PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

The threads not up by 6 PM, so I thought that I'd get it started.

No Limit is a game of information and manipulation, and position is the key to having the most of both of these. In position you get to see what your opponents do before you have to act, and have the most capability of taking the course of action that directs the flow of the hand in the direction you want it to take both on this round of betting and on subsequent rounds of betting. The ability to call, raise, or check behind lets you control the size of the pot. Bluffs and semi-bluffs become much more successful when you have a chance to see what your opponents want to do with their hands.

Basically, when in position I look for the course of action that will make the most out of my hand. Out of position I start looking for reasons to be out of the hand entirely.



EDIT FROM SUNNY: Thanks for posting this Sean - I guess Matt and I both have had busy days. Let's use this thread to discuss Position as well as the Hand Reading and Fundamentals In Practice chapters, and use it as a general wrap-up for the Fundamentals section before starting on REM in maybe like the middle of the week.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

I don't have any questions in particular but I dont want to see this thread die so I thought I would bump it up.

Hand reading is one part of my game that I feel is extremely weak and am eager to hear some disscussion on the subject.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any questions in particular but I dont want to see this thread die so I thought I would bump it up.

Hand reading is one part of my game that I feel is extremely weak and am eager to hear some disscussion on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the micros I've found hand reading to be pretty difficult. If you are table selecting well you will be in a lot of pots with players who will play almost any two and call down with some very questionable cards. In general though you can find some distinct patterns as you get some hands in with people. Look at the cards at showdown and take notes of what they will call with (two overcards, an ace, straight draws, the nuts, etc), what they like to bet hard (draws, TP, middle pair). Pay very close attention to the two betting extremes: minbets and all-in. Normally there isn't a middle ground here. Either it is a weak hand or draw, or (at least in there mind) a very strong hand.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

I have problem in pre-flop when I raise in middle position first in with hand like JJ AQs etc. and someone re-raises in button to put him in hand. Is he raising with uber hand or just to be able to steal pot in flop?

How you see 3-bet range to be in button against middle raiser? TA opponent vs. LAG players? I am thinking mainly NL25 and NL50 limits (6max)?

How often they have AA,KK,AKs?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

Two comments. First, against bad players, it's true you lose some advantages. For example, if you're an excellent bluffer, you lose a good deal of that advantage. If you're an excellent hand reader, you lose a good deal of that advantage. However, you more than make up for that by simply playing better cards on average and stronger hands on average. I always laugh when I hear about players who call themselves "good" but then claim a table full of bad players can't be beaten. If you can't adjust, then you really have a limited skill set.

Regarding position, the majority of players, both good and bad, do not understand it that well. Bad players make the bigger mistake - they don't understand how being "in position" can be a big advantage. Some good players who have read some books make a smaller mistake. They overrate the importance of position in the sense that they think it's always a big advantage to be "in position". For one thing, they sometimes play cards that are too weak or try to make too many plays "in position". But the more common mistake is to forget that being first to act is often a big advantage, not the huge disadvantage that all the poker authors try to tell us it is. Usually, but not always, it's better to act late. Sometimes, probably more often than some people think, it's better to act first. Comments?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have problem in pre-flop when I raise in middle position first in with hand like JJ AQs etc. and someone re-raises in button to put him in hand. Is he raising with uber hand or just to be able to steal pot in flop?

How you see 3-bet range to be in button against middle raiser? TA opponent vs. LAG players? I am thinking mainly NL25 and NL50 limits (6max)?

How often they have AA,KK,AKs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, but I can tell you this. I've been keeping track of my reraising stats. This is for online play at .5/$1, $1/2 and $2/4. When I reraise a raiser by betting 3x his bet amount, I am getting folds at the rate of approximately 3:1. In other words, it's profitable to raise with any 2 cards. Of course, it's not profitable to raise any time you have 2 cards. Frequency is obviously important. But as long as you are not noticed to be reraising significantly more than you can be expected to actually get good cards, then raising with 72o is profitable for me. I wouldn't raise with that because why should I? I'll just wait until I get 22 or 43s or some other weak hand that has additional profit from higher potential of winning a showdown.

So to answer your question, I doubt I'm the only one who's figured this out. Sometimes you're getting screwed. But which times? (I reraise with premium hands also.)

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

Here is a scenario where I find myself stacking off all too often but especially OOP, and that's hitting trips on a connected flop with multiple players (3+). In this paticular situation it's the first hand I'm dealt so I have no table reads. When flopping a strong hand on a coordinated flop, how much does being OOP devalue the hand or is this simply a situation in which a lot of money is going to be lost when behind or someone catches up regardless?

