Common NLHE myths debunked

I've been around FTR for a while, and I constantly see stuff that ranges from being correct only some of the time, to being blatantly poor advice. Some of this advice used to be the kind that I preached, and that I feel not thinking for myself in situations and 'just taking FTR's word for it', so to speak, really hindered my development as a player. I could literally come up with a dozen or several dozen of these things, and I'm going to come back and add to this list. Until then, here's a few.

Myth 1. You should make a continuation bet on the flop after every time you raise preflop.

Um, no. I don't buy it, and I certainly don't agree with it. I WILL say, however, that I have a pretty strong continuation game, and I'm often continuing on flops that completely missed me. Whether or not I am c-betting depends on many factors, including number of players in the pot, size of the pot, my image, reads and stats on other players, position, value of my hand (ie if it's checked to my button and I have a simple gutshot draw, I'm going to be more LIKELY to check behind), randomness, etc.

Myth 2: NEVER fold kings preflop.

Alright, I'll admit, the times where I think doing so is correct is quite rare. But 8-tabling the middlish-stakes games with Pokertracker, and Pokerace HUD, I can honestly say I run into situations (whether or not I'm even in the hand is irrelevant here) where you absolutely know what the other guy has. Sorry but when the 12/3 nit puts in a huge 4th raise allin preflop in any sort of a deep-stacked game, he is going to have aces every time. This is obviously an extreme example just to prove my piont. These situations need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis though, and I'm certainly not hinting that folding kings preflop should be anything close to standard. What is said above can, AT SOME LEVEL, be applied to any 2nd nuts vs nuts encounters.

Myth 3: You can and should call preflop raises up to 1/10 (1/8) of your stack preflop with pocket pairs strictly for set value.

Saying this is idiotic would be a vast understatement, but it's something I've been through so many times that I really don't feel the need to go into it in great detail here. To keep it brief: you don't always win with a set, and when you do, you don't always stack the other guy. Important to note here is that when you do lose with a set to a better made hand, it's usually a very costly loss. I've always guestimated that you are going to flop a set AND win with a small pair about 1 out of 10 times, so you should be able to net 10x what you need to call (taking into account that you are usually losing a bit pot if you aren't best).

Myth 4: You bet X amount of money (where X is more then your opponent can correctly call) with a superior hand because you want the other guy to fold a worse hand (such as a flush draw).

Hrrrm, no. You do it because you want them to make a mistake (and folding is not a mistake in this situation). This is a simple example, but say you and your opponent both have exactly one pot-sized bet left in your stacks on the flop. You have a set; your opponent has the nut flush draw. You push. YOU WANT HIM TO CALL! If you don't understand this, you should probably quit poker.

Myth 5: "I just dropped 15 buyins at my passive, terrible NL25 game because of variance."

No, you dropped 15 buyins at your passive, terrible NL25 game because you suck.

Note that I completely understand what variance is and how big swings can be, especially in tough, agressive games.



Maybe I'll add 5 more tonight or something...

I agree with all of them.

One of the things that I see a lot is you should have x PFR% and x VP$IP in Poker Tracker to be considered a "good player". You know what? Develope a game that works for you. If the type of game you are playing isn't working for the level you want to play you need to learn a new style or get some new tools in your game.

number 5 is great.

how about "it is good to bet just to see where you're at"?

"You should NEVER check OOP because it may give the opponent free card."

who the hell ever said that???

I disagree with #3. Calling a raise with PP's is always correct if you both have 10x the raise behind, AND you have implied odds. The second part is key. Perhaps at higher levels people can get away from TPTK, overpairs, etc., but at Party's 25NL my sets are getting paid off constantly.

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

I disagree with #3. Calling a raise with PP's is always correct if you both have 10x the raise behind, AND you have implied odds. The second part is key. Perhaps at higher levels people can get away from TPTK, overpairs, etc., but at Party's 25NL my sets are getting paid off constantly.

Try playing against a bunch of opponents with PFR 15-20% in a shorthanded game. Do you really think that your low PP have have much implied odds at all? People who call and then fold too much are easy to exploit.

Just an example. You have a LAG on the button, you are in the BB with 22-66, another lag opens in early position with a 3BB raise, lag on button reraises to 9BB. Everyone has over 100BB. Here you do not have implied odds to call! Once you call button will think you have a strong hand after cold calling 9BB and could very well have been making a play on the player who opened the pot. Most of the time your set is NOT getting paid off unless button is a bad player or has the relatively unlikely holding of QQ-AA.

