500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

This was a hand that a friend of mine played a few weeks ago, and since he doesn't like the advice I give him I was hoping you all could help me out.

No reads on either of the players involved in this hand. They both have a full stack($500) and we have them covered($1000).

Table is 7 handed.

Hero is dealt K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] UTG+1.

UTG folds, hero calls $5, MP1 calls $5, HJ folds, button raises to $20, the blinds fold, hero reraises to $50, MP1 calls $45, button calls $30.

Flop: ($150) Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]<font color="blue"> (3 players) </font>

Hero bets $100, MP1 raises to $300, button folds, hero reraises to $450 (all-in), MP1 calls.

Did hero play this hand good or bad and why?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

I don't mind limp/reraising in a full game, but 7 handed (3 off the button if hero's UTG+1) I'd rather raise first in. Once MP limps and button raises, the 3-bet's gotta be at least to $60, maybe $70.

After the limp/reraise and flop bet, hero's range is basically KK+, so when he gets raised I'd assume he's looking at a set. There's not a lot of other hands MP1 could have called a reraise not even closing the action with except maybe AKs.

I find most $2/5 games to play pretty weak tight outside of New York (I haven't played NL in California, but I'd assume it plays pretty wild), and even here I'd be inclined to fold without a good read.

Good to see you back, PB.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

Bad.

He should of made it $100 to go imo. I hate the LRR. I think it gives away the strength of your hand unless you are good at balancing it with bluffs, which I am not...

If I am villain against your friend I am playing for set value and he clearly gave me the odds to call and set mine.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
After the limp/reraise and flop bet, hero's range is basically KK+

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I said to him.

He said he's capable of lrr'ing with AJ+, JJ+, and KQ. And occasionally a hand like 76s.

Of course, these players aren't going to know that.

What do you think about his strategy?^^^

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

I don't play live very much but
I like the limp/raise, but I think we need to reraise to an absolutely minimum of $60, and more is probably better.
Even MP1 is getting good odds to call with just about anything as long as you are stacking off, let alone the btn.
With a big reraise it should play out the same

It was played bad b/c he basically forced everyone to see a flop and then stacked off with 1 pair.

If he had a read where villains would stack off with QJ, KQ then it was brilliant, but people don't do that very often

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

make it like 70-80 pre flop. 50 is wayyyy to little. i think after the flop you gotta get it in, thought i dont want to.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

I don't think I've ever limp re-raised in my life, so you can tell how much I like that move. That being said, I think his re-raise is way too small. The raiser only needs to call $30 which gives him more than enough implied odds to set mine with 77. Particularly since this is live and there may well be other callers to juice the pot.

I think everyone's flop analysis is spot on so I won't just repeat it.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think about his strategy?^^^

[/ QUOTE ]

I think FPS at live games (at least lower stakes games) is really, really dangerous. You don't need to be tricky to beat these games, you just need to be consistent. Especially when tricky just means you hang yourself.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I said to him.

He said he's capable of lrr'ing with AJ+, JJ+, and KQ. And occasionally a hand like 76s.

Of course, these players aren't going to know that.

What do you think about his strategy?^^^

[/ QUOTE ]

If your opponents are raising a wide range but calling a 3-bet with a narrow range (less than 30% of their raising range), then you can l/rr with ATC and show an immediate profit, especially in a live game if you're good at reading tells. I'm too much of a nit to actually do this, though.

It's crucial to have a read on your opponents before you mess around with any of this, though, and...

