the Always All-in Preflop Moneymaking Strategy

[Manomanman]

Recently I had an epiphany about how to maximize winnings (and at the same time, minimizing losses) at lower limit nl holdem. I devised a nearly foolproof strategy (I suppose in my own mind, take it as you will) that held up quite well for a period of ten hours. It held up with little variance, was reliable, as well as entertaining and profitable.

Strategy: I would go to a .25/.50 nl holdem table (7 to 10 man) and sit down with 7 to 10 dollars. (I did this at pokerrooom.com, which is quite similar to any other poker site.) The maximum buy-in is $25. I would sit and wait for AA, KK, AQs, AK, QQ, AJs, KQs basically upper group 2 and up, playing other playable hands normally, staying at even money. As soon as I hit one of these hands, I would go all-in. AQ, AK, you name it. I made $100 in ten hours doing this.

Why it works: Players at this level have no idea what a good hand looks like. I went all in about 2 times per hour (was called EVERY time, and that is not an exaggeration), and made about ten dollars an hour. I got called by Q 10, 3 4s, low pp's, KJ, and ANY ace in hand (probably about one third of the time). I never had a problem getting callers any time I had a decent hand. Players at this level just want to take a shot at your money. They don't realize that their hands suck. I think this is more effective at around 7 man tables: at ten man tables, you need to wait for some of the better hands. Once you doubled up, just play normal poker. If you get outdrawn, leave, cause they won't call you again.

Odds and Theory: Why It Works(ed). I believe this is a good strategy because 80% of the time, I was basically around a 2-1 (sometimes 3 to 1) favorite to win the hand (AQ vs. KJ, or AJ vs. KJ, or AK vs. Q9, etc). Every time I bet ten bucks and got called by some big stack, I typically was expected to make 6.66 on every ten I put in. About 10% of the time, I was a 4-1 favorite, and about 10% of the time, they had a better hand. So at worst, I was making fifty cents on every dollar I put in, minus the rake.

How it Failed: This strategy lost me about 70 bucks in 3 or four hours. I got outdrawn by hands like 5-9 vs my AK, etc, etc. for about 4 straight hours. The cards simply wouldn't show down. I got called by pp's about 4 times and didn't win a single one of those. My luck ran out, and my bank ran dry. I went up against AA one time out of about 12 all ins, and the rest of the time I got severely outdrawn, flopped two pair QJ vs. top pair Ace, he hits runner runner to a straight, etc, etc.

I stand by my strategy. I still think it works, and I still think it's a steady gameplan. This strategy WILL NOT work in a tournament, in a higher limit ring game, in limit holdem, etc. etc. And it fails if you stay at one table too long. But it seems to work at any table, no matter how tight the game seems. There's something about the psychology of the shortstack that makes people want to call you, that I simply can't understand. I don't care to understand, and I think in ten years, when I decide to start playing poker again, I will make money from it.

Conclusion: This strategy is about maximizing profits on strong hands, and not worrying too much about play on the flop. It neutralizes aggressive opponents, it neutralizes stupid opponents, and I think it's very profitable. You don't have to have good instincts to win, just a set of strong odds.

Counterarguments: 1. Q: Why don't you just play good poker, semibluff, etc. just like FTR says? A: I can make much more money, much steadier this way. It ought to be very reliable, and if I hadn't hit a wall of cards, I most likely would have doubled from 100 to 200 in ten hours. Also, the risk should be very low this way.

2. Q: Are you some kind of pussy? Don't you have any moxy? Why are you being such a baby. Get in there and PLAY! A: I think I've found a psychological exploitation, and I never said to stop playing well. You are still going to see flops from the blind, still going to play weaker hands, etc. so you aren't going belly up. You're just simply not bringing the max buying to the table. You can't win too big if you flop the boat and get pushed all in, but you can't lose more than ten bucks if you get outdrawn.

3. You can't defend a hand if you're all in like that. A: I don't need to. I'm taking the preflop odds, so if i get outdrawn in a hand, it doesn't matter. I had the advantage preflop, and I'm sticking to it.

4. You are an ass, and you are a stupid fag. I played against you and I think you're just a winy baby. A: You're right. I'm stupid. I'm stupid for going all in preflop with my AJ knowing that you'd call me with J 10.


The end.

BTW: I got my original bank from placing 4th in a 1600 man freeroll.

[Manomanman]

I made one mistake here. If you're a 2-1 favorite (AQ vs. KJ, if I'm not mistaken) you're getting 3.33 on every ten bucks you put in, if the odds hold up. You win ten bucks twice, then you lose one of them back, so in 3 all ins you should, on average, be up ten bucks. I say that I'm making .50 on every dollar because the majority of the time (about 50% overall), i'm getting called by two undercards, and I"m a larger favorite to win the hand (3-1 odds, right?), but it's AA, KK, and AK that tend to swing the calculation in my favor (assuming that they get called every time, which they do). Perhaps I'm making .35 on the dollar, on average, and minus the rake, .30 on the dollar. All in 33 times equals 100 dollars.

Are these calculations correct?

P.S. I've found this to be the most enjoyable way to "grind it out." It doesn't require much thought, and the profits tend to be steady and safe when the cards aren't fluctuating against you. And keep in mind this is assuming (correctly, imho) that your seven dollar all in will get called every time.

