Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think you're being way overly critical pokerboy. Professional does not entail deep level thinking or uncommon knowledge/skill.

[/ QUOTE ]


I really don't think the marketing tagline of ANY 2+2 book is "We'll make you mediocre".

[/ QUOTE ]

If it provided enough help to make you great they wouldn't be publishing it. No book has any really deep secrets about how to play the game. They just explain already uncovered concepts.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you can still be conditionally committed and decide to back out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm missing the point.

I thought the point of SPR was to make our postflop decisions easy? If we're still identifying situations to not commit, why is it so important to hit a low SPR?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it is more profitable and avoids difficult commitment decisions. This is all laid out in the book PB. Just because you hit your target SPR doesn't mean you 100% commit. Nothing is 100%. You know this.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we get the villain to put in 10BB of his 100BB stack with the hopes of set-mining this isn't going to be a very long term profitable thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't put 10BB in hoping to set-mine.

His original raise of the limpers was to either pick up the pot preflop, win the pot pot with a continuation bet, OR flop a strong hand and stack off. He will do each of these a certain % of the time, and his play here should show him profit.

He wasn't hoping to setmine until it got raised and the action came back to him. Now the problem has changed. At this point he's faced with calling 6bb to win a pot that already contains 25bb; not to mention the fact that one of his opponents have indicated that there is a very good chance he's going to flop a top pair/overpair type hand and stack off. So his decision to call with his pair here is definitely +EV.

Looking at all of the different actions as "one play" is a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize all of this, but if you can get a guy to put in 10% of his stack with a worse hand then overall the play isn't profitable just to set mine.

It is not a fallacy to take the entire effective odds of a street.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I realize all of this, but if you can get a guy to put in 10% of his stack with a worse hand then overall the play isn't profitable just to set mine.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is when his implied odds are at least 11.5:1 (in the case of MP1, more if button comes along). Or 20:1 (in the case of button, after MP1 calls).

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize all of this, but if you can get a guy to put in 10% of his stack with a worse hand then overall the play isn't profitable just to set mine.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is when his implied odds are at least 11.5:1 (in the case of MP1, more if button comes along). Or 20:1 (in the case of button, after MP1 calls).

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that it MAY be profitable to call the 3-bet but the play of the hand on a whole was unprofitable.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that it MAY be profitable to call the 3-bet but the play of the hand on a whole was unprofitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not against our range it wasn't.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

Cross post:

Here is what I'm saying. SPR simply combines all of the preflop action into one and that can be deceiving. We need to think deeper than that.

Think of each individual action before the flop and how we are profiting from them individually. (Like I said, SPR simply combines all of them)

We limp UTG. We are going to do this with a lot of hands in a game of this nature. Another player limps. The button raises with what is probably a fairly wide range. This is +EV for him.

We reraise. Why are we reraising? Because we have the better hand and we want to put more money into the pot. But we fail to raise enough to limit juicy implied odds for the button to call our raise. So he calls profitably. He's made two profitable plays against us.

If the preflop action had just been one play, it would be different. If we raise to 10bb and the button calls, he is doing so unprofitably.

Do you see how my second example is way, way different from the first example? Yet they have the same SPR? Hmmm.... Think about that for a bit.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Matt,

[ QUOTE ]

the AK kills the offered implied odds problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that you aren't likely to stack off with AK when it misses or did you have something else in mind.



[/ QUOTE ]


just meant it makes it unprofitable or close to to set mine against you because when he hits the set he does not always get your stack.

the math was explained but got cut from PNL1. max effective odds vs. lrr are 10-to-1. you're 7.5-to-1 to hit a set or better. if > 1/3 of the time you hit you only get the continuation bet of say $100 instead of the full $450 then you're getting under 8-to-1 on your money effective odds wise. this sidesteps a couple cases like what happens on ace-high flops when lrr has kings - that is, it assumes set farmer doesn't take a big share of those pots, but remember when you fire on an ace-high flop and opponent has it you lose money so those balance a bit. so set farmer doesn't extract appreciably from the AA/KK/AK player. keep in mind set farmer has THE best hand to take against AA, a pocket pair. 76s will win more cold sims but 66 wins more money in practice.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

Cry,

absolutely, MP1 is correct to call in isolation. lrr benefits from reraising more. at same time small 3bets do have their place, especially if you can steal well after making one or get a lot of make-a-hand equity that you wouldn't get if opponent would fold to a larger lrr. but obv you know that.