I've been trying to keep the pot small becuase I've been burned many times with these flops but I feel like I am now playing them too weakly and try to justify it by saying to myself, "it will set up slow plays in later hands," but I know at micro that's usually wishful thinking.


Full Tilt Poker
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.05/$0.10
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $16.20
UTG+1: $10.20
CO: $9.85
Button: $14.35
SB: $9.20
Hero: $10

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is BB with 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
UTG calls, 2 folds, Button calls, SB calls, Hero checks.

Flop: K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ($0.4, 4 players)

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

keeping the pot small often provides the correct odds for draws to stay in the hand. That being said, at micro's players often tell themselves "zomg, I have a flushdraw" and call you down. That is were value betting them to death increases your winrate a lot at these levels. Often though, on later streets you need to recognize the situations where you should c/f or b/f if a draw hits based on the players.

In the hand you posted, you should def bet the flop (pot) or raise the flop if sb opens. Re-eval the options once the flop action developes more from there and you can begin to narrow ranges. A reraise from utg or button on the flop would more likely be a stronger K and not a FD.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the micros I've found hand reading to be pretty difficult. If you are table selecting well you will be in a lot of pots with players who will play almost any two and call down with some very questionable cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a few things working in your favour, though. Remember Bayes' Theorem: you need estimates on 1. your opponents' initial distribution (what hands they play) and 2. their conditional probabilities (how they play them). If the latter information is precise and accurate, i.e. if you opponent is a straightforward player, then usually it doesn't matter much whether you get 1. right.

Fortunately, most players in the micros are either straightforward or crazy (which is actually straightforward in a weird way). So you're not making a big mistake assuming the prior distribution to be uniform (they play any two cards), and then just listen to what they tell you with their actions.

Furthermore, if they call you down with a lot of bad hands: fine! That means you'll make money against them by winning more pots than losing. now all you have to do is make sure the pots you lose are not substantially bigger on average than the pots you win. So use pot control techniques to keep your losing pots from getting too big, and you're there.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

OK. I do have several things I'd like to bring up/ask in these sections.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]1. I think position plays a key role in how good your implied odds are. In a later section of the book (top of page 126), factors that increase implied odds are listed (in what I'm sure wasn't designed to be an exhaustive list) as:

1. Money behind
2. Loose opponents
3. Disguised draw
4. Draw to the nuts

I think position plays a key role there too, and I just wanted to point that out and make sure I'm thinking correctly as well.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2. Top of page 80 you say that position has more value as the stacks get deeper. You give the “easiest to grasp” as control over the last (generally the largest) bet. I’d be interested in hearing some of the reasons that are considered harder to grasp.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]3. Hand # 7 in fundamentals in practice. I FINALLY found where this was in the book! “You might delay a round if a large # of cards could ruin your hand, provided you could still get all in on the turn or river. In this hand, only a few cards were really bad, so reraising the flop was the right idea.”

OK. This is a concept I know has caused a lot of confusion in quite a few posts I’ve seen. It reminds me very much of SSHE concept of waiting for the turn to raise confusion that happened a # of years ago. At any rate, I posted this hand a couple weeks ago . Where I was trying to apply this concept. I also remember reading another thread some time back (which I can't seem to locate atm) where someone had top two against 4 opponents showing interesting (something like a red 56 on a monotone black 456 board) where much discussion was had between waiting and pushing it on the flop. I'd really like to get some more details on this concept. Perhaps we could see an example of when to wait until the turn when a large # of cards can hurt you. Matt was kind enough to reply in my 99 hand I posted and said:

"QTip you've got to raise that flop big. too many cards can hurt you, you have good equity now but may be sussed if a diamond or straight card hits, and there's a lot of money already in the pot relative to the remaining money."

Here's what I gather from that:

raise flop big = I'm committed to the pot right now. I think this may be different than top two since my hand is quite a bit stronger (Man...I wish I could find that other old post. I remember seeing grunch replying in it and so forth....)

too many cards can hurt you = That's what we're talking about here.

There's a lot of money already in the pot relative to remaining money - ok...that's a big factor

Also, people were talking about how there were too many opponents to wait. To me this is a double edged sword..cuz the more opponents in the hand, the more likely someone is to already have a big hand (QJ or whatever..there are a ton of hands that are better than mine already). However, also the more opponents there are, the more likely we are to have someone drawing...so, there's a bit of an oxymoron or whatever there.