[maxxscam]

i think there are some guys on party that do this, they are all from the planert jupiter i think

[Manomanman]

Why I play like this:

I developed this strategy cause I got sick of big stacks ($100 at a .25/.50) chasing draws against me with incorrect odds and then playing insanely at the river. I was drizzeling away 3 or 4 bucks at a time against these whales, sometimes getting AA cracked and having my buyin busted, (why would they call a 3x pot bet on the flop with only a flush draw and no callers? To crack me. And BTW, these players rarely call you unless they know they're going to crack you...the type who fold to your nuts, and know exactly when they're going to hit their draw and put you all in on the river) So I decided to quit bringing the max buyin to the table to shut down their whale-like plaing style. It worked...until said whales took poor odds against me and somehow won.

I find it very difficult and irritating to play against whale players. I can usually make small change from these people, but I can't seem to get a decent pot out of them, because they mask their hand strength very well. These are the people who bet their draws the same way they bet top pair, and they seem to be going all in on the river every time they're at the river, and winning 90% of showdowns.

Because I can't stand winning small change and then losing big change, I decided to start getting a modest amount of money in when the cards were good against people willing to call any bet to "take your stack".

{This post has been removed}

[koolmoe]

But let me get this straight...you fold EVERYTHING except for group 2 and above pre flop ? I find it hard to fathom that you are getting callers when you demonstrate a reluctance to play hands.

It happens. The .25/.50 tables at Pokerroom are .10/.25 blind with $25 max buy-in. There are a fair number of players who will call an all-in with any A-paint hand.

I watched two players raise and reraise each other tonight until they were all-in preflop and was thinking AA vs KK. They flip over AJo vs. ATs. Crazy.

Still, I think this strategy is far from optimal. I'd rather learn to play postflop. It never bothers me for *anyone* to chase without pot odds.

[Manomanman]

1. I don't fold everything. I play position and odds quite accurately (basically using FTR as a bible in fact) before i hit these hands. I usually play less decent hands, in later positions, (depending on what I could defend on the flop) when i'm sure it won't be raised preflop. I defend my blind correctly. I see Q 10 suited for cheap, etc. I'm seeing about 20% of the flops, and playing solid poker postflop, maintaining an average table image. The point is to NOT DRAW ATTENTION to yourself, so nobody takes particular notice of you. You're just another flunky at the table.

In other words, I'm recommending a possible alternate strategy to use along with FTR advice: it's simply a method to minimize bad beat losses and increase strong hand profitability. You're still "in the game" and playing correctly. It's also a weapon to use when you're not quite confident in some aspects of your game. It seems to be a very reliable and profitable exploitative addition to a set way of playing poker.

1a. You'd be surprised at the number of people who will call a $7 all in preflop after you've folded 20 hands straights. I couldn't believe it myself at first. Try it for yourself, and it will blow your mind. (Keep in mind, I wasn't typically folding twenty hands straight, but during bad runs of cards, I would still get callers on that 20th hand.)

2. We're not talking about live holdem. It doesn't work in live holdem because you aren't free to sit-win-leave-sit-win-leave. Live holdem would DESTROY this strategy, because your table image is rotten if you do this. Online holdem is a whole different zoo, and I think unique strategies like this can capitalize on the nuances of a fast-paced environment. As I said before, the only table image you're sending is that you're a new guy at the table, and you've gone all in for seven to ten bucks. It gets callers at lower limits, and I don't know why.

Keep in mind that you're leaving before they pick up on it OR changing your style and playing normal holdem with 14-20 bucks you now have at the table. It can also be used to your advantage if you lose: you go all in with AQs, he has PP, calls, and wins. You buy back in for seven more bucks, catch AA, KK, QQ in the next ten hands, and you will most likely bust the next low pp who thinks they're taking a 50/50 shot at what they think is two overcars in your hand with their 33.

Players will be conscious of your first big move at the table. You have now drawn attention to yourself at the table, because you have created some big action, and you can use it as leverage in the coming hands. At one point, I was able to steal about 10 bucks worth of pots just by betting 5 hands aggressively in a row, after my first victorious all in. (Go from 10 bucks to 30 bucks in 6 hands wasn't terribly unusual playing this way). (The table typically only allowed me their blinds once I got this "fat" so I was usually forced to leave, per FTR table selection strategy.)

3. I don't personally think my success was a fluke, but I guess the point of this post is to find out. I don't consider my performance a fluke because I was still getting callers on hands which I was highly favored to win. The pattern I've discovered seems, preliminarily (based on about 35-40 cases, which does establish statistical power) to indicate that there's a strong tendency for a shortstack to get called.

I believe this to be a significant psychological phenomenon, and I WOULD do some statistical research on it except for the fact that I DON'T CARE about poker anymore. The loss I eventually experienced seems pretty typical of my overall poker experience. Having an elongated run of bad beats is quite statistically possible, and I'm tired of spending four hours "grinding away" to make up for the dumb luck that seems to go against me. (This is just a psychological idiosynchrosy I have: I make a hundred bucks, and then I get irritated when I lose 40 of it to a statistically common bad run of luck. I don't find it fun getting outdrawn for four hours, then having to spend four more hours playing well to make it all back. I realize that if I hadn't been bad beat 4 times in a row, I would be up a bunch instead of down a bunch.) Poker just seems to be a demoralizing, unforgiving game to me at this point.

