Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
On page 18 in the hand where you hold 8c6c on a Qh7c5d flop you say that you are 5-to-1 against hitting your straight on the next card.

When determining outs on the flop why did you only calculate your chance with only one card to come? Since there are two cards to come wouldn't you use the 4 times rule?

We would then be sitting nearly 3-to-1 against, making it profitable to call getting 3.2-to-1 pot odds before even considering implied odds.

Obviosly it is still a call (or arguably a raise) but I was just wondering if my logic and understanding of the concept is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are only allowed to look at your pot odds on the next two streets combined if you are going to be getting all in and you are not paying another bet to see the river card.

+Ev

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

Thanks everyone for the clarification.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

I have been thinking about the 2/3 bet size.

Generally, it seems like the best bet heads up because anyone with a moderately strong draw like OESD or Flush will have to pay more than their draw is worth. Ie. if villain has 8 outs and is committed to seeing the river, then if we bet 1/2 pot they get pot odds of 2:1 which is pretty much what they need. If we bet 2/3 pot then we charge them more than they can profitably draw with. It also gets a lot of value when we are ahead without folding out too many second best hands.

+EV

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

Another question for discussion:
When playing, particularly multitabling online, how often do you find yourself reverting to a standard 2/3 PSB instead of taking other considerations in to account?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
4. A thought experiment: suppose you had to play online poker exclusively and the only bet you could make was a fixed percentage of the pot. They offer you a "bet pot" button with no slider to adjust, but you can change "bet pot" to any size. What would you choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it be different by street? On the flop, I seem to find myself gravitating towards 3/4 pot, and on the later streets 2/3.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
5. Continuation bets can be small, but if you use a small cbet like 1/3 or 1/2 the pot you had better be making that same bet size with at least some of your bigger hands. Otherwise an astute opponent will eat you alive. This is a major and common weakness seen in live $1-$2 games. A tight player makes a big raise preflop then makes a small bet postflop, say $10 into a $30 pot. When that happens, first look around to see if anyone else in the pot looks interested. If not, seriously consider making a 2/3 pot raise or similar. If your opponent plays back at you after such a weak cbet, he's less of a mark and should get more respect later on.

By the same token, when you make small cbets and face a couple decent opponents mixed in with the weak ones, you often want to play all hands that way when in pots against the better opponents so you can sucker them in. However, when you end up in pots against the weak ones, just make bigger bets with your big hands until they fight back against your smaller cbets when you miss.

The trick is to exploit them as much as they'll let you. Against very bad opponents that are commonly found in low-limit live games and the lowest online limits, you can get away with this stuff and should take advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to vary my c-bet size around the texture of the board and my position, and pretty much use my cards as a determination of whether to c-bet at all, if I don't care for the board.

I'm pretty sure that this is a good way to approach c-betting in general, but at the low limit games, would you discount this approach unless you believe your opponent in the hand with you is better than average?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

Can you please explain to a limidonk, who is struggling with bet sizes, the bluffing example on p.26?

Why has a $15 bet to be 66.25% more successful to be superior to a $2 bet that takes down the $25-pot half of the time? I don't get the number.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you please explain to a limidonk, who is struggling with bet sizes, the bluffing example on p.26?

Why has a $15 bet to be 66.25% more successful to be superior to a $2 bet that takes down the $25-pot half of the time? I don't get the number.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's based on EV (the example is extreme, as the authors say).

Assuming you wouldn't win the pot if they called your bluff, you will win $25 half the time with a $2 bluff, and lose $2 half the time.

0.5($25) + 0.5(-$2) = 12.5 - 1 = $11.5 EV with $2 bet.

With the $15 bet, you need to win 66.25% of the time to get the same EV (i.e. because you are losing more when they call).

0.6625($25) + 0.3375(-$15) = 16.5625 - 5.0625 = $11.5 EV with $15 bet.


The example assumes that they're going to fold the same hands (i.e. nothing hands) to a $2 bet that they would to a $15 bet.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another question for discussion:
When playing, particularly multitabling online, how often do you find yourself reverting to a standard 2/3 PSB instead of taking other considerations in to account?

[/ QUOTE ]


often. get a good mouse lol i have accidentally gone all in a few times.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]

Could it be different by street? On the flop, I seem to find myself gravitating towards 3/4 pot, and on the later streets 2/3.

[/ QUOTE ]

same here but increasingly betting bigger on turn too.