Terms & Conditions

Internet Magazine

Non–US new players
Get five 2+2 books


Order Books
Book Translations
Forum Login
 
 
Expand All   Collapse All

 Two Plus Two 
2+2 Magazine Forum
Special Sklansky Forum
2+2 Pokercast
About the Forums

 General Poker Discussion 
Beginners Questions
Books and Publications
Televised Poker
News, Views, and Gossip
Brick and Mortar
Home Poker
Beats, Brags, and Variance
Poker Theory
Poker Legislation

 Coaching/Training 
StoxPoker
DeucesCracked

 German Forums 
Poker Allgemein
Strategie: Holdem NL cash
Strategie: Sonstige
Internet/Online
BBV
Small Talk
German Poker News

 French Forums 
Forum francophone
Strategie
BBV (French)

 Limit Texas Hold'em 
High Stakes Limit
Medium Stakes Limit
Small Stakes Limit
Micro Stakes Limit
Mid-High Short-handed
Small Stakes Shorthanded
Limit––>NL

 PL/NL Texas Hold'em 
High Stakes
Medium Stakes
Small Stakes
Micro Stakes
Small-High Full Ring
Micro Full Ring

 Tournament Poker 
Small Stakes MTT
High Stakes MTT
MTT Community
STT Strategy
Tournament Circuit

 Other Poker 
Omaha/8
Omaha High
Stud
Heads Up Poker
Other Poker Games

 General Gambling 
Probability
Psychology
Sports Betting
Other Gambling Games
Entertainment Betting

 Internet Gambling 
Internet Gambling
Internet Bonuses
Affiliates/RakeBack
Software

 2+2 Communities 
Other Other Topics
The Lounge: Discussion+Review
El Diablo's General Discussion
BBV4Life

 Other Topics 
Golf
Sporting Events
Politics
Business, Finance, and Investing
Travel
Science, Math, and Philosophy
Health and Fitness
Student Life
Puzzles and Other Games
Video Games
Laughs or Links!
Computer Technical Help
Sponsored Support Forums
RakebackNetwork
RakeReduction.com
Other Links
Books
Authors
Abbreviations
Calendar
Order Books
Books by Others
Favorite Links
Feedback
Advertising Information
Home
Posting Hints
Privacy Notice
Forum Archives

The 2+2 Forums

Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Last modified: 2/26/2006)

Be sure to read the   Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

This is an archive. The main forums are here

These forums are read only.


 
UBB.threads™ Groupee, Inc.

PL/NL Texas Hold'em >> Micro Stakes

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
Matt FlynnModerator
Co-Author of PNL


Reged: 10/02/02
Posts: 3285
Loc: Badugi, USA
PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
      #11804009 - 08/24/07 09:09 AM

Pot control gets to the heart of planning hands. What pot size will work best for your hand? How can you make the pot that size?

For example, when should you try to keep the pot small, even if you likely have the best hand?

Answer: when the next bet threatens an all-in, and your hand may be best against opponents current range but not against his all-in range.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
cjk73
member


Reged: 01/12/07
Posts: 144
Loc: wishing it was Vegas
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control [Re: Matt Flynn]
      #11804166 - 08/24/07 09:35 AM

On page 68 there is a discussion of betting less when the board is uncoordinated in order to exercice pot control. Just so I am clear, this applies when you have a decent but potentially vulnerable hand like top pair and not when you miss and are c-betting, correct? In other words, you can sort of put the "must control pot" concern out of your mind when c betting a missed flop because you'll check/fold the rest of the hand anyway assuming villains call, correct?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
QTip
Carpal \'Tunnel


Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 6131
Loc: OH
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control [Re: cjk73]
      #11804219 - 08/24/07 09:45 AM

Quote:

On page 68 there is a discussion of betting less when the board is uncoordinated in order to exercice pot control. Just so I am clear, this applies when you have a decent but potentially vulnerable hand like top pair and not when you miss and are c-betting, correct? In other words, you can sort of put the "must control pot" concern out of your mind when c betting a missed flop because you'll check/fold the rest of the hand anyway assuming villains call, correct?




My understanding on this:

You're talking about cbetting with no pair, which is probably bluffing, esp. if you're double barrelling. This is different than pot control. If you check the turn instead of firing the turn and all you have is Ace high or whatever, you're really just giving yourself a free card/giving up. You're really not interested in seeing a showdown. You're either wanting your opponent to fold (bluffing) by betting, or you're just saying "you win".

The idea of checking behind with a made hand is what they're talking about here. This is because you want to get to showdown; however, you don't want to pay a lot to get there.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
QTip
Carpal \'Tunnel


Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 6131
Loc: OH
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control [Re: QTip]
      #11804256 - 08/24/07 09:51 AM

I have 2 things I'd like to discuss from this chapter:

1. On page 72, you talk about the trickiest exception of all, the balance between small pot control and punishing draws. You mention several things to consider after considering your opponents and your hand. The 3 you mention are:

1. Stack sizes
2. Pot size
3. Recent game flow.

I'm wondering if you could provide an example for each (however, I'm mostly interested in #3 - recent game flow)

2. I'm also interested in the topic of taking advantage of the pot control turn check and the defense against it. I had the following hand the other day that got me thinking about it.

