Is the goal really to stack someone?

[Fnord]

I play cash games to make money. Every hand I aim to make the play that makes me the most money in the long run. Keep in mind, that I will make some plays that in isolation are bad, but part of a broader wildly profitable game. However, I make one key exception in a NLHE cash game. I will pass on marginal edges pre-flop and/or in small pots to avoid making difficult decisions for lots of money post-flop, although if my opponents didn't regularly make really stupid and transparent plays I probably would be forced to be more active.

If I see 2 pre-flop nits in the blinds and it's folded to my button, I'm raising any 2 and probably am done with the hand if I don't take it down right away or flop big. It's a play I expect to generate a few cents in expectation and show some action so I get paid with stronger holdings. The last thing I want to do there is play a big pot, if re-raised by 72o I'm folding, feeling good about it and saying "good for you sir."

Smart, winning players have said the goal of NLHE is to stack someone.

Is there a flaw in my thinking? Am I still grasping to Limit thinking?

[johnny_fish]

It's a play I expect to generate a few cents in expectation

Good play. Both Limit and NL ring are about creating +EV.

Also, taking 20BB 6 times is better than taking a 100BB stack once.

A stack is just a random amount of chips.

[Bmxicle]

yeah stacking people is the goal. I will sometimes start raising half my hands preflop, and making break even or even slightly -EV plays just so i can ultimately destack my opponent who wouldn't otherwise give me their stack. Even when i'm playing TAGG i lose ALOT of money playing small pots and such, and the small pots only help me lose less money, or sometimes break even. Its when i destack someone that i make the real money, and i do whatever it takes to get their money.

[TalentedTom]

If you read super system all Brunson talks about is "breaking" someone. This is the goal of NL. Value betting can ki$$ my A## OVERBET THEM **** POTS LAY DOWN THE *****er ******N ****** HAMMER

[Fnord]

If you read super system all Brunson talks about is "breaking" someone. This is the goal of NL. Value betting can ki$$ my A## OVERBET THEM **** POTS LAY DOWN THE *****er ******N ****** HAMMER

Are you drunk?

[midas06]

Wasn't it you who said "Drop the hammer" at NLHE?

[UG]

Destacking someone is my ultimate goal in this game. I, too, will play in a bunch of pots to break-even (or possibly lose a few chips here and there) to get more action. I drop 5-20% of my buy-in quite a bit (I reload, of course) and then BOOM, I take somebody's stack and now I'm sitting at 80% profit for the night in just one hand.

In LHE the idea is to win a bunch of smaller pots to make a profit. In NLHE the object is to win one or two MONSTER pots (or more) per session to make a huge profit. That's why I played my set of 2's (in a thread you saw, Fnord) the way I did. I went for the home run (destacking two people, a stack my size and one half as big as mine) instead of just taking the little guy's stack.

[arkana]

I disagree, stacking other players isn't the main goal. W$SD in big pots is, which often includes stacking other players. NL is a game where one big pot can change a losing session into a winning session (and vice versa). Playing a style which puts you in a position to win these big pots and surviving in the mean time on the small pots is what it is all about. Turn and the river is where its at, preflop and flop is just there to set the scene.

[arkana]

Does anyone know how to write a query to calculate W$SD for pots over 50BBs from your PT db?

[DogOnMySide]

Er. Maybe.

I think you could get the query for W$SD straight outta PT, and you'd just need to add in the "where pot > 500 * BB" part.

I will have a look at the db and find out if my SQL 5|<177Z are up to the job.

[arkana]

Er. Maybe.

I think you could get the query for W$SD straight outta PT, and you'd just need to add in the "where pot > 50 * BB" part.

I will have a look at the db and find out if my SQL 5|<177Z are up to the job.

FYP

[Gareth]

I've just started with ring games - (So I could be way off)

My Goal is to win the small pots until one of the players makes a mistake when i'm in the hand with a better holding than he has and more than likely take his money.

I will pass on marginal edges pre-flop and/or in small pots to avoid making difficult decisions for lots of money post-flop

I do this on the flop as well and just wait for a better opportunity - anyone do this

[DogOnMySide]

I dunno what FYP means, Arkana.

