| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Mon, 05 Feb 2007, 11:08am Post subject: NLHE T&P - Week 5 Discussion p. 98-121 |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3111
WPP: 82
Location: calling
|
|
This is a really interesting section imo. There is some advice that goes against FTR "dogma", so hopefully it will generate some interesting discussion.
1. On p. 103, Sklansky & Miller describe stealing the blinds as one of the reasons to raise pre-flop in NLHE. However, they also make an argument for open-limping from the button: | Quote: | | If you are a better player than those in the blinds, you may make more by allowing them to see the flop and make expensive postflop mistakes than by shutting them out immediately. |
Do you agree? Do you ever take this into consideration?
2. There's an interesting section on pre-flop raises as semi-bluffs on p. 104-106. What do you think about the idea of re-raising light with hands like Q8s and raising multiple limpers from the blinds with hands like J2o? Do these have a place in your game?
3. On p. 112, Sklansky & Miller emphasize: | Quote: | | Different hands in different situations call for differently-sized raises. |
They denigrate "cookie-cutter" pre-flop raise advice like 4xBB+1BB/limper and suggest that factors like your cards, position, stack-size and specific opponents should play roles in your pre-flop raises sizing decisions. What do you think? Examples of when you deviated from 4xBB+1BB/limper b/c of these factors? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 05 Feb 2007, 11:21am Post subject: |
|
|
Royal Flush
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 17121
WPP: 83
Location: Walk the Walk, Flop the Flop.
|
|
| When building my pre-flop strategy the first problem I strugged with is that 100+ deep I can't protect my Aces. Once I figured that out, it changed everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 05 Feb 2007, 1:05pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 2911
WPP: 107
|
|
What I don't like about this section, is that he claims that you should vary your raises, but is very vauge in most circumstances - pointing out that there are often conflicting factors.
Example: With a small PP like 55 you want to raise "high" (how high?) so that if you flop a set, it's easier to get all the monies in BUT you want to raise "low" (I think here he means 2-3x) so that a re-raise is easier to play.
In response to your questions - one thing I do think about is the following:
(assuming I have a hand I want to play):
If I raise, do I want looser calls or tighter calls (typically from the blinds). For example, if I am raising high cards like KJo - I don't want AX to call me from the blinds. If I get a call, I want to narrow my callers range to things that mean I have kicker trouble if I hit top pair.
Of course, I am just varying my raises between 3x and 4x mostly... so I doubt it matters.
Skanksy never actually defines what he means by a "big pre-flop raise" in terms of stacks or blinds. Maybe because he just means "one that will get folds by all but the best hands or loosest of callers". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 05 Feb 2007, 2:30pm Post subject: |
|
|
Almost as bad as that idiot redgrape
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 5930
WPP: 73
|
|
| I think what he's saying is you should raise larger at passive tables and less at aggressive tables. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 05 Feb 2007, 2:48pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3111
WPP: 82
Location: calling
|
|
zenbitz: I agree that the section is a bit vague. More hand examples would be nice. Maybe we can fill in the gaps 
Here's what I've been doing recently as a result of re-reading this section... raising to 3.5xBB as my standard (b/c the 200NL FR players at FT are nitty for the most part) and completely ditching the +1BB/limper rule. Automatically adding 1BB/limper doesn't make nearly as much sense to me as adding a BB or two... 1) with a "big pot" hand (pps, suited aces, well-disguised hands like suited gappers and low suited connectors), 2) in position, 3) when the limpers are loose pre-flop and weak/tight post-flop, 4) when the blinds are calling stations. Not automatically raising to $14 on the button with KQo after 3 limpers, is keeping me out of some difficult, bloated-pot situations postflop.
I've also started making more pre-flop notes, like limp/folds, limp/calls (with x), and calls from SB/BB (with x). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 05 Feb 2007, 3:12pm Post subject: |
|
|
Royal Flush
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 17121
WPP: 83
Location: Walk the Walk, Flop the Flop.
|
|
| My approach to pre-flop for the most part has been to build pots when the various factors of card strength and position favor me and have me wanting to maybe play a big pot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 05 Feb 2007, 4:42pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 2911
WPP: 107
|
|
| IowaSkinsFan wrote: | | I think what he's saying is you should raise larger at passive tables and less at aggressive tables. |
But how big is larger? 6x? 8x?