So how do I deal with a player with a +20% PFR always opening the pot for 6BB or more? Well, I will fold low pockets and reraise AQ-AK 99+ to about 15BB a significant amount of the time. If he is going to see a flop with me after opening the pot, he will be calling my reraise much of the time.

Good post, also agree with the five points. When it comes to low pp, know the player, call the pfr if you know he's a tight guy who can't get away from overpairs and who very likely has an overpair this time. Like if you raise 3x in middle position, get reraised to 9x from a very tight guy in the blinds. And if you have AA/KK, don't do the silly minreraise preflop and get stacked by a low pp making a set, make a big reraise so they make mistake by calling

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

I disagree with #3. Calling a raise with PP's is always correct if you both have 10x the raise behind, AND you have implied odds. The second part is key. Perhaps at higher levels people can get away from TPTK, overpairs, etc., but at Party's 25NL my sets are getting paid off constantly.

Try playing against a bunch of opponents with PFR 15-20% in a shorthanded game. Do you really think that your low PP have have much implied odds at all? People who call and then fold too much are easy to exploit.

Just an example. You have a LAG on the button, you are in the BB with 22-66, another lag opens in early position with a 3BB raise, lag on button reraises to 9BB. Everyone has over 100BB. Here you do not have implied odds to call! Once you call button will think you have a strong hand after cold calling 9BB and could very well have been making a play on the player who opened the pot. Most of the time your set is NOT getting paid off unless button is a bad player or has the relatively unlikely holding of QQ-AA.

Why would you need a set to win here if the player on the button thinks you have a big hand?

The pp's 10x rule has been debated for ages around here, and it always seems to go round in circles. A while ago I posted up my pp stats from PT over a relatively small hand sample (80k i think?).

After 300k hands, I am still in the green with every single pp from 22-AA. My pp strategy is usually to raise them up in any position 3x BB and call a reraise as long as 8-10x rule applies and player conditions are right (ie. I know I can stack them). I can lay down sets if I know I am beat or if I don't hit; but I also take down a lot of pots with a continuation bet or if that's called by hitting on the turn (often the turn goes check-check if I am in last position and I get a free river card to hit as well).

I make the most profit from PPs, but I am still not sure if my sample size is large enough (maybe 500k would be close enough to satisfy me). Keep in mind this is at 25-50NL..

I win quite a lot of pots with 66-99 regardless of whether I set (Irisheyes almost got to experience this last night ) because without a terrifying flop and/or lost of other callers, I am usually aggro on the flop. So I am certainly happy to play these hands post- as well as pre-flop - they are easy to get away from but also very handy for unexpected straight draws.

22-55 though are trickier and I definitely prefer a factor of 15x plus if I'm going to call bets.

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

I disagree with #3. Calling a raise with PP's is always correct if you both have 10x the raise behind, AND you have implied odds. The second part is key. Perhaps at higher levels people can get away from TPTK, overpairs, etc., but at Party's 25NL my sets are getting paid off constantly.

No, because you don't always have implied odds, no matter how terrible your opponents are. Unless they are stacking off with overcards unimproved, or pairs like JJ on AK flops or whatever. Say somebody has AK and can't ever fold when they flop TPTK. Well 2 out of 3 times they don't even make a hand at all.

I think that this advice has been drilled into peoples' heads so many times around here that it's almost like it has to be true. If you just think about it though it really doesn't make any sense. To those that say it does, you are only kidding yourselves. If you took this advice to 2p2, you'd probably get laughed at.

Myth 1. You should make a continuation bet on the flop after every time you raise preflop.

Practically every players biggest leak.
If only people payed more attention to who they should c-bet into and why.
Im beginning to think not c-betting is more +ev than c-betting
and its such an exploitable line too with the way the game dynamic is beginning to change.

Originally Posted by Lukie

Say somebody has AK and can't ever fold when they flop TPTK

You aren't totally depending on hitting to win the hand. How many times can you take down the pot on the flop without hitting your set against this player? Of course you need some reads, but quite often you can win the pot by being aggressive post flop even if you miss.

Possible outcomes:
You hit - he hits: you stack him
You miss - he misses: you take the small pot.
You hit - he misses: you take the small pot.
You miss - he hits: he takes the small pot.

