poker essays
 

I just looked at my other thread and found it locked. I'm not sure what that's about. I'd like to add to it though, it seems in the best interest of this forum, and I can't figure out any other way to do it, so here's a new thread.


ok, first, to those who think I'm trying to scam you... fair enough. I will take your advice and post some articles in this thread. I think you'll see that the reason I don't just cut and paste everything is that there is a lot of material and it would kind of overwhelm one thread.

second, to those concerned about signing up and then forgetting and getting charged for membership... if that happens, just email me and I'll refund your money. I'm not trying to trick you. It's just easier for me this way because paypal handles the cancelations / renewals automatically and I don't have to do everything by hand. 2+2 has a lot of traffic, and I'm ok with giving away the existing content, but I don't want to give it away forever and don't want to have to cancel access for everyone by hand in 3 months.


Don't have a credit card / don't like paypal / want everything fast and now? Well, sorry. This is the best I can do right now.

So that's it. Look below in this thread for a few example essays. And thanks again.

-Eric

Donk betting: how and why
 

(essays lost some formatting in the cut / paste process, sorry)


What is a donk bet? In poker, the player who put in the last bet or raise in the previous round is said to have "the initiative". On a simple level, he's the guy that has made the most convincing claim to have the then-best hand.

When the card or cards are dealt for the next round, the most common scenario is that all the players in the hand will check to the guy with the initiative. This guy will then either continue to claim to have the best hand, by betting, or check behind and admit that ok, he was only kidding.

In many situations, the guy with the initiative can be counted on to bet every time, so it makes sense that players tend to check to him. In hold 'em on the flop, this expectation is so powerful that it has become almost standard practice to "check to the raiser" when the flop comes down.

A few players, many of them very bad players, don't follow this rule though, and the term "donk bet" was born. It's a deragotory term describing a bet in a spot where most people would check, namely, a bet when someone else has the initiative.

Donk betting is good. It turns out though, that donk betting is a powerful poker weapon, one that most players fail to utilize. I've already described in other articles that donk betting on the river heads up can be effective, and we've also seen that the initiative itself is really just a made up concept in a poker players mind, and not a fundamental part of the game. By learning to donk bet the flop more effectively, we'll learn yet another tool for mitigating the disadvantage of being out of position, and begin to understand how to handle not having "the initiative".

Advantages to donk betting: the right of first bluff. There are many disadvantages to being out of position, but there is one excellent advantage, and that is the right of first bluff. Take this typical situation: button raises, big blind calls, heads up to the flop for 4.5 SB.

In this scenario, the first person to bet at the pot is getting 4.5:1 on his bluff. The second person will have to raise if he wants to resteal, and it will cost 2 small bets to do so. With only 5 small bets in the pot, this player is getting substantially weaker odds to try to steal than the first player (2.5:1 compared to 4.5:1).

Further, in heads up pots, especially in hold 'em steal situations, you're going to find that quite often both players hold weak cards, and both have missed the flop. In these situations, being the first person to bluff at the pot is a distinct advantage.

This is a large part of why so many players feel that "having the initiative" is a big advantage... they've come to understand that being able to bet first at those heads up and short-handed pots is critical, and they know that having the initiative "ensures" that they will get this right of first bluff. But you don't have to give it to them! Any time you see a flop, try to pretend that you don't know who raised preflop (something that bad players have no trouble doing, hence the name "donk bet"). If you think betting the flop is the right play, fire! Don't feel that you need to constantly check to the raiser... reclaim your right of first bluff. Playing out of position is hard enough without giving the stealer your right of first bluff as well.

How often to donk bet. This is of course the $64,000 question. How often should you donk bet? Which flops are good choices, and which are bad?

First of all, simply recognizing that you need to donk bet some flops as part of a good short-handed / heads up strategy is probably enough to improve your results. You're going to find yourself in some uncomfortable spots because you've never done this of course, but keep at it... your opponents are just as uncomfortable, and you'll learn how to handle these situations much faster than all of your opponents will learn how to deal with you!

Here are some tips though:

consider your opponent: donk more against tight players
consider the flop: how likely is it that your opponent has 2 overcards? how likely is it he flopped a pair? Flops like K73 and Q44 are very unlikely to give your opponent either a pair or two overcards.
consider the flop: are there many draws out there that he may put you on? For example, K67 with two hearts may not be likely to make your opponent a pair, but with flush and straight draws in the mix, he may well get stubborn and plan to showdown ace high.
consider your image: does your opponent think you are tight and predictable, or does he think you bluff too much? Donk (bluff) more when you have a tight image.
Using information like this lets you outplay your opponents, usually by playing a strategy that is itself exploitable, if only your opponents could figure out how to exploit it. This can be risky though... sometimes you don't have any of this information. Worse, sometimes you happen to be heads up with a very good player, perhaps even a player who is better than you. What should you do then?

Use game theory. In these spots, your best plan is to use game theory to mix up your play and make it impossible for your opponents to get a read on you no matter how good they are. Your goal is to give away as little information as possible about whether you have a hand or are bluffing, while at the same tending to bet when you have it and check when you don't. A better treatment of these kinds of strategies can be found in this game theory article, but a good general guideline is to bluff about 1 flop in 3, while donk betting about 2 out of 3 flops with which you actually connect.

You'll flop a pair about 1 time in 3, so these ratios put your opponent in a very uncomfortable spot. If he constantly resteals, he's going to be banging his head against an already made hand about half the time. Since you have learned all about semi-bluffing and value-bluff raising, you are also going to sometimes outplay him the other half of the time, even when he catches you on a draw. And of course, he is sometimes going to catch you on a draw only to watch in horror as you succeed in drawing out! This means that his 5:2 resteal odds don't look terribly attractive, as he is going to be behind often and then sometimes lose even when he is ahead.

