|
|
Join Our Poker Community!
|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Sun, 07 Jan 2007, 5:13pm Post subject: NLHE T&P - Week 1 Discussion p. 1-32
|
 |
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3313
WPP: 85
Location: practicing mindfulness
|
|
Please read this before posting: http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/forum/poker-48750.htm
This is a great intro section, imo. Even just the pot size philosophy changed the way I think about the game. Here are a few questions to get us started:
1. Sklansky emphasizes manipulating pot size as a key skill for success in NLHE. What strategies do you use for this? In position, out of position? Hand histories where you did a good or bad job of controlling pot size are welcome.
2. On p. 21-24 there's an example of calculating EV when bet sizing with the nuts on the river. How much can we generalize from this example? How would having the second, third, fourth nuts affect your decision? How about reads?
3. Sklansky makes a minor but interesting point in the footnote on p. 23. How does BR size affect your EV decisions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun, 07 Jan 2007, 11:36pm Post subject:
|
|
|
High Card
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 7
WPP: 195
|
|
Note: Sorry for the super-long post, it's my first time participating in a group book study. Any comments/criticism are most welcome. (That's what we're here for right? To learn  )
1) Here's a HH of where I did a bad job of controlling pot size:
Poker Stars
No Limit Holdem Tournament
Blinds: t25/t50
7 players
Converter
Stack sizes:
UTG: t1630
UTG+1: t1030
MP1: t1810
CO: t3655
Button: t1305
SB: t2265
Hero: t1805
Pre-flop: (7 players) Hero is BB with 4 A
UTG calls t50 (pot was t75), 2 folds, CO calls t50 (pot was t125), Button folds, SB calls t25 (pot was t175), Hero checks.
Flop: 9 T A (t200, 4 players)
SB checks, Hero bets t125, 2 folds, SB calls t125 (pot was t325).
Turn: 5 (t450, 2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets t200, SB raises to t400, Hero folds.
I probably should have checked behind on the turn. This guy hadn't played a lot of pots. He flipped QT on the button once when we all checked it down 5-handed and min-raised pre-flop with AKs once and proceeded to get all-in. Here I'm beating is a lower Ace, 2nd pair, or an OESD (I don't think he's a fish that calls down gutshots or bottom pair w/ Ace on board). Otherwise, he has a set, two pair, or an Ace with a better kicker. My TPNK can't stand any heat really. I can see myself building a big pot on the river with an average hand and a dwindling stack (blinds going up next hand). If I check behind he has 5-8 outs. If he hits his draw (or I induce a bluff) then the pot is still 200 and I can swallow a PSB.
2a) Different boards will affect how much an opponent is willing to pay off big.
e.g. (K-8-4-2-9)
Let's say you have the nuts with KK. Your opponent doesn't have many big second-best hands. A set and possibly two pair (TP any kick if you're playing against fish, but so far Sklansky refers to 2/5+) are about the only hands that can call a big bet and it's much harder to hit a set than an OESD. Thus, I'd be more willing to go with a suck bet to drag in calls from 3rd or 4th pair who might think I'm just trying to buy the pot with Ace-high. This of course depends on reads (like zook pointed out). If the opponent will call a big bet because "strong = weak" then by all means make a PSB or overbet with the nuts.
Sklansky's e.g. (9-8-6-2-5)
There's an obvious second nuts here which the opponent could hold. IMHO, I like Sklansky's bigger bet here because, IMHO, it's hard for weak hands to call even a suck bet here without the straight. However, IMHO, the straight will pay off a big bet much more often here than some middle pair in my previous example. Thus, you should try to get the most value out of his call which means the big bet.
Therefore, IMHO, when there are big second-best hands visible on board, be more willing to bet big. Why? Because your opponents want to maximize their big hands too.
2b) With the second nuts, in the example, I simply call for the exact opposite reason as I said above. It's equally hard, IMHO for an opponent to bet into this board without the straight. With the 3rd/4th nuts (a set in this example), I will either call or fold. Once again, zook mentioned reads. If your opponent is a rock I can laydown here (unless I have good pot odds). On the other hand, if I'm playing a maniac or someone who will bluff into scary boards then I'm more inclined to call
3) Play at the stakes you're BR'ed for and it won't  I don't know exactly how limited a BR Sklanksy is referring to in the example, but assuming it's 2/5 (thus, 100x BB stacks) if you're worried about actually getting something (the min-raise = $50 = 10BB) you're probably playing over your head IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 08 Jan 2007, 2:42am Post subject: Re: NLHE T&P - Week 1 Discussion p. 1-32
|
|
|
Royal Flush
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 17644
WPP: 82
Location: Walk the Walk, Flop the Flop.
