Thoughts on Ed's Article

[bilbo-san]

It seems to me that there are some concepts in Ed's article that would get many players into heaps of trouble in many games I play, but maybe this is because I play 6-max.

[ QUOTE ]
In the $50NL game, however, many players don?t understand how to use position effectively. They fold too often for small bets on the flop or turn if they?ve ?missed.? They don?t think about calling to set up a bluff on the next round. They don?t take advantage of scare cards well. They don?t ?play back? at you if you are likely to be bluffing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this last sentence means. If I have a made hand, why do I want to play back at a bluffer? I think I make more money by letting him keep bluffing (sort of the WA/WB concept).

If, however, he means that the player on the button should often raise here with air (because he knows the first player is bluffing), that's far more understandable.

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that many weak players give away information too readily for cheap bets when they have position. You can take advantage of this weakness in two major ways:

Open up preflop
Throw out lots of modest flop and turn bets


[/ QUOTE ]

This I have a problem with. Most games I am in have 2-3 fish, 1-2 "bad" tight players, and 1 TAG (other than myself).

Throwing out weak bets with weak hands (Hellmuth-style, "I don't have much but let's see if you are interested" bets) will get you into big trouble against the TAG and possibly even the bad tight player. And it won't change your EV much versus the fish.

In short, I guess I feel that players (even BAD players) are MUCH more likely to "drop the hammer" (as Ed puts it) in 6-max (I know I routinely punish the type of play Ed's advocating).

Online, full-ring is full of weak-tight nits and the occasional loose-passive.

6-max, however, is full of bad LAGs, some loose passives, and some TAGs. Modest/weak bets with weak holdings will get you in big trouble -- the bad LAGs and TAGs will raise you, the loose passives will call you, and neither result is what you are looking for here.

(And don't get me started on how this strategy requires that I make at least some weak/modest pets with my monsters, when the fish are willing to call/raise my PSBs anyway...)

Since the online Full-Ring game is basically a dying dinosaur, I question whether Ed is "training" in the right game.

[GeniusToad]

[ QUOTE ]
They don?t ?play back? at you if you are likely to be bluffing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this last sentence means. If I have a made hand, why do I want to play back at a bluffer? I think I make more money by letting him keep bluffing (sort of the WA/WB concept).


[/ QUOTE ]

i'd take this to mean when you have a marginal hand or a draw, you know the other player is bluffing, but you don't play back at them to try and take the pot often enough. certainly, when you have a made hand, your options are more varied.

[jct]

[ QUOTE ]
Online, full-ring is full of weak-tight nits and the occasional loose-passive.

6-max, however, is full of bad LAGs, some loose passives, and some TAGs. Modest/weak bets with weak holdings will get you in big trouble -- the bad LAGs and TAGs will raise you, the loose passives will call you, and neither result is what you are looking for here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, you're saying that Ed's article about full ring games applies to full ring games but not 6 max games?

[bobbyi]

I liked the article overall, but wasn't sure about the betting 44 on the A high flop after the pfr checks. Isn't the pfr's most likely hand at this point a pocket pair like QQ? Does a typical player at this level really fold that on the flop for just a couple bucks? I don't know much about $50NL, but I would expect that for two or three bucks, the guy with the pretty starting hand that caught a bad flop would stubbornly call and you would need to fire another barrel. No?

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
I liked the article overall, but wasn't sure about the betting 44 on the A high flop after the pfr checks. Isn't the pfr's most likely hand at this point a pocket pair like QQ? Does a typical player at this level really fold that on the flop for just a couple bucks? I don't know much about $50NL, but I would expect that for two or three bucks, the guy with the pretty starting hand that caught a bad flop would stubbornly call and you would need to fire another barrel. No?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if the passive guy on the button is calling then the PFR is not likely to overcall without an A.

I think Ed's point is that both the pfr and the button are unlikely to raise unless they have a very good hand (and the players in position don't float + bet turns when checked to) so it's worth trying to pick up the pot if the pfr simply whiffed.

I just don't think this is true in 6-max.

And, yes, I'm fully aware that Ed is writing about full-ring, and that's what I'm questioning -- 90% of SSNL posters on 2+2 will tell you that 6-max is where the real money is, online.

Although I agree it's easy to make steady money in FR vs. all the weak players, it's harder to make a "big score". I find that if you just play the button and CO very LAGGY and every other position very tight-aggressive, you can pick up a lot of pots.

[Bottled Rockets]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically, you're saying that Ed's article about full ring games applies to full ring games but not 6 max games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that's my read on the OP too.

Ed's article here is really great. Far more interesting and useful to me than their new NLH book, sadly...and I play the Party 2K instead of the 50.

The article makes me hope that this SSNLH might be awesome like SSHE instead of tentative/weak like I'm finding NLH.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
-- 90% of SSNL posters on 2+2 will tell you that 6-max is where the real money is, online.


[/ QUOTE ]

I love when posters throw out stats. like this without any meaured data to back it up.

I'm not saying it isn't true (especially since you qualified it by saying SSNL), but we need to start leaving %s out when we post and just say "I would venture to guess that most..."

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Online, full-ring is full of weak-tight nits and the occasional loose-passive.