[ QUOTE ]
No reads on either of the players involved in this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've limp/reraised live with JJ and TT against loose aggressive half stacks, though, getting calls from AJo and Q9s respectively (and a fold from AK in the same hand). But that's with a strong read of like 84/50 on the player.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I've ever limp re-raised in my life

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think you're missing out on making a healthy balancing strategy there. I'm guessing that means you almost never open limp in EP huh?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

I basically l/rr somestimes with AA, KK, and AKs in live games where I want to limp my small pairs, too. If there aren't other hands you want to open limp, though, limp/reraising doesn't make much sense.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I basically l/rr somestimes with AA, KK, and AKs in live games where I want to limp my small pairs, too. If there aren't other hands you want to open limp, though, limp/reraising doesn't make much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm saying...what game don't you want to limp some stuff like small pairs in EP?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really think you're missing out on making a healthy balancing strategy there. I'm guessing that means you almost never open limp in EP huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very often, but it depends on the table. If it's a very loose passive table I'll limp SC's and small pairs sometimes. But mostly I'm more concerned about having a balanced range when I open raise EP/UTG. My PFR is usually around 8 and I think a lot of players with PFR's in the 5-8 range really hurt themselves because their EP/UTG open raising range often so narrow and therefore readable.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

It's a target SPR thing. I will limp all sorts of hands then reraise them. You can say it narrows my range, but sometimes it is a semi-bluff and sometimes it is AQ+/JJ+, so you don't really have any more accurate of a read on me, personally, than if I had raised. The only thing now is, there is more money in the pot when you have a read on my range. Thus, my positional disadvantage sucks less and you can't put me too as much tough decisions postflop.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's a target SPR thing. I will limp all sorts of hands then reraise them. You can say it narrows my range, but sometimes it is a semi-bluff and sometimes it is AQ+/JJ+, so you don't really have any more accurate of a read on me, personally, than if I had raised. The only thing now is, there is more money in the pot when you have a read on my range. Thus, my positional disadvantage sucks less and you can't put me too as much tough decisions postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and that too.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
This was a hand that a friend of mine played a few weeks ago, and since he doesn't like the advice I give him I was hoping you all could help me out.

No reads on either of the players involved in this hand. They both have a full stack($500) and we have them covered($1000).

Table is 7 handed.

Hero is dealt K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] UTG+1.

UTG folds, hero calls $5, MP1 calls $5, HJ folds, button raises to $20, the blinds fold, hero reraises to $50, MP1 calls $45, button calls $30.

Flop: ($150) Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]<font color="blue"> (3 players) </font>

Hero bets $100, MP1 raises to $300, button folds, hero reraises to $450 (all-in), MP1 calls.

Did hero play this hand good or bad and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

my comments on the subject are here

also, one of the cool things about throwing some change-ups into your play is your opponents won't know what to do. if they're all gung-ho about folding to limp-reraises, you can do it a lot. if they call 'em, you do it less. i'd be more partial to balancing AA/KK/some AK with some small card hands when balancing is needed.

the AK kills the offered implied odds problem.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

This hand was actually from Matt and Sunny's book.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

i thought you left?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

I think this hand is fine you must consider a couple things.....
THe set mining profitabilty is trumped as along as villians call with hands like aq kq and give action with them (which i think they would at a live 2/5 game).

2. if yout hink villians will only set mine you can then profitabley make this move with a wider range and cbet every flop.

either way was matt is saying that this move in isolation is fine as long as you know what your opponents plan is when you do this. IE keep your range to aa kk cause they are dumb and will give action with wide range. or if they tighten their range loosen yours. this isnt really rocket science.

DLM for mod!

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
i thought you left?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

Hooray!!!!!!!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

(Hopefully, this isn't premature...)

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really think you're missing out on making a healthy balancing strategy there. I'm guessing that means you almost never open limp in EP huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very often, but it depends on the table. If it's a very loose passive table I'll limp SC's and small pairs sometimes. But mostly I'm more concerned about having a balanced range when I open raise EP/UTG. My PFR is usually around 8 and I think a lot of players with PFR's in the 5-8 range really hurt themselves because their EP/UTG open raising range often so narrow and therefore readable.

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to this im not worried about balancing my play vs a table full of ppl ill probably never play with again.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really think you're missing out on making a healthy balancing strategy there. I'm guessing that means you almost never open limp in EP huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very often, but it depends on the table. If it's a very loose passive table I'll limp SC's and small pairs sometimes. But mostly I'm more concerned about having a balanced range when I open raise EP/UTG. My PFR is usually around 8 and I think a lot of players with PFR's in the 5-8 range really hurt themselves because their EP/UTG open raising range often so narrow and therefore readable.