Well, he further says (in his typically inscrutable way) you should raise bigger vs. people who fold too much post-flop and small vs those who call too much post-flop.
Probably the reverse is true for pre-flop looseness! (so vs. modern nit-like tables you should raise small and often)
It's also difficult to put his "typical" game in the context of current small stakes on-line games.
Finally, and this had come up in other threads - his standards are VERY different from "canon" at on-line 6max games (at least if FTR is a guide to canon). I respect that the game is different, but I cannot extrapolate back to the "typical" game he is talking about - although I think the FR $50NL at FTR may qualify as typical/bad. (loose players are too loose, tight players are too weak). I took a shot at 100NL the other day, ran breakeven for about 3 hours. Sad, but in retrospect I hit exactly zero flops above TP. My biggest pot was c/r a/i with a pair+fd vs a guy _12_ tabling. He was clearly only playing pairs, and claimed to fold QQ over pair. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 06 Feb 2007, 9:20am Post subject: |
|
|
Straight
Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 247
WPP: 266
|
|
"If you are a better player than those in the blinds, you may make more by allowing them to see the flop and make expensive postflop mistakes than by shutting them out immediately."
I don't agree with that. If you raise and BB calls, you can imidiately put him on some kind of range. If you limp and he checks, you have no information on him, but he has some information on you. So how can he make a postflop mistake then? I also found out that if I limp in( in ep full ring only) and everyone fold except the BB who checks, I should fire all the time because I really don't know what he has otherwise and most of the time, he doesnt have anything. However, I win only a small pot then compared to if I raise and take it down with a c bet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 06 Feb 2007, 10:51am Post subject: |
|
|
EAT BUGS
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 7786
WPP: 50
Location: trying to live
|
|
i generally play in really aggro games, so always open small so when people reraise me i have odds to call.
when bad players have position on me i like to open limp sometimes too. when i have position on fish, i raise more if someone tough is behind me. if a fish open limps in CO, i might only raise 3x on button if blinds are tight. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 10 Feb 2007, 3:50am Post subject: |
|
|
Life Donk
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1684
WPP: 89
Location: Having a J. Arthur
|
|
- I've started open-limping the button under some circumstances. First that comes to mind is when the blinds are aggro but bad postflop. If I raise them OTB they automatically assume I'm raising light so they repop alot, leaving me with a big pot on the flop versus a very wide range of hands. If I limp-call their raise I can use position better because there are more rounds of post-flop betting and they tend to fire flop/turn too much.
- I've yet to come across a game where a raise in the BB to pick up limped pots is better with, say, J3o than 86s. This is because in general at least one of the limpers will call, so I want to have some kind of potential post-flop for the times a cbet can't take it down.
- On light3-betting; I like this quote on p105:
| Quote: | | To justify semibluffing with [insert hand here], you must show not only that the bluff will be profitable, but also that it will be more profitable than merely calling, a tougher standard. |
I reraise range alot against certain villains, but my cold call range is pretty narrow. I guess this comes from the fact that I'm not good enough postflop (especially in medium sized pots where I'm not the aggressor) to make profitable calls with hands like 98s so I repop them alot instead. So my 3-bet range is not extremely wide, but my 3-bet frequency is high.
