|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Mon, 14 Aug 2006, 7:20pm Post subject: H0H Part 5-1 (p.174-212) Discussion
|
 |
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3380
WPP: 84
Location: practicing mindfulness
|
|
We're breaking Part 5 down into two weeks. This chapter covers Harrington's pre-flop strategy, including hand ranges for specific positions and situations. Because so many different pre-flop strategies can be played sucessfully, I think this section is ripe for criticism and discussion. Please post instances where your pre-flop strategy differs from Harrington's and why. Here are some questions to get things started.
1. On p. 179, Harrington advocates open-limping with AA-QQ 20% of the time against opponents that are studying his style. Do you think this is necessary? Why wouldn't opening up his pre-flop raising range (say, to include all PP's) achieve the same goal? Do you think this 20% limp strategy is a good one for online tournaments or cash games?
2. On p. 180, he advocates varying the size of your pre-flop raise from 2-5x BB. Do you like this idea?
3. Also on p. 180 he says that with AA-QQ in LP with you don't want to open-raise more than 3x the BB and you should open-limp more than usual. Do you agree with his reasoning?
4. What are the Gap and Sandwich concepts? In what situations might they not apply?
5. On p.190-91, Harrington advocates folding 66-22 and all SC's when sitting in MP behind an UTG raiser. Do you agree?
This is just the tip of the iceberg, imo. Feel free to contribute thoughts, criticisms and questions of your own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 15 Aug 2006, 1:16am Post subject: Re: H0H Part 5-1 (p.174-212) Discussion
|
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 1742
WPP: 218
Location: on my laptop
|
|
My answers are for tournaments only, not cash games. In fact all my answers in this thread are for very specific tournament circumstances described by Harrington on page 176. Here are 2 of the key circumstances:
| Quote: | | 1. I'm at a full table of nine players, in the early to middle part of a tournament. | HOH page 176
| Quote: | | 5. We all have plenty of chips compared to the blinds and antes | HOH page 176
1. Open limping with AA KK QQ in early position is dangerous. 20% is too much for me, I do it less than 10% of the time even when being studied.
I'm not sure about the | zook wrote: | | Why wouldn't opening up his pre-flop raising range (say, to include all PP's) achieve the same goal? | part of the question. Instead of answering it directly I'll say that I play most pocket pairs the same was as Harrington in early position (EP), specifics are below.
I play JJ TT 99 the same way as Harrington in EP:
| Quote: | | JJ TT 99 ... a mix of 70 percent raises and 30 percent calls. | HOH page 180
I play 77 and 66 the same as Harrington in EP. With 88 I raise more than Harrington's 20 percent of the time:
| Quote: | | 88 77 66 ... a mix of 20 percent raises, 80 percent calls. | HOH page 181
Low pairs are dangerous and like Harrington I worry about them in EP:
| Quote: | | 55 44 33 22 ... In early position, usually throw these hands away. | HOH page 182
2. I'm still experimenting with this. I've done well in tournaments where my standard pre-flop opening was 3x the BB.
3. I agree about not going over 3xbb (but maybe 4xbb is ok). I'm not sure I like the idea of open-limping too much more than usual. A raise in LP with these hands might be seen as a blind steal in which case you're happy to see the blinds get defensive. Also, there are few things worse than losing a pot with AA-QQ to an inferior hand because of a bad beat. If I lose with a big pair it is easier to keep myself from going on tilt if I know that I put in a healthy raise pre-flop. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 15 Aug 2006, 12:08pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 1742
WPP: 218
Location: on my laptop
|
|
Pocket pairs are dealt 6 ways. Unpaired hands like AK are dealt 16 ways. This means a player will get a hand like AK more times than AA and KK combined in the long run. I wish authors would spend more time on the unpaired hands because they come up so often.
A player will get AK and AQ combined more often than TT, JJ, QQ, KK and AA combined yet the problems in part five are not weighted this way.