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Originally Posted by Lukie

Say somebody has AK and can't ever fold when they flop TPTK

You aren't totally depending on hitting to win the hand. How many times can you take down the pot on the flop without hitting your set against this player? Of course you need some reads, but quite often you can win the pot by being aggressive post flop even if you miss.

Possible outcomes:
You hit - he hits: you stack him
You miss - he misses: you take the small pot.
You hit - he misses: you take the small pot.
You miss - he hits: he takes the small pot.

most players dont take this attitude to post-flop play with pps.

If they did they'd be winning a lot more pots

I agree, but it's kind of outside the point I was trying to make. Say a tight UTG raiser bumps it up to 4x, folds to my button where I have ducks.. this is an example of a time where I'm playing the hand exclusively to hit my set.

I do fold pkt pairs occationally to raises. That said, I don't think it is a huge leak if you are always calling raises when the raise is less than 10% of the effective stack size. Even if you are playing strictly for set value.

This obviously isn't the most +EV play, but I don't think it is as big a leak as some people seem to be suggesting.

Originally Posted by Lukie

I agree, but it's kind of outside the point I was trying to make. Say a tight UTG raiser bumps it up to 4x, folds to my button where I have ducks.. this is an example of a time where I'm playing the hand exclusively to hit my set.

This is an example where I hope to hit my set. You don't say enough about UTG to make a blanket statement. If he is the type that can't even fold AK on a miss, then yes, I am playing for set value alone.

Originally Posted by piratepeaty

Originally Posted by Lukie

I agree, but it's kind of outside the point I was trying to make. Say a tight UTG raiser bumps it up to 4x, folds to my button where I have ducks.. this is an example of a time where I'm playing the hand exclusively to hit my set.

This is an example where I hope to hit my set. You don't say enough about UTG to make a blanket statement. If he is the type that can't even fold AK on a miss, then yes, I am playing for set value alone.

calling raises is a lot different from limp/calling raises imo.
but yes the 22 btn example is a good example.

I don't see how cbets can be such a big leak. If they work at least 50% of the time, they are +EV, which by definition is not a leak. Learning which opponents/boards to cbet is important, but even with all of this knowledge you don't know what cards your opponent has, and if he is generally going to muck if he didn't improve, then a cbet is +EV with one person and generally +EV w/ 2 people on non-scary boards. Opponents that play back at you a)with air, and b) with pocket pairs - these are the very important situations to watch out for, but they can be easily exploited when you do have a hand. But until you have a read on an opponent, a cbet is +EV heads up on most boards.

Cbets are great as long as you can have the discipline to mix in checkraise bluffs and to just not cbet at all 20-25% of the time (or against calling stations obv.).

I love this post. Please think of more. Oh ya, and then sticky it. I give you access to all my ladies for one hour free of charge.

I agree with all 5 points, although, there are definitely areas of grey related to PP-play and the 5-10 rule that were not mentioned in the OP.

Now, before you all say "no, shit sherlock!", here's a blatantly obvious statement that wasn't really mentioned out-right: C-betting is gOot when it's an EV+'ve bet, and bad when it's EV-'ve (<sarcasm>kinda like all good bets really; funny how that works.</sarcasm>.

One very common example of a medium-to-large size leak I see all the time: c-betting a PSB into a field of 3+, from OOP when missing the flop; that's EV -'ve. A 1/2 to 2/3 PSB on the button, in a HU pot after being checked to by an opponent that has a relatively low CR frequency; that's EV+'ve. Being able to id situations where a c-bet is EV+'ve and when it's not, will plug this common leak. This is a perfect example of selective aggression.

While we're all busy arguing about set play let's not forget #5. It was previously stated that cont bets are most beginning player's biggest leaks. This is a major problem, but I think the biggest and worst thing a beginning player learns is the word variance.

Variance is the crutch of denial that bad players lean on and use as excuse not to review play and find faults in one's play. Who here can honestly admit they haven't told a buddy they're being hit huge by variance because of suckouts that were paid off after the guy hit them, etc, etc. I'm sure you guys see where I'm going with this. I think this was your best point, Lukie.

i cant argue with them because of the way you worded each

Originally Posted by gabe

i cant argue with them because of the way you worded each

Right. #3 says "for set value", which makes the whole PP argument moot if you fold every time you don't set. Well played Lukie

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Myth 1. You should make a continuation bet on the flop after every time you raise preflop.