At any rate, I'd love to see a couple examples of when to wait vs. when to push it on the flop.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4. Hand #10 We have AQo and raise, the co calls and the button reraises, we fold. Which I think is a good play. However, I'm wondering if you change this if the co folded and only the tag button has raised you. Are you calling then?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]3. Hand # 7 in fundamentals in practice. I FINALLY found where this was in the book! “You might delay a round if a large # of cards could ruin your hand, provided you could still get all in on the turn or river. In this hand, only a few cards were really bad, so reraising the flop was the right idea.”

OK. This is a concept I know has caused a lot of confusion in quite a few posts I’ve seen. It reminds me very much of SSHE concept of waiting for the turn to raise confusion that happened a # of years ago. At any rate, I posted this hand a couple weeks ago . Where I was trying to apply this concept.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hm, that's interesting. I'm not sure your play was that bad, although i liked the twenty-ninth president's advice to raise so that one caller leaves a pot sized bet behind, giving you some room to maneuver, better. But on the other hand, if we knew what they actually had, we'd want to get all-in on the flop. right?

Let's try to make a list. Delaying the bet might be good if your opponents

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] are likely to outdraw you,
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] are likely to call on a blank turn, but unlikely to call two bets on flop and blank turn,
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] are more likely to call on a blank turn, than you are to call on a scary turn,
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] have made hands bigger than yours often,
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] they are likely to bluff a blank turn.

ad 1: you can't be afraid of a longshot draw. If villain draws to three outs, our equity edge in every dollar that enters the pot is so big that you can't afford not to bet for value.
ad 2: This includes cases where the stacks are short enough that one bet means an all-in. If villain is unable to lay down a draw on the turn, you might as well put him all-in then.
ad 3: This is crucial: you have to be able to see when you're beat, and deep enough to lay your hand down. On a 3-straight, 2-flush board that can be hard. If the turn in your hand is the 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], completing one of the draws, do you lay it down to the flush, or do you bet to keep the straight draw from hitting.?On this flop, if you delay, every draw becomes a 15-outer.
ad 4: Obviously, one of the two opponents in your hand could already have a straight. Then you are the guy who is drawing.
ad 5: I've stacked quite a few villains recently who riverbluffed their missed draws. Normally you want drawing hands to pay you off before they know whether they hit or not, but if they pay you off anyway...


In your hand, 1. applies, 2. probably doesn't since you are pretty deep if you flat call, with shorter stacks maybe yes, 3. doesn't since you can't really see when you're behind, 4. is unlikely, but possible, and i don't know about 5. So, i like a raise more than a call in this case.

For hand #7 from the book, several of the conditions apply, but the first doesn't. But add a flush draw to the hand, and you might be better off waiting for a safe turn to bet. In PLO, this would actually be a pretty common play.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

Hi QTip,

Not neglecting this thread - I guess it's just been a busy week for both Matt and me.

1. I agree with your fifth factor.

2. Lots of reasons why deep stacks make position important. In a nutshell, think of SPR. With deep stacks you tend to be playing higher SPRs more often. That benefits position (among other things). Check out the blurb at the top of page 199.

3. I think (from your analysis) that you understand the situation well. As far as when to wait and when to push, it comes down to the usual stuff - REM and SPR. When you have more equity against your opponents' ranges and a lower SPR, lean towards committing (think middle set with SPR 7). When you have less equity and a higher SPR, lean towards waiting (think bottom two with SPR 30).

4. You're saying because his rr range would be wider in that situation? Eh, I see the slight difference, though I'm not sure it should change your decision all that much. Point is - it's a nasty spot. Bad SPR, offsuit big card hand, out of position heads up against a good player - not a good situation to be in. Maybe it could be profitable if you really know your opponent's postflop betting tendencies well, but all in all I think folding's the play.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
4. You're saying because his rr range would be wider in that situation? Eh, I see the slight difference, though I'm not sure it should change your decision all that much. Point is - it's a nasty spot. Bad SPR, offsuit big card hand, out of position heads up against a good player - not a good situation to be in. Maybe it could be profitable if you really know your opponent's postflop betting tendencies well, but all in all I think folding's the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx for the responses on all those. I want to ask one more thing on #4 here...not to beat it to death. But, let's say that you limped AQo in EP, and this good player in the co raises to 4x after it folded to him, are you playing it now?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. You're saying because his rr range would be wider in that situation? Eh, I see the slight difference, though I'm not sure it should change your decision all that much. Point is - it's a nasty spot. Bad SPR, offsuit big card hand, out of position heads up against a good player - not a good situation to be in. Maybe it could be profitable if you really know your opponent's postflop betting tendencies well, but all in all I think folding's the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx for the responses on all those. I want to ask one more thing on #4 here...not to beat it to death. But, let's say that you limped AQo in EP, and this good player in the co raises to 4x after it folded to him, are you playing it now?