On the other hand, if he gives up most of the time when you donk and he misses, he may be folding the best hand and passing over 2.5 big bets. If he folds too much, which is easy to do, he may not notice that his strategy has become highly exploitable. Either way, you've forced him to really play poker to try to beat you, and inevitably many of your opponents are not going to be up to the challenge. They are going to spew chips trying to push you off your made hands, lay down winners too often, and just generally find themselves unable to figure your game out. Just the way we like it!

Strategy adjustments for small pots: Inducing bluffs
 

(some minor formatting lost in the cut/paste process)

Charging draws. When you make a bet with the best hand, you are generally trying to force your opponents to pay for their equity in the pot. This is called "charging them to draw". If the pot is big enough, they may still be right to call your bet, as their pot equity may be worth more than the amount you are charging, especially in limit hold'em where the bet sizes are fixed. In this case, you want them to fold, but are forced to settle for minimizing their profits when the play on. If the pot is small though, an interesting thing happens. You may now actually be rooting for a call, even if your opponent has some chance to draw out on you, because he won't draw out often enough to justify the amount he is investing.

Small pots are very common. As you go up in limits, small pots become much more common. Most pots are contested short-handed, between two or three players. In these spots, the pot on the flop is often just 2 or 3 big bets. In a more passive game, you can find pots that are even smaller than this. In these pots, you must change your mindset. You stop thinking about betting to avoid giving a free card, and instead focus on maximizing value for the bets that go into the pot. That is, you want to lose the least when you are behind, while giving worse hands maximum opportunity to hang around and contribute to the pot.

Maximizing value in small pots. Against very loose and passive players, the best way to maximize value on your made hands is often to simply bet them. Your opponents make all kinds of bad calls with hands that they won't bet if you check to them, so you simply fire away and let them contribute by calling. As you move up in limits though, truly loose passive players become very harder to find. Online especially, it's quite rare that your opponents are both loose enough to call your flop bet with weak hands, and passive enough that they won't bluff those hands if you check to them.

Small pots against aggressive players. Against tighter, more aggressive players, you often maximize your value best by checking. In a short-handed pot, the preflop raiser will often bet no matter what the flop is. Further, if he doesn't or if there was no preflop raiser, the last person to act can almost always be counted on take a stab at the pot. When you flop a made hand in a small pot, it's almost always better to check and let these aggressive players put that small bet into the pot rather than bet and risk driving them out. Even if your made hand is very weak, say, bottom pair, and you think your opponent has a 6-out draw, you still are very happy to check and risk giving a free card. Consider this: when the flop gets checked through, you have granted your opponent his pot equity, a 6-out draw in, say, a 2 big bet pot. If we further assume the worst case that this player won't put any more money in the pot unless he improves, than we have made a 1/4 BB mistake by checking. If we get him to bet and we raise though, then we've gained 1/2 a BB vs betting, and if he calls the raise with his 6-outer, as many players are prone to do, we make even more. This shows that in a small pot, we need to be quite concerned about the flop getting checked through to bet bottom pair for hand protection. In modern games, it's rare that this would ever be the case, especially online.

Taking this idea further. With a stronger hand, say, top pair, checking becomes even clearer. Now even if the flop gets checked through, good things can happen. In the extreme case, imagine you check A2 from the big blind after a middle position player limps in and the small blind completes. If you flop an ace, you are almost required to check the flop. You don't even really mind the flop getting checked through, as there are so many ways for your opponents to turn a little something and payoff 2 BB in a small pot. If your opponent turns a pair, for example, he'll likely end up calling a bet getting only 3:1 or so on an 8:1 shot. That's a very bad call if he could see your hand. In this case he's likely to payoff a river bet too, so he ends up getting, say, 4:2 on that longshot draw. Even if he check-raises those times he gets lucky and you pay off every time, he's not getting anywhere close to the 16 big bets he needs to even break even on this draw.

Turning a "big draw". Checking the flop in a small pot can also benefit you when your opponent picks up a "big draw" like an open-ended straight draw or a flush draw. Most players are incapable of laying this hand down, but when they call your turn bet getting 3:1 on their money, they are making a mistake, especially when you factor in the times they make a 2nd best hand by rivering a pair below yours. It's almost amazing that in many of these short-handed situations, if you knew a bet would win the pot, that a check would result in a free card, AND that your opponent would turn a 9-out draw, you STILL should give the free card. Flop a pair of aces in a small pot on a 2-flush board? Most players bet to "charge flush draws", but you really want to check and almost hope a 3rd of that suit arrives. Now your loose opponents can pick up crappy little flush draws that they think are worth calling a bet for, which helps line your pockets.

Raising vs calling after inducing that flop bluff. After checking your hand and getting that autobet from the preflop raiser or the last guy to act, you are now going to faced with a decision. Should you raise or just call? The key to answering this is to know your opponent. Many players, once they start betting at a pot, don't ever stop until somebody raises them. Against these players, you should just call their bet and check to them again on the turn no matter what hits. You just go into loose-passive calling station mode against these hyper-aggressive players and crush them. There is no need to protect your hand, just be content to collect bluffs and "charge them retroactively". In these spots, it appears you are giving a cheap or free card, but what you are really doing is putting the aggressive player on a payment plan. He's paying for that 6-out draw, he's just doing it after the fact. In fact, charging draws this way is even better than charging them up front, because you have now killed the implied odds on their draw. For example, imagine your opponent is drawing to two overcards, KQ on a J-high board. If you bet the turn and he calls, he still has the opportunity to recover some of that cost on the river should he catch a pair. If you check behind and grant him has draw on the turn, knowing he will bluff the river no matter what hits, then you still get your 1 BB from him all those times he misses, but now he can't recover anything extra those times he hits.