Practically every players biggest leak.
If only people payed more attention to who they should c-bet into and why.
Im beginning to think not c-betting is more +ev than c-betting
and its such an exploitable line too with the way the game dynamic is beginning to change.

miffed c-betting at higher levels does not only serve to steal the current pot at hand. it's other purpose is to give you a looser, c-betting image. for when you actually have a hand you will gte paid off much better if people know you c-bet. If they check raise you and you actually have the goods, you will win much more. c-betting is very important, especially at the higher levels where people are more aware of your betting patterns. If you only bet when you have a hand, you will get paid much less and at a lower frequency.

c-bets are worth the money you put into them because of the combination of getting paid off when you have a hand and the times you steal the pot that no one wants. they are positive ev for sure if you know when to fold.

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

c-bets are worth the money you put into them because of the combination of getting paid off when you have a hand and the times you steal the pot that no one wants. they are positive ev for sure if you know when to fold.

So you will auto cbet with 5 hands? Smart players will checkraise you to your death.

Some people have discussed winning with small-medium PPs without hitting their set by playing aggressively and making reads etc. Maybe you were speaking of higher limits but for $25 NL and down I don't like this idea, if I'm going to make a play on a laggy opponent I want more than 2 outs. I'd rather reraise with TJs than 77, just incase I have to show it down, I have more ways to win.

PPs are my best hands in NL Hold 'em but I play them all passively pre-flop right upto QQ. There is no need to play them aggressively unless I hit a set, the big $$ in $25 NL and lower is in sets. Maybe higher up the big $$ is in making reads and winning pots with no showdown, but this is not so in $25 NL.

In 14,000 hands on Prima $20NL, I'm up $760, $260 is from AA and KK ( mostly from reraising pre-flop and getting QQ, JJ or AK All-in or pot commited ) $290 is from 22-QQ ( almost every showdown I'd have a set ). $207 is from AK and I've made a whoping $3 with all other unpaired hands combined ( alot of $$ goes to blinds )!! If I only count hands where I voluntarily put $$ into the pot I've made $170 on all unpaired hands other than AK. It's clear that the big $$ in $25 NL and lower is in Sets, AA and KK in that order. I know 14,000 is a very small sample size, but I've done this with other sets of data and seen the same results.

miffed c-betting at higher levels does not only serve to steal the current pot at hand. it's other purpose is to give you a looser, c-betting image. for when you actually have a hand you will gte paid off much better if people know you c-bet. If they check raise you and you actually have the goods, you will win much more. c-betting is very important, especially at the higher levels where people are more aware of your betting patterns. If you only bet when you have a hand, you will get paid much less and at a lower frequency.

If only people payed more attention to who they should c-bet into and why.

Most people can be auro reraised on almost any non ace free flop (with obvious exceptions) with the nature of the current game (leave bodog and find out). We lost the idea of representing big cards a while ago (something that was drilled into me as a n00b here 9/10 months ago) in favour of just c-betting into opponents HU. If only players were so aggressive at playing against a c-bet as they were at making at a c-bet. I agree that c-betting is good if your range preflop is wide enough. However most players ranges are not.

Some people have discussed winning with small-medium PPs without hitting their set by playing aggressively and making reads etc. Maybe you were speaking of higher limits but for $25 NL and down I don't like this idea, if I'm going to make a play on a laggy opponent I want more than 2 outs. I'd rather reraise with TJs than 77, just incase I have to show it down, I have more ways to win.

PPs are my best hands in NL Hold 'em but I play them all passively pre-flop right upto QQ. There is no need to play them aggressively unless I hit a set, the big $$ in $25 NL and lower is in sets. Maybe higher up the big $$ is in making reads and winning pots with no showdown, but this is not so in $25 NL.

In 14,000 hands on Prima $20NL, I'm up $760, $260 is from AA and KK ( mostly from reraising pre-flop and getting QQ, JJ or AK All-in or pot commited ) $290 is from 22-QQ ( almost every showdown I'd have a set ). $207 is from AK and I've made a whoping $3 with all other unpaired hands combined ( alot of $$ goes to blinds )!! If I only count hands where I voluntarily put $$ into the pot I've made $170 on all unpaired hands other than AK. It's clear that the big $$ in $25 NL and lower is in Sets, AA and KK in that order. I know 14,000 is a very small sample size, but I've done this with other sets of data and seen the same results.