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to this im not worried about balancing my play vs a table full of ppl ill probably never play with again.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really just takes one time. You can do it with air really too. If you knows someone's isoraising you from co or button, just repop and they fold, let em know you're there to limp reraise all night.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really think you're missing out on making a healthy balancing strategy there. I'm guessing that means you almost never open limp in EP huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very often, but it depends on the table. If it's a very loose passive table I'll limp SC's and small pairs sometimes. But mostly I'm more concerned about having a balanced range when I open raise EP/UTG. My PFR is usually around 8 and I think a lot of players with PFR's in the 5-8 range really hurt themselves because their EP/UTG open raising range often so narrow and therefore readable.

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to this im not worried about balancing my play vs a table full of ppl ill probably never play with again.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really just takes one time. You can do it with air really too. If you knows someone's isoraising you from co or button, just repop and they fold, let em know you're there to limp reraise all night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and anything that you limp with is find for this. If you limp some medium to small PP you can 3-bet it as a sort of semi-bluff.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i thought you left?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

also imo hero played the hand almost as bad as is humanly possible.

but really, i thought you left?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
the AK kills the offered implied odds problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this was true, it would never be correct to call a PFR with a small PP.

Button only needs to call 6bb. Since MP1 is coming along, pot on the flop is 30bb.

This is really no different than if UTG and UTG+1 limp and MP1 raises to 6bb and button calls with 44 or 9Ts. Well, except button has better pot odds to call in our re-raise hand.

So even assuming button plays "no set no bet" and folds any flop, regardless of texture, if he doesn't hit his set, he's getting priced in.

If you make a standard cbet of 20bb every time (as you did in this hand) that puts the pot at 50bb.

If you have AK and fold to button's raise when you don't hit and he has a set, button's wins 44bb for his 6bb call or 7.3:1.

So even when you have AK (or any other hand you cbet/fold) and fold, he's almost getting odds to set mine anyway.

If you stack off every time you flop overpairs then he's calling 6bb to win 120bb or 20:1 which more than makes up for any loss of EV when you have AK(etc) unless you're limp/re-raising all the time, in which case you're vulnerable to being 4-bet by anyone with half a brain. Or you're going to tell me you never cbet when your AK/etc misses. Which would be even more exploitable...

And what about when your AK hits TPTK vs a set?


I don't generally limp/re-raise but I don't think it's a bad play. However you have to make a real re-raise and force your opponents to make a mistake if they want to see a flop. As played, this hand is butchered except for very specific circumstances - villains fold too easily to 3bets/limp re-raises. Which is true of just about no live games, anywhere. And in which case we should be making this kind of play with a HUGE range of hands. And we've just wasted a lot of the value of our KK because we could probably have extracted a lot more value by playing in more straightforwardly instead of folding out button prematurely.

I realize a big part of the point here is to extract maximum value when your opponent flops a TPTK type hand or holds a smaller overpair. However, you generally don't have to outplay yourself (FPS) to do that if your opponents are so bad they're calling 3bets with KQ. Nor do you have to put yourself in massively -EV situations in order to keep them guessing. Yes, if you're going to limp/re-raise, do it with AK and 78s sometimes too. But why wouldn't you make a proper re-raise with those hands as well? If we're making the small re-raise to fold villains out cheaply, then why are we stacking off so easily post-flop? If we're raising small to keep worse hands in, why are we stacking off so easily when any reasonable player's range is crushing us if they want to play for stacks? None of this makes any sense.

A big part of learning to play FRNL well is learning when to fold overpairs. Putting yourself in situations where you can't fold your overpairs and you give your opponents odds to head-hunt against you is beyond horrible.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

Hi CMAR,


[ QUOTE ]


If this was true, it would never be correct to call a PFR with a small PP.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, it IS a big leak to call large pf raises with small PP's trying to "set mine" against good players. Most of the time you end up overestimating your implied odds.


