Introduction to Small Stakes No-Limit Hold ’em: Help Them Give You Their Money
Hi Everyone:
Here's part of the Introduction to or upcoming book Small Stakes No-Limit Hold ’em: Help Them Give You Their Money. We expect to have the printed book up on Amazon in less than a month:
Introduction
Let’s start this book off with a few examples. These are just a few of the many types of hands which for the live small stakes games, usually $2-$5 or less, that we play differently from the way almost all other players in these games will play them, and is also different from much of the standard advice that is out there. So why do we do this?
The answer is simple. Against poor playing opponents, the best strategy for maximizing your win rate is to exploit these players as much as possible, sometimes with plays that look extreme. Especially to an “expert” player who often relies on Game Theory Optimal (GTO) to model his strategy.
Now, we understand that those who usually play GTO will, when appropriate, exploit their opponents. They do so when they see an opponent playing very badly which will make them make changes to their standard strategy. But they usually do this only in very obvious cases.
But that’s not the way we play these small stakes games. In these games, assuming the game is eight or nine-handed, it’s common to be against four ot more terrible players, and even most of the remaining players, who are usually semi-competent, will still make some significant errors, especially late in the hand when the big bets are in play.
If you were to go into a higher stakes (live) game, usually $5-$10 and up, where there are many strong players, and do many of the things that we’ll be recommending, your results will probably be disappointing. But if you stick to a game like $1-$3 no-limit hold ’em where the maximum buy-in is usually 100 to 200 big blinds, and follow the advice that is contained in this book, we suspect that you’ll be quite surprised and pleased with your results.
Our approach is not looking to make lots of great plays where you may steal a pot or knock a player out who, if he had stayed in, might have beaten you on a later street. We’re also not interested in constantly balancing our strategy and putting our opponent(s) at an “indifference point.” The experts can worry about that stuff, and if that’s your approach, play the higher stakes or perhaps limit hold ’em where recognizing small edges is highly important. But if you simply want to let your opponents give you their money, we’ll show you how to do it.
A Few Examples
(Again, these examples show you only a small number of the many ideas we will soon tell you about.) To see what we’re talking about, here are five examples. Notice that in every one of these hands, we’re playing differently, and sometimes very differently, from the way most poker instructors, coaches, book authors, poker video content producers, etc., will tell you how to play. It's true that, in general, their advice may be reasonably good, especially against tougher players than those we’ll be addressing. But it won’t be well targeted for these small stakes games. And if you’re playing live, these are the vast majority of games that are spread in our public cardrooms.
Example No. 1: Here’s a hand that David played in a Las Vegas $1-$3 game. It’s an extreme example, but we want to start with it to show how different many of the strategies in this book are and to give you an idea of how different, in some situations, our approach to maximizing your expectation is from the typical player, and this includes most of those who are currently having some success in live $1-$2, $1-$3, $2-$5, and similar no-limit hold ’em games.
In a $1-$3 no-limit game, David was dealt the
K♦ K♣
two positions to the right of the button. The first four players limped in and David only called. The next two players folded, the small blind called, and the big blind checked.
The flop came the
J♠ 9♥ 7♠
The under-the-gun player bet, two players called, and then David threw his pair of kings in the muck.
Virtually no one else, at the time of this writing, would play a pair of kings in late position in a multiway pot this way. They would have made a substantial raise before the flop, and on the flop they would have certainly played their hand.
But let’s notice something obvious. If one of the last two positions or one of the blinds would have raised, when the action got back to David, he would have the option to make a big reraise, and if there were also a couple of callers, he would almost always be a large favorite to win a big pot assuming he got at least one caller.
As for his fold on the flop, given the way the hand was played, the reason for David’s fold is a little more complex, and that will be explained in detail later in this book. He would not have folded if the flop would have come something like the
J♠ 7♥ 2:♣
So, this example should give you an idea of what this book is about. To be specific, it’s playing your hands in the way that will exploit the weak players to the maximum. And as you can see from this example, some of the ways to do this aren't the ways that are generally advocated by the current crop of poker instructors and poker coaches as well as some of whom have been around. But there are ways, which will allow you to win the maximum at a reasonable risk that these small live stakes games have to offer.
Example No. 2: This hand was played by David. Under-the-Gun in a $1-$3 game at a full table, David held the
A♠ K♠
Instead of raising first in as most poker instructors would recommend, he limped in for $3 and got three callers behind him plus the big blind. So, after the rake, there was $15 in the pot.
The flop came the
K♣ 9♥ 4♣
and with top pair, top kicker, David bet $15 and got one caller. The pot (after the rake) is now $42.
David saw that his lone opponent only had $80 left. And when a T♦ came on the turn, David bet $80 and was called by his opponent who was now all-in. Unfortunately, a club came on the river and this player showed the
6♣ 2♣
for a flush which won the pot.