1pOkerboy,

originally we were thinking of just SSNL, then were trying to teach a primer on NL, then anticipated several volumes in the PNL series, making it obvious that PNL1 was just the start. now we, like Harrington, realize it's better to release the group of volumes simultaneously if avoiding these criticisms is the goal. but at some point you've got to [censored] or get off the pot. we also realize that in multivolume sets the later books rarely sell as well. HOH2 > HOH1 but the sales aren't close.


anyway PNL2 will be more explicit about what is for what game type.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

Thanks, I appreciate the note.

[ QUOTE ]

I seriously was trying to get a feel for the type of players that were in your regular game that makes your line(s) profitable.


[/ QUOTE ]

For the time being, let's set this particular KK line aside. The table has to be juuuusssst right, I think, to execute it. You seem to think the table is never just right. Frankly, for most online tables, I think that is the correct judgment. So, FTP, NL50 to FTPwhatever, this line isn't so good. Done.

Limp reraising UTG with a wider range than KK+, though, is probably profitable in any game that reads limp/reraise as only KK+. That was my point with that particular quote.

Now, I don't mean to imply that I limp/reraise any 2 UTG, but I do open up my range a bit when the table will allow. I don't know that this is particularly controversial. Is it? You really do beat up on the nitty set miners and you don't pay them off when the hit their sets because you're sitting there with an unmade hand. Limp/reraising a wider range is highly exploitative. Limp/reraising with 2 wide a range and to frequently gets you playing big pots oop with bad hands. Not so good either. I'm with you there 100%.

Really, any time you present a hand that gets a large consensus of the "right" line, there is almost always an exploitative strategy. That really isn't so novel a concept, I don't think. I would bet that not enough people explore that kind of line in their game and are losing value. Just like many people don't play enough hands on the button. Many people don't 3-bet a wide enough range in the SB. Many people don't incorporate enough big turn bluffs. Pick your poison. Does this seem more reasonable?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

Results?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cross post:

Here is what I'm saying. SPR simply combines all of the preflop action into one and that can be deceiving. We need to think deeper than that.

Think of each individual action before the flop and how we are profiting from them individually. (Like I said, SPR simply combines all of them)

We limp UTG. We are going to do this with a lot of hands in a game of this nature. Another player limps. The button raises with what is probably a fairly wide range. This is +EV for him.

We reraise. Why are we reraising? Because we have the better hand and we want to put more money into the pot. But we fail to raise enough to limit juicy implied odds for the button to call our raise. So he calls profitably. He's made two profitable plays against us.

If the preflop action had just been one play, it would be different. If we raise to 10bb and the button calls, he is doing so unprofitably.

Do you see how my second example is way, way different from the first example? Yet they have the same SPR? Hmmm.... Think about that for a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this except for I disagree that is is +EV for our villain to raise a wide range in this case. We hold KK.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

limp reraise is fine if the game is loose aggro and terrible.

if the players are even a little competent then the limp rereraise sucks. The only way in a game against decent players that you could make limpreraising work is if you were autolimpreraising KK/AA/22/33 and the occasional JQs or something.

However, if your objective is to be a good tricky tight aggressive player with a wide preflop range, then limpreraising preflop is terrible almost always.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this except for I disagree that is is +EV for our villain to raise a wide range in this case. We hold KK.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

We're not always going to hold KK here. He's playing against our range, not against our hand.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think the marketing tagline of ANY 2+2 book is "We'll make you mediocre".

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually that is a bit unfortunate. I was looking for some books to help me in the smallest online NL games when I started, but there isn't that much available. Read Super System II and pushing draws wasn't that profitable for me at NL5 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Unfortunately I can't comment on PNL as I've just ordered it, but I'm very eager to read it.