[ QUOTE ]

Button only needs to call 6bb. Since MP1 is coming along, pot on the flop is 30bb.

This is really no different than if UTG and UTG+1 limp and MP1 raises to 6bb and button calls with 44 or 9Ts. Well, except button has better pot odds to call in our re-raise hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better "immediate" pot odds dictated by his own decision to raise in the first place is not the best way of analyzing global NL expectation. But I do agree that the player in between makes it closer. (Keep in mind that hero had no idea the player in between would limp/coldcall a 3-bet.)


[ QUOTE ]
So even assuming button plays "no set no bet" and folds any flop, regardless of texture, if he doesn't hit his set, he's getting priced in.

If you make a standard cbet of 20bb every time (as you did in this hand) that puts the pot at 50bb.

If you have AK and fold to button's raise when you don't hit and he has a set, button's wins 44bb for his 6bb call or 7.3:1.

So even when you have AK (or any other hand you cbet/fold) and fold, he's almost getting odds to set mine anyway.

If you stack off every time you flop overpairs then he's calling 6bb to win 120bb or 20:1 which more than makes up for any loss of EV when you have AK(etc) unless you're limp/re-raising all the time, in which case you're vulnerable to being 4-bet by anyone with half a brain. Or you're going to tell me you never cbet when your AK/etc misses. Which would be even more exploitable...

And what about when your AK hits TPTK vs a set?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure if the button will only call with small pocket pairs, fold all other hands, fold any non-set flop, never stack off with a smaller overpair, etc., perhaps there are better lines. Because clearly most opponents have a perfect formulation of your range and play accordingly perfect to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't generally limp/re-raise but I don't think it's a bad play. However you have to make a real re-raise and force your opponents to make a mistake if they want to see a flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how those two things have the correlation you are taking for granted.

[ QUOTE ]

As played, this hand is butchered except for very specific circumstances - villains fold too easily to 3bets/limp re-raises. Which is true of just about no live games, anywhere. And in which case we should be making this kind of play with a HUGE range of hands. And we've just wasted a lot of the value of our KK because we could probably have extracted a lot more value by playing in more straightforwardly instead of folding out button prematurely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. A) Live players are bad and play too loose to begin with? I agree with that. B) You're saying to raise bigger to "punish" them? I don't agree. Most live players exhibit the tendencies to play too loose/passive EXCEPT when you make big threatening bets. For example, a typical live player might raise small on the button with like KJs and then willingly call a small reraise (but fold to a big reraise), and then continuously (and even unknowingly) call off his stack in steady increments postflop with one pair. Which is why it behooves you to hit your target SPR in that case.


[ QUOTE ]
I realize a big part of the point here is to extract maximum value when your opponent flops a TPTK type hand or holds a smaller overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amongst other things, yes. That's a huge part of his typical range and his proclivities that you're ignoring in favor of a "FTOP Perfect" opponent.


[ QUOTE ]
However, you generally don't have to outplay yourself (FPS) to do that if your opponents are so bad they're calling 3bets with KQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, depends on how bad, but not sure I agree. Bad live opponents are VERY sensitive to specific dollar amounts. (i.e.- they deem bets "big" or "small" not by any kind of logical ratio, but simply by its dollar amount)


[ QUOTE ]
Nor do you have to put yourself in massively -EV situations in order to keep them guessing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You put yourself in positive EV situations for many reasons, some involving range balance/info control, and some involving straight value.


[ QUOTE ]
Yes, if you're going to limp/re-raise, do it with AK and 78s sometimes too. But why wouldn't you make a proper re-raise with those hands as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't exactly know what you mean by "proper". To me, the "proper" thing to do is always different based on your opponent's range, his perception of your range, his stack size, the other players at the table, the gear he's in, the gear the table's in, and whole host of other factors.


