Getting Started in Hold'Em by Ed Miller -- Help Clarifying

[thetruest]

First off I'm relatively new to poker and I Love this book. I recommend it to anyone getting started, as it says, since it has proven to be invaluable in my understanding of the game.

Now I'm just a little mixed up on something and hope someone can clear it up for me as I have tried thinking about it. Granted it's prolly a very simple question, but I'm a little tired, and a newbie, and I couldn't get it.


Page 128 in Part Three: No Limit Hold 'em for Playing a Small Stack.

I don't get what exactly he means when he says he "tripled up" on his opponents blunder and left a $275 winner following by the betting described/worded for that hand.

5/10 blinds at the Mirage, Ed buys in with $200 (min.), everyone else with $500 (max.)

On a hand where his stack is $160 he raises preflop to $35, an opponent reraises him to $60, everyone folds, small blind calls, Ed raises all-in for $100 more.

Both the opponent and small blind call.

Flop comes, small blind checks, opponent bets, small blind folds. Hands are turned over, Ed wins the pot. Ed leaves a $275 winner "trippling up".

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Can someone walk me through how exaclty did he leave a "$275 winner"? Also did the amount that the opponent bet against the small blind on the flop get added into the total pot that Ed eventually took? I'm assuming not? If $275 means how much he won from the pot aside from his $160 stack he used to gain it, I can't come up with a figure that would match that. I guess basically i'm not sure what the $275 means/is from. I would like to know what exactly got him that.

Second, when the hands were turned over, he didn't describe what cards on the turn or river-- this is because at that point hands are turned over without any turn or river correct?


Thanks in advance for dealing with my dumb question. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lawman]

At risk of making a fool of myself, I think he got the maths wrong (assuming your telling is accurate - I haven't read the book). He put $160 in as did both opponents. From what you say one of the callers was the small blind. If the other caller was the big blind, the pot total would be $480, if not $490. Assuming he then left he has won $260 or $270. The only way to get the $275 figure is if neither caller was a blind in which case the pot would be 3x$160 +$15

[Komodo]

Seems accurate to me. He bet 160$ and two players called, so he won 320$ in that hand. Rake was perhaps 5$.
He sat down with 200 and probably left shortly after that.

[RoyalLance]

[ QUOTE ]
5/10 blinds at the Mirage, Ed buys in with $200 (min.), everyone else with $500 (max.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Your serious? Ed buys in for 20 big blinds in No Limit? And the max for the game is $500? I'm sorry but $200 and $500 aren't enough to 5/10 No Limit in my view. You'd get blinded away in in 10 rounds with $200 in $5/$10. Isn't the ideal stack for $5/$10 $1000 or $2000 at least?

Pardon me if the reasons for the small stack is discussed in "Getting Started in Hold'em" I've never read it.

[loyalguard]

In the book he says he did this when testing the strategy to make sure it is profitable. I have been using it for a litte NL venturing (I'm mostly a limit player) and have had some good success with it. I recommend the book to any begining NL players (limit secton kicks a$$ also for new players!)

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]

Now I'm just a little mixed up on something and hope someone can clear it up for me as I have tried thinking about it.

I don't get what exactly he means when he says he "tripled up" on his opponents blunder and left a $275 winner following by the betting described/worded for that hand.

5/10 blinds at the Mirage, Ed buys in with $200 (min.), everyone else with $500 (max.)

On a hand where his stack is $160 he raises preflop to $35, an opponent reraises him to $60, everyone folds, small blind calls, Ed raises all-in for $100 more.

Both the opponent and small blind call.

Flop comes, small blind checks, opponent bets, small blind folds. Hands are turned over, Ed wins the pot. Ed leaves a $275 winner "trippling up".

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Can someone walk me through how exaclty did he leave a "$275 winner"? I guess basically i'm not sure what the $275 means/is from. I would like to know what exactly got him that.



[/ QUOTE ]

He sat down with 200. He was at 160 when the hand was played. He goes all in preflop, and gets 2 callers. He wins the pot, roughly 480 plus blinds minus the rake and tip.

He triples up on the hand, because he triples his 160 stack.

He leaves 275 "winner", because he leaves with 475 (the last pot minus tip and rake) after starting with 200.

[Lawman]

I worry sometimes...$480 or $490 less $200 is of course $280 or $290 (doh!) minus tip and rake gives the $275

[Ed Miller]

Hey,

I'm glad you like the book. Here's what happened in the hand:

I had $160 total. My two opponents had me covered. All the money went in preflop, so that's my $160, and $160 from each of my opponents ($320 total) plus the $10 big blind. They then had a sidepot, in which I had no interest.