[/ QUOTE ]


Or let us say you on purpose limp AQo because you have a 'good' player (ei a 2+2 bot intent on punishing the limpers, or just to play raised pots in position, so he's range is wide as is yours) ... expecting a raise in lp with the intentention of calling and figthing hard for it post flop, is that suicide ? (AQ might be strong enough to limp reraise, but I'm ignoring limp reraising here)

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. You're saying because his rr range would be wider in that situation? Eh, I see the slight difference, though I'm not sure it should change your decision all that much. Point is - it's a nasty spot. Bad SPR, offsuit big card hand, out of position heads up against a good player - not a good situation to be in. Maybe it could be profitable if you really know your opponent's postflop betting tendencies well, but all in all I think folding's the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx for the responses on all those. I want to ask one more thing on #4 here...not to beat it to death. But, let's say that you limped AQo in EP, and this good player in the co raises to 4x after it folded to him, are you playing it now?

[/ QUOTE ]


Or let us say you on purpose limp AQo because you have a 'good' player (ei a 2+2 bot intent on punishing the limpers, or just to play raised pots in position, so he's range is wide as is yours) ... expecting a raise in lp with the intentention of calling and figthing hard for it post flop, is that suicide ? (AQ might be strong enough to limp reraise, but I'm ignoring limp reraising here)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're getting to what I'm after here. It kinda sucks no matter how we look at this too. If we call his raise, we have a 13spr (given 100 stacks) oop against a good player. However, if we're folding to his raise here, he can just abuse the crap out of us. I'm starting to hate AQ oop with 100 stacks.

I also had a short conversation with a good player not too long ago about how the button should handle AK if the EP player will fold AQ, AJ, KQ type hands to our raise. I think it's an interesting thought process.

I don't know here...I feel like I'm in a gerbil wheel on this topic.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

QTip,

I think there are some creative ways you can handle the conundrum you and Gelford are talking about. To answer your question about if you limp and button makes it 4x, I would call in that spot in the book example because in our example the effective stack is 200bb. But I assume you guys are talking more about in a typical capped 100bb setting.

You have a few options. Folding is one of them, but I see what you're saying about wanting to exploit a loose-raising button. Some of it depends on how the button will play postflop. If he'll get overly crazy on c-betting, three-barrel bluffing, etc., you can call pf (even though you'll have an awkward SPR) with the plan of being profitable by taking certain passive postflop lines to let him hang himself. But if he's smart postflop - i.e. - applies just enough pressure without hanging himself, you can think about some other options. What will he do if you open with a min-raise? Will he 3-bet with the same range he'd raise with? Will he tend to call instead? (Either way is better for you SPR-wise.) What if you limp min-reraise him? He'll almost never fold any portion of his opening range, and you'll have a better SPR, plus initiative.

-S

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

oh, one more thing QTip....

If button is passive or predictable postflop, the middle SPR might not be so bad. I.e. - if he won't bet worse hands very often postflop, you might be able to play the hand such that you know exactly what correct decisions to make after the flop.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

Sunny, thx a lot, I appreciate it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
QTip,

I think there are some creative ways you can handle the conundrum you and Gelford are talking about. To answer your question about if you limp and button makes it 4x, I would call in that spot in the book example because in our example the effective stack is 200bb. But I assume you guys are talking more about in a typical capped 100bb setting.

You have a few options. Folding is one of them, but I see what you're saying about wanting to exploit a loose-raising button. Some of it depends on how the button will play postflop. If he'll get overly crazy on c-betting, three-barrel bluffing, etc., you can call pf (even though you'll have an awkward SPR) with the plan of being profitable by taking certain passive postflop lines to let him hang himself. But if he's smart postflop - i.e. - applies just enough pressure without hanging himself, you can think about some other options. What will he do if you open with a min-raise? Will he 3-bet with the same range he'd raise with? Will he tend to call instead? (Either way is better for you SPR-wise.) What if you limp min-reraise him? He'll almost never fold any portion of his opening range, and you'll have a better SPR, plus initiative.