I do believe that a disciplined player with a bankroll could, over the course of a week (a pretty long-term sample imho), playing 40 hours, make upwards of 300 to 400 dollars using this strategy. And tons of player points to boot.

[Manomanman]

Koolmoe:

It doesn't bother me for people to chase without correct odds either. I'm not bothered playing a solid game of poker, and I can usually outplay about 90% of players out there, decent or not.

It's when you run into a player of equal skill at your table who's absorbing tons of money from the inferior players, and you're not catching the cards he's getting (viz. you're at the typical calling station table where the optimum strategy is tight preflop, aggressive postflop) where this strategy can pay off. The fat cat will treat you like any other player, and pay you off.

There's also the chaotic table where you can't make heads or tails of anything going on whatsoever. You never know what hand you're up against, cause nobody knows how to play poker, and you can't sit and wait all day for the absolute nuts. This typically neutralizes that problem.

I will play solid poker any day, if I feel like it, but playing holdem this way seems clean, more reliable, and less psychologically demanding. It's consistent, and it works at ANY table. With standard FTR strategy, you've got to find an optimal table, and that can sometimes take a half hour of work. It makes me giddy to get AK called by KJ/K9/KQ. You have no idea how good that feels. It's exhilarating to no end.

[DrNoChance]

I have a bad feeling that you may run into a stretch of getting called on your all-ins by multiple callers, one of which has an idiot hand like KJs, and one who is a shark who has noticed that you don't need QQ or better to raise like that and calls you with JJ/AK or better and takes you down.

You don't need to go all-in like that to abuse the players who will call preflop raises with dominated hands. I realize that the all-in method keeps things nice and simple, but I still think that there is always more profit to be made from the fish by abusing them post flop. They can't get away from top pair when they hit a flop. You can take them to the cleaners with top kicker or an overpair. It's often way too obvious when they hit their flop, giving you a chance to fold your AKo to a lucky flop for QJs. If you go all-in, you have no chance to escape from the situations where the weaker hand pre-flop improves and yours doesn't. Just my thoughts, but I think I'll stick to conventional poker.

[Manomanman]

DrNoChance:

1. "Sharks" typically aren't the ones calling my $7 all in. Keep in mind that this is a hit and run tactic. I'm either switching strategies if I double up OR I'm not sitting at the table long enough for anybody to catch on to what I'm doing. That said, it's unlikely that the problems in paragraph 1 should arise. If they ever did start countering it, this strategy would utterly fail me and I would stop. But so far, I haven't encountered anything remotely resembling the paragraph 1 situation.

2. I like your point about abusing them post-flop.

However, someone made the point to me that, if i'm willing to go all in preflop with the hand, why not just bet half my stack ($3) preflop, then go all in once the flop hits no matter what comes: the odds of me winning were the same either way. I simply replied that it gives them to chance to get away from their mistakes. If Q 10 wants to call a $3 bet preflop, he can get away from it once the flop hits. He can't get away from me if he's called my $7...and he will do it every time.

Finally, this isn't a radical deviation from traditional poker. It's sort of an opening tactic at a table OR a tactic that can you can use hit-n-run. One must still play traditional poker on hands below group 2, it's simply a way to get more money out of weaker opponents.

[johnnyawe]

Nice post man..

Yeah, myself and some other people here have witnessed the "Jupiter Gang" using a similiar strategy on Party Poker.

I agree that this could be profitable.

I haven't read through this entire thread yet, but one thing you'll have to think about is when to leave the table. Maybe as soon as you double up you'll want to pocket that and sit down at a different table with only $7 again. This has the added benefit of people at the new table not catching on to you.

[johnnyawe]

But let me get this straight...you fold EVERYTHING except for group 2 and above pre flop ? I find it hard to fathom that you are getting callers when you demonstrate a reluctance to play hands.

Ripp, you've never played on Party.

Also remember that the 2 and 3 table players have a very hard time picking up on stuff like that.

[Fnord]

But let me get this straight...you fold EVERYTHING except for group 2 and above pre flop ? I find it hard to fathom that you are getting callers when you demonstrate a reluctance to play hands.

You'll get callers because it's a low limit Party Poker and if anyone raises to 4x+ BB in front of you, then calling the rest of your short stack isn't a horrible mistake.

[Fnord]

I agree that this could be profitable.

I haven't read through this entire thread yet, but one thing you'll have to think about is when to leave the table. Maybe as soon as you double up you'll want to pocket that and sit down at a different table with only $7 again. This has the added benefit of people at the new table not catching on to you.

Yeah, this is totally the Jupiter strat. Does he still complete his SB with any 2 cards?

Anyway, I used to see him multi-tabling and I'm certian he has accounts at multiple Party skins for bonus whoring. So I'm certain this is profitable, or he would have quit by now.

[Fnord]

Strategy: I would go to a .25/.50 nl holdem table (7 to 10 man) and sit down with 7 to 10 dollars. (I did this at pokerrooom.com, which is quite similar to any other poker site.) The maximum buy-in is $25. I would sit and wait for AA, KK, AQs, AK, QQ, AJs, KQs basically upper group 2 and up, playing other playable hands normally, staying at even money. As soon as I hit one of these hands, I would go all-in. AQ, AK, you name it. I made $100 in ten hours doing this.