You arent playing enough hands against prediatable opponents on a site with little if no variance imo. Hence the reason i love prima.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Originally Posted by Lukie

Say somebody has AK and can't ever fold when they flop TPTK

You aren't totally depending on hitting to win the hand. How many times can you take down the pot on the flop without hitting your set against this player? Of course you need some reads, but quite often you can win the pot by being aggressive post flop even if you miss.

Possible outcomes:
You hit - he hits: you stack him
You miss - he misses: you take the small pot.
You hit - he misses: you take the small pot.
You miss - he hits: he takes the small pot.

most players dont take this attitude to post-flop play with pps.

If they did they'd be winning a lot more pots

bada bing, bada boom. This is how you make pps profitable...

(...yet another rant about calling raises with PP's)

I think it's not as simple as that.

You analyse only 4 outcomes in binary way (hit=1, miss=0).

What about this?

Raiser's range is 99+, AQ+.
He c-bets his missed overs 30% of the time. If he improves on turn, he checkraises turn 30% of the time.
He bluffs the king with AQ on Kxx flop all the time.
He checks his missed overs 70% of the time.
He also checks/checkraises his AA/KK overpair 40% of the time on dry flop.

He bets his TPTK 90% of the time.
He fires two barrels with marginal hands (like JJ on Q high flop) 10% of the time...

He's willing call off his 100BB stack with unimproved AA/KK 20% of the time - depending on board texture. Or he just has a policy to defend his overpair with spade in hand (or have other criteria).

and so on so on...."%'s of the time" may be different of course.

Is calling raises with PP's and picking off c-bets against this player profitable? Too complicated to evaluate, at least for me.

But there is a point.

In the game of incomplete informations, calling raises with "implied odds"/"bluffing odds" hands (67s, Axs, small PP's) requires KNOWLEDGE about the player and proper situation (size of pot, no of players etc). NOT ALWAYS calling raises with PP's is correct it's situation/player dependent.
Against one player it's profitable to enter the pot because he's easy to be stacked with second best hand, another player can be bluffed off his TPTK or overpair if we don't improve (if we improve we can value-bet him but not destack him) and against other tough, thinking and experienced veteran pocket pair goes into muck.

Lukie says g00t.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Myth 1. You should make a continuation bet on the flop after every time you raise preflop.

Practically every players biggest leak.
If only people payed more attention to who they should c-bet into and why.
Im beginning to think not c-betting is more +ev than c-betting
and its such an exploitable line too with the way the game dynamic is beginning to change.

I'm sorry but c-betting is +ev without a doubt for players who raise with junk in position. It is a big piece of our bread and butter. At least at NL50 where I play at. I wish there was a way to track it in PT.

Originally Posted by Lodogg

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Myth 1. You should make a continuation bet on the flop after every time you raise preflop.

Practically every players biggest leak.
If only people payed more attention to who they should c-bet into and why.
Im beginning to think not c-betting is more +ev than c-betting
and its such an exploitable line too with the way the game dynamic is beginning to change.

I'm sorry but c-betting is +ev without a doubt for players who raise with junk in position. It is a big piece of our bread and butter. At least at NL50 where I play at. I wish there was a way to track it in PT.

Yes for those of us who enjoy raising junk c-betting is pretty necessary, but I agree that c-betting 100% of the time you raise PF and c-betting into players you know to be calling stations are both leaks.

what kind of bet is required to knock out calling stations? 2-3x the c-bet? or are they simply called "calling stations" because they will call any reasonably sized bet?

i rarely bet more then the pot because i think that is a leak and a tell, unless i am trying to occasionally induce further action.

You don't try to knock out a calling station. You value bet him all the way to showdown when you hit a good hand. If there are possible draws you crank up the price he pays for chasing them.

As for the pp/set discussion; of course it is an "it depends" situation. OP is right when he says that you should not always call raises for set value only, but this doesn't mean that you should NEVER do it either.

I think the major poker myth is "A general situation exists".

Originally Posted by Lodogg

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Myth 1. You should make a continuation bet on the flop after every time you raise preflop.

Practically every players biggest leak.
If only people payed more attention to who they should c-bet into and why.
Im beginning to think not c-betting is more +ev than c-betting
and its such an exploitable line too with the way the game dynamic is beginning to change.

I'm sorry but c-betting is +ev without a doubt for players who raise with junk in position. It is a big piece of our bread and butter. At least at NL50 where I play at. I wish there was a way to track it in PT.