[ QUOTE ]
If we're making the small re-raise to fold villains out cheaply, then why are we stacking off so easily post-flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

To both parts of your question: you're not, necessarily.


[ QUOTE ]

If we're raising small to keep worse hands in, why are we stacking off so easily when any reasonable player's range is crushing us if they want to play for stacks? None of this makes any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first part of your sentence is incongruent with the second part imo.


[ QUOTE ]
A big part of learning to play FRNL well is learning when to fold overpairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. You could teach a novice to play full ring live NL profitably at low stakes and never even mention "folding overpairs" as a bedrock strategy. Furthermore, there are a whole host of fundamental mistakes that I see players make that are WAY bigger leaks than folding overpairs. Again, it totally depends on game conditions and player types, but in many games it's probably profitable to never fold strong overpairs.


[ QUOTE ]
Putting yourself in situations where you can't fold your overpairs and you give your opponents odds to head-hunt against you is beyond horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

CMAR, I think your post was well stated and obviously very thoughtful, I just think in general it overestimates typical opponents' ranges, implied odds, and tendencies. Totally game theoretic approaches to analyzing hands are great thought exercises, but they can end up in never-ending cycles of "well then he could just do THIS" and "well then he could counter by just doing THIS" and so on. At some point it becomes crucial to just define the actual player's likely range and proclivities - and then usually the answer gets a lot clearer.

Take care,

Sunny

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

nice welcome back post OP.. very insightful discussion all round.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

I wish I got to play in the types of games that Sunny frequents. Building a pot and then simply getting stacks in with a pair while having the best of it would be great!

Unfortunately, on teh internets stacking off every time you have an overpair would be a disaster.

I seriously (not in a disrespectful way) wonder the extent of Sunny's experience playing in tougher games, or any games on the internet for that matter.

And CMAR I thought your post was great and very insightful.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it IS a big leak to call large pf raises with small PP's trying to "set mine" against good players. Most of the time you end up overestimating your implied odds.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is the reason we are all telling you that you need to raise more here. You are letting the button call a small (1.5x the first raise) raise with a big pot brewing.

[ QUOTE ]
Because clearly most opponents have a perfect formulation of your range

[/ QUOTE ]

Limp-reraising in EP limits your range considerably.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i thought you left?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

but really, i thought you left?

[/ QUOTE ]

Old Seinfeld episode.....

George makes a huge scene at work and quits his job. That night he talks to Jerry and realizes how much he needs his job. He decides to return to work the next day without any explanation. They give him a little flack at first, but he gets to stay.

Welcome back nit.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

I would reraise to $75 if I were going to limp/rr.

When MP1 raises to $300, I'd need some kind of read to get a range of hands for villain in order to make a call on whether to push or fold. I'd be inclined in a live game with no reads to push, but there are plenty of guys who I would be happy to push against and expect TPGK or a draw much of the time. There are others against whom I'd only ever see a set and I'd fold.

If his range for limp/call preflop, followed by the raise post-flop, is as wide as something like QQ,77,44,AhKh,AQs,AhJh,KdQd,9h7h,8h7h,7h6h,74s,6h5 h (or wider) then hero has about 35+% equity and there is so much money already in the pot that a push seems good. But if the guy would have raised with AKs/AQs/AJs/QQ, and if he would only limp/call then push like this with sets and OESFDs, then hero's equity drops vs 77,44,6h5h to 13+% and hero should fold.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I got to play in the types of games that Sunny frequents. Building a pot and then simply getting stacks in with a pair while having the best of it would be great!

[/ QUOTE ]

How much live $2-$5 have you actually played? (Note that the title of this thread - and the coinciding book hand's stakes - is "500NL LIVE")


[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, on teh internets stacking off every time you have an overpair would be a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing anything "everytime" is usually suboptimal.