Drop AJs and KQs out of position, perhaps even AQ. JJ and TT are much better all-in hands.

See:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=&sb=5&o=&vc=1

Here is the top part of the self-balanced all-in rankings...

AAo: 0.852774
KKo: 0.786445
QQo: 0.732733
JJo: 0.699019
TTo: 0.669922
AKs: 0.669236
AKo: 0.652736
AQs: 0.641415
99o: 0.633504
AJs: 0.622761
AQo: 0.622686
ATs: 0.607714
AJo: 0.602546
88o: 0.6019
ATo: 0.586468
A9s: 0.579613
77o: 0.575587
KQs: 0.567876
A8s: 0.560263
A9o: 0.556357
66o: 0.553482
KJs: 0.550502
KQo: 0.544779
A7s: 0.543824
KTs: 0.535916

So here is what I would run:

Any position: AA-TT, AK, AQs (1 out of 26 hands)
Late position (opening or behind loose limpers): Add 99, 88, AQ, AJ, ATs (1 out of 14 hands)
CO/Button/blinds opening: Add 77, AJ, AT, A9s, KQs (more?)
Behind a "tight" raiser: AA-QQ, (AK only if you're sure you'll be heads-up)
Limp with any pocket pair too small to push with if you can sneak in with a limp. Try to get all-in post-flop if you hit your set.

[Manomanman]

Thanks Fnord. NICE REPLY. That information was very helpful. In fact, the one time I went up against AA was when I was UTG with AQs.

The reason why I largely tended to ignore position was because AA/KK got limped or min raised 7 out of 10 times, and I'm not exaggerating this either. Most players REFUSED to do the raising. At a table like that, it would be important to slow down from the earlier positions, correct?

At tables where the first 8-9 hands go without a preflop raise, a few modifications to the strategy are in line (viz. drop out a few more of the lower hands), but I still think the strategy works because they're still calling your bets.

Also, I completed the SB with ALMOST any two cards, lol.

In the end, I think there's a large variance when one gets involved in too much preflop action, so I'm assuming that $100 wasn't large enough to outlast the "swings." I lost about $70 to inferior cards in 5 hours, and then lost the rest ($60) to TILT. Yes, I always lost to tilt, no lecture needed. That's why I quit playing poker as of today.

Last reply, thanks a lot everybody for your help, the end.

P.S. I know it's a conspiracy theory, but my cards always seem to run very poorly about 10 hours after I post my initial buy in. It's probably just the 10 hour tilt setting in, but this is the 3rd time I've hit a bad rush on my 2nd day after the buyin, and I have friends who will swear to the same phenomenon.

[KryptoZ]

This seems like a really good strategy for party players, and I'm sure it makes money. My only problem with it is that I think I could make more than $100 in 10 hours using deeper strategies and playing the other players. It does have a pretty good "guarantee" of making money though.

[koolmoe]

It doesn't bother me for people to chase without correct odds either. I'm not bothered playing a solid game of poker, and I can usually outplay about 90% of players out there, decent or not.

I agree that it is probably a profitable strategy, but I don't think you can claim that it will *maximize* earnings like you did in your initial post.

Also, it deserves bonus points for being easy to implement, as long as you can handle the psychological hits you'll take when you're outdrawn.

[ttanaka]

LOL, well I guess Manomanman COULDN'T handle the psychological swings.

This isn't a bad strategy, and I can totally believe that this could be a winning strategy, but like some of the other guys, I don't think it maximizes your winnings. The fish will make mistakes post-flop, and with a bankroll of $25 (or higher hopefully), those mistakes will cost them more.

Hey Manomanman, I don't understand why you're quitting, you sound like you know what you're doin, bad beats happen, what gives?

[Fnord]

Running 2 tables of this strat right now (got sick of the $60 beating I was taking.) Up $15 in 30 min. Only called once so far when I flopped 2 pair from my SB w/ T8s. Another time I grabbed a nice pot with a semi-bluff (double belly buster + straight.) However, I'm picking up around $2 of limper money each time I go all-in pre-flop.

[koolmoe]

This isn't a bad strategy, and I can totally believe that this could be a winning strategy, but like some of the other guys, I don't think it maximizes your winnings. The fish will make mistakes post-flop, and with a bankroll of $25 (or higher hopefully), those mistakes will cost them more.

This is a good point. If anything, we fish make more mistakes postflop than preflop. Even the fishiest of fish has seen charts of starting hands, but most underplay their strong hands and overplay their weak hands. If you're not taking advantage of that, you're missing out on EV.

The biggest problem I have with the strategy is that it would neither be fun nor challenging. I play poker strictly for the fun of it, and I don't desire to reduce my play to a Pavlovian button pushing exercise, even if it were guaranteed to make money. (I have a job for that )

FWIW, it sounds like Manomanman was frustrated from dedicating long hours to the strategy for little return, and I think that it reinforces my point that it isn't fun.

[Fnord]

Poor guy, kinda had to call...