P.S. I heard that the "For Advanced Players" books were first going to be called something like "for professionals" but they thought that most people don't think of themselves as pro's, but anyone going to buy those books will think they are "Advanced". Is there any truth to this?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

Renton,

I'm curious as to why you think there is no place for this in anyone's game. You say it with such certainty, I would like to know your reasoning (not a troll, really am interested in your reasoning). Is the qualification the tight-tricky part.

The limp/reraise has been part of big pair play for a long time and some pretty tough big bet players have had it as part of their game for a long time. It wasn't new when Doyle wrote Super System and you still see some fine player employ it, especially when stacks start getting deep.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

I think there is a semantic misconception about SPR's and honestly I'm not sure the book authors are helping clear it up much.

The real point of optimum SPR for top-pair/overpair hands isn't to set up a situation where you blindly stack off no matter what (which is what people on this forum seem to read 'make commitment decisions easier' as meaning) but rather to set up a situation where someone with a weaker made hand will stack off to YOU because you made a decision for them NOT commit very difficult.

In the hand example, the point of the reraise is to get opponents to call with hands that would flop a weaker made hand, with a pot size that makes it hard for them to get away postflop. 'Juicing' the pot with the small re-raise creates a tough situation on the flop for MP1 and or Button if they would call/call and raise/call with AQ,KQ,QJ, or even QT because they have to either fold TPGK to the flop bet from KK or play for stacks- since a call of the flop bet essentially pot commits them.

I think Pokerb0y is correct that you're giving the button very good implied odds to continue with low pocket pairs- so the overall evaluation depends ENTIRELY on MP1's and Buttons range here. Does the greater potential for a weaker made hand stacking off to you with your pot manipulation outweigh the risk of a letting pp's in with odds that make setmining profitable?

IF MP1 would limp/call a small reraise and the button would raise/call the small reraise with a range like: any PP, any suited broadway, AJo+, KJo+, QJo+, 98s+ AND MP1 and the button would fold preflop to a larger raise with most of the range that would make a weaker hand than KK on the flop AND the game is such that MP1 and/or the button cannot lay down top pair on the flop THEN the play in the example is more profitable than a bigger reraise preflop.

I think the above If/And/Then statement is probably true for 500NL live- but absolutely false for most internet games of NL100 or above without a stellar read.

Overall the idea is to take the risk of giving good implied odds to setmine in order to set up a pot-size/stack size situation where a TPGK hand will stackoff to an overpair. Obviously table dynamics are important, and the raising/calling ranges are critical for the play in the example to be more profitable than just open-raising normally.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

ok, I'm new to this thread and only halfway through the book, but I don't get how this this line of thought meshes with the actual play of the hand:

[ QUOTE ]
the math was explained but got cut from PNL1. max effective odds vs. lrr are 10-to-1. you're 7.5-to-1 to hit a set or better. if > 1/3 of the time you hit you only get the continuation bet of say $100 instead of the full $450 then you're getting under 8-to-1 on your money effective odds wise. this sidesteps a couple cases like what happens on ace-high flops when lrr has kings - that is, it assumes set farmer doesn't take a big share of those pots, but remember when you fire on an ace-high flop and opponent has it you lose money so those balance a bit. so set farmer doesn't extract appreciably from the AA/KK/AK player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would make sense if the plan was to bet/fold, but it's not. It's to bet/shove.

It also seem odd that you're using the presence of an A as a mechanism for avoiding paying off sets. That seems counterproductive.

What am I missing?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Renton,

I'm curious as to why you think there is no place for this in anyone's game. You say it with such certainty, I would like to know your reasoning (not a troll, really am interested in your reasoning). Is the qualification the tight-tricky part.

The limp/reraise has been part of big pair play for a long time and some pretty tough big bet players have had it as part of their game for a long time. It wasn't new when Doyle wrote Super System and you still see some fine player employ it, especially when stacks start getting deep.

[/ QUOTE ]

i should clarify what i said a little.

If there is a lot of open limping in your game, then yes you need to mix in limp reraising.