Now some of you might say that if David had raised before the flop, as most players would, he would have won the pot. But notice that he got his opponent to call a large bet (for this game) getting 1.5-to-1 odds when he needed to make a 4-to-1 shot. So, theoretically, David won much more playing the hand this way than he would have won playing the hand in a conventional manner. And over time, these theoretical wins do turn into real money.
Example No. 3: Here’s a hand that Mason played. A timid early position player limped in, and Mason had concluded that this player absolutely never bluffed. Everyone folded to Mason who called with the 7♥7♦ on the button. The small blind folded and the big blind checked.
Three random cards, including one overcard to the sevens, flopped. The big blind checked, the timid player bet a modest amount, and Mason folded.
Example No. 4: Here’s another hand that Mason played. In a $1-$3 game, an overly loose-aggressive player, two positions to the right of the button, raised to $10. The button called and Mason, who held the
A♠ K♠
in the big blind called. Notice that the standard play would be to make a big reraise.
The flop came the
J♥ 6♦ 3♠
Mason checked, the loose-aggressive player bet $15, the button folded, and Mason called with his ace-king and three-flush. The turn was the 6♠ giving Mason a four-flush. Mason checked, the loose aggressive player bet $25, and Mason called.
The river was the A♣. Mason checked, the loose-aggressive player bet $50 and Mason called with his (now) aces-up and king kicker. The loose aggressive player then turned over the
A♦ 2♥
Notice that he had bet a total of $100 on all four streets and never had the best hand.
Example No. 5: And for our final example, here’s a hand that David played. Before the flop in a $1-$2 game that had a maximum $300 buy-in, David called a limp with the
8♠ 7♠
Five players, not including the small blind, saw the flop, and after the rake there was $10 in the pot. The flop was the
A♠ 9♠ 4♣
which gave David a flush draw. An early position player bet $8, and David called. Now there was $25 (after the rake) in the pot and both players had plenty of chips. The turn was a blank and David’s opponent bet $15 into the $25 pot bringing it to $38 (after the rake). This meant that David would be receiving immediate odds of $38-to-$15, or 2.53-to-1, to call. And since making a flush on the river is approximately 4-to-1, even if David can collect an additional bet when his flush comes in, this does not seem like enough to warrant a call. But David went ahead and called, bringing the pot to $52 (after the rake).
The flush card came on the river. The early position player checked, and David bet $70, $18 more than the size of the pot. And after thinking for a while, the early position player called and his top pair lost to the flush and David made $108 on his $15 call, which is approximately 7.2-to-1 on a 4-to-1 shot.
I don't think the authors claim to have expertise on GTO. Not sure of the relevance of GTO to 1/3NL. That is maybe partly why they wrote a low stakes book. I am they and most people here know something about GTO. GTO means information based on solvers, not general game theory.
There's not much of a difference between multi-way and heads-up? There's tons of situations where you'd fold multi-way but play heads-up. A heads-up solver isn't going to teach you that.
You sound like a complete fraud. And given the number of silly posts you make in a day, I doubt you'd have time to study solver output or understand them even if so inclined. I don't know what axe you need to grind, but please stop embarrassing yourself and wasting everyone's time.
There's not much of a difference between multi-way and heads-up? There's tons of situations where you'd fold multi-way but play heads-up. A heads-up solver isn't going to teach you that.
You sound like a complete fraud. And given the number of silly posts you make in a day, I doubt you'd have time to study solver output or understand them even if so inclined. I don't know what axe you need to grind, but please stop embarrassing yourself and wasting everyone's time.
So you’ve spent the money on Upswings libratus package? And you examined the EV of diff options HU vs MW and you found there to be huge differences ?
Cool. I didn’t find that.
GTO will win in low stakes games. But it's comically sub optimal. The entire strategy is based on not being exploited in a player pool where 99 percent of players aren't trying to exploit you.
GTO is actually exploitative. People just think it defensive because when you have two solvers play the best either one can do is break even. If you force one solver to make mistakes the other will absolutely adjust to exploit it.
So you’ve spent the money on Upswings libratus package? And you examined the EV of diff options HU vs MW and you found there to be huge differences ?
Cool. I didn’t find that.
You are wasting your money on GTO packages when you play 1/3.
There is maybe a slight difference between the solvers' assumptions and 5-way to the flop at live low-stakes.
So you’ve spent the money on Upswings libratus package? And you examined the EV of diff options HU vs MW and you found there to be huge differences ?
Cool. I didn’t find that.