And the answer is... no, I don't think I can!

I've got on my screen a list of all the games that:
I have won
That reached Showdown
Where the pot > 50*BB

and i could get a total of that....

but you also (i think) want to see pots i LOST at showdown DEDUCTED from the total, right?

Which is more difficult.

[DogOnMySide]

Wait I spoke too soon i have it!

AH SHIT that ain't right

well, unless i have lost over $40,000 at showdown then its way off!!!

[DogOnMySide]

Ooooh i know whats wrong its deducting all the hands that someone else won - that i didnt even play in!

BRB

[arkana]

Save the following as a .js file in your PT dir and change the appropriate settings then just double click the file:

///// change settings here /////
var screen_name = 'AArkana';
var big_blind = 1;
var min_pot = 50;
var ptdb = 'ptrack';

////////////////////////////////

///// Globals /////////
var db = new ActiveXObject("ADODB.Recordset");
var cstring = "Driver={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb)};DBQ="+ptdb+".mdb";
var totalhands = 0;
var sql = '';
var echoout = '';

//////////////////////

echoout +=  "Screen Name:\t\t" + screen_name + "\n\n"


sql = "SELECT"
+" SUM(went_to_showdown_n),"
+" SUM (won_hand), "
+" round(avg((won_hand / went_to_showdown_n) * 100), 2)"
+" FROM game INNER JOIN game_players  ON game.game_id = game_players.game_id"
+" WHERE"
+" went_to_showdown_n=1"
+" AND game_players.player_id=(select player_id from players where screen_name='"+screen_name+"')"
+" AND pot>"+min_pot
+" AND (SELECT game_level_big_bet FROM game_level WHERE game_level.game_level_id = game.game_level_id) = "+big_blind
+" GROUP by game_players.player_id";


db.Open(sql, cstring, 1, 3);
echoout += "\nWent to showdown:\t" + db(0)
+ "\nTimes Won:\t\t" + db(1)
+ "\nPercentage:\t\t" + db(2)
db.Close();

WScript.Echo(echoout);

[Jay67s]

I play as a hobby, not nearly as many hands as most people. Even though I play as a hobby I play to win $$$$. I play each hand to win as much as I can that hand. (Keeping in mind that some plays are based on player reads and position). My goal is to extract as much money as I can from an opponent while not making a -EV move. This may mean re-raising with top pair or over cards to slow playing monsters. My goal when I have a monster is to extract as much money as I can -- this may not be his entire stack, but as much of it as I can get. Sometimes 3/4 to pot size bets on each street is more profitable to a ALL-IN bet on the flop.

A general statements like "Playing for stacks" can cloud your thinking. The goal is to win as much money as the other guy is willing to put in the pot.

[arkana]

My results at 100NL (very small sample unfortunately, about 111 hands at min $30 and about 50 hands at min $70):



See the pattern?

[Irisheyes]

I dunno what FYP means, Arkana.

FYP = Fixed Your Post

[DogOnMySide]

Oh yeah. 500 -> 50.

I went to lunch, hence the delay

I was trying to solve a completely different problem... total $ won at showdown. I think i've made a query that gives me a bottom line of -$300 odd. Might be right... you never know. Maybe I win over the large number of hands that don't show down.

In this db i'm a marginal break even player anyway. (EDIT: correction... a -$90 losing player)

Cant believe you wrote it yourself tho!!! And it is really nice!

My stats from your prog are:

Went to showdown 202
Times Won 103
Percentage 50.99

I am going to use that .js file as the basis for other things. Nice work fella.

[arkana]

I just changed the sql query and the output, had an example .js file.

Change the min_pot and see how your W$SD% changes, thats the interesting part. There should be a general increase from small pots to big pots for all players (because there are fewer players at showdown in big pots generally), but I think the big winners in the game will show a much bigger than normal increase because they are better at knowing when their hand is good (especially in big pots).

