How important are the nothing pots?

[matrix]

It IS that simple - I see a small "orphan" pot that no-one wants I bet at it, usually they all fold and I make a couple of BB.

if they don't fold to my bet I shutdown.

When I make the same size "stab" at a pot with a good hand sometimes I get called - then I get aggressive on later streets and make even more.

[Tupacia]

It really isn't. Think of your ability to take down pots as something finite (which it is, which is the reason why raising every single hand will eventually get you more callers) and you can even use a cute metaphor. I think a useful one is bullets in a gun. Let's say I can fire 6 bullets per session (bets into pots that make my opponent fold no matter what) - would I rather use these in the nothing pots or the gigantic ones? The answer is clear; you'd use them in the big pots! If you don't think there's a relationship between how often your cbets get called and how often you take stabs at pots where people can guess that you have nothing, then you are adopting a view of the trees that neglects to see the forest.

But once again, like I said - for certain people betting into nothing pots can certainly be +EV. But for the best players, this usually isn't the case.

[keikiwai]

depends on the table

on standard table it's important to pick up on texture and take down orphan pots

on some tables you want to take stabs at many small pots to generate action when you have a hand and want to build a bigger pot

[Solid_Shooter]

[censored]

[NDHand]

[ QUOTE ]
It really isn't. Think of your ability to take down pots as something finite (which it is, which is the reason why raising every single hand will eventually get you more callers) and you can even use a cute metaphor. I think a useful one is bullets in a gun. Let's say I can fire 6 bullets per session (bets into pots that make my opponent fold no matter what) - would I rather use these in the nothing pots or the gigantic ones? The answer is clear; you'd use them in the big pots! If you don't think there's a relationship between how often your cbets get called and how often you take stabs at pots where people can guess that you have nothing, then you are adopting a view of the trees that neglects to see the forest.

But once again, like I said - for certain people betting into nothing pots can certainly be +EV. But for the best players, this usually isn't the case.

[/ QUOTE ]


I highly doubt arguments like this, no EV calculations = bad.

[orange]

I like to stab alot at these pots. For one thing, it loosens your image. It also balances the times where you actually have a hand.

[Skuzzy]

You are right, the best players are thinking about their image when they decide to stab at a pot. If they've taken a few stabs in the last few hands then they let the next one go because, it is small, or they have enough of a 'loose' image to get called, or they are currently in a phase of establishing a tight image etc.

But IMO, your argument seems to be largely about image and like it or not, in SSNL image is not a huge consideration. The passive calling stations call anyway, the weak tight players fold anyway, the lags raise anyway. No one gives a [censored] whether I stabbed at the last 4 pots or haven't taken a shot all night they just aren't paying that much attention.


I could be pendantic and argue that each and every pot I play for is a unique situation. To consider my chance of successfully 'buying' a pot to be a function solely of how many pots i have bought already in this session is clearly incorrect. There are many variales such as the most recent hands, the calling tendancies of villain, the cards of villain, my read of villains hand, my hand, the cards on the board, villains skill/style etc.

Essentially, my decision to bet with a less than stellar hand in the hope of taking it down may be influenced by how often i have tried to steal that session, but it is only one of many factors.

[Tupacia]

Agreed Skuzzy - I'm not saying that your image is the only thing that dictates whether to stab at a pot; it's just something the vast majority of SSNLers totally neglect to think about when they decide to. Although SSNLers don't pay as much attention to your table image as MSNLers, SSNLers will adapt to extreme aggression. Trust me, I know!

Also, I'm surprised to learn that a lot of people on SSNL (which on the whole I think is wayyy too nitty) seem to be advocating more aggression in small pots and less in big pots when in reality it should be the converse.

[MatthewRyan]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed Skuzzy - I'm not saying that your image is the only thing that dictates whether to stab at a pot; it's just something the vast majority of SSNLers totally neglect to think about when they decide to. Although SSNLers don't pay as much attention to your table image as MSNLers, SSNLers will adapt to extreme aggression. Trust me, I know!

Also, I'm surprised to learn that a lot of people on SSNL (which on the whole I think is wayyy too nitty) seem to be advocating more aggression in small pots and less in big pots when in reality it should be the converse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with tupacia. Imagine the my primary concern when stabbing at small pots.

I also agree that most SSNLer's are far too tight/nitty.

[the machine]

it can be very importnat. poker isnt only about knowing how to win the big pots. picking up the small ones is what helps a player maintain a bank roll and stay afloat. any noob can play AA or a flopped straight but knowing that they can pick up the dead blinds, why they should pick them up, and actually doing it is one thing that separates a decent player from a great player