***** Hand History for Game 747930810 *****
Table Jam & Juice (Real Money)
Seat 4 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: Player1 ( $25.2 )
Seat 2: Fnord ( $7.75 )
Seat 4: Player4 ( $22.9 )
Seat 5: Player5 ( $40.9 )
Seat 6: Player6 ( $25 )
Seat 7: Player7 ( $24.5 )
Seat 8: Player8 ( $31.2 )
Seat 9: Player9 ( $36.65 )
Seat 10: Player10 ( $48.25 )
Player5 posts small blind [$0.25].
Player6 posts big blind [$0.5].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Fnord [ Kd Kc ]
Player7 folds.
Player8 folds.
Player9 folds.
Player10 raises [$2].
Player1 folds.
Fnord is all-In.
Player4 folds.
Player5 folds.
BradNole83 has joined the table.
Player6 folds.
Player10 calls [$5.75].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 4d, 5h, 8h ]
Fnord: hi
** Dealing Turn ** [ Ah ]
** Dealing River ** [ Ad ]
Player10 shows [ 9s, 9c ] two pairs, aces and nines.
Fnord shows [ Kd, Kc ] two pairs, aces and kings.
Fnord wins $16.25 from the main pot with two pairs, aces and kings.

[DrNoChance]

One thing I will say about this strategy....it makes playing multiple tables much more feasible. There's no post flop descisions, or at least hardly ever. Running 3 tables could be easy (or more!). This isn't much fun, but perhaps it warrants a closer look....

[DrNoChance]

The more I think about it, the more I am curious as to what kind of $/hour somebody running 3 tables of this can pull in. It's not fun, it's not poker, but it's simple and easy to do with 3 tables over multiple hours without fatigue or tilt (you can only lose so much at a time with small stacks).

Against decent players, it wouldn't work. You just wouldn't get enough callers calling you down without premium goods. You'd mostly pick up the blinds/limper money, and when you did get challenged, it would be a something equally solid. You would slowly lose money over time, IMO.

But on Fishy Poker, people will call a small stack going all-in with non-ace non-pocket pair hands. A small stack doesn't get that much respect, and the gamblers know that all they can lose is 6-10 bucks or whatever your stack is. The maniacs can't give you any trouble. They can call you, but they can't re-raise you. It's just a matter of how many A7o and KQo and KJo etc. hands you can get the fish to call you with.

I play poker for fun, not money. I have a good job. Playing 3 tables of this all-in stuff wouldn't be fun, but I'm damn curious as to what the $/hour of 3-table Jupiter is over the long term.

Also curious as to whether it would work in the $50 rooms, or if the fish just aren't as plentiful there. If enough gamblers exist in the $50 rooms it just might work there as well, or work even better in terms of $/hour.

If anybody is planning on trying this for an extended experiment, please keep us posted on the results. I've got friends working for possibly less $ per hour than they could make playing monkey poker.

[ttanaka]

Monkey poker, LOL.

Looks like Fnord is putting the strategy to a real test, it'll be interesting to hear his take cuz he can make money the old-fashioned way too.

[Fnord]

Against decent players, it wouldn't work. You just wouldn't get enough callers calling you down without premium goods. You'd mostly pick up the blinds/limper money, and when you did get challenged, it would be a something equally solid. You would slowly lose money over time, IMO.

But on Fishy Poker, people will call a small stack going all-in with non-ace non-pocket pair hands. A small stack doesn't get that much respect, and the gamblers know that all they can lose is 6-10 bucks or whatever your stack is. The maniacs can't give you any trouble. They can call you, but they can't re-raise you. It's just a matter of how many A7o and KQo and KJo etc. hands you can get the fish to call you with.

I disagree. The limper money isn't trivial compared to your stack size. If you're tight enough, 8 times out of 10 you have the better hand. Once they come in with a raise, they don't save a whole lot of value by not calling your short stack with a worse hand. If they come in for a limp, they can't call your all-in and they know it.

IMHO, this illustrates a big flaw in the NL game, particularly when short stacks are allowed to sit down. S&M have made similar remarks.

I play poker for fun, not money. I have a good job. Playing 3 tables of this all-in stuff wouldn't be fun, but I'm damn curious as to what the $/hour of 3-table Jupiter is over the long term.

I did $20 in 1 1/2 hours of 2 tables at $25NL. In that time I saw QQ once, KK once (got called), and folded AQ at least twice (I think one of them might have been good). I also pushed with AJs, 88 and one other hand (can't remember) in late position to pick off limpers. Burned $2 trying to hit with pocket pairs (bad idea from EP with that stack, opps.) Finally, I cashed in from my blinds a couple times. My very rough guess it that it's around $5 per hour per table.

Also curious as to whether it would work in the $50 rooms, or if the fish just aren't as plentiful there. If enough gamblers exist in the $50 rooms it just might work there as well, or work even better in terms of $/hour.

Very good question.

Another great question is how you play this strat UTG. Is a limp/re-raise more +EV if the table has a clue?

[koolmoe]

In the $50 rooms, would you buy-in with double the amount from the $25 rooms ($14 or $20 instead of $7 or $10)? I'd guess you'd get even more callers if you were buying in for the same small amount. On Party, a 4xBB raise in a $50 room is $4 (1/2 your stack) - right? - so they'd almost have to call your all-in if they raised.

[DrNoChance]

You can't play with a stack that's too small relative to the size of the big blind, or you're not getting paid off enough when you get a hand relative to what it costs you to see 10 hands at the table. Probably 12-15 dollars sounds right for the 50 dollar NL tables....whether a $12 dollar all-in there is called as easily as a $6 raise in the $25 room remains to be seen.