-S

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx Sunny. I'm trying to incorporate these things into my game. However, trying to create sprs oop seems to be an almost impossible task....we'll probably get into that more in sessions to come.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

hi guys, first of all i really enjoy reading this book, and i must say i learn a lot from it. up till now i do understand points made in the book, however there is one point that i have a problem with. on the page 88 when talking about hand nr 3. i do understand the idea of not going all in but i dont understand the point made about winning chances.
"But your winning chances are roughly 6-to-4 or 1.5-to-1"
i dont understand this, based on what are my chances 6-to-4?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
hi guys, first of all i really enjoy reading this book, and i must say i learn a lot from it. up till now i do understand points made in the book, however there is one point that i have a problem with. on the page 88 when talking about hand nr 3. i do understand the idea of not going all in but i dont understand the point made about winning chances.
"But your winning chances are roughly 6-to-4 or 1.5-to-1"
i dont understand this, based on what are my chances 6-to-4?

[/ QUOTE ]


the hand estimates that you have 10 outs, yielding about a 40% chance of winning. 60% goes to your opponents, so 60-to-40, which is 6-to-4 or 1.5-to-1.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

thanks for taking time to answer my question, however i still dont get it, i think. You say there are 10 outs, there are 47 cards left, our odds are 4,7-to-1, right? So, i still dont see where should i take 40% from. I am sorry if i ask a basic question, but i really think this is important part to understand, thanks

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

Rule of 4: with two cards to come, multiply your number of outs by 4%.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

Might be a stupid question but I am a NL noob so bear with me:

Hand no. 2 on page 87 you discuss what to do with a small stack relative to the pot (raise all in) and say this would be a bad move with a much bigger stack. So far so good.

My question is what to do in the big stack scenario? Presumably you just call to keep the pot small and because a smaller than all in raise may just result in a reraise so you end up folding or committed anyway. In fact is this an example of what can happen with poor planning (i.e. I've got a good hand so I think I ought to raise at least a little bit and then wham you're faced with an all in reraise).

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
You say there are 10 outs, there are 47 cards left, our odds are 4,7-to-1, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. 37:10 so 3.7:1. Taking half of this because we have this chance twice with two streets to come gives about 1.8:1 or 36% equity as an estimation.

The rule of 2/4 was used in the example which gives 4 x number of outs = 40% again as an approximation.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a scenario where I find myself stacking off all too often but especially OOP, and that's hitting trips on a connected flop with multiple players (3+). In this paticular situation it's the first hand I'm dealt so I have no table reads. When flopping a strong hand on a coordinated flop, how much does being OOP devalue the hand or is this simply a situation in which a lot of money is going to be lost when behind or someone catches up regardless?

I've been trying to keep the pot small becuase I've been burned many times with these flops but I feel like I am now playing them too weakly and try to justify it by saying to myself, "it will set up slow plays in later hands," but I know at micro that's usually wishful thinking.


Full Tilt Poker
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.05/$0.10
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $16.20
UTG+1: $10.20
CO: $9.85
Button: $14.35
SB: $9.20
Hero: $10

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is BB with 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
UTG calls, 2 folds, Button calls, SB calls, Hero checks.

Flop: K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ($0.4, 4 players)

[/ QUOTE ]


I usually make a commitment decision here based on what type of player they are...good v bad? tight versus loose?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

Posted this in SSNL, was not sure where it belonged, Sunny asked me to crosspost this, so here goes:

[ QUOTE ]

I thought the book was tremendous - Finally got a copy/able to read it, so am happy I did so. Matt Flynn is also a friend of mine, so this post is by NO MEANS a criticism of him or the book. That said, I found issue with some of the hand examples, and figured i'd post them here, and get the ball rolling: (If this was done already in another forum, so be it, figured SSNL was the most appropriate)

This quiz takes place on Pg. 87

hand 2, 50bbs you have 66. you call a 3xbb raise and flop 7 5 4r. the authors say the best play is to shove, but in actuality the best play is to call and call all in on the turn. generally shoving wont have any pos play, except getting all in with 56 or 64 (which is rare) - these hands typically will get all in on the turn anyway. given those odds it's very rare (and generally impossible) to make villain fold a better hand (7x or overpair) therefore inducing the 2nd barrel shove is much better. even though you typically cede 25% ish pot equity to overcards (or for the 61 dollar pot, thats 15ish$) inducing a 2nd barrel has mroe value. this is one of those spots where you're committed but lack any true folding equity; if you had a hand like 96o, where you would gain from making villain fold ace high (also, you cant profitably call all in on the turn if it blanks!) then the proper move is to shove on the flop.