Raising too loose coupled with c-betting too frequently is such an exploitable tendancy. Against a player(s) that doesn't play back at you often enough though, it's quite lucrative.

FWIW, I'm not trying to say that the continuation bet isn't profitable. I also understand it's great for metagame purposes. What I'm trying to say is that auto-betting the flop just because you were the preflop raiser regardless of the situation is an extremely exploitable habit and is a leak for many players out there.

Lukie's points can't cover everything as it's situational. What his points are intended to do is make you think about WHY and WHEN it's valid to cbet or call 10x+ raises w/ low PPs. Don't just automatically do things because it was mentioned on here. Think of WHY you make each play and then determine if that's +/-EV.

I agree that firing a C-bet everytime in 2+ opponents is a huge leak, but there is nothing wrong with firing one everytime against a heads up opponent. The jury is still out as far as PP are concerned. Need to do some research on PT when I have cold called raises. I do know that I am profitable on all PP, but maybe not when calling raises.

Originally Posted by bigred

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

c-bets are worth the money you put into them because of the combination of getting paid off when you have a hand and the times you steal the pot that no one wants. they are positive ev for sure if you know when to fold.

So you will auto cbet with 5 hands? Smart players will checkraise you to your death.

this is exactly what i want. in five hands you don't think i will steal a couple pots? And then after a couple steals you don't think that maybe, just maybe i might actually have a hand when the opponent check raises me?? and when i do i will get paid off big. trust me bigred i win a lot. my advice is golden. i am the holdem master here.

[quote="Miffed22001"]

miffed c-betting at higher levels does not only serve to steal the current pot at hand. it's other purpose is to give you a looser, c-betting image. for when you actually have a hand you will gte paid off much better if people know you c-bet. If they check raise you and you actually have the goods, you will win much more. c-betting is very important, especially at the higher levels where people are more aware of your betting patterns. If you only bet when you have a hand, you will get paid much less and at a lower frequency.

If only people payed more attention to who they should c-bet into and why.

MIFFED SAID:
Most people can be auro reraised on almost any non ace free flop (with obvious exceptions) with the nature of the current game (leave bodog and find out). We lost the idea of representing big cards a while ago (something that was drilled into me as a n00b here 9/10 months ago) in favour of just c-betting into opponents HU. If only players were so aggressive at playing against a c-bet as they were at making at a c-bet. I agree that c-betting is good if your range preflop is wide enough. However most players ranges are not.

HOLDEM MASTER SAYS:
miffed wtf are you talking about?? i welcome the idea of people trying to play against my c-bet!!! thats the whole reason i am c betting with overcards a bunch of the time. when i actually hold a good hand the opponent will still think i have overcards. when they make the mistake of playing back at me i will get paid off big. i like when the opponent plays back at me. that's the point u are missing buddy.

if i knew people played back at your bets more at other sites i would have moved. now i am thinking about trying out party and pokerstars, even tho i hate their ugly, chunky, slow software.

ahh naw i will move when i get a few more k so i can have 30 buy ins for 5/10. then i will go over there and crush the people trying to play back at me when i c-bet.

Redgrapes NL myths debunked:

1. Don't chase draws without correct odds.
This is complete BS, there are plenty of times where i'm running hot and just "really know" i'm going to hit the draw. It's just intuition, people don't follow their intuition enough! You HAVE TO ADMIT there are certain situations where you've hit literally every draw one session and you know you are going to continue to hit them.

2. Sometimes you just can't avoid making a bad move.

bullshit. GOOD PLAYERS (like me) know exactly what the opponent has everytime. We don't call with our bottom set when someone has middle set, because we can just read everyone like book. You guy's are just clueless sometimes, and that's OK. You'll eventually learn.

3. Bad beats happen, you have to live with it.

Some people are just unlucky at poker, you should get out if you are. The lucky players who are also extremely skilled are the only people who can make money in this game. Actually you should stay in so i can make more money.

I'll think of more later when my extremely intelligent poker intellect comes up with more.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

2. Sometimes you just can't avoid making a bad move.

bullshit. GOOD PLAYERS (like me) know exactly what the opponent has everytime. We don't call with our bottom set when someone has middle set, because we can just read everyone like book. You guy's are just clueless sometimes, and that's OK. You'll eventually learn.

no

good players can assign ranges of hands to people. calls that turned out to be losing on can be justified by pot odds or hand ranges.

