissing contest with the only bloke with a badge and a bracelet at the table, being outlasted by three old ladies, a man who rustles pigs, a banker, a satellite winner who has never played live before and Wyoming Willie, the 1954 All-American Poker Series Kansas City Stud Lowball winner.

Not sure I agree with the highlighted bit. The better the player, the less ABC you should play because they are smart and will see that is what you are doing?

This is kind of my point. The two of them haven't tangled all day until this hand. Both of them know where the juicy stacks are and that each others are the most difficult ones to get chips out of.

My point is, play straightforward and cautious poker against Jake and then normal, clever stuff to attack the others. As the table gets tougher, you widen your range and play more subtly against the stronger players gradually.

Yes I agree with what you are saying, though I think you have the terms slightly the wrong way around, but what you mean is exactly in line with my thoughts.

Playing ABC vs Cody would be to jam here imo. And we don't need "clever stuff" to attack the others. We need ABC stuff there.

Jake played the following hand vs one of the guys in this hand. He raised with 88 from early position. The chap called with 95 suited. 982rainbow flop, Jake bet 1200, the chap raised to 2800, Jake made it 5800, the chap made it 11200, Jake shoved for 27k, the guy called.

That is pretty ABC from Jake and he's just been gifted 90 big blinds. Passing up this edge in favour of future situations like that with a 2 hour clock and plenty of time to wait to "cooler" the others is definitely the way forward. If he goes after me again and again then I'll have to adjust, but since this is the first time that we've battled I think jamming could be a mistake.

Yes, I got the terms wrong as you said. Yet another example of me looking sixty when trying to talk like a PHA wizard.

Sigh...

[dwayne110]

wow, whatever the other fella had in the 9-8-2 hand, not good play!

[theprawnidentity]

I think flatting has a lot of merits, but as soon as we 3b I really think we have to go with it.  If we're going to 3b fold AKs here that has be extremely exploitable.  I also think flatting for a 5th of our stack hoping to hit a flop is a little on the ambitious side.  

[TL900]

I have never played with Jake so have no idea how he plays at all but a good player once told me the first time a seemingly competent player 3b's/4b's you you should always put in another bet if stacks are deep enough etc because the confidence you gain/confidence he gets knocked and the likelihood that it decreases the amount he will get OOL make it so profitable even more so than the chips won. So it isn't inconceivable that Jake is 4betting 100% his opening range for these reasons.

So many levels, it is all v interesting though.

fwiw im in the peel pre camp too.