6-max, however, is full of bad LAGs, some loose passives, and some TAGs. Modest/weak bets with weak holdings will get you in big trouble -- the bad LAGs and TAGs will raise you, the loose passives will call you, and neither result is what you are looking for here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, you're saying that Ed's article about full ring games applies to full ring games but not 6 max games?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm saying that I think Ed should play (and write about) 6-max instead of full ring.

[jct]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm saying that I think Ed should play (and write about) 6-max instead of full ring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you said this:

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that there are some concepts in Ed's article that would get many players into heaps of trouble in many games I play, but maybe this is because I play 6-max.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only the last sentence in your very lengthy orginal post is consistent with saying that Ed should be playing 6max. The rest of it is criticizing the article for being bad advice in a 6max game.

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Online, full-ring is full of weak-tight nits and the occasional loose-passive.

6-max, however, is full of bad LAGs, some loose passives, and some TAGs. Modest/weak bets with weak holdings will get you in big trouble -- the bad LAGs and TAGs will raise you, the loose passives will call you, and neither result is what you are looking for here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, you're saying that Ed's article about full ring games applies to full ring games but not 6 max games?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm saying that I think Ed should play (and write about) 6-max instead of full ring.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what Edward wrote about 6-max:

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/article19

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
This is what Edward wrote about 6-max:

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/article19

[/ QUOTE ]

The quoted article is about limit, not no limit. OP wants me to write about no limit 6-max. I will.

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm saying that I think Ed should play (and write about) 6-max instead of full ring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you said this:

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that there are some concepts in Ed's article that would get many players into heaps of trouble in many games I play, but maybe this is because I play 6-max.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only the last sentence in your very lengthy orginal post is consistent with saying that Ed should be playing 6max. The rest of it is criticizing the article for being bad advice in a 6max game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, then, my bad. I didn't express myself well.

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So basically, you're saying that Ed's article about full ring games applies to full ring games but not 6 max games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that's my read on the OP too.

Ed's article here is really great. Far more interesting and useful to me than their new NLH book, sadly...and I play the Party 2K instead of the 50.

The article makes me hope that this SSNLH might be awesome like SSHE instead of tentative/weak like I'm finding NLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your criticism of NLHETAP. The correct comparison is to ToP, not to SSHE.

NLHETAP has a ton of fantastic reading that gives you the theoretical groundwork for understanding WHY the "recipes" we often use in SSNL actually work.

Your post leads me to believe you expected NLHETAP to be more of a how-to book, and it most certainly is not that.

I think I'll be revisiting this book for years to come.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is what Edward wrote about 6-max:

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/article19

[/ QUOTE ]

The quoted article is about limit, not no limit. OP wants me to write about no limit 6-max. I will.

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably doesn't...but those of us who would like to learn do! It would be....'Fantastic!'.

---Leavenfish

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In the $50NL game, however, many players don?t understand how to use position effectively. They fold too often for small bets on the flop or turn if they?ve ?missed.? They don?t think about calling to set up a bluff on the next round. They don?t take advantage of scare cards well. They don?t ?play back? at you if you are likely to be bluffing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this last sentence means. If I have a made hand, why do I want to play back at a bluffer? I think I make more money by letting him keep bluffing (sort of the WA/WB concept).



[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Miller means rebluff the bluffer. It's dangerous advice. You need to be right on two counts. The guy was actually bluffing. Also the guy is now willing to fold.
WB only. You know you have the worst hand.
Rarely should this play be attempted. For experts only.

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]
This I have a problem with. Most games I am in have 2-3 fish, 1-2 "bad" tight players, and 1 TAG (other than myself).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, this is basic advice but you should be adjusting your play based on who you are involved in the pot with. Also, you need to be raising preflop to isolate bad players, etc. to create opportunities postflop.

[JPFisher55]

An excellent article on Party Poker. I play $50 and $100 NL on Party Poker alot and it is tight, especially the full tables. But I play the same at Doyles Room. There play is very loose with lots of calling stations and maniacs, especially at 6 max tables.
Ultimate Bet is between the two, but loose a 6 max tables. Pacific Poker is close to Party Poker.
I think that in general Americans play tighter than Europeans. Doyles Room has lots of players from the UK. They are wild, especially the Irish, but lots of fun.
I am a TAG and have done better at Doyles Room than Party Poker. I have won at both sites.
I play both full and 6 table. After over 10,000 hands at both my profit is about the same for both table sizes.
In general, I do follow Mr. Miller's advice, especially if I raised preflop. But I get called or raised more often at Doyles Room than Party Poker.

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This I have a problem with. Most games I am in have 2-3 fish, 1-2 "bad" tight players, and 1 TAG (other than myself).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, this is basic advice but you should be adjusting your play based on who you are involved in the pot with. Also, you need to be raising preflop to isolate bad players, etc. to create opportunities postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know all of this, and fail to see how it is relevant here.

[chicagoY]

I was encouraged, yet surprised, by the article as my games are generally more tight than last year. I wish it were otherwise though. More donkeys? Please.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I was encouraged, yet surprised, by the article as my games are generally more tight than last year. I wish it were otherwise though. More donkeys? Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are talking about a different article than OP and the rest of this thread.