|
|
| zook wrote: | | 1. Sklansky emphasizes manipulating pot size as a key skill for success in NLHE. What strategies do you use for this? In position, out of position? Hand histories where you did a good or bad job of controlling pot size are welcome. |
Big topic, but it goes against the general poker philosphy of "if you have an edge push it." Because with each round that is bet + called, later rounds then play at a higher effective stake.
| zook wrote: | | 3. Sklansky makes a minor but interesting point in the footnote on p. 23. How does BR size affect your EV decisions? |
It's worth noting that how big a game "plays" might vary wildly at a given buy-in level or blind size. Someone putting lots of money in on early rounds is going to create a game that has wilder swings than if you can raise pre-flop and bet the flop with any 2 and show a profit stealing lots of small pots. Hence measuring your rolls ability to handle a game just in terms of "buy-ins" isn't good enough.
BTW: I think p25-27 are the most important in the book. After reading this materal more-or-less in 2+2 mag it radically changed how I look at NLHE problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 08 Jan 2007, 12:45pm Post subject: Re: NLHE T&P - Week 1 Discussion p. 1-32
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 2709
WPP: 118
Location: GO BUCKS!
|
|
| Fnord wrote: |
BTW: I think p25-27 are the most important in the book. After reading this materal more-or-less in 2+2 mag it radically changed how I look at NLHE problems. |
Which month was this posted in? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 08 Jan 2007, 1:02pm Post subject: Re: NLHE T&P - Week 1 Discussion p. 1-32
|
|
|
Life Donk
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1690
WPP: 89
Location: Having a J. Arthur
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | | zook wrote: | | 1. Sklansky emphasizes manipulating pot size as a key skill for success in NLHE. What strategies do you use for this? In position, out of position? Hand histories where you did a good or bad job of controlling pot size are welcome. | Big topic, but it goes against the general poker philosphy of "if you have an edge push it." Because with each round that is bet + called, later rounds then play at a higher effective stake. | Manipulating the pot size does not neccessarily (sp?) mean keeping it small, though. It comes with the other general poker philosophy "big pots for big hands, small pots for small hands".
Also, I think that raising the stakes for the turn can in some cases decrease our edge as it makes river decisions (if there are any) easier on our opponent. In other words, if Villain realizes on the turn that we're playing for stacks he might get away from a hand he would have felt committed with if we let him see a river. Or the other way around, he might raise and force Hero to make that decision on the turn instead of the river. (If by "edge" you mean edges in addition to hand strength.)
At the table I like to consider on how many streets I can get value out of a hand. For single pair type of hands this usually means keeping the pot smallish with one or two aggressive streets, whereas for bigger hands it usually means "how can I get him all in". Of course good reads can change everything.
| zook wrote: | | 2. On p. 21-24 there's an example of calculating EV when bet sizing with the nuts on the river. How much can we generalize from this example? How would having the second, third, fourth nuts affect your decision? How about reads? | | lightningfast35 wrote: | Sklansky's e.g. (9-8-6-2-5)
There's an obvious second nuts here which the opponent could hold. IMHO, I like Sklansky's bigger bet here because, IMHO, it's hard for weak hands to call even a suck bet here without the straight. However, IMHO, the straight will pay off a big bet much more often here than some middle pair in my previous example. Thus, you should try to get the most value out of his call which means the big bet.Therefore, IMHO, when there are big second-best hands visible on board, be more willing to bet big. Why? Because your opponents want to maximize their big hands too.
2b) With the second nuts, in the example, I simply call for the exact opposite reason as I said above. It's equally hard, IMHO for an opponent to bet into this board without the straight. With the 3rd/4th nuts (a set in this example), I will either call or fold. Once again, zook mentioned reads. If your opponent is a rock I can laydown here (unless I have good pot odds). On the other hand, if I'm playing a maniac or someone who will bluff into scary boards then I'm more inclined to call |
How about these situations OOP? If we hold the second nuts, is it a good idea to check call hoping to catch a bluff or split the pot? I often make a smallish value bet hoping for a loose call by a weaker hand here. Which brings another question; if someone makes an apparent value bet here is there any merit in a bluff-raise? How big a raise/bet can we call with the second nuts in these situations?