[arkana]

Ok for those of you who are too lazy to run it a couple of times:

///// change settings here /////
var screen_name = 'AArkana';
var big_blind = 1;
var min_pot = 20;
var ptdb = 'ptrack';

////////////////////////////////

///// Globals /////////
var db = new ActiveXObject("ADODB.Recordset");
var cstring = "Driver={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb)};DBQ="+ptdb+".mdb";
var totalhands = 0;
var sql = '';
var echoout = '';

//////////////////////

echoout +=  "Screen Name:\t\t" + screen_name + "\n\n"

while (min_pot <= 80)
{
sql = "SELECT"
+" SUM(went_to_showdown_n),"
+" SUM (won_hand), "
+" round(avg((won_hand / went_to_showdown_n) * 100), 2)"
+" FROM game INNER JOIN game_players  ON game.game_id = game_players.game_id"
+" WHERE"
+" went_to_showdown_n=1"
+" AND game_players.player_id=(select player_id from players where screen_name='"+screen_name+"')"
+" AND pot>"+(min_pot*big_blind)
+" AND (SELECT game_level_big_bet FROM game_level WHERE game_level.game_level_id = game.game_level_id) = "+big_blind
+" GROUP by game_players.player_id";


db.Open(sql, cstring, 1, 3);
echoout += "\nMinimum Pot: "+min_pot+"BBs\nWent to showdown:\t" + db(0)
+ "\nTimes Won:\t\t" + db(1)
+ "\nPercentage:\t\t" + db(2) +"\n\n";
db.Close();
min_pot+=10;
}

WScript.Echo(echoout);

Just change the screen_name and the big_blind values, save as a .js and doubleclick to give the following output:

[DogOnMySide]

jeez. you're keen!



each lower level includes the higher levels too. is that what you want?

might be nice to do some bracketing in there... <= 20x >=10x or something

or it might not

[EricE]

Shooting for the moon is just greedy. Hehe. There is nothing wrong with that but it may not make the most $ in the long run. The saying always is “bet the most that you think he will call” or maybe “make the play that has the most +EV”. That may not be pushing. Conceptually we know that a pot size (or ½ pot) bet may be callable in situations where the rest of his stack would not be. The trick is recognizing these situations by judging your opponents character and reading what he has.

I believe it is correct to be more inclined to push the river when you think there is a chance you are beaten (but are still likely to be ahead)…for that way you maximize your fold equity.
Be more inclined to bet the largest callable bet when you are more sure you are ahead.

On the other hand, one called push can make up for a few called pot size bets so it is very hard to judge which will make the most in the long run. It all depends on your opponents and your image.

Unfortunately, I believe the correct answer to this is…It depends.

[arkana]

No I want the lower levels to include the higher levels.

I want to see more people (with hopefully bigger dbs) post their stats along with their winrates. My winrate for those 10k NL100 hands from which my stats came was 4.5PTBB/100 (9BB/100).

[TalentedTom]

This is how you play the nuts:

PokerStars Game #3127568037: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2005/11/22 - 13:34:40 (ET)
Table 'Roka' Seat #7 is the button
Seat 1: ostholm ($100 in chips)
Seat 2: TalentedTom ($94.50 in chips)
Seat 4: tommyd7878 ($106.30 in chips)
Seat 5: Fumanchu70 ($93.40 in chips)
Seat 6: tsmiles ($122.90 in chips)
Seat 7: eNTiTy ($104 in chips)
Seat 8: SirBostwick ($90.50 in chips)
Seat 9: bagheri ($119.35 in chips)
SirBostwick: posts small blind $0.50
bagheri: posts big blind $1
XTRADEAD$: sits out
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to TalentedTom [Th Qh]
ostholm: calls $1
TalentedTom: calls $1
tommyd7878: raises $2 to $3
Fumanchu70: folds
tsmiles: folds
eNTiTy: folds
SirBostwick: folds
bagheri: calls $2
ostholm: calls $2
TalentedTom: calls $2
*** FLOP *** [Kh 3h 6h]
bagheri: checks
ostholm: checks
TalentedTom: bets $6
tommyd7878: raises $19 to $25
bagheri: folds
ostholm: folds
TalentedTom: raises $66.50 to $91.50 and is all-in
tommyd7878: calls $66.50
*** TURN *** [Kh 3h 6h] [3c]
*** RIVER *** [Kh 3h 6h 3c] [8d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
TalentedTom: shows [Th Qh] (a flush, King high)
tommyd7878: mucks hand
TalentedTom collected $192.50 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $195.50 | Rake $3
Board [Kh 3h 6h 3c 8d]
Seat 1: ostholm folded on the Flop
Seat 2: TalentedTom showed [Th Qh] and won ($192.50) with a flush, King high
Seat 4: tommyd7878 mucked [Jc Kd]
Seat 5: Fumanchu70 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: tsmiles folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: eNTiTy (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: SirBostwick (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 9: bagheri (big blind) folded on the Flop