TT JJ QQ KK AA
5-9 AA
5-10 QQ
5-11 KK
5-12 QQ
5-13 KK
5-14 TT
5-15 TT
5-16 TT
5-17 JJ
AK and AQ
5-19 AK
5-20 AQ
5-22 AK
I wish Harrington had more problems with AK and AQ in this chapter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 15 Aug 2006, 4:42pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 1742
WPP: 218
Location: on my laptop
|
|
4. Per Harrington, the Gap Concept is from David Sklansky:
| Quote: | | If you're thinking of entering a pot that has already been opened, you need a stronger hand to call than you would need to enter the pot yourself from that position | HOH1 page 188
The Gap Concept doesn't necessarily apply if the player who opened is loose.
Unlike the situation on page 153 of part four where there were definitely active players(they had previously called before you and before the raiser behind you), the Sandwich Effect deals with potentially active players.
Harrington describes the Sandwich Effect as a situation where
| Quote: | | the pot has been opened, you are next to act, and there are several potentially active players behind you. | HOH1 page 189
When you're caught in a sandwich you need a stronger hand than if you were the last player to act on the round.
The Sandwich Effect almost always applies because even if the players behind you are weak-tight there is always the chance that they picked up a hand where they practically have to raise to reduce the number of players who can see a flop with them (QQ etc).
5. The player in 3rd position opened for 3x bb and you are in 5th position. The Gap Concept applies and Harrington says to fold 66 to 22. I agree unless the 3x bb raise is less than 5% of my stack, the player in 3rd position has a deep stack and the seats behind me are extremely passive pre-flop players who are not likely to re-raise. I agree with Harrington that SC's should be folded here unless the remaining seats are weak passive players who like to limp/call pre-flop in order to see every pot. Even then I'd dump the low SC's(I want to limp in w/ low SC's in LP against a lot of opponents, not put in 3x bb or more in MP). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 15 Aug 2006, 8:58pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3380
WPP: 84
Location: practicing mindfulness
|
|
Eric:
Good reminder that he's writing for specific tournament situations only. I've been playing cash games only for a few months, so the conservative pre-flop strategy definitely strikes me a bit funny. Trying to get into a tourney mindset, I'm still surprised at a few things in Harrington's pre-flop strategy... limping AA-QQ from EP as often as 20% of the time seems terrible. And increasing this percentage in LP even worse! Your raising range is wider in LP and that alone should provide plenty of cover for when you actually do have a premium hand. I also think he's a little too conservative calling pre-flop raises with low PPs and suited connectors, but you're right to emphasize that the situation is MP behind an UTG raise, which brings the sandwich effect into play and calls for some caution. If my stack size was big relative to the blinds (M>30?) I'd definitely be less conservative in this spot. I would have liked to see him address the scenario when you're on the button facing a pre-flop raise from MP and one caller. I'm curious if he's playing PPs and suited connectors here... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 2:03pm Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 84
WPP: 272
|
|
Hey guys; this is my first FTR post. Sorry for posting about Section 5 after you already discussed it, but I just stumbled across this discussion. As you already discussed, when opening a pot, he suggests raising w/AA 80% of the time, but only limiping 20% of the time. He says that this is to throw anyone off who may be monitoring your betting patterns, and this makes sense in a NL tourney where you are sitting at the same table as someone for perhaps hours at a time. My (relatively noob) questions are in regards to applying Harrington's advice to low-stakes NL ring games (I've only been seriously playing HE for a few months):
1. Should I even try to apply the teachings in this book to low-stakes NL ring games, or should I pick up another more relevant book? I think that the answer is that, yes, I should use Harrington's advice in NL ring games, but I wanted some community feedback. But if there are any books that are specifically geared towards low-stakes NL ring game play, can someone point me to them? Most of the books in the FTR book reviews are geared towards either limit HE or tournament NLHE.
