Introduction to Small Stakes No-Limit Hold ’em: Help Them Give You Their Money

The third best selling 'poker' book is a 60 year old book about blackjack. Sad!

I guess that didn't last long. I took this screenshot just now.

And Beat The Dealer is already down to 11. Very odd system they have there - would be more useful if they used some kind of rolling average instead what sells best in a particular day or whatever they use now.

saw the preflop chapter which is only 1-1.5 pages, was a unique take compares to other books take!

Any plans to have the book available on Audible?

I am playing 1/3 as we speak. I told myself I am going to do nothing but check or call tonight. I started with $250 and have about $600 now. I will update later, 1/2 live cash players really are largely that bad. To top things off I announced my strategy to everyone haha.

Lol, I would love some sample hand histories.

I did make use disclaimer that “Poker players lie, Phil.i am experimenting with telling them the game is over and that Inintebd to raise. That seems to be slowing them down for now, I am not planning to raise but I am tightening up a bit. Up 450 now.

Not at this time.

Mason

The table ended up busting around midnight. I cashed out $800 for a $600 profit. Anyone could easily do this and win, just play EP ranges less the bottom 15% of hands, only check or call, keeps pots cheaper on two eariest streets. Never chase a 4 flush or open ender. People really are so bad at this place that following those rules will pay, The $100 an hour win rate is very repeatable. Poker is the best lol.

Ordered this book the other day, should be arriving tomorrow at 10:AM and I simply cannot wait.

Racing through trying to finish "No Limit Hold'em Theory and Practice".

I am a beginner in hold em and have been playing for around a year, progressed to NL 5.

I have read quite a few book on GTO, such as "Modern Poker Theory: Building an Unbeatable Strategy Based on GTO Principles" and "Optimal Poker" by Andrew Brooks.

I find solver outputs and the information featured in these book as extremely helpful especially for a guidance on how to play common spots I find myself in. Even from a defence posture and mixing strategies and constructing ranges (All be it at a very amature level).

I find books by Sklansky still very beneficial as, although I have certain betting frequencies and sizing in my head from GTO principles and in certain spots know what the optimal play is. Understanding poker in a logical fashion is hugely beneficial.

Can I give an example if I may, I have a few tables, notes and statistics how to play certain spots IP vs OP etc. This all helps with barrelling the turn, bet sizing and watching for any deviations from this by my opponent. However also reading the Bet sizing chapter in "No Limit Holdem Theory and practice" discusses the same topic using logic in a qualitative sense also. For example Sklansky states in this chapter "Bet more than your opponents can call profitably, but don't bet so much that you blow your opponents off their hand. Bet an amount that entices them to make a bad call.".

I find that having A GTO frame work is a great starting point and that any poker logic and insights that I can gather from other sources can only be beneficial.

I am looking forward to adding such knowledge with this book.

Regards

Ric

any thouhts on their preflop hand section?
like I said it was a unique take never thought about it in that way

When it comes today I will look at it

Ric

did Bart ever do a full review?

How to beat the rake in low limit poker? Answer - Don't play!
In most every low limit poker game that lasts several hours or more everyone at the table is stuck! Only the house is winning!

We address this in the chapter "Tend To Prefer That The Pot Be Multiway."

Mason

Lol @ only the house is winning in LLSNL games. Yes, obviously rake sucks and you'd win gobs more without it. But you're doing something terribly wrong against the typical run-of-the-mill LLSNL lineup if you can't beat it.

Gplayinginasmallstacked1/3NLgamethatisgrosslyraked9+1+1anddoing~fineG

The chapter title is sarcasm?

What a bizarre take.

This would be true if people do not reload or do not reload often In wealthy areas where poker is popular many of the players are willing to reload amazingly often. So stacks can grow over time even with the rake.

Easy, I ask the authors.

Is this sarcasm or did you mean this in earnest??

Pretty easy to see that you didn’t mean it as sarcasm and you know refuse to admit it

Can you name three hands that have more EV multi-way as opposed to heads up?

I don’t know if I can name one.

I always find it amazing how people like you can't wait to attack our work when you have no idea what it says. I won't post the chapter here, you'll have to get the book to read it. But I will post the first sentence which is:

One obvious reason to prefer multiway pots is the rake.

Mason

Three reasons to sometimes prefer multi way are:

1. Hands that have about the same EV if played either head up or multiway in a rakeless game, usually have a lower EV heads up if there is a rake because the rake is taken from them more often than it would be multiway.

2. If one of the players multiway is a calling station and another opponent is a good player, you won't' get bluffed out very often by the good player. The syndrome is true to a lesser extent even if there is no calling station. in the pot.

3. If the multiway pot includes players who can't get away from middling hands even when facing a big bet, then the more such players are in the pot the better your chances of making money with those starting hands that tend to make either very good hands or nothing.

Those are facts. There are also facts that can be used to argue the other way, but it is almost impossible those arguments could always override the above three. If I am wrong, then please name them.

I’ll buy your book

1.) what exact hands are you referring to ?

2) my gut tells me that getting bluffed less is not worth the accompanying decrease in EV we get from adding extra players to a hand

3) see number 2