Great question about limping vs. raising UTG with this system....but if you limp and they just call you have to see a flop...and then you're actually playing POKER, God forbid

[Manomanman]

I quit playing poker mostly because I lost my free $30 buyin that I won at the pokerroom.com freeroll, and I have no way to deposit money into an online account right now (my new debit won't allow online transactions).

BTW, it was MUCH more fun busting A5o preflop with AJs for ten hours straight than trying to get inside the heads of all those damned fish. I dedicated long hours to this strategy and got a BIG return, actually bigger than any I've had before.

I devised this system to reduce a lot of the unpredictible variables in the game. When you're sitting at a table of fish, the variance can be HUGE when not a single one of them has the slightest clue wha they're doing. You can attempt to outplay them all you want, but in the end, you're mostly just going to take your odds against them, because you can't narrow down what preflop hand ranges they will be on in a particular hand.

I found it quite common that there was no way to consistently play FTR starting hand advice because # of preflop callers was too unpredictible. For example, playing a normal game with normal bankroll, I would sometimes go 8 or 9 hands just stealing the blinds or change with a 4xBB raise ($1), catch AA on a hand, raise it $2 preflop, and get 7 callers. WTF!? Play money games are more predictible than that.

Koolmoe: It wasn't "dedicating hours to the strategy with little return" that was the problem. It was putting $10 behind AKs for 3 hours and having it cracked by 5 9s, Q 10o, etc. that irritated me. It's bad luck, not bad strategy that killed me. I enjoyed the game when the cards were holding up, but I tilt HARD and FAST if AK gets cracked by 2 undercards more than 3 times in a row, making me realize that I just wasted the past 3 and the next 3 hours. I'd rather read a decent book than play poker when the cards aren't there. I'm confident in my ability to play poker, but I have no faith in my emotions.

T.J. Cloutier talked about a guy who would play an amazing game of poker for two hours straight; Cloutier was even afraid of the guy for about 2 hours. But at EXACTLY two hours, the guy just fell apart, and T.J. loved to play with him because he knew he could rip the guy a new one every time. I'm that guy. And everyone else is T.J.

We always talk about "that one big game" we play in our lifetimes. You can't just take into account the edge that your skill gives you; you've got to consider other factors affecting long-term outcomes, like rake, tilt, cheating/collusion against you (however rare it may be), dealer tips, deposit and withdrawal fees, etc. etc. etc. I don't think it'll ever be profitable for me personally.

I have decided to limit my poker play to B&M casinos, once a month, strictly for entertainment/drinking purposes. There are some decent casinos around the L.A. area that I would like to explore. I would really like to refine my live game skills, and I'm sure that you can gain a much larger edge in a live game against crappy opponents.

Thanks again everyone for posting.

The end, for real.

[Fnord]

The system calls for a 10x - 20x BB stack. I thought that went without saying...

I will argue that being called isn't important if there are enough limpers. What is important is having a short enough stack such that calling isn't hugely -EV. This puts the limpers or initial raiser in a difficult spot. Also getting a free/cheap peek from your blinds is a big bonus.

Also, consider that the system has a very low rake exposure. Particularly if PP has a "no flop no drop" rule (need to investigate this.)

[DrNoChance]

Keep us posted on your results. Sounds like you're making this work so far. It would be interesting to hear how the $ per hour you make with this system compares to your usual $ per hour, considering that you're a consistant money maker with conventional poker play.

It would seem that the real strength of the system has to do with the advantage in playing a short stack more so than the advantage of avoiding post-flop play (which ISN'T an advantage for a strong player other than the simplicity in running multiple tables easier).

[michael1123]

Right, to me it sounds like this benifits a bad player, since it takes the playing out of ... well, playing.

[AvatarKava]

While it will certainly benefit weaker players to use a strategy such as this, it might also benefit stronger players in that they can now play 5-6... who knows how many? tables at once, if there are no decisions to be made post-flop.

I'm interested to see Fnord's results.

[gutshot]

I turned $4 into $14 during a 20 minute hit n run with this strategy at the Paradise $10NL tables.

[AvatarKava]

By the way, I've been trying this on RVP with what little money I have at the $0.25/0.50s and I'm up $50 in the first half hour (initial $10 buyin). I've been called with AA by KQ offsuit, AKs by 98s (in the same suit, no less), and a host of other ones I couldn't explain for the life of me ...

[AvatarKava]

Of course, it always hurts when someone with a 74o calls your $5.50 raise with QQ and makes a set of 7s on the river to suck you out...

Edit: Also having 5 callers when you come to a table and catch KK on the first hand - and losing to QJo with two pair.

{This post has been removed}

[AvatarKava]

At least I was all-in, so I didn't have to feel stupid about calling a bet when I was already beat

[AvatarKava]

Here's a good one - no hand history with RVP so I'll just have to type it...

I'm on the button with - move all-in as prescribed (around $9 at that point), and BOTH blinds call (both large stacks).

The flop comes - I've got no clubs. BB bets the SB out of the hand, and the turn brings , river .

I'm sunk, right? Surely someone calling a $9 bet had to have at least one Ace or King, or a club ... TT is a possibility here too...

He flips ... I'm baffled.

