Post Flop Play

Just passed 3,000 hands at 2nl play, and with my BR at approx $130 I figured I have the BR and some experience to try moving up to 5nl.

Initial results are not a success... down $7.50 in 30 hands Obviously thats too small a sample size to mean anything, dented my confidence some though.

Having headed back and looked at some hands I am losing on PT, I've identified that my major "leak" is post-flop play. Reveiwing my starting hands I'm generally pretty disciplined there, and my VP$IP stat is running about 21%. So I say postflop "leak" becuase I'm not sure if it is a genuine leak or whether it is a function of playing micro nl games.

Essentially I get into trouble on the turn. I like to try and play a little more aggressive post flop than pre flop. If I have a hand like 99, TT, AK or AQ and the board is all rags I like to bet at the pot if checked to me, and I'll put out a probe bet with a hand like 99 with one overcard on the board to see if anyone has hit.

If I get a couple of callers I'm never sure whether they are saying "I have a hand" or whether they are just donkish calling stations. If its the former then I should check and fold to aggression, but often in micro its the latter, which can be profitable.

The hand that busted me in 5nl today I had that 99, the baord was 4 7 Q rainbow, I'm OTB. They all check to me, I bet 2/3 the pot, hoping to narrow the field and see whether my hand is good or whether someone hit TP. But then one folds and four call, after all checking ... which builds a big pot.

Turn is a 4, so I'm two pair but so is anyone with the Q, and I'd be a dog to that hand. So should I check? But that indicates weakness .... what if someone else trys to buy the pot ... do I toss my two pair away? Should I bet? But with all those calling stations I'm not likely to scare many away.

This isnt a perfect scenaro, just one that happened today. I run into it a lot with hands like AQo as well. These are the scenarios that are bringing me down at the moment. Maybe I should just nut camp but I'm keen to learn to play more sophisticated than that.

Any ideas?

Originally Posted by Buzz

and my VP$IP stat is running about 21%

If you're playing full ring, I'd suggest cutting this number down to around 16%. Tight play and value betting should crush your level.

Playing this tight helps you threefold:

1) You are almost always going to the flop with the mathematical edge over your opponent.

2) You are learning patience. Patience leads to discipline which leads to less propensity to tilt.

3) When you play only good starting hands, your decisions postflop become much more clear cut. You are never having to worry about things like "oh I flopped top pair with KJo, but I called a raise from my opponent preflop, so he could have AK or KQ", because you'd never call a raise with KJo, since you'd be playing so tight.

Do a search for AOKrongly and read his stuff.

Originally Posted by Buzz

Maybe I should just nut camp but I'm keen to learn to play more sophisticated than that.

Honestly, is all you should be doing is nutcamping at such low limits. Yes, sophisticated play is nice, but if you try to hard to outhink the bricks at the table you'll probably just end up giving away your money with marginal hands. Just hammer away with TPTK, overpairs, sets, and the like and you should do fine at $5NL.

Hey, something I can answer!

Buzz, I played $2 NL for about 18,000 hands at Paradise. I ended with a BB/100 of around 15. I've been exclusively $10 NL since February 06 and I've made just under $200 dollars since moving up.

I was very nervous about doing so, as some here can attest to. Went up, lost a couple buy ins, moved back, went up, etc. Finally I just decided to play the same way that I played $2 NL.

It works.

How do I play? Aok's 19 starting hands (with some exceptions) and, in short, waiting for the nut bus.

I'm normally seeing about 18% of the flops and my win rate going into a showdown is well over 60%, which is evidence of what I am playing. There are more morons at the ten buck tables than at the two buck ones, in my view. At least morons with more money!

Another excellent strategy agaisnt calling stations is Aok's counter-play. You'll need to learn to use a combination of standard play and counter-play at these limits.

Jigs

Great thanks for the advice all. Lol Jiggus I just posted in your thanks thread before I saw your response here. It's really good to see people in a similar situation as me getting good results out of solid play.

I've read AOK's 19 hands and I'm not doing too much different, perhaps modified somewhat by Dan Harrington's views on starting hands, taken from HoH1, which granted is tourney focused but is fundamentally sound.

As above though its the post flop causing me the trouble, not the starting hands. I havent found AOK's counterplay stuff yet ... I'll do a search for that.