More specifics on deciding when to raise. The danger with giving these cheap and free cards is that your opponent may not be willing to pay for them later. Many players will stab once at a flop they've missed, and then shutdown if they get any action. Against these players, you should raise the flop immediately. It's fine to give cheap cards if it encourages aggressive players to keep bluffing, but not if they aren't going to make the required payments on the next street. How often does your opponent need to bluff the turn unimproved to justify calling his flop bet with, say, bottom pair? If you call and he checks the turn and folds the river, you have given him a 6 out draw twice in, say, a 3 BB pot. The math is complicated, but roughly this is about a .75 BB mistake. On the other hand, if you get him to bet a hand on the turn that he would have folded had you raised, you gain .85 BB every time he misses, while losing, say, 3 BB those times he catches and you call down (note that you still have some equity in the pot even when he catches). That means if your opponent will always bet missed 6-outers but will fold them to your flop raise, calling beats raising by a wide margin, almost a full small bet. How often does he have to check behind the turn to justify raising the flop? A reasonable rule of thumb might be this: if you think his most likely action with a missed hand is to bluff again, then call his bet. If not, raise.

Adjusting these ideas for flop texture and hand quality. As already discussed, as your hand goes up in quality, you can afford to take more chances with your "slowplays". If you flop top pair with a K, for example, your opponent's draws are likely to be much weaker than the 6-out draws we've been discussing. In many cases they will have 3 outs and sometimes they'll be drawing dead. In these cases, slowplaying becomes much more viable. Even if you think there is a fair chance your opponent will see through your play and give up, you are taking so little risk of losing what is already a small pot anyways, that you almost have to go for it. Another consideration is the flop texture. If the flop is very dry, affording very few draws, then a call from you is much more likely to result in your opponent checking the turn. This is especially true when your opponent will have a hard time putting you on two overcards that are just peeling once. An example might be a K73 rainbow flop. Checking and calling on this board is going to set off alarm bells in any decent player's head. If you flop bottom pair on this board, you should check-raise. On the other hand, if you flop a K, it might be worth just calling a steal bet even though you know the odds of drawing a bluff are slim. In this case, you can always benefit by having your opponent pick up a pair on the turn that he calls a river bet with. Note that this is the opposite of the way most players would play. They'd typically raise on draw-heavy boards, figuring their opponent can have lots of draws to justify calling them. This is true, but it ignores a common facet of today's online game, namely, that players with flush draws often will bluff them all the way. Against a player like this, and they are very common, it's MUCH better to just check and call the flop and let them bluff the turn too. If they get there, at least you've killed off their implied odds somewhat. If they miss, calling down gets more out of them by an extra SB than raising the flop. (Raising the turn may be the best play of all, but you open yourself up to a 3-bet and either a painful calldown or the possibility of being outplayed. I won't get into that here.)

How weak a hand can you slowplay? I find that hands as weak as ace-high are candidates for these moves in very small pots. For example, I often limp in the SB with small aces heads up, and then check the flop. My aggressive opponents raise preflop often, and when they don't, they can always be counted on to bet the flop for me. Now I call against those that will continue to bluff, and raise against those that won't. Hands like middle pair in heads up pots are also great candidates for a flop check. Say you raise a limper and you hold QQ. The flop comes down K73. The limper checks to you. You should check. By checking, lots of good things happen. First, you lose less when you are up against a better hand. 2nd, you give your opponent a chance to bluff the turn with a hand he would have folded to your bet. Finally, you increase the odds of your opponent making a 2nd best hand by turning a pair with, say, a T and paying off 2 BB in a pot that is smaller than 3 BB. That's huge. The only risk for you here is that your opponent may hold a bare ace and was planning to fold, won't bluff the turn if he misses, and now he catches an ace. That's a rare combination though, easily made up for with the saved bets and induced bluffs you get by checking.

Times when this strategy is not appropriate. Don't slowplay if your opponents are loose and passive. Don't slowplay when the pot gets to be a decent size, say, 4 BB or greater. Don't slowplay when there is a good chance your opponent has a made hand and will pay off all the way, for example when you flop a set after being 3-bet preflop, or when you flop a straight on a board with 3 high cards. Be less inclined to slowplay past the turn, as many players pay off turn raises all the way but won't bet the river after you've called the flop and turn. Finally, if you play with the same players over and over again, you sometimes need to mix up your play by betting strong hands in order to keep from being too predictable. Online, with the high player turn-over, ability to change your screenname, etc, this is rare, but worth noting.

Pure bluffs in blind defense: When to attack
 

Know your opponent. First and foremost, you must know your opponent. If your opponent is the loose type that consistently calls down with ace high, forget about trying to bluff him. You beat these guys with value bets, not bluffs. If your opponent can be made to fold, say, AQ on a K73 board, then you have a player you can consider attacking with very few outs. Your ideal opponent is the tight aggressive type raising from late position. He'll have a fairly wide range of hands, can often fold ace high especially if he has only 1 overcard, and can be counted on to bet the flop almost no matter what hits.

Flops to look for. Naturally, flops where you flop a good draw that is nonetheless definitely 2nd best right now are good flops to check-raise and lead the turn. This play is widely known though, and good players are going to be suspicious that you might be drawing when you make this play, especially if you're making it with an obvious draw like a flush draw. You'll get called down more often, but since you have a good deal of equity in the pot, this play is still profitable.

The play many players miss though, is to check-raise and lead with a hand that has no outs on a board that has no draws. Say a TAG raises from late position and you call in the big blind with JTh. If you get a K73 rainbow flop, you should strongly consider attacking him by check-raising and leading the turn if need be. On this board, your opponent cannot put you on a draw, so he knows you're either on a complete bluff, or you have a pair. If he doesn't have a pair and he respects you not being a maniac, he's going to give up lots of hands. The typical late position raiser will not often have a pair on this board, but since you are defending from the big blind, he can't know the same about your hand. You'll win quite often without a showdown, easily enough to justify the expense provided you pick your opponents well. Further, sometimes you'll catch a pair and it will be good enough to win over a hand like AQ that decides to get stubborn.

In these situations, it pays to know whether your opponent is the type to give up to the flop raise directly, or tends to peel after being check-raised and then fold the turn. Most players do one or the other, and knowing where your opponent's fold point is can save you lots of wasted bluff attempts.