I have no reason to purchase such a course. But you pretend you have, yet you didn't seem to know the Upswing course wasn't based on Pluribus (and who says such a course is the final word?), and incorrectly cited it when trying to make a point. You continually put forth your supposed credentials as some sort of proof you know what you're talking about. Yet you never explain why your view is correct. You just tell other they're wrong, and cite these fake credentials. No one believes you have access to Pluribus. No one believes you could glean anything out of Pluribus hand histories even if you studied them. No one believes you can beat 1/3 NL. The S&M book has many examples explaining their point of view. No such examples from you demonstrating otherwise. And their credentials are well know in the poker community. And their education background is well known. That doesn't prove their recommendations are correct. But criticizing those recommendations without backing up your opinions with explanations beyond your fake credentials is laughable. You're obviously just a troll who gets off tearing down the work of others without contributing anything of worth of your own.
Have I made my point?
I have no reason to purchase such a course. But you pretend you have, yet you didn't seem to know the Upswing course wasn't based on Pluribus (and who says such a course is the final word?), and incorrectly cited it when trying to make a point. You continually put forth your supposed credentials as some sort of proof you know what you're talking about. Yet you never explain why your view is correct. You just tell other they're wrong, and cite these fake credentials. No one believes you have acce
Mic drop
GTO is actually exploitative. People just think it defensive because when you have two solvers play the best either one can do is break even. If you force one solver to make mistakes the other will absolutely adjust to exploit it.
Your interchanging solver output with GTO. They're not the same thing. No one knows what the GTO strategy is to NL poker, but the GTO strategy doesn't change based on the strategies of the players. Solvers are a tool we use to try and come close to what the GTO strategy is. But solvers can also be used to find exploitable strategies based on assumptions.
GTO is not exploitable by definition. Solvers, on the other hand, are trying to exploit by design. If, and that's a huge "if", you properly define the ranges of the players and properly node lock how the players will act/react in the game tree, then you can get a strategy that exploits the player's weaknesses (as defined). But if the ranges or node locks are off, so is the strategy, and that strategy is exploitable by the very players that strategy was trying to exploit.
The only time the GTO strategy would change would be if you changed the rules of the game. Not if you changed the strategies used by the players.
Your interchanging solver output with GTO. They're not the same thing. No one knows what the GTO strategy is to NL poker, but the GTO strategy doesn't change based on the strategies of the players. Solvers are a tool we use to try and come close to what the GTO strategy is. But solvers can also be used to find exploitable strategies based on assumptions.
GTO is not exploitable by definition. Solvers, on the other hand, are trying to exploit by design. If, and that's a huge "if", you properly defi
I do use the 2 terms interchangeably but even a static gto balanced strat with zero adjustments. I would argue it more than most humans. While gto isn't making any effort to exploit its also never being exploited and will naturally make money off of mistakes. On a recent episode of solve Berkey and turtle said a gto strat would crush a low stakes live game for at least 30xbb per100.
Part of the reason Pointless can't beat 1/3 is he is spending money on fancy GTO packages when it would make sense only to study the basics of GTO. Spending $500 on some GTO information would only be appropriate for a winning mid to high stakes player. I would suggest he read the book he is criticizing and other books and videos geared towards low stakes games.
I read the book in OP and made some criticisms of it based on actually reading it. I would be interested if Pointless had read it and had comments on specific things in the book.
I do use the 2 terms interchangeably but even a static gto balanced strat with zero adjustments. I would argue it more than most humans. While gto isn't making any effort to exploit its also never being exploited and will naturally make money off of mistakes. On a recent episode of solve Berkey and turtle said a gto strat would crush a low stakes live game for at least 30xbb per100.
30 bb/100? Sounds optimistic, especially for a full ring game with a typical rake. If you get 40 hands per hour, that's 12 BB per hour, which is very good. I don't know what the best exploitative players make at the lowest stakes, but it can't be that much more than that. But I agree, GTO would fair better than most players normal strategies would, if there was such a thing. But no one is playing GTO, since it isn't solved and it's too complex even if it was. That said, using solvers to improve a player's game, even with incorrect assumptions regarding ranges and player tendencies, will probably make that player better faster than that player would be left to his/her organic learning curve and other learning methods. It's definitely a good investment for a serious player.
I do use the 2 terms interchangeably but even a static gto balanced strat with zero adjustments. I would argue it more than most humans. While gto isn't making any effort to exploit its also never being exploited and will naturally make money off of mistakes. On a recent episode of solve Berkey and turtle said a gto strat would crush a low stakes live game for at least 30xbb per100.
If I am in a ring game where half the players play only 10% of their hands and the other half play 60%, and I know who is, who I will gladly crossbook with a pure GTO bot (that will play the same way against both) in that game.
I do use the 2 terms interchangeably but even a static gto balanced strat with zero adjustments. I would argue it more than most humans. While gto isn't making any effort to exploit its also never being exploited and will naturally make money off of mistakes. On a recent episode of solve Berkey and turtle said a gto strat would crush a low stakes live game for at least 30xbb per100.
That number seems a little high to me.