I wonder if I could improve by expanding my calling range and adding some semi-junk hands (like the Q8s in the excample) to my 3-bet range. Then again the good high stakes players seem to have a pretty narrow gap between VPIP/PFR so I don't know.
| Fnord wrote: | | When building my pre-flop strategy the first problem I strugged with is that 100+ deep I can't protect my Aces. Once I figured that out, it changed everything. | Elaborate with 4+ sentences, pretty please?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun, 11 Feb 2007, 3:01am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3248
WPP: 158
Location: Ohio
|
|
| HalvSame wrote: |
| Fnord wrote: | | When building my pre-flop strategy the first problem I strugged with is that 100+ deep I can't protect my Aces. Once I figured that out, it changed everything. | Elaborate with 4+ sentences, pretty please? |
example: generally raising 3-4x, and then raising 6x with AA to 'protect them' is bad and in general, terrible Poker Strategy. Instead, play better postflop and from a game theory perspective, try to think about how your range plays out against his range (v. hard to do unless you've thought about it a lot). That's all I got. I think that's 4. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun, 11 Feb 2007, 6:55am Post subject: Re: NLHE T&P - Week 5 Discussion p. 98-121 |
|
|
Straight Flush
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 7576
WPP: 71
Location: Petra Marklund FTW ^^^^
|
|
| zook wrote: |
1. On p. 103, Sklansky & Miller describe stealing the blinds as one of the reasons to raise pre-flop in NLHE. However, they also make an argument for open-limping from the button: | Quote: | | If you are a better player than those in the blinds, you may make more by allowing them to see the flop and make expensive postflop mistakes than by shutting them out immediately. |
Do you agree? Do you ever take this into consideration? |
I thought a lot about this concept. I agree with it that for a decent aggressive player in medium stakes games, allowing poorer players or weaker/tight players to see more flops allows us to steal more pots with positional aggression etc.
The other case is that players will raise much more marginally strong cards oop with limpers in the pot, simply to steal. Of course we arent going to fold AQ if we limp on the button with it, but it gives the impetus to another player. Hence i think its a bit of double edged sword
Fwiw, i thought long about one of fnords answers in another thread about how a range that will call a 3bbs raise in the bb from UTG plays against a top 20% range raised from this position. So i loosened up my range and as gabe notes only started with 3bbs openers so i can call reraises light but also 4bet with teh goods hard/squeezing nitty type players who might fold to the option. Most noticeable has been how many players now overplay Queens and AK to this action.
In essence i dont agree with this statement but it was influential in making me think how i wanted to play against the blinds.
| zook wrote: |
2. There's an interesting section on pre-flop raises as semi-bluffs on p. 104-106. What do you think about the idea of re-raising light with hands like Q8s and raising multiple limpers from the blinds with hands like J2o? Do these have a place in your game?
3. On p. 112, Sklansky & Miller emphasize: | Quote: | | Different hands in different situations call for differently-sized raises. |
They denigrate "cookie-cutter" pre-flop raise advice like 4xBB+1BB/limper and suggest that factors like your cards, position, stack-size and specific opponents should play roles in your pre-flop raises sizing decisions. What do you think? Examples of when you deviated from 4xBB+1BB/limper b/c of these factors? |
[/quote]
No but i have started raising to 3bbs behind a whole host of limpers with more hands to pot build but also to build a loose raisor image. I think raising to 5bbs preflop isnt going to help in many situations because those hands that will cold call a raise preflop will do it for 3bbs/4bbs/5bbs etc so long as they have the odds. Even if i only make it 4bbs preflop behind 2 limpers with AA, i have enough skill IMO to not lose a stack with rockets to a hand that will play very predictably.
I guess the problems come when i start to sit with really good aggro's who have position, them ill maybe have to rethink. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun, 11 Feb 2007, 12:54pm Post subject: |
|
|
Royal Flush
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 17121
WPP: 83
Location: Walk the Walk, Flop the Flop.
|
|
| HalvSame wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | | When building my pre-flop strategy the first problem I strugged with is that 100+ deep I can't protect my Aces. Once I figured that out, it changed everything. | Elaborate with 4+ sentences, pretty please? |
When the money is deep enough, getting opponents to make pre-flop FtoP mistakes against a single raise is very difficult/impossible and not going to make you a lot of bank. In other words, if your opponent knows you have AA and are going to stack-off on it, he can call any reasonable opener with a very wide range. So the mindset shifts from trying to make money pre-flop to making money post-flop and using pre-flop to set-up the most favorable positions possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
