|
|
Poker Forum
|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Mon, 19 Mar 2007, 11:14am Post subject: NLHE T&P - Week 11 Discussion p. 231-251 |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3059
WPP: 81
Location: calling
|
|
We're getting into the Concepts section which is densely packed with great content. We'll cover fewer pages each week from here on out, since almost every concept is worthy of discussion. Again, my questions are just a jumping-off point, feel free to ignore them and post your own thoughts, questions, etc.
1. Are you in a game where you find it necessary to manipulate your opponents? How do you do it? Are you conscious of trading small mistakes for large ones?
2. In Concept #4, S&M say "Sometimes you should bluff to stop a bluff." Do you ever do this? How does it differ from a blocking bet?
3. In Concept #7, S&M recommend disguising your one pair hands unless you can profitably call big bets. How might you do this?
A couple concepts that I often need reminding of:
| Quote: | Concept #1 - When in doubt, bet more.
Concept #2 - Don't give action to tight, trapping players. Know who not to play big pots against. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 26 Mar 2007, 10:29am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3059
WPP: 81
Location: calling
|
|
1. At 1/2 and 2/4 FR I definitely feel the need to manipulate my image if I'm going to make money from the regulars. Since a lot of them are multi-tablers and presumably HUD-users, one easy way is having laggy stats. I run ~23/15, which isn't really laggy, but is more so than any regular in the 1/2 game and most in the 2/4 game. I think having these stats gets me more action right of the bat. I also make big bluffs vs. the nitty regulars occasionally, knowing that I'll win a good percentage and when they call me down, it's great for metagame.
3. The only way I do this is by c/c'ing or checking behind occasionally with TPGK/TPTK. This serves as pot control and to disguise my hand/induce bluffs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 Mar 2007, 9:29am Post subject: Re: NLHE T&P - Week 11 Discussion p. 231-251 |
|
|
Life Donk
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1671
WPP: 88
Location: Having a J. Arthur
|
|
| zook wrote: | | 1. Are you in a game where you find it necessary to manipulate your opponents? How do you do it? Are you conscious of trading small mistakes for large ones? | Manipulating opponents is definitely part of most games. 3-bets with non-premiums/smooth call with premiums occasionally to disguise my ranges, checking down in smallish pots where I could possibly win with a bluff to maintain a tight postflop image and increase bluff success in a larger pot, check behind a good hand on the flop to make the aggros fire turn and river, the list goes on. Most of these things aren't conscious decisions, and most of it serves an immediate purpose as well as a metagame purpose.
| Quote: | | 2. In Concept #4, S&M say "Sometimes you should bluff to stop a bluff." Do you ever do this? How does it differ from a blocking bet? |
Can't really say that I do.
| Quote: |
3. In Concept #7, S&M recommend disguising your one pair hands unless you can profitably call big bets. How might you do this? | As you said, pot control helps serve this purpose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 Mar 2007, 4:21pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 2911
WPP: 107
|
|
I don't play enough hands to really know anything - but as to 1) I have to believe that playing marginal EV hands for small pots is good for image. This means open raising suited junk in position, c-betting OOP into limped pots, bet/folding, floating and in general trying to see a reasonable number of flops (ca. 25%).
Many really LAG players take this to extremes of spewage early to collect late, but I don't like the variance, and I don't play against the same guys over and over again.
As for being deceptive with 1 pair hands... I don't really "get" this either, but I would think "pot control" is the opposite of deception here, unless you like to slow play monsters. So what he must mean is that you have to sometimes play 1-pair hands strong for balance? I guess playing draws weakly balances pot control TPGK hands.
I guess the difference between bluff to stop a bluff and block betting is when
a) you want a fold vs call
b) there are cards to come and you have outs, but no showdown value (semi-bluff to stop a bluff?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 Mar 2007, 6:48pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3059
WPP: 81
Location: calling
|
|
| zenbitz wrote: | | As for being deceptive with 1 pair hands... I don't really "get" this either, but I would think "pot control" is the opposite of deception here, unless you like to slow play monsters. So what he must mean is that you have to sometimes play 1-pair hands strong for balance? I guess playing draws weakly balances pot control TPGK hands. |
This is an interesting take, and it's definitely at least part of what they had in mind. I didn't post the exact text, but it might clear things up:
| Quote: | | Concept No. 7: Don't telegraph that you have one pair unless you can profitably call big bets |
Elaboration:
| Quote: | | If you welcome a big bet with one pair because you expect that bet to be a bluff, then it's ok to telegraph your hand by playing it in a way that makes it obvious what you hold. Doing so might help induce a big bluff. But if you plan to fold your pair to a big bet or raise, you should make an effort to disguise your hand to discourage a big bluff. You can choose either to make it look weaker or stronger than one pair. |
Italics mine. So basically, if you're playing against a good, tagg opponent that expects you to check behind the turn for pot control with TPTK, disguising your hand might be firing a second barrel. If you have an aggro, spewy image and have been caught second-barreling, then disguising it might be betting the turn.
I don't do this third-level thinking enough, but I'm going to try.
| zenbitz wrote: | I guess the difference between bluff to stop a bluff and block betting is when
a) you want a fold vs call
b) there are cards to come and you have outs, but no showdown value (semi-bluff to stop a bluff?) |
In Sklansky's example, you're oop on the river and you have a mediocre hand and your opponent could have a wide range (air to good) and is capable of bluffing. To me, better here to stop a bluff sounds a lot like a block bet. But maybe with a block bet you have a better hand and your opponent's range is better and more defined (like good to nuts). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 7 Hours |
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot rate topics in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by
.
Forum style based on NoseBleed by mikelothar.com.
|
