Player Discussion

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Shorty:

I do agree with you that the player with the jacks will think he has the better hand, but that doesn't mean he might not be afraid that he is being trapped.

Best wishes,
mason

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Masked Man:

Your idea as to what my experience and knowledge is is also limited. Even though I haven't played much no limit simply because the game didn't exist until recently, perhaps more than anyone else in all of poker, I have had the luxury of talking sophisticated poker of all type with many of the best players in the world. This includes huge numbers of hours of discussion with both Ray Zee and Dan Harrington, people who I have been close friends with for about 20 years each.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

Well, I don't care to rehash our discussions of the past about whether or not cash NL can thrive as a game and the fact that in some places it definitely has existed and never went away! My position on that has been clear for some time, of course. And I really don't care all that much about who has how much NL experience, though it's good to see you are spending some time thinking and talking about NL. If you and David have spent more time on NL than many of us here are aware (my knowledge is based on your posts here and discussions I've had with many longtime NL players in Vegas, LA, and SF who have been playing NL for many, many years), that's great to know.

Mainly, though, I would simply like to hear your explanation as to why you prefer AQs to JJ in the situation you described.

Thanks!

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mark:

While you're absolutely correct that wasn't the premise of this problem. I think you're confusing with how an expert should play versus the question I asked. Also, terrible players, and there are a bunch of them right now, will sometimes make this call with hands that the jacks will have dominated.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

It's not a little much. But I am referring to books, not posts on this forum.

In fact, I have heard for years from lots of players that when playing games like no limit and pot limit it's very important to make sure that you have everyone covered. These people, who mostly play in home games, frequently in Florida, would argue that a short stack strategy like the one that appears in Getting Started in Hold 'em just can't work.

best wishes,
Mason

[kagame]

Dearest Masked Man,

It (the reason to prefer AQs to JJ) obviously has to do with fold equity, which noone has spoken about yet in this thread

think about it, almost everyone here in the forum is talking about playing JJ for set value, and how JJ is more likely to stack AQs than vice versa, due to the implied odds of a set v top pair

however, AQs will flop many draws and will hopefully be playing these draws fast to get JJ off a marginal overpair. AQs can also represent a King without the mindset of having a showable hand, its just A high so why not bluff the King?

i find the more aggressively im playing the more i would rather have a hand that flops draws than a hand that has to hit a monster to play a big pot. obviously this is so i get paid off on the occassional monster, but for this to happen it REQUIRES i play an aggressive style which forces my opponent to make hard decisions, which a player holding JJ will often be making

Kindest Regards,

His Grand Poobahness

(what possessed me to attempt to do mason's duty? i should be rewarded with private conversations with Ray Zee!) [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img])

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bends:

No. If the flop comes king high I would usually expect the ace-queen to check, the jacks to bet, and the ace-queen to fold.

best wishes,
Mason

[kagame]

you really needed to move away from that position in order to salvage any credibility in this thread [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[El Diablo]

It is a little much if you don't put that qualifier (in a book) on it Mason, as it otherwise implies that Ed developed that theory. (The specific quote I claimed was "a little much" - He's [Ed Miller] the first one to ever explain the advantages of a short stack strategy)

On this very forum, probably about 2 or 3 years ago, there were numerous discussions about how to have near guaranteed wins in one of the live games around here by buying in for the minimum of $100 and playing very tight. Those same short-buy discussions have been more recently discussed in depth in the context of online no-limit games.

Also, there have been many posts here by people like Matt Flynn and Tommy (and more recently from people like me and GiftofGab) that discuss optimal buyin levels, which often times is described simply as "enough to cover the bad players," not "cover the table." Obviously, when you are an awesome player like 2+2er KaneKungFu, you always want to cover the table.

You stated that you've talked no-limit over the years with many excellent players. I'm sure none of those players would make silly claims like "a tight short-stack strategy can't work" as these Florida home-game players were arguing.

If your point is that there are many bad players out there who have major misconceptions about NL strategy, of course I agree.

However, I do think it is a little much to portray what Ed wrote as some sort of innovative NL strategy. It is a basic, very simple and well-known winning strategy that is good for beginners, but usually far from the most +EV strategy once people advance beyond the basic beginner stage.

[KaneKungFu123]

Mason,

Why didnt you come to this forum and ask for writers for the NL book? I am sure someone like Cero_Z or ML would have come aboard.

"Ed Miller developed short stack theory."

Atleast you havent lost your sense of humor.

[El Diablo]

Mason,

Will you please explain the rationale behind your preferring AQs in this situation? I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts, especially if it includes some reasoning different than what has already been hypothesized about in this thread.

Thanks.