Originally Posted by Renton

If you're playing full ring, I'd suggest cutting this number down to around 16%. Tight play and value betting should crush your level.

It's fine. Learn2PlayPostFlop.

Originally Posted by Renton

1) You are almost always going to the flop with the mathematical edge over your opponent.

I only care if lots of money is going in pre-flop. Quite often in the currently popular NLHE strucutres it's not.

Originally Posted by Fnord

It's fine. Learn2PlayPostFlop.

Ummm ...thats why I asked for advice, so I could learn exactly that

Interesting to see your Aces havent been busted even once there Fnord ... Aces is currently one of my worst hands

Buzz. Teaching you postflop play is more than just one threads worth of content.

Get posting hand histories and im sure you will get all the help you need.

This may slightly hijack the thread (can one be "slightly" hijacked?), but it's interesting to see Fnord's results (I'm assuming they're his), since my own example from a lower limt ($10 NL) would show you about 9,000 hands, with a BB/100 only a tad less than his (15.10/100) but a preflop raise percentage of about 5 times LESS.

I have been toying with the idea of being much more aggressive, (and I actually am a bit more aggressive than at $2 NL), but if the results are more or less equal, then it may not be worth changing my style at the moment?

I dunno, what does anyone think? I think that the quality of opponents has a lot to do with your needed aggression factor, no?

For instance, in a sit n' go I played -- and won -- a couple of days ago, being aggressive past the mid-way point worked a charm. But in my ring games, playing that style would be foolish, since moronic callers would defeat the purpose of it.

Sure Pelion, agreed. Kinda just venting a little I guess, just spent another session with donkeys at 5nl with them ignoring pot odds etc

Originally Posted by Jiggus

This may slightly hijack the thread (can one be "slightly" hijacked?), but it's interesting to see Fnord's results (I'm assuming they're his), since my own example from a lower limt ($10 NL) would show you about 9,000 hands, with a BB/100 only a tad less than his (15.10/100) but a preflop raise percentage of about 5 times LESS.

I have been toying with the idea of being much more aggressive, (and I actually am a bit more aggressive than at $2 NL), but if the results are more or less equal, then it may not be worth changing my style at the moment?

I dunno, what does anyone think? I think that the quality of opponents has a lot to do with your needed aggression factor, no?

For instance, in a sit n' go I played -- and won -- a couple of days ago, being aggressive past the mid-way point worked a charm. But in my ring games, playing that style would be foolish, since moronic callers would defeat the purpose of it.

Fnord plays at totally different tables where they are (presumably) much tighter. Keep to your style while the major mistake is calling too much. Once you find tables where people fold too much then get with the raising.

Originally Posted by Pelion

Fnord plays at totally different tables where they are (presumably) much tighter. Keep to your style while the major mistake is calling too much. Once you find tables where people fold too much then get with the raising.

Do you believe the proper adjustment to players who don't raise often enough, often don't raise big enough and play too many hand not likely to flop much of anything, then take that not much of anything too far is for us to tighten up?

4 limpers to you and you have on the button, your play?

A limper, min-raise, two terrible players call and you have on the button, your play? From the cut-off?

I don't think it's addressed to me, but I can't resist a quizz! I know that I'll get roasted, but anyhow,...

As I play now, those are all folds. But I know that's a heavy handed tactic for you, Fnord.

I'd love to hear how you'd play these. I'm guessing that in the 1st example a hefty raise would be in order.

In the second and third, the difference between cut-off and button is, quite frankly, negligible to me. I mean, the button has position on the cut off, but,....

Ah fuck, I don't know what I'm talkin' about. Help!

Jigs

Originally Posted by Jiggus

This may slightly hijack the thread (can one be "slightly" hijacked?), but it's interesting to see Fnord's results (I'm assuming they're his), since my own example from a lower limt ($10 NL) would show you about 9,000 hands, with a BB/100 only a tad less than his (15.10/100) but a preflop raise percentage of about 5 times LESS.

I dunno, what does anyone think? I think that the quality of opponents has a lot to do with your needed aggression factor, no?