[Humphrind]

The flop comes - I've got no clubs. BB bets the SB out of the hand, and the turn brings , river .

I'm sunk, right? Surely someone calling a $9 bet had to have at least one Ace or King, or a club ... TT is a possibility here too...

He flips ... I'm baffled.

I would imagine that SB had a K or A but was scared of the flush. BB bought him out of the pot, but had to show his bluff because you were all-in.

[AvatarKava]

I would imagine that SB had a K or A but was scared of the flush. BB bought him out of the pot, but had to show his bluff because you were all-in.

Which is my point, sort of - I'm assuming the SB had something good to call the preflop raise, but why bluff that big on the flop as the BB if you're not picking up any side pot chips?

If I moved in, he has to figure I've at least got a high pair by this point. Therefore, the BB has to know he's behind me. With the call, he probably has to figure he's behind the SB as well - why risk the possibility that the SB hit and is just checking to induce a bet when you have a hand that:

a) Is probably losing already
b) Has almost no possibility of improving without helping someone else

[DrNoChance]

I've been messing around with this a bit, bringing a small stack to the table and playing standard poker after doubling up.

There's definitely something about being the short stack....with a full stack if I raise $3 I usually get few callers that don't have a strong hand...if I raise $6 as a short stack I get called by KQ and A8o. Baffling. I'm starting to think that in the online world respect = stack size. People aren't paying that close attention to how you play, so if you have 3x max buy-in in front of you you can steal some pots (people assume you've got the goods and that you're solid) where as somebody with pittance in front of them is assumed to be weak/foolish. For whatever reason, the small stack all-in gets callers you don't get with a full stack.

[Fnord]

I've been messing around with this a bit, bringing a small stack to the table and playing standard poker after doubling up.

lol, lately I've just been finding a different table, rinse and repeat

[Godzilla99]

I've been messing around with this a bit, bringing a small stack to the table and playing standard poker after doubling up.

lol, lately I've just been finding a different table, rinse and repeat

Has anyone perfected this strategy? I am interested in it... I would play all day long if I could make $5 / hour and play 3 tables!
What hands should be played pre-flop and what position, etc?

Any information would be helpful.

John

[elipsesjeff]

Lonnie, if you see this article, this is what I was telling you about on IRC the other day. Of course, you just wait until you got TPTK and go all-in. But if it aint broke....



I tried this strategy a little bit and it sounds like just a suck-out way to play NL HE. Wheres the fun in the game if you don't actually PLAY?

[allLiving]

People give up too easy! I was down a good $1000 before I started making money,

Never, never give up.

[TheDoc]

i decided to try it out since im bored with pp right now.

first hand
dealth jj all in 2 callers...
910c
57d

tripled up =)

[TheDoc]

I plan on trying this strategy for a month over winter break, ill document all my sessions on here if you want me to, new operation i guess. I think ill do about between a 100-200$ br for this, math wizzes does this sound right.

[dalecooper]

I didn't read this entire thread, so I don't know if anyone has commented on this yet, but I can tell you exactly why you get called most of the time going all-in with a short stack. It's because of the large quantity of bad players on Party who buy in with $5 at a time and go all in the first time they see a marginal hand... like Ax suited, or any two face cards, or sometimes just about anything. They buy in for $5, go all in, get called and lose, then buy back in and repeat. I've seen guys sit at tables and do this over & over wasting $25-40 before they leave. I have no idea what they're after... it's just like this strategy but instead they play absolute crap, and go all in at the drop of a hat. Basically if they play a pot, they'll be all in before or on the flop every time. These players have created an illusion at Party that every player with < $10 going all in has a weak hand.

Case in point: yesterday I'm at a table with AJ suited. A guy with $4.50 left goes all in, one guy calls and I call. Ordinarily based just on the bet amount I'd assume he had aces, kings, or queens, and fold it; but it's the magical all-in. The flop comes with an ace on it, I bet, and the other monkey now goes all-in for like $5. So I call that. He types in the chat box: "Let's gamble." All the cards come out and I win, and respond "Yes, let's." What did our pair of simians have? The first guy had A8o. The second guy had 69o (and there was neither a six or a nine on the flop).

Players like these are why strategies like this work. Because guys like me - fairly profitable, intelligent players - see the short stack all-in as a sign of a weak hand masquering as strength. And at least 80% of the time, that's a correct judgement call. I'll gladly pay off anyone using this tactic 20% of the time so I can give myself great odds to win the other 80%. And of course that's assuming I don't pick up on what you're doing first. If you sit and play normally for an hour and THEN go all-in, I'm not likely to call you. It's usually not that hard to figure out which ones are the monkeys. Then again, I don't multi-table that much, so I might be paying more attention than most of the other players.

[TheDoc]

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...?p=38578#38578

[KingDan]

Not quite as drastic, but one very tight strategy I like using with people I have never played with is as follows.
Go out of my way to make small, very weak bluffs or call with terrible hands. If they bet/reraise with nothing I just show them and say " i was just messing around" with a smile

In addition to allin hands, you should also play all the pocket pairs cheaply. Then maybe push if you hit the set.

[KingDan]

Not quite as drastic, but one very tight strategy I like using with people I have never played with is as follows.
Go out of my way to make small, very weak bluffs or call with terrible hands. If they bet/reraise with nothing I just show them and say " i was just messing around" with a smile

In addition to allin hands, you should also play all the pocket pairs cheaply. Then maybe push if you hit the set.