[midas06]

^ not the nuts. Do you see why?

[Pingviini]

^ not the nuts. Do you see why?

I'll let others elaborate.

The villain was a moron, you will not usually destack like that when they dont have a descent hand like a set or top pair with the nut flush draw. Not saying your play was bad though..

[Miffed22001]

I want to make money. I do it by constantly making the right decsion. My aim is to therefore get the most out of every decision whether that is to fold and lose nothing or to raise and hopefully gain. I also want to get the best value when im ahead which sometimes means potting the turn sometimes just small betting to the river. Stacking is only important as a measure of how much i think the opponent values their hand. Im not out to stack people im out to get the most money from them with the hand they have.

[Miffed22001]

is this how you play the nuts?


Stage #231706110: Holdem No Limit $0.50 - 2005-11-23 08:04:15 (ET)
Table: ALEUTIAN ST. (Real Money) Seat #7 is the dealer
Seat 7 - SINA ($43.15 in chips)
Seat 2 - XXTHELION ($63.20 in chips)
Seat 4 - MIFFED22001 ($87.40 in chips)
XXTHELION - Posts small blind $0.50
MIFFED22001 - Posts big blind $1
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to MIFFED22001 [9c 9s]
SINA - Raises $3 to $3
XXTHELION - Raises $7.50 to $8
MIFFED22001 - Calls $7
SINA - Calls $5
*** FLOP *** [8d 8c 7c]
XXTHELION - Bets $5
MIFFED22001 - Calls $5
SINA - Calls $5
*** TURN *** [8d 8c 7c] [9h]
XXTHELION - Bets $6
MIFFED22001 - Calls $6
SINA - All-In(Raise) $30.15 to $30.15
XXTHELION - Calls $24.15
MIFFED22001 - All-In(Raise) $68.40 to $74.40
XXTHELION - All-In $20.05
MIFFED22001 - returned ($24.20) : not called
*** RIVER *** [8d 8c 7c 9h] [4d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
XXTHELION - Shows [Qc Ac] (One pair, eights)
MIFFED22001 - Shows [9c 9s] (Full house, nines full of eights)
SINA - Shows [10h Jh] (Straight, seven to jack)
MIFFED22001 Collects $39.70 from side pot-1
MIFFED22001 Collects $127.85 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total Pot($169.55:$129.45,$40.10) | Rake ($2:$1.60,$0.40)
Board [8d 8c 7c 9h 4d]
Seat 2: XXTHELION (small blind) HI:lost with One pair, eights [Qc Ac - B:8d,B:8c,P:Ac,P:Qc,B:9h]
Seat 4: MIFFED22001 (big blind) won Total ($167.55) All-In HI$167.55) with Full house, nines full of eights [9c 9s - P:9s,B:9h,P:9c,B:8d,B:8c]
Seat 7: SINA (dealer) HI:lost with Straight, seven to jack [10h Jh - P:Jh,P:10h,B:9h,B:8d,B:7c]

[allLiving]

I believe that destacking isn't the MAIN goal, because I like to make +EV plays that I know are gonna help me in the long run, but I don't shy away from de-stacking people.

However I try to think of a person's stack as irrelevant in NLHE because I pretend that every person has an infinite amount of chips and that I cant ever take all their money, but I have to try and take the biggest amount possible from them that I think they are going to give up when I have them beat in a hand. Alot of the times this means "de-stacking" them from what they have brought to the table.