2. If I do apply HOH to low-stakes NL ring games, should I modify his Chapter 5 pre-flop raise frequencies (e.g. raising w/AA only 80% of the time)? My initial thought is that I should, since a) probably fewer people will be monitoring my betting patterns, and b) I probably won't be sitting at the same table as most of these people for too long. Are either of these assumptions safe to make though?
3. IF I should modify Harrington's percentages for a low-stakes NL ring game, how? I can see that I should just bump up my AA pre-flop raise percentage from 80% to ~100%, but what do I do in the case of opening the pot with AJs in early position, where Harrington reccommends raising 50% of the time and limping 50% of the time? Should I mostly raise, or mostly limp, or base it on my feel of the table?
Any replies would be helpful. Keep up this discussion and I'll try to contribute when I have time. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 2:30pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3380
WPP: 84
Location: practicing mindfulness
|
|
Welcome to FTR cag8f.
| cag8f wrote: | | 1. Should I even try to apply the teachings in this book to low-stakes NL ring games, or should I pick up another more relevant book? |
I don't think reading HOH can hurt you if you're playing small stakes NL ring games, but not everything will be applicable. The major difference is that with the blinds increasing constantly in tournaments, you're always under pressure to accumulate chips to stay in the game. You're under no such pressure in ring games, so you can afford to be more conservative. Multi-tabling nut campers can do very well at low limit cash games.
As for other books, the only one I know of specifically geared for NL ring games is Sklansky & Miller's No Limit Hold Em Theory & Practice. I think it's an excellent book, but it's not geared for beginners. That being said, I think a beginner could still get a lot out of it. A great place to start reading is here on FTR:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/forum/poker-36037.htm
Make sure you read rilla's guide to Bankroll Management first. Renton's guides are good for NL ring if you're comfortable playing an aggressive style.
| cag8f wrote: | | 2. If I do apply HOH to low-stakes NL ring games, should I modify his Chapter 5 pre-flop raise frequencies (e.g. raising w/AA only 80% of the time)? My initial thought is that I should, since a) probably fewer people will be monitoring my betting patterns, and b) I probably won't be sitting at the same table as most of these people for too long. Are either of these assumptions safe to make though? |
I think these are safe assumptions to make, although you will have some players using Poker Tracker and PAHUD at stakes as low as 25NL and more and more as you move up. I think a better way to disguise your hands in ring games is to just widen your pre-flop raise range, mainly in position. If you're raising 15-20% of hands in the CO and on the button, they can't put you on anything.
| cag8f wrote: | | 3. IF I should modify Harrington's percentages for a low-stakes NL ring game, how? I can see that I should just bump up my AA pre-flop raise percentage from 80% to ~100%, but what do I do in the case of opening the pot with AJs in early position, where Harrington reccommends raising 50% of the time and limping 50% of the time? Should I mostly raise, or mostly limp, or base it on my feel of the table? |
Personally, I usually fold AJs UTG and UTG+1 and open-raise it in MP & LP. I'll limp behind limpers in MP, but in LP I'll raise behind limpers. But it does depends on the table. If you have a loose/passive table that likes to limp and call pre-flop raises then you'd be alright limping this hand in EP and MP and only raising in LP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 4:25pm Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 84
WPP: 272
|
|
| zook wrote: | | The major difference is that with the blinds increasing constantly in tournaments, you're always under pressure to accumulate chips to stay in the game. You're under no such pressure in ring games, so you can afford to be more conservative. |
Yeah, I sense (and understand why) that some of what Harrington is teaching is geared towards accumulating chips as fast as possible, and that I may not need to do so as much in ring games. I will keep that in mind when reading HOH. I still play tourneys sometimes, so I'll apply HOH during them for sure.
Thanks for the links to the FTR articles and Sklansky and Miller book, I'll be sure to give them a read. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 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.
|
FTR11 at Carbon Poker: $50 Money-Added Tourney - Jan 11th