However, if there is a lot of open limping in your game, then you have already lost. Open limping is pretty much totally unoptimal poker.

What limpreraising AA/KK also screws up is your range preflop. It weakens your early position raising range, therefore allowing good players to call or 3bet your raises lightly and push you around on the flop.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, if there is a lot of open limping in your game, then you have already lost. Open limping is pretty much totally unoptimal poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said this to explain what you said....but this needs to be explained. I really disagree. I think that makes perfect sense in limit poker, but not in NL. We're not playing for the blinds here.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, if there is a lot of open limping in your game, then you have already lost. Open limping is pretty much totally unoptimal poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said this to explain what you said....but this needs to be explained. I really disagree. I think that makes perfect sense in limit poker, but not in NL. We're not playing for the blinds here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is incredibly situational but as a default play open raising is usually better than limping. But almost everyone handcuffs themselves by playing by rote and always doing one or the other. It also really depends on the rest of your game, your image, whether you play mostly small ball or big, etc.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

agree to disagree

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
We're not playing for the blinds here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you want more money in the pot when you steal it on the flop?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, if there is a lot of open limping in your game, then you have already lost. Open limping is pretty much totally unoptimal poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said this to explain what you said....but this needs to be explained. I really disagree. I think that makes perfect sense in limit poker, but not in NL. We're not playing for the blinds here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is incredibly situational but as a default play open raising is usually better than limping. But almost everyone handcuffs themselves by playing by rote and always doing one or the other. It also really depends on the rest of your game, your image, whether you play mostly small ball or big, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicely stated.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

Sure. If you can effectively steal.

I think limping UTG, which is mostly for the baby pairs you want to see a flop with, depends mostly on the quality of the button relative to your UTG. The stickier/better the button, the less I want to open raise with 22 and try to steal the pot on the flop. I still want to see the flop, though. How you play UTG depends sooo much on the relative CO and button players. I have a hard time accepting the "only open raise" mantra when your playing full ring. It does make more sense 6 max, though. Yes, no, I'm full of crap?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

All,

I will just make a couple points, as I feel this debate is starting to run its course.

First off, let's say you want to play a certain range in EP and would ideally love to get, say, 10bb into the pot, but feel that everyone would fold most of the range you want to play against to a 10bb raise. Then you realize that the button has the tendency to raise a wide range if you limp AND will call a small reraise on top of that. So you plan to exploit him by limping and making a small reraise to 10bb. Those of you saying button is somehow justified in his isolated decision to call your reraise based on his initial decision (mistake) to raise after you limped UTG, is globally shortsighted imo.

Secondly, I believe many of you are way overestimating the implied odds required by your opponent to play this situation profitably, even given the isolated decision. Almost no one in this thread has cited anything in the way of math to back up some of the implied odds assertions made. (Save for CMAR who did give a little bit of implied odds math, however he missed/overestimated a few things in what is a very complicated decision tree.)

We will have more to say in V2, but allow me to give a few observations...

You estimate implied odds by looking at what you stand to make on average in a given situation over all possible outcomes, not *the most you can possibly make in one particular outcome*. So, saying "OMG the raise is ten percent of my stack therefore I'm getting 10-to-1 in implied odds!" is incorrect. When you call 10 percent of your stack, your implied odds are usually much less than 10-to-1. I know many of y'all know all that. But perhaps what you don't know is that, even if you held the BEST POSSIBLE implied odds hand (pocket sixes) in terms of preflop-to-flop play, and your opponent held the BEST POSSIBLE hand to pay you off (pocket aces) and you both did in fact get all-in EVERY TIME you flopped a set, you STILL wouldn't have enough equity to make 10-to-1 profitable.

Do the math. You'll be surprised. (The things most people get surprised at is how much set-over-set cuts into equity, as well as how much the sucking-out-equity an overpair has even when the underpair flops a set.)

In addition to the above, if we then pile on the fact that ranges are almost always wider than AA and 66, the implied odds situation is even more grim.


[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-S

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

My response to Sunny's post.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

bigger rr pf (80-100) then im ready to stack off against a set but we see AQ and KQ here too often live