[Rondavu]

Guys, you're missing the big picture here. Everyone is right in their own way. Your goal is to get as much money from your opponent as they're willing to put in at a given time through the best current method. That could be value or heavy bets. Your opponent is not the only one controlling their psychology and willingness to pay the pot from hand to hand however. YOU ARE as well.

Your goal is therefore to tilt your opponent from hand to hand through mixing it up just right. Keep them off balance. If you consistently drop the hammer on a good hand or a bluff, then you're going to start to get called mostly when your opponent is really strong, and you'll miss out on a TON of value opportunities while getting shanked on a few big pots. If you only ever value bet good hands, then you'll miss out on the times your opponent is willing to go deep, while pricing your opponent into drawing hands.

Your REAL goal is cause your opponent to make consistent mistakes over a long period of time. Sticking to one method is far from optimal in that regard against a thinking opponent. They will gather a read and dry up your action based on a pattern. Fluctuation and tight reads are the real key. First you must learn to have tight reads, and then start shifting and swaying. Be unstable. Sieze any opportunity you can to look unnatural without making mistakes yourself (such as pricing in a draw). It has the effect of making your opponent feel there's no method to the madness, and they make mistakes in the neverending quest to figure you out. Just stay one step ahead of them and you'll own them all day long.

Inevitably, it is that time when you drop the hammer that becomes the reward, but a lot of things had influence on that outcome. An example would be that your opponent feels you would have value bet a winning hand instead of appearing to buy the pot. So I ask.. what made them think that?

The truth is if you go on a table and make it a stack game it will work against a lot of stupid opponents. You could do this and make good money. Some of you probably do. Are you oblivious to the one or two thinking opponents at the table however, and how you can exploit the thinker as well? These players will never pay off your hammer drop without something very special that usually beats you. Just remember not to create bad habits now, for when you sit at a table full of excellent players later.

[Sed]

The villain was a moron, you will not usually destack like that when they dont have a descent hand like a set or top pair with the nut flush draw. Not saying your play was bad though..

I don't know about you guys but I seek out and prey on the morons..

[EricE]

Guys, you're missing the big picture here. Everyone is right in their own way. Your goal is to get as much money from your opponent as they're willing to put in at a given time through the best current method. That could be value or heavy bets. Your opponent is not the only one controlling their psychology and willingness to pay the pot from hand to hand however. YOU ARE as well.

Your goal is therefore to tilt your opponent from hand to hand through mixing it up just right. Keep them off balance. If you consistently drop the hammer on a good hand or a bluff, then you're going to start to get called mostly when your opponent is really strong, and you'll miss out on a TON of value opportunities while getting shanked on a few big pots. If you only ever value bet good hands, then you'll miss out on the times your opponent is willing to go deep, while pricing your opponent into drawing hands.

Your REAL goal is cause your opponent to make consistent mistakes over a long period of time. Sticking to one method is far from optimal in that regard against a thinking opponent. They will gather a read and dry up your action based on a pattern. Fluctuation and tight reads are the real key. First you must learn to have tight reads, and then start shifting and swaying. Be unstable. Sieze any opportunity you can to look unnatural without making mistakes yourself (such as pricing in a draw). It has the effect of making your opponent feel there's no method to the madness, and they make mistakes in the neverending quest to figure you out. Just stay one step ahead of them and you'll own them all day long.

Inevitably, it is that time when you drop the hammer that becomes the reward, but a lot of things had influence on that outcome. An example would be that your opponent feels you would have value bet a winning hand instead of appearing to buy the pot. So I ask.. what made them think that?

The truth is if you go on a table and make it a stack game it will work against a lot of stupid opponents. You could do this and make good money. Some of you probably do. Are you oblivious to the one or two thinking opponents at the table however, and how you can exploit the thinker as well? These players will never pay off your hammer drop without something very special that usually beats you. Just remember not to create bad habits now, for when you sit at a table full of excellent players later.

Good points.
I have a couple of comments:
Being unpredictable is often not to your advantage against many opponents. You give up to much value to gain deception. So if one is mostly in pots with 3-5 other people then it is not to your advantage to be unpredictable. I am equating unpredictable to deceptive. If being unpredictable means you act suboptimal for your hand (you hold the nuts but don’t bet it…or you have nothing but bluff instead) then it often times is just not worth it. It’s not the most +EV in the long run. You can certainly adjust once you are down to one or two opponents though.