In general, flops that contain 1 or fewer cards in the "playing zone" A-T, and which don't afford many straight draws (J97, for example, is not a great flop to steal on), are the ones to consider making moves. Also, flops with 1 or 2 very low cards, like deuces and threes, are less likely to have made anyone a pair. Most players, even bad ones, fold hands with deuces in them.

The lower the highest card, the more inclined you should be to fire again on the turn, as it is that much more likely that your opponent has called your flop bet with just overcards and will now fold if you bet again. This assumes, of course, that the turn is not a card that hits these hand. If you check-raise a Txx flop and the turn is a K, betting now looks pretty dubious. You're unlikely to win the pot at this point, since the K just connects with way too many of the weak hands you were hoping he'd fold. KQ, KJ, QJ, AQ, AJ... all of the hands are now getting to the river at least. Check and fold if you were on a total steal. Finally, if you check-raise and lead the turn and your opponent is still in there calling, it's probably best to just give up on the river. Sure, sometimes you miss an opportunity to bluff them out of the pot, but more often than not they are just in there calling all the way and you aren't getting the right odds to bluff again.

In short-handed games and in all games as the limits get higher, defending the big blind from steals becomes more and more common. You're out of position in a small pot with a weak hand... that's a tough place to be. Mix in a few of these pure bluffs to steal just a little more than your fair share of the pie. Your wallet will thank you.

The initiative: a mythical concept
 

What does it mean to "have the initiative"? In a sense, the betting and raising is a war of escalating claims between two players. With each bet and raise on a given street, the players tell each other that they feel they have the best hand. When one of these players finally relents and just calls, he has, in a simple sense, conceded that the other does, at the moment, have the best hand, or at least that the hand his opponent claims to have beats his own.

The player who put in the last raise on the previous street has, therefore, a standing claim to having the best hand. He has what we refer to as "the initiative". In typical poker games, the next street will involve everyone checking to the guy with the initiative. He bets, and then anyone who was helped by the most recent card (or cards) can raise claiming that now they have the best hand.

Advantages to having the initiative. Having the initiative has several advantages in a game that plays the way I just described, with lots of "checking to the raiser". First, you can often take a free card when you feel you need one. Particularly on the turn, taking free cards at will is a huge strategic advantage. Second, you are afforded the "right of first bluff". You get to make the cheapest bluff available, while your opponents will be forced to raise and make a much more expensive bluff if they want to contest the pot. Often times, especially in short-handed pots, everyone misses, and having the "right of first bluff" results in the guy with the "initiative" taking down the pot.

Raising to gain the initiative. These advantages are so significant that often players justify raising with marginal hands for the sole purpose of gaining the initiative. They expect their opponents to check to them, to tend to fold to continuation bets, etc. This expectation is so strong in fact, that most players will bet the flop no matter what they hold or what the flop is, simply because they raised preflop.

An important realization. Here's the catch though... the initiative is just a made up word! There is nothing inherent in the game that makes having the initiative more advantageous than not having it. The only reason having the initiative is an advantage is because your opponents allow it to be! Their mistake is in constantly checking to the raiser, giving you free cards and cheap bluffs when they should be betting and competing for their fair share of the pot.

Taking advantage of their mistakes. If your opponents are making a mistake to check too many hands to you, how do you take advantage? It seems obvious that you should not bet as often. Take the free cards they are giving you rather than bet someone else's hand. Most players bet constantly when checked to, and that gives up a significant part of the advantage to having the initiative... the ability to take free cards.

Not making this mistake yourself. If it's a mistake to check to the raiser, does that mean you should bet your legitimate hands? Not necessarily. When you flop a strong hand, you should often check to the raiser just like the bad players. The reason is that you are taking advantage of your opponent's tendency to bet way too much. If he'll bet all his hands, of course you should check to him.

There's another angle though, and that is reclaiming the "right of first bluff". Particularly in smaller short-handed pots, being the first person to fire at the pot is a significant strategic advantage. Don't feel that you must check-raise to bluff at a pot. Just bet! It's a much cheaper bluff and it puts your opponent in a difficult position. If he raises too much, you simply start betting your made hands as well, planning to 3-bet. In a vaccuum, checking these hands might be better, but you bet-3-bet in order to fight for the right of first bluff even when your opponent has raised preflop.

If he instead folds his weak hands, then he has given you an enormously profitable flop bluff that you can take whenever the flop is likely to have missed your opponent. Flops with exactly 1 card in the broadway zone are ideal for this.

In other words, you make life much more difficult on the preflop raiser when you bet into him with your bluffs rather than check-raise, and at the same time, you make the actual bluff much less costly for yourself. That's a winning combination. Add in the fact that you will be putting your opponents in new and uncomfortable positions, and they are sure to make more mistakes against you than they do against other players.

Summing it up. Since so few players actually do bet / bluff this way correctly, it's hard to predict how your opponents are going to respond to you. As always, pay close attention and take notes. Do they fold much? If so, consider making some pure bluffs. Do they fold a bit and call a lot? Semi-bluffs with outs will be very profitable against this player. Do they constantly raise? Just wait for a made hand and fire into him, planning to 3-bet.

Take advantage of your opponents misplaying of the initiative by checking behind more. At the same time, ignore the initiative whenever you do not have it. Your wallet will thank you.

Re: poker essays
 

at this rate
you may as well
post everything here

the other essays
 

well, there are a couple dozen more essays and I can't cut and paste them all here. Many of them have a lot of formatting and would be very hard to read without a lot of editing.

Hopefully these samples will offer a little something for those of you who don't want to be bothered with creating yet another website account. I might add a few more for you in the coming days... assuming this thread doesn't get locked too! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

good luck.
eric

Re: poker essays
 

[ QUOTE ]
at this rate
you may as well
post everything here

[/ QUOTE ]

For a second, I thought this was a haiku.

I'm just going to post a few articles here though. That said, even in just these articles there's a lot of material... I think they should be useful for a few people at least! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Eric

Re: poker essays
 

[ QUOTE ]


For a second, I thought this was a haiku.