(very general of course)
| Quote: | | 3. Sklansky makes a minor but interesting point in the footnote on p. 23. How does BR size affect your EV decisions? | Playing online, it doesn't. If I'm in a home game and don't have extra money in my pocket then it probably does. I don't want to take too many flips and end up going home early when I know that I have a big skill edge and will find better spots later.
Good job, zookkake, looking forward to the rest!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 08 Jan 2007, 1:25pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3313
WPP: 85
Location: practicing mindfulness
|
|
lightningfast: Nice post. Glad you're participating. I'm not sure that the turn is an easy check behind... a tight player is unlikely to have a worse hand than you, but you may be able to push him off a weak kicker (like A8) by following through on the turn. On the other hand, since this is a tourney and chips are precious, a turn check-behind is appealing. Makes it really tough for you to win the hand if villain leads river though. Difficult hand.
HalvSame: Good to see you here. You ask good questions, but as I think about them, I keep coming back to "it depends". Hand histories maybe?
I realize that question 2 is pretty vague. What I'm trying to get at is that Sklanksy gives us a very cut-and-dried situation where you have the nuts and there's an obvious second nuts that you want to get maximum value from. In this situation it makes sense to go all-in because you're not getting many calls from less than the second nuts, and the second nuts will very often call an AI. But, how much does this situation generalize? Is it usually the best decision to push with the nuts? Here's an example from a session I played a couple of nights ago:
Villain is loose passive pre-flop, passive post-flop and shows down a lot of hands.
Full Tilt Poker - No Limit Holdem Ring game - Blinds: $0.50/$1 - 9 players - Converter
Stack sizes:
UTG: $119.30
Hero: $147.25
MP1: $83.65
MP2: $59.60
MP3: $188.35
CO: $100
Button: $89.50
SB: $53.15
BB: $68.60
Pre-flop: (9 players) Hero is UTG+1 with 8 8
UTG folds, Hero raises to $5, 4 folds, Button calls, 2 folds.
Flop: K 8 8 ($11.5, 2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $6, Hero calls.
Turn: 3 ($23.5, 2 players)
Hero bets $12, Button calls.
River: 6 ($47.5, 2 players)
Hero bets ??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 08 Jan 2007, 1:32pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3313
WPP: 85
Location: practicing mindfulness
|
|
One more hand history, because I think it nicely demonstrates two ideas from this section of NLHE T&P: 1) Pot control. I checked behind turn because a Q was definitely a possibility and if he has AK a check might induce a bet, or call, on the river. My hand is vulnerable, so I want to keep the pot small. 2) Bet sizing with the nuts. Villain does a great job.
Villain is 23/8 over ~400 hands, no real reads but he seems tight/solid post-flop. I haven't seen him show down a hand or get out of line at this table. (Already posted this hand here and got advice.)
Full Tilt Poker - No Limit Holdem Ring game - Blinds: $0.50/$1 - 9 players - Converter
Stack sizes:
Hero: $192.90
UTG+1: $99.70
MP1: $74.75
MP2: $100
MP3: $98
CO: $48.50
Button: $194.95
SB: $135.55
BB: $51.20
Pre-flop: (9 players) Hero is UTG with A A
Hero raises to $5, 6 folds, SB calls, BB calls.
Flop: Q 3 K ($15, 3 players)
SB checks, BB checks, Hero bets $12, SB calls, BB folds.
Turn: Q ($39, 2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.
River: 8 ($39, 2 players)
SB bets $59, Hero calls.
Results:
Final pot: $157
SB showed Kh Ks
Hero mucks As Ad
I know this is a terrible call, but in my defense, my gf called at the beginning of this hand from the store and needed me to find a recipe for her  Answering phone calls while playing poker is definitely -EV. On the other hand, not answering a call from my gf when she's shopping for food she's going to cook for me might be even more -EV  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 08 Jan 2007, 2:31pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Life Donk
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1690
WPP: 89
Location: Having a J. Arthur
|
|
| zook wrote: | | HalvSame: Good to see you here. You ask good questions, but as I think about them, I keep coming back to "it depends". Hand histories maybe? | I don't have any HHs saved on this computer, unfortunately. But I think a big part of improving in poker is to ask questions like this, because it always depends. If we can make suggestions as to what it depends on then we've come a long way.
I started commenting on your first HH but then I realized that I don't know. Since he sounds like more or less a calling station I think a push is good (but I think a cbet flop, lead turn, push river line is better). Against an unknown I value bet, it's not likely that he has the backdoor flush and if he has a weird boat he's pushing over. So let's just get a call out of a K.
