Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

On GSN's High Stakes Poker, I noticed preflop that players often limp in with suited connectors and suited gappers like 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]from any postion. Why are they doing this? Why would you do this in this game but not in a tournament?

and, in the WSOP, why does Daniel Negreanu play every hand? And, did he mainly play the hands calling in position or just raising every pot regardless of position?

thanks

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

think implied odds

NLTAP covers this in detail greatly, but when effective stacks 500bb deep, these sort of speculative hands are good to play almost everywhere due to the insane implied odds you get of potentially stacking somebody postflop.

EDIT - wait, do they even play that deepstacked on GSN? if not, disregaurd my post

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

Here are some things to think about.

1. These players do this a lot in position because they can use their position better than most players.

2. They are experts at post flop play and can either get away from the hand or outplay their opponents.

3. They play a wide range of hands to make it hard to read them.

4. They play these hands to get paid off when then have premium starting hands.

5. They are playing against opponents who are capable of making a big laydown.

6. They have superior reading skills and can sort out where they are in a hand really accurately and wether their opponent is weak or not.

7. They are experts at reading the texture of the flop and proceeding accordingly.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

These players are all multi-millionaires with big egos. No one wants to be seen as a nit in front of thousands of television viewers, and I'm sure its understood by the players that the fans want to see excitement not boring tight poker.

If you watch something like 100/200 NL cash games on full tilt where players are actually trying to make money and not show off you're going to see supertight poker.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

8. They want more TV time.

9. They chop the money after the filming is over.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]

9. They chop the money after the filming is over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that true? Can you cite a reliable source? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

No, I cannot. I should have added 'IMO' to my original post.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

sorry to completely ape others..

but if the stacks are deep, you're in position, it's unraised, a few limpers, fairly passive post-flop (althoughs some ability to get paid too), then it's a great play... loosen up any assumptions, and then it probably requires an expert to play that way (although 1000BB stacks, i suppose you could call raises too).

playing in most of our tourneys where you get to 15-20BB stack reasonably fast, i think you're just giving money away (especially calling raises)..

basically very deep stack play to play 53s (and then the other conditions mentioned at the top - and i might have missed some)

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

5-3 suited is one of my favorite hands to play, tourney or not. If you do hit the flop, especially with the ace low straight, you will get paid off. If you know that a pre-flop raiser is playing a big pair, you have a great chance to bust him.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
5-3 suited is one of my favorite hands to play, tourney or not. If you do hit the flop, especially with the ace low straight, you will get paid off.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds so simple when you say it like that, but you're making a ton of bad assumptions. It's hard to get implied odds with 53s, and I think suited connectors are vastly overrated by a lot of players.

You both need deep stacks. Next, you have to flop the nuts with that ace-low straight (very hard to do). What's next? Oh, he has to have that big hand. Wait, there's more... he has to be willing to risk all of his money with just an overpair. If he has trips or decides to semi-bluff a flush draw, he's going to have outs to make a better hand than you.

That's a lot of criteria. It's even harder in tourneys when you've got a medium-size stack. You going to call a raise with 53s when you only have 15 big blinds left?

As far as the players chopping after filming, that's not such a crazy notion. They get, what, $1,250 an hour per (something like that), which in an of itself is nothing. But they have the freedom to create an artificial table image to the whole viewing audience, including maybe a few business guys who might come out to Vegas and blow $150k.

I don't think they actually DO that, of course, but it's not inconcievable. I'd do it.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

Actually I was speaking of a few specific examples. Sorry that I was not clear about that. I will play the hand when raised only if I have a comfortable stack of chips.
In tournament play, if the raiser is short, he will push the last of his chips when the flop brings 3-3 or 5-5, or even 3-5-x.

I was not trying to say that it is a hand that I want to run hot and cold.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF IMPLIED ODDS. Sure, implied odds increase the value of hands like 53s, but they don't make them winners. No matter how deep the stacks are, T9s will always lose to AK. People who play these hands think they have an edge against the rest of table. Daniel Negreanu said he played 90% of his hands against the fish at the WSOP. But in his last blog, he said he really tightened up on HSP III because his opposition was so tough.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

It's because they play deeper than the average online game and the fact that the pot starts off with a lot more money in it than a standard cash game due to the ante.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF IMPLIED ODDS. Sure, implied odds increase the value of hands like 53s, but they don't make them winners. No matter how deep the stacks are, T9s will always lose to AK. People who play these hands think they have an edge against the rest of table. Daniel Negreanu said he played 90% of his hands against the fish at the WSOP. But in his last blog, he said he really tightened up on HSP III because his opposition was so tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh dude, that is implied odds. Your implied odds are better against weaker opposition, because they're more likely to pay you off when you hit a monster.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
No matter how deep the stacks are, T9s will always lose to AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong. If you get 1/20th of your stack in as a 2:1 dog, but then get your opponent to put 19/20ths of his stack in as 4:1 dog or worse, then you win. It's all about trading small mistakes for large mistakes. Making a small mistake against your opponent if he in turn will make a huge mistake against you later in the hand is how you win money in deep stacked cash games.

Re: Deep Stack NL Hold\'em Theory
 

There's a $100 ante in that game, too, which is a huge factor in making more hands playable. The initial pot is bigger, related to the big blind, so you're getting significantly better odds both to steal (unlikely at this table, but still) and to limp and/or call small raises.