At least in that game, I disagree with Machiavelli's theory that "if you must choose between being feared and loved, it is far better to be feared than loved."
Is his most recent Omaha hi/lo book, Cappelletti says something like: "In holdem, it's better to be feared than to be loved. In Omaha, it's better to be loved than feared." And supposedly this applies across structures and game textures. His rationale is that it's hard to make a hand in holdem (both for your weak opponents and for you), so a lot of your profits come from taking down pots uncontested with the worst hand or with a weak holding (i.e., one that would make a call correct for your opponents if they knew that's all you had, like an unimproved AK on the turn). In Omaha, usually you are continuing only with nutty hands/draws while your opponents are enticed by all the pretty card combinations in front of them, so most of your profits come from them giving you loose action.
Cappelletti's argument is more about human psychology and how people react to the cards in their hand and on the board than it is about poker "theory." From a nerdier perspective, the thing about a poker game that most affects whether you want to be loved or feared should be how hard it is to be sucked out on, not how hard it is to make your hand.
Walter Fong's Little Green Book of Holdem also espouses the theory that it's best to be feared in holdem. The cornerstone of his strategy is to build up his fearability by 1) never slowplaying, and 2) not bluffing. As his opponents start to fear him and start folding to his bets, he starts to mix in bluffs, but if he gets caught in a bluff, he stops bluffing and reverts to the "build up fearability" plan.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feared or loved
Date: 2004-12-23 21:22 (UTC)Is his most recent Omaha hi/lo book, Cappelletti says something like: "In holdem, it's better to be feared than to be loved. In Omaha, it's better to be loved than feared." And supposedly this applies across structures and game textures. His rationale is that it's hard to make a hand in holdem (both for your weak opponents and for you), so a lot of your profits come from taking down pots uncontested with the worst hand or with a weak holding (i.e., one that would make a call correct for your opponents if they knew that's all you had, like an unimproved AK on the turn). In Omaha, usually you are continuing only with nutty hands/draws while your opponents are enticed by all the pretty card combinations in front of them, so most of your profits come from them giving you loose action.
Cappelletti's argument is more about human psychology and how people react to the cards in their hand and on the board than it is about poker "theory." From a nerdier perspective, the thing about a poker game that most affects whether you want to be loved or feared should be how hard it is to be sucked out on, not how hard it is to make your hand.
Walter Fong's Little Green Book of Holdem also espouses the theory that it's best to be feared in holdem. The cornerstone of his strategy is to build up his fearability by 1) never slowplaying, and 2) not bluffing. As his opponents start to fear him and start folding to his bets, he starts to mix in bluffs, but if he gets caught in a bluff, he stops bluffing and reverts to the "build up fearability" plan.