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
It would be very helpful IMO to know how this pot got to $80 in a (presumed) 1-3 game, though I do understand the concepts the problem is trying to illuminate.
Could get to a lot more than that. limp, limp, raise to 20, 4 callers. 98 to the flop after blinds and rake. Bet of 50 and one caller. Even without a raise, it is about 200. Do you play much live 1/3?
Could get to a lot more than that. limp, limp, raise to 20, 4 callers. 98 to the flop after blinds and rake. Bet of 50 and one caller. Even without a raise, it is about 200. Do you play much live 1/3?
Yes. IÂ’ve seen $500+ pots preflop.
I guess I should’ve said “helpful to know what the previous action was”. Did V UTG raise to 41, H call on button, everybody else fold, check-check on flop? Did everybody limp preflop, check to H on flop who bets 30 and only V calls? Or something in between?
For more clarification, this is from page 35:
If somebody has already limped in front of you it’s still okay to sometimes limp with your monsters, especially if the players behind you raise a lot. But it may be better to just raise yourself (to about four big blinds) since you’ll have position on one player who you expect to call. And even if no one has limped-in before you act, you should sometimes raise with your best hands — AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AKo, and maybe AQs, just to mix up your play. (You should also sometimes just call a raise after you limped with one of these hands especially if you’re heads-up against an aggressive player who almost always makes a continuation bet.)
Raising to 4xBB after a limper with QQ+/AK in a 1/3 game is awful.
Still waiting for a response to this as promised by the authors.
Y’all said if I bought your book you’d go over it with me
Let’s go over it
RE: changing play after seeing an insignificant number of hands, of course we should?
E.g. suppose you raise UTG, BB calls, flop is AK3r, you cbet 1/3, they x/r, you call. Turn is 2, they bet pot, you call. River is a 8, they bet pot, you call. They show K4o.
Are you going to play GTO against this player? I know I'm adjusting after seeing this many blunders in 1 hand.
Especially at low stakes, we can adjust without seeing ANY hands. What's V look like (age/race/gender/attire/etc)? Sure, it's not 100% reliable, but poker is all about making decisions under uncertainty. If I can determine that V is 20% more likely to overbluff because of these types of variables then I'm adjusting before I even see a single hand, let alone a significant sample.
RE: changing play after seeing an insignificant number of hands, of course we should?E.g. suppose you raise UTG, BB calls, flop is AK3r, you cbet 1/3, they x/r, you call. Turn is 2, they bet pot, you call. River is a 8, they bet pot, you call. They show K4o.Are you going to play GTO against this player? I know I'm adjusting after seeing this many blunders in 1 hand.Especially a
I agree for the most part. My only qualifier would be the stakes. If I am playing in the WSOP Main Event and I am new to a table and as I am sitting down I see a hand that is being played crazy, I would be slower to adjust simply because I might not know the background and the stakes are high.
If I am sitting at a $1/$3 table and I see some crazy stuff, I am much quicker to adjust because I know crazy stuff is much more common at that level and the cost of a premature adjustment is much lower.
I agree for the most part. My only qualifier would be the stakes. If I am playing in the WSOP Main Event and I am new to a table and as I am sitting down I see a hand that is being played crazy, I would be slower to adjust simply because I might not know the background and the stakes are high.If I am sitting at a $1/$3 table and I see some crazy stuff, I am much quicker to adju
That's fair, and I agree with using a bayesian-ish approach of "how likely is it that these stakes have such and such player types so that if I see this mistake I can peg them in this way"
Even in something like main event event there are some adjustments we can make based on a single hand, especially if the adjustment is reducing our risk. E.g. BB gets to river 17bb effective with A5o against BTN open when ICM is small. I'm not sizing up my cbet and applying tons of pressure on A-high flops against this player the way I'm supposed to in GTO.
A Few ExamplesExample 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 theAKsin the big blind called. Notice that the standard play would be to make a big reraise.The flop came theJh 6d 3sMason checked, the loose-aggressive player bet $
Hi Mason & David .....when explained like this it surely makes sense on surface that there is a lot of EV to be captured by slow playing.
However, for simplicity sake lets assume he bets $50 on every single river card, and we have to fold unimproved, 2 aces and 3 kings left in deck and 9 flush outs to hit river, so 14 outs total or ~28% to hit river. So in this very specific example assuming these fixed circumstances-> about 72% of time we will fold the river to his $50 bet with the best hand 94% of time (since 2 rivers he is technically value betting).
The point is there are plenty of times you are going to miss completely and be folding best hand if given the fixed assumption he barrels off. In no way am I advocating a postflop fold, I am just stating why preflop is often considered a mandatory 3bet. You must acknowledge a full range of outcomes instead of focusing purely on what happened in this instance to draw meaningful conclusions.