In hand 2 his line looks scary, I lay it down in fear of a boat. How do people feel about checking behind them on the flop? It seems to me like the only hand we can get multistreet value out of if we bet this flop is a passively played AK.
We risk free cards for gutshots/pp's if we check behind, but on the other hand we can get something out of bluffs/Qx/two streets of value against Kx by showing weakness on the flop. Then again we risk someone drawing two pair if they have a Q or K.
Turn check behind is definitely goot though.
Edit: and you better have gotten a good dessert from your gf for making this call, if you know what I mean  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 08 Jan 2007, 4:25pm Post subject: Re: NLHE T&P - Week 1 Discussion p. 1-32
|
|
|
Royal Flush
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 17644
WPP: 82
Location: Walk the Walk, Flop the Flop.
|
|
| HalvSame wrote: | | Manipulating the pot size does not neccessarily (sp?) mean keeping it small, though. It comes with the other general poker philosophy "big pots for big hands, small pots for small hands". |
Playing any limit game this way is leaving way too much on the table.
Also, it's worth noting that the better you can read hands, the wider of a range you'll be able to play a big pot with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 08 Jan 2007, 8:44pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 1742
WPP: 218
Location: on my laptop
|
|
| Quote: | | 3. Sklansky makes a minor but interesting point in the footnote on p. 23. How does BR size affect your EV decisions? |
It is easy to understand this point outside of poker. Let's say you're playing a game show like Let's Make a Deal and you're near the end. The banker offers you $1 million guaranteed or you can choose one last case for a 50% chance of $2.2 million.
Let's look at the EV of the choices:
EV of guaranteed million = $1 million (1*1 million)
EV of chance at 2.2 million = $1.1 million (.5*2.2 million)
Most people would take the guaranteed million even though the EV is less than the shot at $2.2 million. Why take the lower EV? Because the real-life BR for most people is such that $1 million will be more life-changing than the difference between $1 million and $2.2 million.
Sklansky's footnote mentions occasions in the ending statements of tournaments as well as occasions involving limited bankroll.
Perhaps near the end of a tournament the average stack size is very important to you. If a medium chance of getting back to an average sized stack is a lot more important to you than a small chance of getting to an above average stack size then maybe you take the higher percentage/smaller reward option even though the EV may be less than the lower percentage/higher reward option.
On the poker BR side there may be occasions where you are in a tournament with higher stakes than usual(wsop event or something). Perhaps you adjust some EV decisions that would be different in a lower buy-in event. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 08 Jan 2007, 10:31pm Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 54
WPP: 46
Location: Kentucky
|
|
| Eric wrote: | | Quote: | | 3. Sklansky makes a minor but interesting point in the footnote on p. 23. How does BR size affect your EV decisions? |
It is easy to understand this point outside of poker. Let's say you're playing a game show like Let's Make a Deal and you're near the end. The banker offers you $1 million guaranteed or you can choose one last case for a 50% chance of $2.2 million.
Let's look at the EV of the choices:
EV of guaranteed million = $1 million (1*1 million)
EV of chance at 2.2 million = $1.1 million (.5*2.2 million)
Most people would take the guaranteed million even though the EV is less than the shot at $2.2 million. Why take the lower EV? Because the real-life BR for most people is such that $1 million will be more life-changing than the difference between $1 million and $2.2 million.
Sklansky's footnote mentions occasions in the ending statements of tournaments as well as occasions involving limited bankroll.
Perhaps near the end of a tournament the average stack size is very important to you. If a medium chance of getting back to an average sized stack is a lot more important to you than a small chance of getting to an above average stack size then maybe you take the higher percentage/smaller reward option even though the EV may be less than the lower percentage/higher reward option.
On the poker BR side there may be occasions where you are in a tournament with higher stakes than usual(wsop event or something). Perhaps you adjust some EV decisions that would be different in a lower buy-in event. |
Nice post Eric! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 08 Jan 2007, 11:06pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Royal Flush
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 17644
WPP: 82
Location: Walk the Walk, Flop the Flop.
|
|
| Deal or No Deal is the second best poker show on TV right now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 09 Jan 2007, 7:36am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3215
WPP: 86
Location: Dublin
|
|
A few points i noticed also after reading it again last night and this morning were;
1 - hand reading (in his points on what makes a good player) is that i dont do this if at all. I know mine, put him on a range but dont really think how im perceived by opp. i think i may be losing some value by not considering it. i do think hand reading is easy to begin but hard to master.
