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

Care to show me where other coaches suggest limping the button with KK? I’ve never seen it suggested in a ring game. It sounds like a FPS play that was developed for low poker IQ individuals.

Should be easy to provide lots of other training products that advise limping the button with KK in a ring game

We don't say to do this.

If you, or anyone else, wants to discuss what the book says, I'll try to answer. But you need to quit making up things that the book doesn't say.

MM

I said you recommended a similar play

Do you know what similar means?

The CO and the btn are similar position

Open Limping either is a similar play, from a similar position.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you were to filter for hands where you limped Co/Btn with KK, both situations would arise. Sure it’s cute to think it’s makes a large difference if someone raises your limp or not, but it doesn’t. This is FPS plain and simple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Umm…. 😉

This is an example that starts on the bottom of page 184:

Example No. 1: In a $1-$3 no-limit game, you’re dealt the

K♦K♣

two positions to the right of the button and the first four players limp in. You should usually raise to either $20 or $25. If this hand looks familiar, it’s the same hand that appeared in Example No. 1 on page 3 in the “Introduction.” Except that in that hand, David just called with the pair of kings. However, raising here doesn’t contradict the play in the “Introduction” because calling (with the kings) only becomes right if the players left to act raise a lot more than usual, the limpers are tighter than usual and will often fold if you raise to $20, and the stacks are fairly large.

Also, in the first paragraph of the Introduction we wrote:

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 sometimes but not usually play differently from the way almost all other players in these games will play them,

I suspect you haven't read the book. You would probably learn a lot if you did.

It's clearly a good play if some maniac is likely to raise and you can build a big pot with a 3-bet. It looks so weird it won't be that face up. Just raising KK loses a lot of value in that situation.

I don't see what the problem is. Their point is to deviate from standard play based on the players and situation. Obviously, not overlimping KK from HJ as a standard play. What is the point on continually misinterpreting and twisting what they are saying?

The bit got old quickly but I’ll admit I lol’d fr over this one.

I know it doesn’t as I just read the Bird In Hand chapter, which is why I said it reminded of this thread (meaning some of the comments). 😀

I don't think learning something and changing his mind is that guy's strong suit, lol.

you prob forgot but you told me to buy the book before I critiqued it. I did learn a lot but it was so frustrating learning how little you guys know that I had to put the book down

your chapter on GTO was the most eye opening thing I have ever seen. You basically spouted a bunch of thoughts and didn't use the scientific method to test them before publishing them

I mean, it was pretty hilarious. And youre right, I did learn A LOT.

I mean just in the hand you posted you said "calling (with the kings) only becomes right if the players left to act raise a lot more than usual, the limpers are tighter than usual and will often fold if you raise to $20, and the stacks are fairly large."

which just is blantantly false, there are other times it is correct to call with kings here, and it doesnt have to do with the limpers. It is quite easy to disprove "only" arguments.

here is a great example

"2. Since GTO is designed to beat all styles of opposing play from the tightest to the loosest, it should be obvious that it does not win at the rate of a good player who knows his opponent is much too tight or too loose and play accordingly"

pg 14, Dispensing with Game Theory (GTO)

I mean there is so much wrong here that its laughable but I was expecting as such

a) was GTO designed to beat all styles of play?

b)"It should be obvious that GTO does not win at the rate of a good player who knows his opponent is much too tight or too loose and play accordingly". Wut

c) Are you saying we should change our ranges after seeing opponents play an insignificant sample of hands?

I was talking about from the authors perspective.

Geez, I would love a stud resurgence. I say that as someone who isn't even very good at stud. I am probably average and could ramp up quickly, but certainly not an expert.

That said, stud can be a very fun game to play.

Unfortunately one of the reasons it isn't more widely played is the pool of current players. It is really unfortunate, but everytime I have attempted to play stud, it seems like every other player is an old man who has nothing to do but complain. I really believe the current pool of stud players does more to turn off potential future stud players than they do to attract stud players.

Put better, I would live to find a nice NLHE home game filled with fun players and introduce stud to them. Even if I wasn't advantaged in the game, I think it would be a great/fun game to play.

It may just be pay per view, so I am not sure if I can post the link. I think you are referring to the hand in the in the 2024 WSOP $250K buyin with 6 players left. Tolerene, the chip leader with almost half the chips who is raising a lot, raises with JTo. Von Krienegsbergh, the 2nd biggest stack, flats on the button with KK. Flop comes K36,r. Turn a 9 and river a Q for the gutshot straight. Button flats the flop and turn and raises the river, and busts out. Supposedly they were all playing perfect GTO. Not sure if button was playing badly or unlucky. The set of kings was still the 2nd nuts on the river. Not sure what it has with this book, as play for a limp reraise is not slow playing.

I don't think stud is coming back. At high stakes, amateurs don't want to play robot-like GTO players, so the big games are mostly PLO and mixed games now.

Stud was a very good game. Also, all this GTO analysis would go away.

The great thing about GTO is you can justify any proÂ’s play and criticize any amateurÂ’s play. I wish it had been the final hand of the ME.

I know it has nothing to do with the book—if anything it has plenty to do with Super/System—which is why I said it reminded me of this thread, not the book itself. I own the book, am almost finished with my first reading of it, but am only a third through the thread.

I know studÂ’s not coming back, but I was talking about 5-10 (hopefully with $1 ante & $2 BI), not high stakes.

ThereÂ’s GTO for stud ring games? I guess if youÂ’re playing online with a solver open?

Amen. And yes, in my experience with midstakes “pros”, the stud players were far worse than the HE & Omaha ones, especially the razz players. I played some 10-20 LHE with an elderly vet of the old 150-300 Vegas Razz games named Ron.

He could scarcely bear to fold rags preflop five hands in a row. Never seen anyone look more miserable in a poker game. Near tears of rage & frustration folding JJ on an acehigh flop, muttering and glaring skyward. Eruption and storming out if TPTK lost to an OESF draw. Nice guy away from the table; handsome, rich, beautiful wife; but he never lasted more than an hour in the game.

I once read a column on the WSOP side action: “…and then off in a corner 150-300 Razz, with ONeil Longson, JC Pearson & Sam Grizzle pushing the chips back & forth, waiting for the stupidest person in the world to sit down.”

ItÂ’s probably fun having a 10-15 hour per week hobby that pays $8-12K a year taxfree cash on the barrelhead.

Yup, pretty much this. For the record, 6186 hours of 1/3 NL since 2010 (with 1/3 NL being the only game that runs in the room 99% of the time). Works out to a single ~8 hour session a week, which I currently do as two ~4 hour sessions per week, nowadays averaging a little over ~400 hours per year.

GcluelessrecreationalhobbynoobG

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

And he’s made $100K+ cash, tax-free, with little stress/volatility over that period. If you live in a major city, how much have you spent attending sporting events & concerts in the last 15 years?

very little.

The two things you brought up are common knowledge.

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.