One thing I can tell you for sure - if I am using Poker Tracker and I see you have a PFR percentage of 2, then I fold whenever you do raise unless I have AA, maybe KK, or position and a lovely destacking hand like 89s, and I play post-flop accordingly. If you have a 10% PFR stat then I don't have any info of this kind.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Do you believe the proper adjustment to players who don't raise often enough, often don't raise big enough and play too many hand not likely to flop much of anything, then take that not much of anything too far is for us to tighten up?

Um, can you put that into layman's terms? Please elaborate a little.

True, very true.

I am raising more, believe it or not. If I just take my last 4000 hands, so going back to Feb.23, my PFR is a shockin' 2.87%. However, my BB/100 for that same period is 22.21. Lucky run.

This is an interesting aspect of the psychology of the game, no? I mean, it's really not my nature to be aggressive and pushy. However, I do see that doing so can make you more money. I have tried it for experimental purposes at the lower limit, but, I'm not comfortable doing so, and I want to learn how to bet more aggressively. To condition myself, I think is a better way of putting it.

This could be an interesting thread.

I don't dispute that a low PFR might be optimal in stupid loose games.

I just wanted to check an even more recent sample of my hands, 'cause I really thought that I was being a lot more aggressive.

The last 2300 hands has an PFR of %3.29 with 25.12 BB/100. Coincidence?

Hmm,... maybe this bears further experimenting.

I'm not disputing the proper PFR for these games. Mine is so high in the 100 game because I play isolate-a-donk, attack blinds and give false implied odds with impunity. Mostly because the regulars are a bunch of weak ass set-farmers who won't stand up to me while I take more than my fair share of the dead money (and I'm not just talking blinds.)

What I think is kinda silly is playing so darn tight in loose/passive games.

Fnord is really letting you in on something here. Although it is good to be TAG you need to know how to adjust to your table conditions. If the conditions are as Fnord stated, they don't raise enough, play too many hands and then take those hands to far, the adjustment is too loosen up and play hand that have long shot nut potential esp. when you have position on the others. Position is these conditions is used less for stealing with information and more for maximizing value of a made hand post-flop.

Originally Posted by BreakfastMan

Position is these conditions is used less for stealing with information and more for maximizing value of a made hand post-flop.

...and drawing cheap.

Fnord.

In very loose passive games where they play like limit but call raises im happy to play alot of cards. Im more than happy playing ATs for the A (but letting it go to a raise) if I think im being called by A9 and below.


I wasnt suggesting tightening up. I was suggesting raising less. In games where players call too much I dont really think its worth raising hands like KQ, where you are likely behind to an A preflop. It is certainly worth playing KJ though. My reasoning is that you actually need to show down the best cards to win, so by all means start with above average (but slightly weak starting cards) but you may as well see what you flop before you go crazy.

In games where players fold too much (which is the impression I get from the way you describe your 100NL games) then its worth raising alot more often since you have 2 ways to win. You can show the best hand, or make them fold the best hand.

As for your questions

Originally Posted by Fnord

4 limpers to you and you have on the button, your play?

At a table with 4 limpers and no raise I have to assume it is a loose passive table. In this case I probably limp that on the button, but I might just fold it on the CO. I really want to be able to take free cards with it.
Against weak/tight players I might raise to punish the limpers and set up a flop steal, or I might just fold.

Originally Posted by Fnord

A limper, min-raise, two terrible players call and you have on the button, your play? From the cut-off?

Definatly playable. The question is does he limp/reraise. Id like to catch 2 pair/ straight/ flush against his AA if he will pay it off. If its the type of game (like I play) where this is a low PP like....80% of the time and he will set or fold then Ill raise with any playable hand here and cbet the flop. Im hoping the 2 terrible players will limp/fold.
From the cutoff is exactly the same. Even more important to raise here as I want the button for free cards again.

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by Buzz

and my VP$IP stat is running about 21%

If you're playing full ring, I'd suggest cutting this number down to around 16%.

What's a typical % to see the flop at a PokerStars 6 handed ring game? Using the "play only 19 hands method", I've been averaging around 23-24% going to 20% or less when I'm not hitting cards and up to 28% +/- on a good night....(not cheating too much on playing extra hands).

19 hands is 13.1% of all hands.

Thats all pocket pairs. AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, QJ (all both suited and unsuited).

I think you will need to play more than that at 6 max.