[ QUOTE ]

I seriously (not in a disrespectful way) wonder the extent of Sunny's experience playing in tougher games, or any games on the internet for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vast. Up to $25-$50 but I'm not here to discuss that. You can look at my website's bio page or PM me for more details on my personal history. The point is, if you change the parameters of the game (i.e. - the ranges and tendencies), of course the answer changes. Surely you didn't start this whole thread to simply say, "In certain game situations, the play they're talking about in the book wouldn't be the best line."? Because of course the answer to that is "quite possibly!".

Having said that, I think small 3-betting is an underrated weapon to have in one's arsenal - even in tough and shorthanded games. Particularly when you have opponents who exhibit the tendency (which they often do in many higher stakes games) to open light on the button/CO but fold to a significant 3-bet, yet play very straightforwardly preflop and postflop to a small 3-bet, it can be a great mix-up play. Sometimes opponents will get frisky to different types of 3-bets too, so a lot of metagame stuff gets introduced - fun. And of course the other time it's also valuable is when effective stacks are not very big (which is essentially the case in the OP, since 100bb stacks play much shallower live than online).

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
How much live $2-$5 have you actually played? (Note that the title of this thread - and the coinciding book hand's stakes - is "500NL LIVE")

[/ QUOTE ]

One session of 500NL live with various sessions of smaller stakes. Not much live play at all unfortunately.

[ QUOTE ]
Doing anything "everytime" is usually suboptimal.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's my point.

You're hitting your target SPR so that you are comfortable stacking off on practically any flop.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, if you change the parameters of the game (i.e. - the ranges and tendencies), of course the answer changes. Surely you didn't start this whole thread to simply say, "In certain game situations, the play they're talking about in the book wouldn't be the best line."? Because of course the answer to that is "quite possibly!".

[/ QUOTE ]

I play close to 2 million hands a year.

All of my play these days is on the internets. So it's quite possible that I went into this book/chapter with the presumption that much of it would be applicable to the games I play in. Maybe that was my fault.

But I would say that my game is much more common than yours for various reasons. First of all, there are many more internet games than live games I believe. And secondly, not all live games have live ones looking to donk off stacks (which is the weakness that SPR really exploits).

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much live $2-$5 have you actually played? (Note that the title of this thread - and the coinciding book hand's stakes - is "500NL LIVE")

[/ QUOTE ]

One session of 500NL live with various sessions of smaller stakes. Not much live play at all unfortunately.

[ QUOTE ]
Doing anything "everytime" is usually suboptimal.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's my point.

You're hitting your target SPR so that you are comfortable stacking off on practically any flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing the point of it. The book never says, "Hit your target SPR and stack off any flop."

The point is that once you hit your target SPR then you have already predetermined that your play is +EV. Of course, you can still be conditionally committed and decide to back out. There are many variables.

I think you are trying pigeonhole target SPR and commitment concepts.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

Another though towards the "we are offering too high implied odds" argument.

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. On the surface I could see that maybe his last call can be deemed correct, but his play on the whole street ends up being incorrect in a big way.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ 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?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ 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.

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I got to play in the types of games that Sunny frequents. Building a pot and then simply getting stacks in with a pair while having the best of it would be great!

Unfortunately, on teh internets stacking off every time you have an overpair would be a disaster.

..............................................I seriously (not in a disrespectful way) wonder the extent of Sunny's experience playing in tougher games, or any games on the internet for that matter............................................ ...............

And CMAR I thought your post was great and very insightful.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhhhhh dude what??????

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It maybe be +EV for the button to call, but most of the equity in the pot is going to the best hand and that is KK.

It's only profitable for callers to call now because the pot is bloated by the mistakes they made earlier in the hand.

Would any of these players called if the limp/reraiser had instead just opened for $50? I guess they would not. Now he has tricked them into doing just that...that can't be bad for the Kings can it?