There's also confusion here. What GTO does is to maximize your mimnimum expectation. This is known as the Maximin Principle, and you can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax
"When dealing with gains, it is referred to as "maximin" – to maximize the minimum gain."
And the picture on this page will show what a saddle point looks like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax_th...
So the point to be made here is that assuming the 30 bb estimate is correct, there should now be plenty of spots where correct exploitive play would increase that number.
Mason
I have no reason to purchase such a course. But you pretend you have, yet you didn't seem to know the Upswing course wasn't based on Pluribus (and who says such a course is the final word?), and incorrectly cited it when trying to make a point. You continually put forth your supposed credentials as some sort of proof you know what you're talking about. Yet you never explain why your view is correct. You just tell other they're wrong, and cite these fake credentials. No one believes you have acce
I’ve beaten 1/3 2/5 many thousands of hours per stake. Nice try. I don’t care what you believe.
I don’t see how you can criticize something you know admittedly close to nothing about which is the same issue I take with the authors/ the book.
I’m sure their book has lots of good advice. That doesn’t mean that all of their advice is canon. After asking to see what recent studying they have done of GTO from sites they mentioned, they didn’t say any
I don’t have any reason to believe that the authors know enough about present day gto theory that is being taught on RIO or upswing such that they can criticize it. In fact I have reason to believe the opposite
I’ve beaten 1/3 2/5 many thousands of hours per stake. Nice try. I don’t care what you believe.
I don’t see how you can criticize something you know admittedly close to nothing about which is the same issue I take with the authors/ the book.
I didn't admit I know close to nothing about GTO. I haven't lived under a rock. I have used Simple GTO Trainer and watched Upswing and RIO videos. Maybe that is true for the authors.
You are criticizing this book for not taking a GTO approach. However, you apparently have not read the book. You don't refer to anything in the book.
I didn't admit I know close to nothing about GTO. I haven't lived under a rock. I have used Simple GTO Trainer and watched Upswing and RIO videos. Maybe that is true for the authors.
You are criticizing this book for not taking a GTO approach. However, you apparently have not read the book. You don't refer to anything in the book.
Well I am looking to figure the maybe into a yes no. I am not criticizing the book for not taking a gto approach
Well I am looking to figure the maybe into a yes no. I am not criticizing the book for not taking a gto approach
Yes, but you've been attacking us non-stop, yet have no idea as to what we're doing in this book. And there are a couple of spots where we do mention game theory and suggest some adjustments because of it.
By the way, I don't spend hours upon hours looking at solver output (even though I do recognize that these are marvelous programs). But recently, I've been doing some reading and see the following:
1. The authors are able to repeat what the solver results are.
2. The authors frequently don't understand why the solver comes to the determination that it does and will either give no reason as to why the solver produces the particular solve or they give at best a confused reason as to why the solver produces the strategy that it does.
3. I suspect you would be in this second group.
MM
Yes, but you've been attacking us non-stop, yet have no idea as to what we're doing in this book. And there are a couple of spots where we do mention game theory and suggest some adjustments because of it.
By the way, I don't spend hours upon hours looking at solver output (even though I do recognize that these are marvelous programs). But recently, I've been doing some reading and see the following:
1. The authors are able to repeat what the solver results are.
2. The authors frequently don't unde
He attacks everyone in every post in every thread. Wear the badge with honor
Yes, but you've been attacking us non-stop, yet have no idea as to what we're doing in this book. And there are a couple of spots where we do mention game theory and suggest some adjustments because of it.
By the way, I don't spend hours upon hours looking at solver output (even though I do recognize that these are marvelous programs). But recently, I've been doing some reading and see the following:
1. The authors are able to repeat what the solver results are.
2. The authors frequently don't unde
Sure I’m not an author and I’m not selling a book with bad advice, first of all.
You can just say you haven’t spent any time on upswing or RIO studying modern poker gto stuff.
I’m sure there are other resources out there you can explain to us
Over limping KK in the CO after 3 people limped before you
I’ll leave you guys be. I’ve made my point already and enough times
I’ve beaten 1/3 2/5 many thousands of hours per stake. Nice try. I don’t care what you believe.
I don’t see how you can criticize something you know admittedly close to nothing about which is the same issue I take with the authors/ the book.
I’m sure their book has lots of good advice. That doesn’t mean that all of their advice is canon. After asking to see what recent studying they have done of GTO from sites they mentioned, they didn’t say any
I don’t h
There really isn’t such a thing as “present day gto theory”. The gto theory that existed the instant the first hand of holdem was dealt is the same exact one in place now.
Of course the methods of studying solutions are immensely more available but theory is same as it always was. And Phil galfond and Doug Polk don’t own it and you don’t have to join a training site to study it.
Of course when a play like this might be correct is explained in the book. But PW has no idea/understanding of what the book says.
I’ll leave you guys be. I’ve made my point already and enough times
We'll miss you.
Mason