Hi Mason & David .....when explained like this it surely makes sense on surface that there is a lot of EV to be captured by slow playing. However, for simplicity sake lets assume he bets $50 on every single river card, and we have to fold unimproved, 2 aces and 3 kings left in deck and 9 flush outs to hit river, so 14 outs total or ~28% to hit river. So in this very specific e
The examples in this introduction were written to create interest in the book and to show how extreme exploitation may make it correct to play a hand differently than what is generally accepted. You'll have to read the book to see exactly when it might be correct to play a hand as described in these examples.
The examples in this introduction were written to create interest in the book and to show how extreme exploitation may make it correct to play a hand differently than what is generally accepted. You'll have to read the book to see exactly when it might be correct to play a hand as described in these examples.
If possible can you humor me and expand just a bit on this one specific example? Hopefully you touched upon some of my counter points in this book otherwise you are not giving an accurate viewpoint on the downside of such extreme exploits.
I'd buy the book and not think twice if I was grinding live small stakes but I am not doing that and have no immediate plans to do that, however this specific example did attract my interest. If can not expand on above its understandable for whatever reason its okay and have a nice day.
If you took top 5 best nl players in world right now and showed them this specific example, went thru your logic (that I am missing since I didnt read book) ....I still truly believe this extreme exploit would just be -EV compared to the alternative to 3betting // squeezing it preflop.
If possible can you humor me and expand just a bit on this one specific example? Hopefully you touched upon some of my counter points in this book otherwise you are not giving an accurate viewpoint on the downside of such extreme exploits.I'd buy the book and not think twice if I was grinding live small stakes but I am not doing that and have no immediate plans to do that, how
Sorry, but i recently had wrist surgery and it's hard for me to type.
That's fair, and I agree with using a bayesian-ish approach of "how likely is it that these stakes have such and such player types so that if I see this mistake I can peg them in this way"Even in something like main event event there are some adjustments we can make based on a single hand, especially if the adjustment is reducing our risk. E.g. BB gets to river 17bb effective w
I can definitely agree with this. I deal, so I regularly see stuff that would result in an instant adjustment if I was playing, even at a high level. It should also be noted that I personally adjust faster than most. I have occasionally made crazy adjustments based off of one hand. I get it.
To mimic a famous quote (while stripping out the politics), "When someone shows you who they are, believe them".
I really like the book overall (and some of the idiocy itt and in GG’s 6K is extraordinary to me, even after being here from Day One in ‘98) but the only tourneys it would be useful for are bar freerolls.
And it was for me; folded AKo utg (correctly), shoved with AKs utg, got six callers, board 2247K and I was ahead the whole way, etc.
20 entries, only three others had any idea how to play and we finished 1234. At one point a girl had over half the chips, got mad at her bf and left. Her chips were removed which helped me greatly.
So to maximally exploit people with very specific and unusual stats, you need to think WAY outside the box:
Imagine that in front of you, you have a player with something like LP (limp punishing) percentage 90% but only 3B% (Three bet percentage) of 10%. (or several players with LP>50%, 3B<20%) I've played a bunch of 1-2 games out in Oklahoma full of players like this: They will make it $20 every single time as long as no one raises in front of them. Ok well, if you raise your KK, you'll see a 6 way pot with a bunch of people who will try (and have the correct implied odds) to flop two pair+ and stack you. If you limp instead, then it will go: $20, call call call something like 90% of the time. Well now you get to blast $200 into a $100 pot which is just printing money whether they call or not.
In fact, you can play a fairly wide range this way and just flip coins with $100 dead in the middle. People at the table will look at you like you are from Mars, but I am telling you, this strategy f***s.
I'm looking forward to getting the book when it comes out!
So to maximally exploit people with very specific and unusual stats, you need to think WAY outside the box:Imagine that in front of you, you have a player with something like LP (limp punishing) percentage 90% but only 3B% (Three bet percentage) of 10%. (or several players with LP>50%, 3B<20%) I've played a bunch of 1-2 games out in Oklahoma full of players like this: They wil
The book is available. You can find it here:
did Bart Hanson ever circle back to this book to give his full review?
Not to my knowledge. But now that people know what the book says, many of his comments look silly.
Not to my knowledge. But now that people know what the book says, many of his comments look silly.
I will say A LOT of people did say a lot of positive things
also happy you guys did spend some time on preflop which a lot of books in the 2p2 hemisphere skip over frequently
I will be glad to read it sometime in the future to see what the talk is about.
again the bigggest reason why people were questioning it was because of the "loose passive" type play preflop that the book was settin git up for (most of this site says the opposite of those stakes, to play the opposite) but as we know, you guys had your theories and reasons as to why
Mason, from a thread in the Live Cash forum, do you (or anyone else) think the Suited Connectors section in SuperSystem has relevance to today’s 2-5 games?
Mason, from a thread in the Live Cash forum, do you (or anyone else) think the Suited Connectors section in SuperSystem has relevance to today’s 2-5 games?
I would have to go back and read it since I don't remember what it says. If you have a specific question I'll try to answer.