Re: 500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it IS a big leak to call large pf raises with small PP's trying to "set mine" against good players. Most of the time you end up overestimating your implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately our premise with the hand is that we're not playing against those players here. That's why we're making this move. Because they'll call our 3bet with KQ.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. You could teach a novice to play full ring live NL profitably at low stakes and never even mention "folding overpairs" as a bedrock strategy. Furthermore, there are a whole host of fundamental mistakes that I see players make that are WAY bigger leaks than folding overpairs. Again, it totally depends on game conditions and player types, but in many games it's probably profitable to never fold strong overpairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

I said, "learning to play FRNL well". You don't have to play well to be profitable at live low stakes. You just have to be non-brain damaged. I haven't read your book yet, and I'm not really looking to take shots at you, but, the title is "Professional NLHE". This implies a certain degree of sophistication beyond beating $1/$2 live. Are you saying it's in fact a beginner's book? Then why doesn't the title reflect that?

I have about a zillion hands online between $50NL and $200NL. IMHO, the biggest difference between $50NL and $100NL is that almost nobody at $50NL can fold overpairs. In a way, they're not horribly wrong because there are so many players who will also overplay TP type hands. However, we're talking about otherwise decent seeming players who have never heard of BelugahWhale Theorem and don't consider their opponent or flop texture at all. So you don't need to take any steps to disguise your big hands. This makes set mining incredibly profitable at $50NL. At $100NL and above, many players, particularly better players, can fold overpairs. This makes set mining much more difficult unless you also take advantage of their ability to fold (floating) and/or create some history. Or simply have a kind of image that makes folding overpairs difficult.

So yes, IMHO, the ability to fold overpairs, particularly to obvious set miners (ie: nits with "fold to cbet" stats in the 80% range) is a big step in the development of a poker player. Particularly playing under somewhat nitty conditions, or against a range of players that vary from nits to maniacs.

In the hand cited, MP1 is a obviously a loose, probably passive player who limped then called 10bb 3-bet.

Now on the flop he wants to play for stacks.

Other than the fact that we've come up with an excuse in advance to spew and called it SPR, why would we ever stack off against this guy? Passive players call, they don't raise against players who have 3-bet preflop.

Why have we decided our line for the whole hand, in advance, and in complete disreguard of any information we might obtain later in the hand? This makes no sense unless we're trying to create as simple an algorythm as possible in order to program bots.

Yes, okay, mathematically we have enough of our stack in that we have enough equity to stack off in a wide range of situations. However, the difference between me and the bad players is that "I know when to hold them, know when to fold them". Why would I ignore that?

Unless we have a read that's not presented in the OP that MP1 is a maniac loon post flop the last thing I want to do is play for stacks when he might as well be wearing a badge that reads "Hi! My name is Set Miner".

[ QUOTE ]
Better "immediate" pot odds dictated by his own decision to raise in the first place is not the best way of analyzing global NL expectation. But I do agree that the player in between makes it closer. (Keep in mind that hero had no idea the player in between would limp/coldcall a 3-bet.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't hate this nearly so much if it was a HU pot and we could be more assured of manipulating our opponent according to our whims, without outside interference.

However, when we make our small re-raise, it's not HU. Unless you've come up with a way to predict how MP1 is going to react to the re-raise I really, really don't like this. If we're going to play big pairs this way, I absolutely want it head's up.

Your point is that bad loose players will call small re-raises but not big ones. Then why would you think MP1 would ever fold?



Let me simplify what I'm saying.

Against decent players, this line is pretty terrible unless you have a very specific reason for playing it this way.

Against bad players, meh, but you don't have to fall victim to fancy play syndrome and put yourself in such vulnerable positions in order to beat them.


And another thing. This hand is a variance magnet. Now theoretically that shouldn't matter. However it does because nobody enjoys 10 buy-in downswings or 30K hand break even stretches. Particularly beginners who are FAR more likely to be adversely affected by big swings than seasoned pros. Also, if this is supposed to be for beginners (?) it strikes me that this kind of play could easily be misapplied a lot. Either making this play against the wrong opponents or doing it too often with too wide a range. At the very least, this is an expert play that's difficult to use properly but apparently we're peddling it to n00bs? Why?