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (8 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

saw flop|saw showdown

MP2 ($133)
Hero ($105.30)
Button ($77.85)
SB ($204.60)
BB ($243.15)
UTG ($47)
UTG+1 ($136.35)
MP1 ($35)

Preflop: Hero is CO with K , 9 .
4 folds, Hero raises to $7, 1 fold, SB calls $6, 1 fold.

Flop: ($16) K , 5 , 7 (2 players)
SB bets $10, Hero calls $10.

Turn: ($36) 2 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: ($36) 4 (2 players)
SB bets $187.6 (All-In)

Even tho this is a massive bet, the concept is there, and I thought what a powerful move this is.

Edited by QTip (08/24/07 10:04 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WarhammerIIC
addict


Reged: 02/07/07
Posts: 404
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control [Re: cjk73]
      #11804304 - 08/24/07 09:58 AM

Quote:

On page 68 there is a discussion of betting less when the board is uncoordinated in order to exercice pot control. Just so I am clear, this applies when you have a decent but potentially vulnerable hand like top pair and not when you miss and are c-betting, correct? In other words, you can sort of put the "must control pot" concern out of your mind when c betting a missed flop because you'll check/fold the rest of the hand anyway assuming villains call, correct?



I think that's just a general rule of thumb, regardless of whether or not you have a hand. If the board is uncoordinated, you can always bet less since it's unlikely any draws are out. Since you'll do this with your made hands, you should do this with your c-bets too... it saves you money when you're called and keeps your play random.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CasinoR7
member


Reged: 05/21/07
Posts: 193
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control [Re: WarhammerIIC]
      #11804431 - 08/24/07 10:19 AM

The link in the sticky to this thread isn't working.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
cjk73
member


Reged: 01/12/07
Posts: 144
Loc: wishing it was Vegas
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control [Re: WarhammerIIC]
      #11804739 - 08/24/07 10:54 AM

Quote:

Quote:

On page 68 there is a discussion of betting less when the board is uncoordinated in order to exercice pot control. Just so I am clear, this applies when you have a decent but potentially vulnerable hand like top pair and not when you miss and are c-betting, correct? In other words, you can sort of put the "must control pot" concern out of your mind when c betting a missed flop because you'll check/fold the rest of the hand anyway assuming villains call, correct?



I think that's just a general rule of thumb, regardless of whether or not you have a hand. If the board is uncoordinated, you can always bet less since it's unlikely any draws are out. Since you'll do this with your made hands, you should do this with your c-bets too... it saves you money when you're called and keeps your play random.




So you are betting less when cbetting uncoordinated boards not neccessarily to exercise pot control (because you arent worried about pot control while bluffing), but moreso because this what you would do IF you had a top pair hand (or better)? That's the essence I am getting from Q and War...goot?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WarhammerIIC
addict


Reged: 02/07/07
Posts: 404
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control [Re: cjk73]
      #11804774 - 08/24/07 10:58 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

On page 68 there is a discussion of betting less when the board is uncoordinated in order to exercice pot control. Just so I am clear, this applies when you have a decent but potentially vulnerable hand like top pair and not when you miss and are c-betting, correct? In other words, you can sort of put the "must control pot" concern out of your mind when c betting a missed flop because you'll check/fold the rest of the hand anyway assuming villains call, correct?



I think that's just a general rule of thumb, regardless of whether or not you have a hand. If the board is uncoordinated, you can always bet less since it's unlikely any draws are out. Since you'll do this with your made hands, you should do this with your c-bets too... it saves you money when you're called and keeps your play random.




So you are betting less when cbetting uncoordinated boards not neccessarily to exercise pot control (because you arent worried about pot control while bluffing), but moreso because this what you would do IF you had a top pair hand (or better)? That's the essence I am getting from Q and War...goot?



Exactly. Uncoordinated boards are great for c-betting because a) you'll win a huge percentage of the time, and b) you don't have to c-bet as much, so you save money those times you don't win.

But you always have to do the same thing when c-betting as you would when you had a hand. If you bet a lot on uncoordinated boards when you c-bet, but bet a small amount with TPTK hands, observant opponents will eat you alive. At micro-stakes, they might not, but as you move up they will.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sunny MehtaModerator
Co-Author of PNL


Reged: 04/17/04
Posts: 1124
Loc: coaching poker and writing "Pr...
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control [Re: CasinoR7]
      #11805580 - 08/24/07 12:11 PM

Quote:

The link in the sticky to this thread isn't working.




fixed


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aviston
enthusiast


Reged: 06/29/04
Posts: 200
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control [Re: QTip]
      #11805826 - 08/24/07 12:30 PM

Quote:

1. On page 72, you talk about the trickiest exception of all, the balance between small pot control and punishing draws. You mention several things to consider after considering your opponents and your hand. The 3 you mention are:

1. Stack sizes
2. Pot size
3. Recent game flow.

I'm wondering if you could provide an example for each (however, I'm mostly interested in #3 - recent game flow)



I, too, am quite interested in hearing some more examples/details of this part of the chapter.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 25 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  ama0330, ajmargarine, EMc, orange, Matt Flynn, Sunny Mehta, Mike Haven 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 3327

Rate this topic

Jump to

contact us 2+2 Publishing

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Message Boards and Forums Directory

Pages provided by ConJelCo