[Hubris1]

Tried this out the other day on Pstars while playing on some larger tables. Went all in about eight times, got about four called pots, most of them were multiway. Won every single pot, got one bad beat when QQ called my cowboys and hit a Q on the river.

Anyway, made about forty bucks, which I like making money, but I also like playing poker, and that's not really poker.

[Manomanman]

I thought this post was long dead, but I guess it might be helpful to come back to it and provide some clarifications.

I've always looked at most poker games as games of skill. I authored this thread based on two assumptions: 1) In lower limit NL cash games, a different set of skills found in Sklansky & Malmuth's, etc. etc. books are required to beat those games. This strategy 2) It is a moneymaking strategy, and as such, it may or may not be as profitable as TAgg against weak/tight players in low stakes games. One point of this post was to find out how well this second assumption holds true.

The underlying "spirit" of this post is that I was awe-struck by the number of times my short stack all-in got called by junk. From a game theory perspective, I can think of 2 reasons why this might happen. a) My opponents don't understand the way math functions in holdem, and therefore they don't understand that they are making a suboptimal play with 9 10 offsuit. b) They think that I am the one making a play with a junk hand, and therefore, they think they are making a slightly +EV play by "gambling" or "racing" with me. I think a combination of the 2 results in the large number of preflop calls.

Assumption 1: Skill sets. NL holdem is a game that, in certain isolated situations, favors those players with the fewest poker skills. You may baulk at this statement, but there is quite a good amount of evidence to support it.

The main reason this statement is true is that NL holdem requires fewer decision than limit and PL holdem. NL holdem often boils down to a mathematicians game, because you are left to make a single decision preflop, and this decision is oftentimes a simple probability calculation. You cannot be outplayed.

The primary situation in which my strategy holds true is "short stack" NL holdem. It is true because NL holdem, when played correctly and "purely," is a game of implied odds. When 9 players at the table buy in for 10xBB, you have absolutely no implied odds. As such, the skilled player's arsenal of plays is diminished. Any time a pot is played correctly, most players are pot committed to their whole stack. This can be EXTREMELY frustrating to a decent player who makes correct plays over and over but gets "chipped away" by small stacks sucking him out. Good play doesn't work because "folding equity" is missing from these situations. In essence, the probability of getting an opponent to fold on the flop/turn/river is so low that bluffing is largely incorrect, and a weak/tight strategy becomes more appropriate.

In sum, I'm pointing out that short stack NL holdem is a crapshoot (viz. there are almost no post-flop decisions) that can be stacked in the favor of the player who is more selective about his starting hands. [In fact, I believe that this is the ONLY situation in holdem in which a player ought to even consider starting hand charts; in games with implied odds, you're playing your opponents' hand, not yours.]

Assumption 2: The first assumption basically answers the second assumption. However, the reader must keep in mind that this is a MONEYMAKING strategy. I do not consider it "playing poker." It works because the internet offers the ability to switch tables at will, the ability to bring a short stack to the table (you can't do this in casinos), and a large pool of players willing to turn a holdem game into a modified crapshoot.

Some readers are probably dismayed by this fact. One thing the poker books out there don't address enough is the way to measure the amount of skill or luck involved in a particular poker game. Uninitiated players will often play in any poker game thinking, "It's poker, so playing TAgg like my books taught me will give me an edge."

Micro-stakes holdem is a game that big-time authors fail to understand thoroughly, and most of them miss the point of my strategy because they're enamored by the fact that holdem is a "game of skill." It's harder for them to sell books that tell you the god's honest truth, that some poker games simply cannot be beaten by conventional, cannonical strategy.

[Manomanman]

cancel

[Manomanman]

cancel

[elanto]

Im very curious about this strategy, however I only play SNG's so it doesnt work ther, maybe ill gamble some dollars in ring games jus to try it out, Ill let you know how I did...


-anto

[Lucid]

One downside of this strategy is that if you get involved in a hand without going all-in then you are unable to scare out opponents when you get a strong but vulnerable hand on the flop or turn. I lost 2 stacks by betting my whole stack when I got two high pair but I was unable to scare opponents out with my small all-in bet. They had correct odds to stay in and out draw me and that’s just what they did. So I’m thinking that when I follow this strategy I’m going to focus on the all-in pre-flop and the all-in set and limit the rest of my play.

[linker33]

Any suggestions on what size stack you should have at the table. 10, 15, 20 BB?

[Lucid]

I think the most important factor involved in deciding how large of a stack to use is the size of the other player’s stacks. You want to choose a table with a large percentage of players seeing the flop with lots of large stacks. Tight aggressive thinking players will not call you with anything except good hands. Smaller stacks will not call you as often either unless they have stacks at least as small as yours. Very small stacks might call you with anything and they are the reason that people don't respect small stacks and the reason this strategy works.

As a general guideline I would suggest using approximately 1/5 the size of the max buy-in. If the table has lots of players with smaller stacks than 3/4 buy-in then I would suggest maybe a little smaller stack size. I tried this and used a 6.50 stack at the 25-dollar tables and would go as low as 5.00 if other stacks at the table were small. Of course some of the players with large stacks are winning because they are good and they are less likely to call you.