2 - on the set vs AA. i think its pretty much dependent on opp whether he's agg or passive tho i dont like the way i may bet out 70 into 40 pot. tho having just wrote that, i guess we have weaker holding not stay around but get even more off AA,AK or other strong holding. ie we dont bother looking for crap to stick around in order to get a few more chips from them but instead play it strongl;y to confuse AA,AK etc into miss reading us and pay us off. that make sense lol
3 - nut str8, i dont think i do this enough (shoving). personally in the past ive probabky just bet 2/3-pot. ill adjust now.
i guess with board 88TTJ and we held JJ we shove easy, also 88TT4 we hold T we shove (not the nuts but shove is good, lets say given action your ahead 100%)
4-Deal or No deal, probably the jammyist game around.
Diction jammyist-contains ridiculous amounts of luck |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 09 Jan 2007, 9:49am Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 1055
WPP: 101
Location: Being enjoyed at Jack's Bar since 1397
|
|
One thing I definitely took from this is the shove with the nuts. I looked at each hand in a vacuum and told myself I would lose value if I didn't value bet every river. I rarely shoved the nuts. I have even posted a couple of hands where I shoved hands on the river and was told I shouldn't shove as a massive overbet, which still may be true. However, I got out of the mindset of shoving AT ALL. I think I left some money on the table by doing that. Since reading this book, I have shoved the best hand at the river and gotten several calls......
Also, I confirmed that my pot control sucks....I still get in the habit of building too big a pot with top pair type hands because it has been beaten into my head not to give free cards........I am at work so I don't have hand histories, but I will try to dig some up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 09 Jan 2007, 12:15pm Post subject: EV
|
|
|
High Card
Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 7
WPP: 170
|
|
I have an issue with expected value.
EV = (Pcall)(SizeBet) right? simple formula but...
Now, as a beginner, I find myself putting opps on a range of hands, and loosely associating probabilities to those opps' willingness to call particular bets. I'm sure I'll develop this skill.. however, how on earth could you possibly know your opponents' proabability of calling a specific bet within +-20%? That margin of error alone can mean all the difference between which bet size to choose. It's hard enough to put an opponent on one specific hand at any skill level imo.
So my question is, in real-time play, you're utg pondering a bet size, is it really useful to even try this calculation? Or is this just to prove a point, and help with post-play analysis?
Thanks, I really like that you're doing this book club, very helpful to us rooks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 09 Jan 2007, 12:33pm Post subject: Re: EV
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3313
WPP: 85
Location: practicing mindfulness
|
|
| ri_dawg wrote: | | So my question is, in real-time play, you're utg pondering a bet size, is it really useful to even try this calculation? Or is this just to prove a point, and help with post-play analysis? |
No, it's not useful to try to calculate this during real-time play. At some point, after playing tens of thousands of hands, this calculation will become so engrained in your neural circuits that you'll make it without even realizing. It's important to use in post-play analysis so that you understand what factors should go into your bet sizing thought process. The example Sklansky gives is great, because the formula yields a decision (pushing) that isn't what most players choose. In other, murkier situations, when you don't have the nuts, your bet sizing decision will often be based on reads/action. I think the most important thing to take away from the example on p. 21-24 is that if your opponent has a significant chance of calling an all-in with a hand you beat, you should strongly consider that option, because a large S in that equation can often overcome a smaller Pcall. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 09 Jan 2007, 5:01pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3215
WPP: 86
Location: Dublin
|
|
great i hand a hand today which i can post here, i think this is close to a hand like this as i can get. DO you think this is equal enough to a similiar hand in the book or not, if not why not?
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (8 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)
BB ($18.35)
UTG ($24.90)
UTG+1 ($49.95)
MP1 ($6.50)
MP2 ($30.30)
CO ($27.95)
Hero ($25.10)
SB ($23)
Preflop: Hero is Button with 9 , T .
UTG calls $0.25, UTG+1 calls $0.25, MP1 calls $0.25, 1 fold, CO calls $0.25, Hero calls $0.25, SB completes, BB checks.
Flop: ($1.75) 7 , 5, 8 (7 players)
SB bets $0.25, BB folds, UTG calls $0.25, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls $0.25, CO calls $0.25, Hero calls $0.25.
Turn: ($3) 6 (5 players)
SB checks, UTG bets $0.25, MP1 folds, CO folds, Hero raises to $2.5, SB folds, UTG calls $2.25.
River: ($8) K (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets $22.1 (All-In) |
|
|
|
|
| |
FTR1stSun -$100 added tournament Sunday, Dec 7th on PKR!!
