Ed Miller's view on NL correct?

[derosnec]

So I'm in B&N perusing Getting Started in Hold Em for the heck of it.

Miller says that unlike limit, you're not trying to push people off their hands or protect your hands in NL. You are trying to induce weaker hands to call you.

Also he says that most of the time you should fold strong flush and straight draws.

Honestly, I never thought of it that way (well, perhaps with straight draws). I often try to protect my hand.

p.s. I'm a winner at SNGs (over 1,000) but recently started playing cash games.

[Mercman572]

The main difference in implied odds (FAQ it UP) You don't fold draws that can develop into best hands ifyou're getting the correct immediate odds to draw in any poker Ring game.

[beeyjay]

[ QUOTE ]
Miller says that unlike limit, you're not trying to push people off their hands or protect your hands in NL

[/ QUOTE ]
this doesn't make sense to me. It seems nearly impossible to push people off hands in limit because its just one bet whereas in nl the variable bet sizes make this a huge part of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
lso he says that most of the time you should fold strong flush and straight draws

[/ QUOTE ]
Because of implied odds against many opponents this makes no sense to me.

[derosnec]

Yep, but it's right there in the book at the beginning of the NL section. Sounded odd to me too.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm in B&N perusing Getting Started in Hold Em for the heck of it.

Miller says that unlike limit, you're not trying to push people off their hands or protect your hands in NL. You are trying to induce weaker hands to call you.

Also he says that most of the time you should fold strong flush and straight draws.

Honestly, I never thought of it that way (well, perhaps with straight draws). I often try to protect my hand.

p.s. I'm a winner at SNGs (over 1,000) but recently started playing cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you get the exact quote if you want to discuss Miller's views because your summary of his views seems very strange.

[Rococo]

He is writing mostly for a low limit audience where 1) implied odds for draws on the flop are lower because games are so passive; and 2) you don't have much fold equity on bluffs.

I'm still not sure I agree, but this is a partial explanation.

[derosnec]

That is the exact quote. I wrote it down while there (because I found it "interesting" and wanted to discuss it here).

"In general, weak and drawing hands are not valuable in no limit. You should oftentimes fold even strong flush or straight draws.

Thus, no limit strategy revolves around getting the most from your strong hands.

The goal of no limit is to induce players with weaker hands than yours to call or make large bets.

You aren't tring to push people off hands. You aren't trying to run everyone out of your pots. You want good hands and you want someone to call you."

[derosnec]

[ QUOTE ]
He is writing mostly for a low limit audience where 1) implied odds for draws on the flop are lower because games are so passive; and 2) you don't have much fold equity on bluffs.

I'm still not sure I agree, but this is a partial explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I can see that. Good observation.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
He is writing mostly for a low limit audience where 1) implied odds for draws on the flop are lower because games are so passive; and 2) you don't have much fold equity on bluffs.

I'm still not sure I agree, but this is a partial explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only hope this explains it. Or else I've got to relearn a lot of stuff.

[AKQJ10]

First of all, I'm not sure how the OP inferred that Ed means protecting hands is irrelevant to NL. I certainly don't get that from the verbatim excerpt.

My understanding is that Ed is contradicting a very particular kind of misunderstanding that beginning NL players hold. I certainly held it for a while, though Harrington and then this Miller passage corrected my thinking.

There's a difference between protecting one's hand and pushing one's opponents off their drawing hands. To do the former properly, you want to charge at least enough to give your opponent improper pot odds, but beyond that you want to maximize the expected value of their improper calls. You don't want to minimize the probability your opponent calls, or even to maximize the probability that you win the pot! (You're playing to win money, not pots.) You want to maximize your EV from improper calls.

Trying to push people off hands means raising enough to make them fold. If you do this every time you flop a good hand, you're sacrificing a ton of EV.

Granted, if the pot's very big you might be happy taking it down rather than allowing a marginally incorrect call. But most of the time, you want to bet the maximum that you think a draw might call (though never so little as to give right odds to call).

(I've cross-posted this to http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/NLHE:Postflop:Playing_against_draws - feel free to edit it if you can explain better.)

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Also he says that most of the time you should fold strong flush and straight draws.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true against competent opponents, because they will usually bet enough to keep you from getting proper odds. Four-flushes and OESDs are "strong" in limit terms because in limit you usually have odds to draw at them. In NL, good opponents will take those odds away.

(ADDENDUM: You do sometimes have huge implied odds, especially for the straights, which makes them playable in NLHE.)

Ed's certainly not saying you should fold them without a thought -- just that they're less likely to be playable beyond the flop in NL than in limit. I don't see any grounds for disagreement.

[aces_dad]

The quote didn't say most of the time, it said often times. I believe you have correctly pointed out some of the conditions behind playing these draws.

As AKQJ10 says this means if you're not priced in properly, don't chase these hands in NL, whereas in limit you can almost never be priced out on the flop with these strong draws and often re-evaluate odds on the turn.

[RacersEdge]

I think what he means by not chasing people out is that in limit, you would bet the max you could with a big pair PF - where that equivalent - betting your whole stack (or a large amount of it) is not the way to play at NL.

[RED FACE]

Maybe the folding-the-draws part is because in limit you know the bet amount to see the river card, unlike in nl.

And the pushing-off-opponents is true as you are over charging them on their draw every time whereas in nl they can always hope for huge implied odds.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm in B&N perusing Getting Started in Hold Em for the heck of it.

Miller says that unlike limit, you're not trying to push people off their hands or protect your hands in NL. You are trying to induce weaker hands to call you.

Also he says that most of the time you should fold strong flush and straight draws.

Honestly, I never thought of it that way (well, perhaps with straight draws). I often try to protect my hand.

p.s. I'm a winner at SNGs (over 1,000) but recently started playing cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

This comments are so general and vague that they are fairly meaningless.

[samster]

I think what he's trying to say is that if you flop a strong hand like top two, you don't want to just push all your chips in the pot and hope someone calls. You want to bet exactly the amount of chips that your opponents will call with worse hands as long as they aren't getting correct odds to call.

I think a lot of this will get cleared up by David in the new book they're writing (which is due out in April).