[/ QUOTE ]

you have no idea
how much i get that

Re: poker essays
 

Dude this is really not the place to just cut and paste everything you've written about poker. You might want to submit your articles to the 2+2 magazine (PM Dynasty or something). But I don't think you're going to spark much discussion. If you have a specific point you want to debate, post a paragraph. What do you hope to gain from this thread?

Re: poker essays
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dude this is really not the place to just cut and paste everything you've written about poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I agree. That's why I just posted 4 articles instead of two dozen.

[ QUOTE ]
You might want to submit your articles to the 2+2 magazine (PM Dynasty or something). But I don't think you're going to spark much discussion. If you have a specific point you want to debate, post a paragraph.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to spark a specific debate. I'm just giving away a lot of poker ideas that have helped me win. Isn't the medium stakes limit hold 'em a good spot to post a bunch of material about the ins and outs of beating medium stakes limit hold 'em games?! Do I really have to break it down hand by hand?

[ QUOTE ]
What do you hope to gain from this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I've explained my motivations already.

I know 2+2 has become paranoid about the possibility that anyone might gain in any way from a post they make. It's true that maybe my site might pick up a couple members from this giveaway. But so what? I think the dozens of original essays I'm giving away to this community should more than compensate for any minor gain I might make. What's the problem here? Do I seem like a spammer who is trying to make money on google ads by driving traffic to some crappy site? Are you afraid that my little rinky-dink website is going to be too much competition? Do you really think someone who comes to my site will stop reading 2+2? I haven't even stopped reading 2+2, and I OWN THE SITE! I just can't imagine why this is an issue.

This is good material and the users of this forum who read it will benefit. IMO, that's all that should matter. If you want to delete / lock / whatever this thread, well, that's your perogative. As just about the only person at 2+2 who isn't a mod of some forum or another... I can't stop you! ;P

-Eric

Re: poker essays
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dude this is really not the place to just cut and paste everything you've written about poker. You might want to submit your articles to the 2+2 magazine (PM Dynasty or something). But I don't think you're going to spark much discussion. If you have a specific point you want to debate, post a paragraph. What do you hope to gain from this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate everything youve said PJ. I dont know elindauer personally, but I do know that he is one of the best limit holdem players on this planet.

If this man wants to click and paste everything he has written about poker this is the exact place it should be done.

Please dont lock his threads. Just stay out of his way and let him do his thing. And for the love of god, please dont ask him stupid rude questions like "What do you hope to gain from this thread?"

Elindaur is a great teacher. Let him teach, and I promise you anyone who pays attention will benefit greatly.

Re: poker essays
 

Yeah, I have to second the desire to let this thread grow. Post everything as far as I am concerned. No locky por favor PJ.

Re: poker essays
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I have to second the desire to let this thread grow. Post everything as far as I am concerned. No locky por favor PJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: poker essays
 

[ QUOTE ]
Elindaur is a great teacher. Let him teach, and I promise you anyone who pays attention will benefit greatly.

[/ QUOTE ]

PJ, lock this and we'll have problems.

Re: poker essays
 

yup please don't lock this. I'm enjoying reading it, and can't figure out a better place for it. Certainly more content then a lot of other stuff that gets put in there. Thanks OP

Re: poker essays
 

Wtf how is this not spam?

Re: poker essays
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wtf how is this not spam?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there is no spoon !

Re: poker essays
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just looked at my other thread and found it locked. I'm not sure what that's about.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, it did seem in bad taste.

I want to thank everyone, so I'm extending you an offer to send me some money.

Re: poker essays
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just looked at my other thread and found it locked. I'm not sure what that's about.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, it did seem in bad taste.

I want to thank everyone, so I'm extending you an offer to send me some money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. I hope the free articles given here and the promise to refund any "I forgot to cancel" type charges will serve to assuage your concern about my motivations.

This offer does seem to be oddly polarizing though, so let me rephrase it.


POKER ESSAY OFFER, TAKE TWO:

Here are a few essays I've written that I thought you guys might enjoy. Hope they help!

Sincerely,
Eric


PS. there are a lot more, and I've created a backdoor for getting temporary free access to them if you want. Or not. It's up to you.


Does that sound better? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Playing against a maniac: Strategy adjustments
 

(At the risk of incurring the rath of the mods, here's another essay. I lost formatting think it should still be readable)

What makes a maniac? Although this article has useful concepts for handling a merely loose and aggressive player, keep in mind that it is focused on beating a true maniac. This is a rare player, the kind of guy who seems to do nothing but press the raise button, no matter how many players are in or what he has. You don't encounter these birds very often, but they are extremely profitable to play against, if you know how to handle them.

Key #1. Value raise! This is the single biggest mistake I see made against a true maniac. Most players figure fairly quickly that they shouldn't be folding anything of value when the maniac shows aggression... but they still play FAR too passively. There's just something about putting in 8 big bets postflop with 1 pair that they can't get behind.

They are giving up a lot of value with their passiveness. The true maniac is going to give you a ton of action with 1 weak pair, and often times with hands that are even worse. The maniac is also likely to call the river with very weak hands, paying off in situations where a normal player would have figured long ago he was behind. You MUST value raise these guys! Imagine that your opponent is playing essentially random cards. Are you the favorite against him? If so, a raise for value should be strongly considered.

Key #2. Embrace the variance. You can't play proper poker against a maniac without losing a few hands. You are certainly going to be outdrawn. You're going to give 7 big bets of action with one pair, and run into a set. That's ok. Keep at it. You will come out ahead later in the night. Failing to value raise a decent but non-monster hand can cost you many big bets against a true maniac. Grab these bets when your hand holds up, and you won't need to worry so much about the occassional outdraw. You'll be paying him with his money anyways.

Also, by giving the maniac plenty of action with your good but not monster hands, you'll find that you are the most likely player to bust him. There is nothing more painful than going into a shell waiting for aces so you can play the maniac, only to discover that he just been busted by your looser playing opponents. Get involved!

