Some amateurs believe that hands can only win small pots with strong. That would mean of course that big pots with weak hands are won only.
The rationale goes something like this:
"Increases and get called pre-flop is only with good cards, so more likely to hit with low cards and the flop to crack the good hands."
Although this is a logic that is based on a half-truth and at the border of the ridiculous is but the concept of weak hand, big pot is not as far-fetched. It is quite possible to scenarios in which the concept applies exactly.
Small hand, big pot
An amateur who can not let go of his hand, has often a poorer hand than top pair.
With hands like 7-9o hardly reacted to the risk to hang on a hand that is not worth it.
In the unlikely event, where you catch the dream flop 6-8-5, we see against AA as a genius and wins a Riesenpot. If you hit, you win big pots, and if one does not hit, you lose a little money, because you can be relatively easily separated by hand.
Honestly, this philosophy is perfectly in order. I agree even agree with her.
Although you get with these hands never have enough equity for the pot odds, but for the implied odds. If used correctly, can such hands in cash games a lot of money's worth.
If our range of weak hands on QJ, KQ, KJ, and similar triggers to expand, our theory, however, quite robust in air.
These hands are dominated very simple example of all premium hands. Anyone who is willing to pay a lot of money if you met one of the top pair hands have just mentioned, has probably hit you.
The theory of the weak hands and big pots only works with sub-marginal hands.
Embed never the middle pair
Strong hands - good money.
Marginal hands - gain little or no money.
Weak hands - win lots of money.
This matches the generally accepted theory that you should never embed the central couple. This theory is not mine, it has been published elsewhere. I will therefore not attach my lapel, but give it here only.
Imagine, two people playing cards. It is played with only three cards, an ace, a king and a queen.
Both players get a card, then a betting round. Then the cards are turned over, and the higher card wins the pot.
In this game you would always set with an ace (strong hand). An ace is the nuts, you can not lose, and sometimes would pay a king, if he thinks that there be only the lady.
If one, however, the lady, it makes sense also to set, because you can bring a king to the Fold, who believes they have the ace
If one the other hand, the king, it never makes sense to share. A lady will never pay, and an ace will never fold.
So you can have the best and the worst hand to make money, but never with the middle.
Conclusion: Who is right?
Guidelines from the textbook on pot size to hand range, like all poker strategy, depending on the situation.
There is no correct poker. Each situation must be analyzed and interpreted anew. Therefore, it should not surprise you that include both of these articles as well as "Strong hands, big pot ..." correct statements, although they appear to contradict each other.
With strong hands, you should always try to push the whole stack in the middle, although it sometimes seems as if you win so that only small pots. With marginal hands, it should instead be possible to play for small pots.
Ultimately, you have weak hands with the opportunity to win huge pots without risking too great losses. This is one of the reasons why you sometimes see on television that professionals play such hands against raises.
The average hand is poised to show you bad bets and bluffs burst. It is these concepts that allow you to send a strong, steady player to be with aggressive style.
The poker turn be justified. It is to achieve a goal, not for the sake of translation.