for hand 3, with the 6s again, facing a tight players raise, i agree that fold is the correct move, but the authors are missing two key elements of the hand. the first is that even a straightforward player here will have a semibluff of his own often; and since you have 2 6s, this points towards clubs. getting all in on essentially a flip with the dead money of the pfr and preflop is really not bad. the second is that you are NEVER in bad shape; this player just wont have a straight EVER (very few 6s in the deck, and the only reasonable 68s hand he could play has 2 combos) and since your set draw is live against 2 of the three sets, this is typically a slightly behind/chop syndrom with overlay, which means the decision to shove (even if they never fold, which is fine) is much closer then it appears. (and if i was in a gambly mood, i'd gun it in)

hand 4 (page 89 now) the authors have another option which is what i'd do largely. (Id bump it up preflop quite frequently) but that is to underbet the pot on the flop. basically, encourage all gutshots to come along as well as midpair or whatnot. the check because you pick up outs (just an obvious gutshot) typically wont be enough to warrant giving the freebie (or TAKING the freebie) vs. taking the pot down... I'd generally bet there.

in hand 5 vs the wild player, the best play is to installment plan. the authors suggest betting 150 itno 183 or moving in (260 behind). betting 150 puts 483 and 110 behind, but may lose your customer on the turn; betting half pot (say, 90) creates 360ish pot with 170 behind, which typically accomplishes the task alot better.

hand 6 it's too premature to pot control in a 4way pot on the flop. the best play is to bet and generally fold if button raises, since he is the one who needs to worry about the people to act (esp. the small stack) who will certainly commit with many holdings (therefore making it unlikely you just got bluffraised) it's very rare to create a scenario where not cbetting is better then cbetting here.

hand 10 is too simplistic (AQo facing a reraise with position) in a live full ring game i'd lean more towards folding, but online, shorthanded, etc. you're giving up a little bit by folding. another option as well is to 4bet/fold to shove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

Hi Bobbo,

Okay...


Hand 2: You make good points, and perhaps if the value of getting that second barrel was high (i.e. - your opponent's range was light and he was a known spewer when you let him, etc.) your line might be better. Although, that should also be countered by the fact that there are hands which he might call with now but fold later. i.e. - if he'll fold a pair on the turn if a one-card straight card comes, or if he'll call on the flop with overcards but fold the turn, etc.

Hand 3: I discussed this hand in detail in another thread - here's what said there:

[ QUOTE ]
If we actually assign these players ranges, hero probably has even less equity than we give credit for in the example!

First off, AP's range is way wider than AA/KK/AcKc. He's aggressive, and most of the time his flop bet is just a c-bet. I think it's far too optimistic to think that he's gonna stick his chips in with anything but a very strong hand after he bets the flop, gets raised by a tight player, and then sees an all-in from hero after that. What do you estimate is the probability that AP has a hand he's willing to commit to? It's pretty low.

Secondly, tight player's range alone is scary. If he has any pocket pair from jacks down to fours, hero is actually about a 2-to-1 dog against that range. Then even if you add in the fact that hero will get 2-to-1 on his money when (and that "when" is rare) AP comes along, the problem is that by adding AP's [strong] range into the equation hero's equity actually ends up being more like 25 percent (3-to-1).

Hero's draw is a weak non-nut straight draw on a flush draw board, his SPR is in the double digits, there's a bet and a raise in front of him, and he has zero f-equity. This is a fold.


[/ QUOTE ]


Hand 4: I like your line. Perhaps a bit advanced for that point in the book though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Hand 5: Again, your line has merit. The only thing I don't like about the installment plan in this scenario is that the board is SO draw heavy. He's likely to have hands that will call now but fold later (without improvement) as opposed to slightly weaker made hands that are calling regardless.

Hand 6: I don't think we give a "definitive" answer on this hand because, as we mention, you have a few different options here. Not sure if I'd *always* bet here, but I do see your point.

Hand 10: Not sure if you misread or if I am misunderstanding you, but note that we do NOT have position in this hand. I agree that perhaps against certain wily players I might 4-bet, but for the most part I'd fold here a lot.

Thanks for the great comments. Glad you liked the book - can't wait for you to read Volume Two.

-S

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

Sunny - thx for responding [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
i.e. - if he'll fold a pair on the turn if a one-card straight card comes, or if he'll call on the flop with overcards but fold the turn, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think anyone in their right mind will bet/call with say KQ on the flop? Obviously if you can push 6s there for that much value, that's the clear plan, but normally 6s have THIN value (although certainly some) but technically win the pot when you already had the best hand. Again, you have to worry about fading a ~6 outer, but villain only has to bluff a small % to make up for it. About them folding to a scarecard; the flop has 2 clubs, if they're not going broke on a 4card straight, doesnt this mean they shell up a lot of turns? IE, an ace if they actually have the overpair, or a club if they have the overpair, etc. etc. again it's somewhat nitpicky of me, but you make alot of money encouraging bluffs in spots where you have both a made hand AND a draw, and are not folding. (So you can fall back on the made hand potential of your draw)

About hand 3, you're right, and I did say I think you guys hit the right move, but it's somewhat important to stress it's close. I feel it is anyway!