Key #3. Risk bets to win the pot. Many players are aware of the idea of risking an extra bet or two to win a big pot. It's the foundation of hold 'em strategy in big multiway pots. In fact, most players vastly overestimate the value they pick up for an extra bet vs the cost in a typical pot (see the articles on small pot play for more on this!). Yet these same players go limp and passively call down when faced with a true maniac. His total aggression intimidates them... "sure, he's a maniac, but he just capped the flop and bet the turn against 3 opponents!"... you must get over this fear to really make big bucks against the maniac. If the maniac has capped the flop against 3 opponents, then the pot is huge. If you have a hand worth showing down against the maniac, you must seriously consider raising his turn bet. Note that you are using his aggression to really put pressure on your opponents... it's very difficult for them to call down with 1-pair at this point. Using the maniac's aggression to knock out the best hand is a key strategy in these games.

Key #4. Know your opponents. Before settling on the best course of action, it's critical to know how your opponents are going to play. The best opponents are tight... you should then frequently use the maniac's aggression to knock them out and take your chances against his random cards. But beware overusing this strategy... if you acquire a maniacal image yourself, you'll have deprived yourself of a great weapon. Every time you fold you're building up a little tight equity... wait for just the right moment to use it!

Also critical in your strategy is knowing whether your opponents are going to showdown 1 pair in the face of multiway aggression between you and the maniac. If they are tight and can be pushed off all non-monsters should you and the maniac get in a raising war (and most players are this way), then you have a golden opportunity to make a boatload of cash. Remember though... we're talking about the true maniac here, who will bet and raise with anything! Basically anytime you are the favorite against his range, you can use this move (and sometimes even when you're not... maniacs sometimes produce really big pots).

Key #5. Know yourself... or at least, know what your opponents think of you. along with Key #4... if you make a few moves early and show down a weak hand, be prepared for your opponents to notice this. I generally go through distinct gear changes when playing a maniac... play tight for a while, then get aggressive, play tight, play aggressive... trying to judge when you've folded enough to make a move on a guy takes practice, but half the battle is realizing that you need to be thinking about this to begin with.

Key #6. Know the maniac. Most people have very little trouble with this, as he is the center of attention. It's worth mentioning though, that you really want to know the maniac's game. This let's you notice deviations from it... for example, if he checks in a spot where he would normally bet, that should peak your interest and you should be less inclined to give huge action with a good but not great hand. Watch for gear changes and tempo changes... anything that suggests that the maniac may be playing this hand a little differently. Even maniacs take a few hands off, and anything you can do to sense when he's slowing down a bit will really help your results.

Key #7. Don't trap! Being able to represent a big hand by simply raising the maniac's bet is crucial... you can steal huge pots by knocking out tighter players with constant aggression from a good but not great hand. To keep up this image, you must let your opponents know that you will be fastplaying all strong hands. Don't fear knocking them out... most of the time, you are happy to have them fold and let you play the maniac heads up.

This is why the best place to be is on the maniac's left... sure, when you are on his right, you can check and try to trap the field, but you rarely have hands that are strong enough to want extra action. The few bets you gain in that position are easily lost to a wise player on the maniac's left who uses the excess aggression to push you off a weak made hand and steal a huge pot.

Key #8. Throw him a bone. Don't be a super-nit against the true maniac... you want to get involved with some weak hands, and then give up if you don't improve. You shouldn't be waiting for monsters against this guy... flop just a pair and you have a very profitable situation!

When you do fold, give it a little thought. Let the maniac know that you believe him, and he's made you fold a little bit of a hand. You should also be thinking just a touch when you are in call down mode, even if you have no intention of folding. Don't overdo it... we don't want things to slowdown. Keep him in rhythym. But pause just enough to let him know that you thought about it. That's all the encouragement a true maniac needs to keep trying to bluff you all night long.

A few example hands. Here are a few hands that I've actually played against maniacs in the past...

Hand 1 - value raising a mediocre hand

The maniac open raises the CO and you 3-bet AT on the button. You are fortunate to catch a good flop:

Ts 6c 2s

The maniac bets into you, you raise, he 3-bets. You obviously think you have the best hand at this point, but still this is a good spot to just call, planning to raise the turn no matter what comes. When you can, let the maniac stay in the lead, giving him as much room to bluff you as possible.

Turn: Kd

The maniac leads. Don't get timid! Raise! Your hand is a huge favorite against his range. You raise and the maniac 3-bets. You should STILL think you have the best hand. Crazy? Remember, again, that we are talking about a true maniac here. My favorite play here is to just call, planning to raise the river.

River: 2c

The maniac leads... raise! These turn and river raises are the kinds of value bets that most players miss in these spots, and it really costs them a lot. Sure, you might lose, and you're certainly going to be 3-bet if you are behind. But that's just it... you are probably going to be 3-bet even if you are ahead, and you are a big favorite to have the best hand, so you WANT to be 3-bet!

I played exactly this hand the other night and just called the river 3-bet. Frankly, I probably should have capped it, as this was just one of many hands I played just like this where my hand is good. The maniac held a missed flush draw here.

You know how long it took you to make all those super-thin heads up value bets, where you, say, value bet pocket deuces unimproved because you're expecting ace high to call you? This is exactly the same way. It takes a little getting used to, but boy is it profitable.

Hand #2 - pushing a player off a better hand

A tight player raises in early position. He's been sitting and waiting for cards all night. The maniac calls in the CO, I call with 77 on the button, both blinds call and we see the flop 5-handed:

flop: TT5 rainbow

EP bets. Maniac does what he does. I 3-bet! hoping EP has, perhaps, AK or AQ, but also setting myself for a big steal. pfr calls 2 cold. Yuck. Maniac caps. EP calls again... but I'm getting the distinct feeling this tight player has a pocket pair, and is not enjoying this raising war!

turn: 9

EP checks, the maniac bets... I raise! I'm planning to keep the pressure on the 3rd player, since my hand is a favorite against the maniac, and the pot is pretty big. If I can only knock out EP, then all my raises are for value. EP thinks a while and folds, and the maniac... folds! A truly rare fold. In fact, he left immediately after this hand, almost broke.