When I won the hand, the pot was $490 total, or a little over 3x my original $160 (hence, tripling up). Also, my win was $490-$200=$290. (I bought in for $200.) After the rake on the hand and a tip to the dealer, I had a $285 profit. I must have lost another big blind somewhere along the way before I cashed out.

EDIT: After we were all-in, we turned our cards over. I had a set of kings, and he had a pair of jacks with ace-jack. Indeed, a turn and river were then dealt. I didn't mention those cards because I was such a large favorite after the flop.
My chance to win is 95%+, since the only turn and river cards that will give him the pot are a queen and ten (to make him a straight with his ace) or two running aces (to give him aces full of jacks to my kings full of aces). I skipped mention of the turn and river only because one of those scenarios didn't pan out, and I did indeed win as I almost always will.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5/10 blinds at the Mirage, Ed buys in with $200 (min.), everyone else with $500 (max.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Your serious? Ed buys in for 20 big blinds in No Limit? And the max for the game is $500? I'm sorry but $200 and $500 aren't enough to 5/10 No Limit in my view. You'd get blinded away in in 10 rounds with $200 in $5/$10. Isn't the ideal stack for $5/$10 $1000 or $2000 at least?

Pardon me if the reasons for the small stack is discussed in "Getting Started in Hold'em" I've never read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you will forgive my presumpuousness, I think you would benefit from reading the NL section in GSiH. It would clear up a (common) misconception you voiced here.

[Bjorn]

Some follow up questions for Ed.

Still $500 max buyin is quite low for NL5/10 isn't it?

Would your oppimion be that this SSS strategy works better on a table such as this where most opponent should also have a small or medium stack and hence should (but many of course won't) incorporate small stack concepts into their play or is it preferablem to play it on a table where most opponents have a very deep stack?

Also do you think that there is a lower level of buyin where you actually DO get blinded away and if so how much is it? My guess would be between 5 and 10 big blinds.

/Bjorn

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
Still $500 max buyin is quite low for NL5/10 isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't then, but it is now. In Vegas, the max buy-ins for the NL games have been creeping up from about 25x the big blind (bellagio $2-$4 with $200 buy-in) to now the Wynn has an uncapped buy-in for all games.

[ QUOTE ]
Would your oppimion be that this SSS strategy works better on a table such as this where most opponent should also have a small or medium stack and hence should (but many of course won't) incorporate small stack concepts into their play or is it preferablem to play it on a table where most opponents have a very deep stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably an advantage to being at a deep table. At least until you double up a couple times, and now have to play deep.

[ QUOTE ]
Also do you think that there is a lower level of buyin where you actually DO get blinded away and if so how much is it? My guess would be between 5 and 10 big blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's unquestionably a buy-in that's too small. For instance, one big blind is certainly a bad buy-in. If it's between 5 and 10, though, I'd say it's closer to 5.

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still $500 max buyin is quite low for NL5/10 isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't then, but it is now. In Vegas, the max buy-ins for the NL games have been creeping up from about 25x the big blind (bellagio $2-$4 with $200 buy-in) to now the Wynn has an uncapped buy-in for all games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be trying to teach a MIT graduate about math but surely $2-4 with a $200 buy-in is 50 times bb?

Also why do you think this development is taking place, shouldn't it be more advantageous (for the house) to have a lower max buy-in to keep games going?

On the other hand I don't understand why casinos (and poker sites) would spread NL cash games at all?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also do you think that there is a lower level of buyin where you actually DO get blinded away and if so how much is it? My guess would be between 5 and 10 big blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's unquestionably a buy-in that's too small. For instance, one big blind is certainly a bad buy-in. If it's between 5 and 10, though, I'd say it's closer to 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing the main (only?) strategic adjustment to make if you were to try this strategy with a tiny stack compared to just a short one is to stop mucking about and simply go all-in (preflop) any time you play a hand?

/Bjorn

[thetruest]

Hey, sorry for the late reply. I lost my password to this account some time ago and i just recovered it.

I was tired when i read that section and i did see your response and figured out any loose holes on my own. Wow, customer service with a book, pretty impressive /images/graemlins/cool.gif

thanks again, and i'm now reading Small Stakes Hold 'Em which i find even more fascinating /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I hear you're working on an NL book, any idea when that'll be done? That sounds pretty huge. btw, do you ever try playing on the tourney circuit?

anyway, nice to see you actually giving 'support' for your book, and these forums are ace. thanks again