[ QUOTE ]

Hand 4: I like your line. Perhaps a bit advanced for that point in the book though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks

[ QUOTE ]

Hand 5: Again, your line has merit. The only thing I don't like about the installment plan in this scenario is that the board is SO draw heavy. He's likely to have hands that will call now but fold later (without improvement) as opposed to slightly weaker made hands that are calling regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll have to recheck the book, but I seemed to recall it was a fairly dry ace high board? I'll check this and bow out [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Hand 6: I don't think we give a "definitive" answer on this hand because, as we mention, you have a few different options here. Not sure if I'd *always* bet here, but I do see your point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was left vague, and clearly DID demonstrate that the right play changes based on who exactly will play on, but the thing is... There's only one way to find out who wants to play ball on the flop, and that's to bet!

[ QUOTE ]

Hand 10: Not sure if you misread or if I am misunderstanding you, but note that we do NOT have position in this hand. I agree that perhaps against certain wily players I might 4-bet, but for the most part I'd fold here a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]
This speaks in volumes to spr, but the less the ratio, the less relevant position becomes. Thus, in a 3bet pot the fact (to play or not to play AQo) we don't have position is not as important. There's actually a thread going on right now in MSNL about this, I'll link it: It starts with a poll
The consensus is not clear, and of course it's tricky about "what to do." I do know that if I'm opening X% of hands, and folding Y% (including AQo) to a 3bet there, people make money with ATC. This encourages 3betting, and for my game this is a nightmare. I don't like getting 3bet, mainly because my profit comes from people not adjusting correctly to my LAG game (calling too much and giving me too much credit postflop). The more you fold to 3bets, typically the more you should be 3bet. That argument in a vacuum is terrible to use to say you "need" to defend with AQo, but it meshes with the rest of my range there (I do need to defend "X%" to discourage people outplaying my loose opens by in turn upping the preflop price, so to speak)

Really, there is little shame in calling and taking a flop, alot of people fear "losing a big pot with TPTK to an overpair," but this parlay is TINY. Something to add is very few people will even push a bigger 1 pair hard against you because such a small % of your range can really be taken "to valuetown". ie. the board comes Axx, you really think AK 200bbs will always stack you? They will against me if they fastplay, but they may be mistaken since only a small % of my range that "gets stacked" is behind AK. Likewise, Qxx vs KK/AA.

I don't mean to digress, and this is for another article/a chapter/post, but "avoiding the doomsday scenario" happens alot in NLH and frankly people are wrong to avoid them. Yes, sometimes you run against a hand that has you in a bind (or a position) but the % it happens (and you lose your stack) in essence is a low number...

Also, Sunny, can't wait for volume 2, perhaps I'll get an advanced copy.... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
"avoiding the doomsday scenario" happens alot in NLH and frankly people are wrong to avoid them. Yes, sometimes you run against a hand that has you in a bind (or a position) but the % it happens (and you lose your stack) in essence is a low number...


[/ QUOTE ]

totally TOTALLY agree with this....I was just having a very similar discussion the other day with Cero about just this thing, and the position I took was right in line with your camp....I am writing a section on 3-betting in Volume Two that will hit on all of this - I'm actually in the process right now of trying to get some hardcore math to back up a lot of my intuitions - it's a complicated decision tree though....

thanks again for all the great comments...

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



EDIT: One thing I do think needs to be mentioned in this discussion though Bobbo is that there is a difference (even if it's not necessarily enough to change your plan in this particular hand) between a 3-bet pot with 100bb stacks and a 3-bet pot with 200bb stacks - purely due to the ratios.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]


totally TOTALLY agree with this....I was just having a very similar discussion the other day with Cero about just this thing, and the position I took was right in line with your camp....I am writing a section on 3-betting in Volume Two that will hit on all of this - I'm actually in the process right now of trying to get some hardcore math to back up a lot of my intuitions - it's a complicated decision tree though....