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

2. Sometimes you just can't avoid making a bad move.

bullshit. GOOD PLAYERS (like me) know exactly what the opponent has everytime. We don't call with our bottom set when someone has middle set, because we can just read everyone like book. You guy's are just clueless sometimes, and that's OK. You'll eventually learn.

no

good players can assign ranges of hands to people. calls that turned out to be losing on can be justified by pot odds or hand ranges.

I am finding more and more each day that the way you beat decent players is by making the actual bad move "apparently" the good move from their perspective.

E.g. You have the nut flush draw and you bet it aggressively. Your aware villain is calling in a manner that causes you to put him on a lesser flush draw. Both your supposed draws complete with the money card on the river and you just push, instead of value bet, which tells him "hmm I just completed my flush, and he's been betting in a way that looks like hes protecting a marginal hand like tptk or overpair, and he wouldn't overbet on the end with the nuts, he'd probably value bet. Ok I have to call because TPTK and overpairs are a large part of his range."

Guy's, my post was a complete joke! Gezz you weren't supposed to take it seriously, i thought it was obvious when i wrote the last sentence.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

GOOD PLAYERS (like me)

was that the joke??

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

GOOD PLAYERS (like me)

was that the joke??

no...... lol

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Redgrapes NL myths debunked:
3. Bad beats happen, you have to live with it.

Some people are just unlucky at poker, you should get out if you are. The lucky players who are also extremely skilled are the only people who can make money in this game.

It's true..... it's true!!!!!!

I'm so glad I'm one of the lucky ones!!!!!!! been lucky for 7 years now!!!!!

Good, Clean Livin'!!!!! LMAO!!!!

Myth 6: "If he just calls, you don't gain any additional information"

pfff.. dumbest shit ever. Apply as needed to various situations.

Myth 7:

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

i am the holdem master here.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Myth 7:

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

i am the holdem master here.

POTD (or rather Post of the Night here in Norway)

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Originally Posted by Warpe

Myth 7:

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

i am the holdem master here.

POTD (or rather Post of the Night here in Norway)

POTD here in California as well.

Originally Posted by Lukie

Myth 6: "If he just calls, you don't gain any additional information"

pfff.. dumbest shit ever. Apply as needed to various situations.

i've actually never heard of that one...

But i agree with you, it's a stupid idea.

You guys are also neglecting the fact that 99+ are not only played for set value, but will sometimes flop an overpair... in which case you make villain pay for their overcards.

Originally Posted by natdang

You guys are also neglecting the fact that 99+ are not only played for set value, but will sometimes flop an overpair... in which case you make villain pay for their overcards.

What was that in reference to?

Originally Posted by natdang

You guys are also neglecting the fact that 99+ are not only played for set value, but will sometimes flop an overpair... in which case you make villain pay for their overcards.

Tight UTG raiser with a range of something like TT+, AK raises, you call with 99, flop comes down 842r. What's the difference between 99 and 77? Sure, one is technically an overpair, but they play the same against his range (like dogshit I might add, so this is probably a bad example). I guess my point is that a hand like a midpair doesn't have to flop as an overpair to have some playability. And that just because you flop an overpair, doesn't mean you have a big hand and situations like this are often very terrible reverse implied situations, like the example I gave.

I think it's a good example in that it can be used to teach people not to overvalue overpairs just because they're overpairs. If you have 77 and you can be "fairly certain" that the guy doesn't have an 8, then you could presumably play this hand just as hard as you could play 99.
But I don't think that, that means you should play the 77 harder here. I think that should make you realize that even though 99 (an overpair) is better than 77. It's not necessarily a whole lot better, and could end up costing you more, assuming you tend to either win or lose small pots after that flop with 77, but with 99 people may be more prone to playing big pots. But how many of those big pots will they be winning? I'd wager not a lot. SURE a lot of the time you have the best hand, BUT if someone is happy to give you action and make it a big pot situation than you are going to be losing those often.

so how much varience should you expect if you're good...

The same as if you are bad.

Myth #8: “You should play tight at a loose table and loose at a tight table.”

Not true. It is more complicated than that. First, lets examine what happens if we do that.

Playing tight at a loose table. This doesn’t cause any harm but we pass up many opportunities to take advantage of their looseness.

Playing loose at a tight table. This means that we are starting with a worse hand than everyone else. Not a situation we want to go deep with.

This myth is a bastardized version of: “You should steal more pots against tight players and value bet harder against loose players.” That is the correct way to say it.