Secondly, if one plays stakes where the majority of players wouldn’t notice your unpredictability then it isn’t helping you now except to help you get into the habit for the future when you move up. Again, being unpredictable here is not the most +EV at that table when 6 of the players won’t notice. So you have to make a trade off…do you get into the habit of being unpredictable now for future gain on higher stakes or do you just decide to learn that later when you need it.

[Rondavu]

Good points.
I have a couple of comments:
Being unpredictable is often not to your advantage against many opponents. You give up to much value to gain deception. So if one is mostly in pots with 3-5 other people then it is not to your advantage to be unpredictable. I am equating unpredictable to deceptive. If being unpredictable means you act suboptimal for your hand (you hold the nuts but don’t bet it…or you have nothing but bluff instead) then it often times is just not worth it. It’s not the most +EV in the long run. You can certainly adjust once you are down to one or two opponents though.

Secondly, if one plays stakes where the majority of players wouldn’t notice your unpredictability then it isn’t helping you now except to help you get into the habit for the future when you move up. Again, being unpredictable here is not the most +EV at that table when 6 of the players won’t notice. So you have to make a trade off…do you get into the habit of being unpredictable now for future gain on higher stakes or do you just decide to learn that later when you need it.

Excellent points. What I'm saying is that your game should stay player specific. Some players are next to impossible to go deep with. They're too tight postflop. Some players attack percieved weakness. You should act weak and become passive to their bluffs in certain spots. Some players do this, and some players do that. Generally playing a stack game against the table isn't optimal.

In regards to what you said about acting suboptimal to your hand, that's where reads come in. You play your hand according to what you think your opponent has, and then take it to what your opponent thinks you have only after the former is in place. Top pros take it a level deeper to what your opponent thinks you think they have. It's not often necessary at any of the limits I've been at.

Remember that you're not the only one at the table gathering info. You need to mix up what your doing to force them into bad decisions.

[Fnord]

Vindication

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...an=&page=&vc=1

[natdang]

Vindication
http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...an=&page=&vc=1

Quoting one internet message board as validation on another internet message board? Lol.

[Miffed22001]

if you are looking for stacks more foetn than not you wont win much

[sykotik489]

I'll just post what I do at NL Ring games, keep in mind that I play NL Ring live usually and tourneys online.

Generally I try to win every pot that I lead at some time, or if I sense that I can get a slightly stronger hand to fold. This generally wins small pots (I play 1/2 NL) in the range of $10-30. Gradually building my stack until I get a great flop and THEN the goal is to destack.

Basically winning the smaller pots allows me to build up to cover most of the stacks at the table and then when I flop a set, strong draw or better, I try to play for stacks.

I make a few loose calls to try and hit hard on the flop because it pays off, great example (and yes this was lucky) from last night:

I'm BB and trying to project a looser table image than I am actually playing, UTG+2 raises to 15, gets no callers around to me and looks a little upset about it, so I ask him if he wants me to call blind. He says he doesn't care so I announce that I will give him some action. (In actuality I looked at my hand and it was the 45 of hearts, a near perfect hand to break what he was representing AA-JJ.) Flop comes 955 w/2 diamonds, he bets 10 into the $30 pot and I "finally" look at my cards, smile and raise him to 30, he calls. Turn is the 7d to complete the flush draw and I lead out with 25, trying to pick it up on the turn, but he calls again. River is a 4, so now I'm protected against a flush if he slowplayed AKd or similar and I bet out 100, he mulls it over and says if I have the 5 I played it too fast and calls, he flips his KK, I show him my boat and take $180 off of him.

Now more often than not I'm going to miss and fold for my 15, but at 180 dollars it only takes 1 out of 12 hands with this type of play to make it break even and that's assuming I don't sense weakness and take any of the $30 pots down w/o a showdown.

[KY_Ace]

Of course the real goal should be to maximize your profits and minimize your variance. But this is a very vague statement, and hard to build a strategy around.