[/ QUOTE ]
haha dont write too fast sunny PLEASE!!!!! I have alot of stuff on 3betting that I dont want to be obsolete because you beat me to it ;p (having it published)

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I do think needs to be mentioned in this discussion though Bobbo is that there is a difference (even if it's not necessarily enough to change your plan in this particular hand) between a 3-bet pot with 100bb stacks and a 3-bet pot with 200bb stacks - purely due to the ratios.

[/ QUOTE ]
agree fully

[ QUOTE ]

thanks again for all the great comments...

[/ QUOTE ]
thanks for the great answers

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

I hope this is the correct place for this, but i'm having an issue with hand #4 on page 88-89, lets say we play as the hand suggests, and the river hits a 9c. Villian then bets the pot. Would we reraise? Villian pushes, would we call? Villian bets, we reraise, he pushes, would we call and pray we don't see KJ, if we do see KJ do we chalk it up to varience, or figure perhaps we should have played differently on the turn? I see alot of advantage to pot control and checking behind that i had never thought of before, however in this particular hand with the check call on the flop, on a draw heavy board with a preflop limper, shouldnt we be charging draws here, or trying to find out where we are in the hand on the turn. Does checking the turn really preserve the most value here? I think i might be missing the point, but i find in this particular hand, if i faced a big bet on the river, i'd feel as though i led myself into this tough decision by not betting the turn. assuming the 9 doesn't hit the river then i would find myself asking questions like this - Did he miss his flush and is trying to buy the pot? I would be less concerned (potientially more annoyed though) buy getting check-raised on the turn, and knowing i'm beat and having to fold, then by facing a big or even moderately large bet on the river and not feeling i've defined his or my hand at all. I may also be forced to fold the best hand because my turn play induced a large bluff. I'm wondering if betting the turn and hoping for a check down on the river may be better?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hope this is the correct place for this, but i'm having an issue with hand #4 on page 88-89, lets say we play as the hand suggests, and the river hits a 9c. Villian then bets the pot. Would we reraise? Villian pushes, would we call? Villian bets, we reraise, he pushes, would we call and pray we don't see KJ, if we do see KJ do we chalk it up to varience, or figure perhaps we should have played differently on the turn? I see alot of advantage to pot control and checking behind that i had never thought of before, however in this particular hand with the check call on the flop, on a draw heavy board with a preflop limper, shouldnt we be charging draws here, or trying to find out where we are in the hand on the turn. Does checking the turn really preserve the most value here? I think i might be missing the point, but i find in this particular hand, if i faced a big bet on the river, i'd feel as though i led myself into this tough decision by not betting the turn. assuming the 9 doesn't hit the river then i would find myself asking questions like this - Did he miss his flush and is trying to buy the pot? I would be less concerned (potientially more annoyed though) buy getting check-raised on the turn, and knowing i'm beat and having to fold, then by facing a big or even moderately large bet on the river and not feeling i've defined his or my hand at all. I may also be forced to fold the best hand because my turn play induced a large bluff. I'm wondering if betting the turn and hoping for a check down on the river may be better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Vox,

I agree with you that if you're playing an opponent who really won't checkraise the turn often with a worse hand, I like betting the turn and folding to a raise.

Thanks for the post,

Sunny

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

Thanks for the answer, and thanks for the book, its been the most exciting poker book i've read since SSHE (i've read many) I am still curious though if we play the hand as stated in the book, would we call a or reraise a large bet on the river, if we hit a 9 making our straight. Or is this read dependant. (sorry to be hung up on this one particular hand)

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the answer, and thanks for the book, its been the most exciting poker book i've read since SSHE (i've read many) I am still curious though if we play the hand as stated in the book, would we call a or reraise a large bet on the river, if we hit a 9 making our straight. Or is this read dependant. (sorry to be hung up on this one particular hand)

[/ QUOTE ]I withdraw the question, and chalk this particular hand up to the "It depends" catagory

Re: PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a scenario where I find myself stacking off all too often but especially OOP, and that's hitting trips on a connected flop with multiple players (3+). ,"

I believe trips with weak kicker as compared to sets to be a leak in most players games. I also keep notes to see what trips kicker someone will stack off with.

Flops like this:
K4 flop KK7
A3 flop AAJ

Should be thought of as the same strength as:

KJ flop K72 or A7 flop A93

Compare with
A3 flop 33J
A7 flop 33K

The reason you should look at it this way is because who's going to call you when the flop is KK7?

K* and 77 and a couple of idiots with pocket pair.

Everything then becomes a battle of kickers.

So pot control is huge when hitting trips with a week kicker.

The best way is usually to check the flop and pick someone off when an over card hits on the turn or river.