Summary. Playing with a maniac can be a really fun and profitable experience. Most of the time you should be playing pretty straight-forward, waiting for good hands and then raising them. Sometimes though, you get the opportunity to really outplay your opponents. These opportunities will only occur a few times in the session, but play them correctly and you'll pull in extra monster pot or two that your passive opponents would have lost. Embrace the variance, get maximum value out of your good hands, and you'll be well on your way to a big day.

Re: Playing against a maniac: Strategy adjustments
 

Take it easy, guys. I didn't lock this thread, did I? I locked the last one because people complained about having to put in credit card information, PayPal, etc. -- all kinds of spam-related stuff. I was PMed by a user who was worried about the thread. I locked it.

This one I didn't lock. I like all kinds of discussion on holdem, of course. But we mods are told time and time again in the mod forum that links to blogs are considered spamming, and cutting and pasting of articles is something that's frowned upon and that's why I recommended he publish these in the 2+2 magazine.

Believe me, people have been suspended in other forums for less. I don't make the rules, I just try to enforce them since I agreed to be a mod. Please don't make it even harder on me by bitching at the messenger. And Wesley, the last thing I need to hear from users is "stay out of his way and let him do his thing." Come on, dude. Being a mod is a voluntary, thankless position. I have to enforce rules I don't even agree with sometimes. Cut me a little slack, please.

Re: Playing against a maniac: Strategy adjustments
 

Great thread. I just want to say that I have had lesson from Eric before and it was great. I learned a lot from him.

Thanks for doing this, Eric.

Re: Playing against a maniac: Strategy adjustments
 

ya agreed, thanks. Maniac one is good also.

Re: Playing against a maniac: Strategy adjustments
 

[ QUOTE ]
And Wesley, the last thing I need to hear from users is "stay out of his way and let him do his thing." Come on, dude. Being a mod is a voluntary, thankless position. I have to enforce rules I don't even agree with sometimes. Cut me a little slack, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I may have been a bit insensitive to your predicament PJ. Im sorry about that. I just think that whatever the rules are, you should allow Eric to break/bend them. I realize that things arent always that simple, Its just that I feel very passionate about 2+2. I think its the best website in the world and I strongly believe that 2+2 is that much better when Eric is posting anything about poker.

Re: poker essays
 

hey eric,

very nice content.

fwiw, i feel as if you've put pj in a tough spot given his position and the stance 2p2 has on links/posts similar to this. i've actually had to tempban users for similar actions in small stakes.

that said, the content would certainly be helpful to the SStakers. IMO, i think the benefits you offer might outweight the spamminess, but it's really close just based on the website policy alone. i've always appreciated your input in the forums and would hate to see something like this damage that. i know it doesn't seem important, but in the grand scope of things it actually is. exceptions set precedents, and precedents can dictate enforcing policy.

take care,

James

Re: poker essays
 

Good points James. pj has removed the links to my site which should remove any lingering concerns about 2+2 policy. Consider my offer to be simply to be the free content here and that's it. I'll take down the free membership page later this evening.


And on that note... I'll add another essay!

-Eric

PS. Thanks for all the kind words of encouragement in this thread. You guys are too kind. Tonight I'm going to go through and post a comment in every thread of whatever is on the front page of both the mid-limit and small stakes forums for you.

dominating the tables: slightly loose, hyper aggressive play
 

(Here's a more speculative article attempting to explain the success of players like DERB. Enjoy.)

The current standard. Poker players make all kinds of mistakes. The most common one though is being overly passive. Passive players tend to check and call when they should bet or raise. This mistake manifests itself in many expensive ways. First, they miss bets with strong hands. Second, they fail to drive out players who then get the right odds and draw out on them, costing them pots. Third, they fail to bluff out players who have them beaten but would fold to a show of aggression, again costing them the whole pot.

Aggressive players, on the other hand, almost always limit their mistakes to the bet they are firing into the pot. Very few pots have ever been lost because a player played too aggressively.

In limit hold 'em, the size of the pot is usually quite a bit bigger than the size of a bet. It stands to reason then, that if aggressive mistakes tend to cost a bet, while passive mistakes can cost you the pot, you should strive to make all your mistakes aggressive ones. Simple, right?

Once a good player understands this, he starts to play more aggressively. Faced with a bunch of calling stations at low limit poker, he simultaneously tightens up, waiting for good cards and then betting them. He becomes tight and aggressive.

Virtually every poker book written these days extols the virtues of the tight / aggressive mentality. It makes sense, and you can definitely win with it, so there must be something to it. It's a fairly easy style to learn for a reasonably patient and intelligent person, and as such, an entire army of low limit TAGs has been spawned in recent years.

Yet the data suggests that these TAGs are not advancing up the poker food chain the way they should. Mid and high limit games don't seem to be dominated by these tight players... in fact, the best players seem to be much closer to the loose-aggressive maniac fish then they are to a TAG! Mind-boggling as it seems, these guys keep winning. How do they do it?

The poker evolution. I've become convinced that "TAG", the way it's currently viewed, is not the final stop on the poker journey. The final stop is, I think, slightly-loose-hyper-aggressive. Let's call this style, the "slag".

The big picture. Let's back up a second and take a look at the big poker picture. Poker is a game of probabilities. The goal of the game is to play in such a way that when the average bet goes into the pot, you have a better chance of winning it then the other guy. That's not to say that you have an edge on every bet that goes into the pot... just that on average, you're farther ahead when you're ahead, then you are behind when you're behind. We're looking for an overall advantage in the probability game.

One simple way to accomplish this is to simply sit back and wait for good cards. You can feel confident that, given decent postflop skills, you are getting an edge on the bets you put in. Provided your opponents are not overly tough or observant, this strategy is very effective, and it's no wonder that so many low limit winners play this way.