Most of my NL profits come frome heads up hands where a single opponent has a strong 2nd best hand. If my opponent has me covered, making the maximum means getting all my chips in and doubling up. If I have my opponent covered making the maximum means de-stacking my opponent.

De-stacking my opponent is very close to my true goal and is alot more tangible and easier to build a strategy around. This is why I say my goal in NL is to de-stack my opponents. At the same time I don't lose sight of my true goal to maximize my profits and minimize risk. I won't make reckless plays trying to de-stack someone, but I will bet in a way that de-stacks my opponent when a good opportunity presents itself. I will also call a small percentage of my stack ( or my opponents stack, whichever one is smaller ) on a draw or small PP pre-flop if I think there is a good chance that I will get their stack if i hit.

I won't move all-in on the river unless I have good reason to believe that a worse hand is out there that will call. I'll usually bet about 80% of what i think they will call. The reason I don't bet 100% is something that I learnt in statistics. If one mistake costs more than another mistake, you try to avoid the more costly mistake. Say my opponent is willing to call $60 but not more on the river. Betting $50 would have an opportunity cost of $10 ( $60 - $50 ), betting $70 would have an opportunity cost of $60 ( $60 -$0 ) .

[WhooFleuryScores]

It's a mix-you need to make the right decisions that allow you the most +EV as well as take advantage of the times you can annhilihate your opponent.Whenever I destack or brutalize an opponent I always type in their note box "I OWN YOU.DON'T F**K WITH ME" and that gives me a high. Sun Tzu and Machiavelli would have both agreed,as well as the Sith.

"Your hate will make you powerful.The weak deserve their fate."

[dsaxton]

This seems kind of trivial. The objective in any poker game is to win money, and on a given hand, the maximum amount you can win from an opponent is clearly his/her entire stack. You aren't somehow failing when you win less.

Are you more satisfied when you stack someone with a $2 stack, or when you win $500 from a guy with a $600 stack? In which case do you feel you better accomplished your objective?

[Chicago_Kid]

I think Fnord approach sounds like an investment decision. You can take either a higher risk, higher return approach, or a lower risk, lower return approach.

Constantly pushing edges for lots of chips, can lead to big payoffs, but more variance. Playing to steal lots of small pots while camping for the nuts, can lead to less variance, but probably a lower WR.

Of course, the critical performance factor here is your reads--very much like your market knowledge or intuition in investments. If your intuition is great, you can accept more risk given the greater confidence you have in avoid mistakes.

Another important factor to consider is how the swings of your chosen style might affect your mentality, and thus your decision-making. A super-lag game is not easy for everyone to play, because after a couple beats, they might become a super-fish through tilt.

BTW--great thread, all.

[ProZachNation]

When I play I usually try to minimize loss and maximize win by value betting hands on every street where I think I have the best hand. And if I know I have the best hand then I juice the pot so I can make an overbet and hope they call and donk off thier chips.


wow the sun came up, Ill edit when I wake up with more detail because I doubt thats clear.

[Miffed22001]

the goal isnt to destack. It shouldnt ever be a goal, its a means to winning and making +ev plays.

2 things
1. You make the most from each hand where you are ahead. No matter what that pot size u make the most money/chips from that hand
2. You lose the least possible when your hand is not the best. eg fold rags preflop, dont get committed to top pair etc.

On top of this you look to play a game that eventaully leads to a player making big bets on a hand that isnt the best. Hence the object of NLHE to me is to make your opponent believe he has the best hand, and make him bet like he has.

[Chicago_Kid]

the goal isnt to destack. It shouldnt ever be a goal, its a means to winning and making +ev plays.

2 things
1. You make the most from each hand where you are ahead. No matter what that pot size u make the most money/chips from that hand
2. You lose the least possible when your hand is not the best. eg fold rags preflop, dont get committed to top pair etc.

On top of this you look to play a game that eventaully leads to a player making big bets on a hand that isnt the best. Hence the object of NLHE to me is to make your opponent believe he has the best hand, and make him bet like he has.

Success in NL games is not about making many independent correct decisions, but understanding and manipulating your opponents to make their incorrect decisions more expensive than yours.