At a loose table we should play more hands than normal and pick your spots to go deep. This allows us to take advantage of their looseness and use it against them.

Yes Eric, that is another good one. Well explained too.

Might as well keep 'em rolling.

Myth 9: "He can't have (insert hand here) because if he did, he would have done (insert action here) on (insert name of betting street(s) here"

Sorry, but you can't just assume that your opponents are going to play the way you think they are, or the way they 'should.' Or play correctly for that matter. Not to mention varying degrees of randomness, and stuff like that.

Just because you get smooth called preflop doesn't mean the guy can't have AA/KK for christ's sake, if you didn't catch my drift. This obviously applies to many situations, but that is the one where I find that people, when critiquing a HH will say, "well he just called preflop, so that rules out KK/AA........".

No, it doesn't.

HH from 15 minutes ago. KK villain is TP preflop. FWIW, I do wholeheartedly expect KK/AA to be reraised behind the large majority of the time against most opponents. But rarely a 3rd raise.

POKERSTARS GAME #4828595908: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($2/$4) - 2006/05/04 - 03:52:11 (ET)
Table 'Preziosa' 9-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 2: deadwhak ($393.85 in chips)
Seat 3: BugginOut ($353.40 in chips)
Seat 5: ChekDezNutz ($374 in chips)
Seat 6: Lukieplaya ($1131.05 in chips)
Seat 7: Waldetrudis ($176.50 in chips)
Seat 9: S2006 ($203.80 in chips)
BugginOut: posts small blind $2
ChekDezNutz: posts big blind $4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Lukieplaya [Qd Ad]
Lukieplaya: raises $10 to $14
Waldetrudis: calls $14
S2006: calls $14
deadwhak: folds
BugginOut: folds
ChekDezNutz: calls $10
*** FLOP *** [8s Qs Tc]
ChekDezNutz: checks
Lukieplaya: bets $40
Waldetrudis: raises $40 to $80
S2006: raises $109.80 to $189.80 and is all-in
ChekDezNutz: folds
Lukieplaya: folds
Waldetrudis: calls $82.50 and is all-in
*** TURN *** [8s Qs Tc] [6c]
*** RIVER *** [8s Qs Tc 6c] [7d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Waldetrudis: shows [Ks Kc] (a pair of Kings)
S2006: shows [8d 8h] (three of a kind, Eights)
S2006 collected $420 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $423 | Rake $3
Board [8s Qs Tc 6c 7d]
Seat 2: deadwhak (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: BugginOut (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 5: ChekDezNutz (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 6: Lukieplaya folded on the Flop
Seat 7: Waldetrudis showed [Ks Kc] and lost with a pair of Kings
Seat 9: S2006 showed [8d 8h] and won ($420) with three of a kind, Eights

Myth 10: [when holding a monster/nut hand on the river] "Bet what you think he will call."
dalskfjdsafj;sdajfdslfsafj'afjdfa
fd
safdsafjksdafsda
fsdf
sdafdsa
fsdfasfdlsafsdafjksdf
saf

NO!

Pot is $200. Opponent checks a marginal hand with decent showdown value. You bet $40, he calls 90% of the time. You get $36 of value.

Pot is $200. Opponent checks a marginal hand with decent showdown value. You bet $150, he calls 50% of the time. You get $75 of value.

I won't go into metagame here....



Also, my point isn't that big bets are always superior to small bets, my point was supposed to be that you should bet in a way that gives you the highest expectation, not something like "well this is the most I think he's going to call this time", as if there's a certain amount to which your opponent will always call, but not a cent more, and we're supposed to try to guess that number or something silly like that.

[/b]

Originally Posted by Lukie

Also, my point isn't that big bets are always superior to small bets, my point was supposed to be that you should bet in a way that gives you the highest expectation, not something like "well this is the most I think he's going to call this time", as if there's a certain amount to which your opponent will always call, but not a cent more, and we're supposed to try to guess that number or something silly like that.

Against a donkey, if I know I have the best hand, I will bet whatever I think he will call, whether it be 1/4 pot or 2x pot, since there is little to no metagame against these guys. Against good players, I agree that this could be bad and I like to bet the same whether it be a bluff, thin value-bet, or betting with the nuts.

I 'think' this donkey will call $50 here, 60% of the time.

I 'think' this donkey will fold to my $100 bet here, but he will still call 40% of the time.

Uphill battle, I know.