|
Question about PFRing size and V-Betting/Bluffing Aces on Flop/Turn
I GET SOOOOO MUCH CONFLICTING ADVICE IN THIS GAME FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES, IT IS SO FRUSTRATING AND HARD TO MASTER THE STEEP LEARNING CURVE OF THIS GAME WITH ALL THE CONFLICTING ADVICE OUT THERE.
See here's what irks me. Once again this involves a certain "friend" I've mentioned in the past on these forums. Unfortunately I don't meet too many "new people" in poker so basically he's my only resource in terms of meeting people who play on a professional level. I've offered to meet some of you on skype, so perhaps I could have a different perspective on poker than I'm getting from the one guy I know who plays the game and logs on skype, but no one has taken up any of my offers.
This is two parts.
First part involves PFRing sizes/position at the table, the 2nd part involves bluffing aces on flop/turn
Ok so in the past I was listening to a podcast by AE Jones, and read a document called "No BUllshit 6-max" by Bestpokercoaching.com
I was actually doing pretty good doing what these teaching sources taught me when it came to PFRing size before I took a recent $1,000 or so downswing in my bankroll over these past 3 weeks or so.
I had adjusted my PFRing size to my position at the table, both sources, AEJones and No-Bullshit advocated this, 4bb from UTG, 3.5bb from MP1, 3bb from CO, 2.5bb from BTN.
3 weeks ago or so, perhaps not longer after my huge downswing started, I allowed a certain "friend" to watch me at the tables. He started telling me I was playing like crap, I was just clicking buttons. First thing he wanted me to change about my game was my PFRing size. He wants me to go back to a standard 3bb, from all positions at the table, I think in part because this is his favorite PFRing size, in part because he felt if I didn't know "why"I had different PFRing sizes from each position, I.E. tell him verbatim the author's reasoning in No-Bullshit 6-max or AE Jones in his podcast, then I automatically shouldn't do it.
This sizing makes no accommodation for people who call too wide, people who 3bet too wide from oop/IP, whether I'm playing a strong hand (Like I often am from UTG since I usually play a very tight range from UTG so I don't mind the 4bb PFR when I'm strong) or a weak hand, like I generally do from the BTN, so if I raise 2.5bb and a prolific 3bettor from the blinds, 3bets me, I lose less if I fold than if I PFR'd 3bb. 3bb that's it, that's the final word. If I don't do this PFRing size he's going to get mad at me, and go into a dialogue about how I never listen to him and I'll always be a losing player at poker because I don't listen to him.
Last night, I lost over $200 at poker playing 25NL! It was like 8.5 buy ins in 2 sessions in one night. Obviously I'm not happy about it, so I decided to pull up a poker document and start reading it. I pull up Beluga Whale's "Easy Game I". Again, 3rd source that I've read now, advocates changing up my PFRing based on my opponents at the table, and my position (it specifically mentions not to change PFRing size due to PF hand strength since this gives away too much information about your hand at the table).
Three different sources tell me to make this, basically #1 fundamental change in every pot I get involved in, vs my friend, who advocate ALWAYS PFRing exactly 3bb. He's gonna get pissed if I change it back to how it was but you know what fuck that, I'm going to do, what now THREE different poker experts have said about PFRing sizes in my readings, Ed Miller, Beluga Whale, and AE Jones.
OK, #2, bluffing aces on flop/turn.
OK so I was reading Small Stakes No-Limit Hold Em by Ed Miller. If this is a long read, trust me this part of the thread is most DEFINITELY worth it.
First of all I need to make it known that my "friend" gets very angry when you play a hand "tricky" I.E. deceptively. If you have a hand worth betting, he advocates bet-bet-betting every street to maximize your value.
As soon as you slowplay, or put in a deceptive check on the turn when you have say TP on a dry board with no overs to your TP and don't expect to get called by worse or want to make villain think his 2nd pair might be good on river, he gets mad, says I don't listen to him, this is why I'll always suck at poker, and what not, specifically because I try to play nutted hands "tricky". Ok, maybe he has a point because slowplaying say a 1 pair hand that can easily get drawn out on you often backfires, gotta keep him happy, or he's going to get mad at me and maybe he's 100% right, maybe I do suck at poker, because I deviate from what he says I should, and sometimes experiment with what book authors/podcasts say I should try out from time to time.
SO a couple days ago I was sweating his brother playing 5nl, and I told him about this tip I learned in Small-Stakes by Ed Miller, that sometimes you should check the turn when you have the ace, and bet the turn, when you don't have the ace. Unfortunately this hand was a bad hand to do it on, as when he checked turn and bet river, he got raised on river (river raises are virtually never bluffs) and had to fold.
So my friend hears I caused his brother to lose a big pot in 5nl even though he had TPTK, and he got all angry over me trying to teach his brother how to play "tricky". I agree that perhaps I messed up the advice as given by Ed Miller because I didn't have the section of the text memorized verbatim (he specifically advocated doing this with weak aces as opposed to big aces) He said where the hell did you get that idea from that's how you're supposed to slow play the turn with TPTK?
I pulled up the EXACT reasoning that Ed Miller gave.
In the section "Ace High Boards and Continuation Betting"
It basically advocates bluffing one and done on ace high flops because the ace is a scare card to most of his range and he won't want to peel if he's drawing practically dead to the ace, but he's unlikely to fold turn and perhaps river if he does hold the ace, hence Ed Miller's reasoning behind one and done on ace high flops.
In the next section "Aces on the turn" an ace hits on the turn.
Ed Miller says that the ace on the turn will be scary to someone who holds a smaller pair, and therefore turn bluffs will work quite often against your opponents. The opponent will think you checked behind on the flop with ace high, and then spiked your ace on the turn when you bet. Ed Miller then says, but if you actually DO hold the ace, especially with a weak kicker, it's better to check it back on the turn, rather than bet it. The reason is simple. The ace is a good bluffing card, meaning that your opponents will often suspect you have an ace and fold weaker pairs. SO when you have an ace, they won't give you much action with weaker hands. On the other hand, you'll get plenty of action from bigger aces, aces up, and better. Since the turn bet will tend to get action mostly from better hands, and since a pair of aces will usually hold up if ahead, checking it on the turn is the best play.
He then goes on to say that you'l be betting your weak hands as bluffs on ace turns, and check back many of your aces, an inverted strategy. Against unthinking players they'll think "I guess he has an ace" when you bluff the turn ace, and fold. Against the unthinking player, if you check back the turn ace, they'll think "I guess he doesn't have an ace. Maybe my pair is good". and will call most bets on river if you bet your ace for value on river and is often ahead.
So anyways I trot out this line of reasoning straight from the writings of Ed Miller himself and my friend says, no shit, "I'M BETTER THAN ED MILLER!". Something about that book's advice being outdated and not good for todays games, just use a bet-bet-bet strategy as he advocates now.
I dunno it's frustrating, I mean on the one hand I like to try out stuff in these books and documents I have, and podcasts, on the other hand, it often makes my friend angry when he catches me doing the stuff in these books as he claims I'm trying to play "tricky" I.E. deceptively. Whatever.
I quit reading the Ed Miller book altogether after that encounter with my friend, since apparently the advice Ed Miller gives is going to make him angry. I just sorta gave up on "Small Stakes" even though I liked the book and the advice seemed pretty solid to me.
What do you guys think?
|