As you move up though, your opponents start to catch on to this. They get better at getting out of the way of your big hands, while punishing you severely when you are unfortunate enough to be dealt a good-but-still-second-best type of hand. When faced with competition like this, the "good" players complain that they can no longer beat the game, wondering why they are breaking even or losing despite their "good stats". They try to figure out whether they are calling down too much, or folding too much... never considering that the answer may well be both! They complain about how their opponents seem solid, but then always "get there" when they do decide to get out of line. They don't notice all the other times their opponents get out of line and take down the pot without a fight.

A no-limit example. There is a classic problem in no limit, that goes something like this: your opponent makes a big raise before the flop. You estimate that he either has AK or a big pair, AA, KK or QQ. Being the excellent student of poker that you are, you know that it's 4:3 that he actually just has AK. You also know that your hand, 22, is a small favorite against AK. Should you call?

The answer is clearly no. Even though you will be the favorite more than half the time, you will only be a slight favorite. The rest of the time, you will be a huge underdog. The amount you lose when you are up against the big pair more than makes up for the amount you gain by calling against AK.

Applying this concept to the slag. The way to beat good players in limit (and probably no limit too, for that matter), is to convince them to constantly call you in the situation described above. You want to put them in a situation where they are frequently putting in their money either way behind or slightly ahead. How do you pull this off?

Well, you're going to need decent cards to put your opponents in the position of being way behind to begin with. It's pretty hard to get way behind 72o. So the general theories about playing tight are generally correct. That gets you 90% of the way there. More on that final 10% in a minute...

The way you get your opponents to call down way behind or slightly ahead, is to get them to check-call down their unimproved ace high, even king high, while encouraging them to stay passive. And how do you do that? Well, you need to develop an image of being a wild, reckless player. A player who is constantly bluffing. You want your opponents to think you are a maniac.

Avoiding the problems of actually being a maniac. "But"... you say ... "maniacs always get crushed. Why would you want to be a maniac?". Ah. You don't want to be a maniac. You just want your opponents to think you are a maniac. Then you can wait for good cards and value bet them to death!

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to cultivate the image that you are a maniac when you are sitting back and waiting for good cards. This is where the slag comes into play... the way to develop a maniacal image is to play a little looser than the TAG style would suggest, and then play all your hands, draws and made hands alike, hyper aggressively. Look for opportunities to attack any time you are going to play. Be fearless. Make lots of free showdown raises / 3-bets, even caps on the turn... do not call if it can be reasonably avoided. Assume your opponent is showing down any ace high, and value bet relentlessly. Play back at any player who is stealing often enough to warrant it. Fearless poker.

The result. Most of the TAG-handbook is about finding +EV plays as your opponents present them. You adjust to how they are playing, taking what they give you. The slag-handbook, on the other hand, is about creating +EV plays. Your sometimes crazy-looking but only really slightly -EV plays (after fold equity is considered) are going to produce an image. Many of your opponents will adjust their games to that image, going from reasonably solid to calling stations. Many will become more passive as they fear you'll be quick to make it 3-bets on them. Their passive play makes your bluffs and semi-bluffs more profitable then they would be otherwise... you scoop up all the pots where you both miss, and are rarely charged the full amount to draw.

Some will go on tilt and make truly absurd plays, spewing money on terrible calldowns, hopeless bluffs, or ridiculous action with a weak made hand. Most players have a very hard time avoiding tilt, and being able to induce this state of terrible play in an opponent is a tremendous asset.

Other players will simply get out of your way, tightening up and waiting for good cards. This is also a benefit for you. Any time your opponents pass on a +EV play, there is that much more money available for the remaining players. Developing a fearsome image from the BB is especially beneficial in this regard, as the big blind benefits most from a TAG passing on a steal attempt.

Challenges. This is all great, but there are some tremendous challenges to overcome when playing this style. First, you have to be willing to stomach increased variance. Anyone who has played poker very long knows that there is already enough variance in this game to drive a guy crazy... handling the swings in this style may be too much for the average player.

Second, you have to be very careful not to go too far and become a LAG. It's one thing to give up a little bit on a raise... it's another to constantly over-estimate your bluff equity and spew chips. Walking that line takes tremendous hand reading and situational skills. Jumping right in as a newbie is a recipe for disaster.

Third, you'll probably want to play fewer tables than normal. A big part of effective postflop play is understanding how your opponents are adjusting to you. Some will give you much more action than normal, others will simply call down everything, etc... knowing what your opponents calls and raises say about their hand ranges is critical to walking the fine line between slag and LAG.

What about those other articles? I've written a lot of TAG-oriented strategy articles on this site... are they still valid? Well, yes and no. Yes, they are valid in that they show you how to play a very tough TAG style. If you really understand the small pot articles and the value-bluff raise (and 3-bet!), you'll can get pretty far. This understanding took me right to the bottom edge of the slag range... I was playing about 29/20 in 5 and 6 handed deals before this recent epiphany. With this somewhat-tight-but-very-aggressive style, you'll be right on the doorstep of the slag, slightly-loose-hyper-aggressive style I'm promoting now. Whether you want to take this next leap is up to you... you can a long ways without doing so. I was multi-tabling 30/60 before making this most recent advance in my game!

There is a big difference between the two styles though, and a number of close plays change depending on both your current image and the one you are trying to project. I'll have a lot more information coming on this style, and will be sure to identify which pieces of advice are slag-specific.

A final word of warning. It's sooo easy to misplay this style. I've been experimenting with it a lot recently, and it's been a long time since I've made so many clear mistakes in a session. Yet I'm convinced this is the way to go. You can really dump chips in a hurry if you misplay it, and even playing well your downswings are bound to be particularly brutal.

That said, I've never felt so comfortable playing poker short-handed. Viewing hands as instruments to get the money in either slightly behind or way ahead has me much less concerned about grinding out tiny edges in each hand, and much more comfortable simply reading my opponent's range, and playing my hand aggressively against it. If it doesn't work out this hand, eh, no problem. The next deal is just moments away, and everyone is waiting to see if I have picked up a hand...