Thoughts on PNL?
 

A few weeks ago I read Professional No-Limit Hold'Em Volume I. At the time, I honestly thought it was pretty bad in its advice. Since then I've had some time to reflect on the subject matter and I've come to the conclusion that I was right all along.

Am I the only one who found this book reasonably unhelpful? I mean, who exactly are Matt, Sunny, and Ed playing against that let them get away with this crap? Sure, everybody limp-reraises KK from UTG on occasion -- when table conditions are perfect, when there's some aggro-monkey in LP who can't resist raising to punish limpers, etc. -- but as a general rule?? Where are these idiots who let you raise to 8 BBs with rockets and then don't turn around and recognize that something odd is going on when we minraise 87s?

The main theme of the book seems to be this whole Pot-to-Stack Ratio stuff. Yes, it's very nice and interesting and all, but stack decisions are such a small part of my typical game that I can't imagine building my strategy around them. Given that 99% of the time you are fighting for a smaller-than-all-in pot, shouldn't we be paying a great deal of attention to these other hands?

OK, I get the point -- "if it's all going into the middle, you should have a plan." Fine. But why are we designing strategies around my betting double-pot on the flop, pot-and-a-half on the turn, and then pot on the river? Do any of us play against opponents who will let us do that on a regular basis? I have a hard enough time getting the live ones to pay off pot-on-the-flop, pot-on-the-turn, let alone a river bet as well. Are your opponents so dazzlingly stupid that they won't notice that you've changed your usual "3/4ths-pot flop, 1/2-pot turn" into "double-pot flop, pot-and-a-half turn"? Mine don't seem to be.

Look, I'm all in favor of planning and I'm a big fan of extracting value, but we've also got to be realistic. In the games we play, we simply can't get away with most of these moves. Our opponents are not blind and not unthinking; they actually pay SOME attention to our behavior. I really want to get something useful out of this book; if you liked it or found it beneficial, please let me know what it was that helped you -- I want to share in the intellectual bounty!

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

i haven't read it, but from what you say, the idea's in it sound pretty bad.

i've come to the conclusion that most poker books are not as good as the stuff on 2+2 forums

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

I didn't read the book yet but question: is the book geared more for online or live play in your opinion?

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

All I know is that I horselaughed when somebody tried to explain the whole PSR thing in a long post on here, and have paid no attention to the book since then. Glad to know I was right by Pokey's standards (which are more than good enough for me).

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

pokey: remember this is volume 1. the other book is supposed to focus a lot more on postflop play IIRC.

fwiw however, yea i dont really think its a very good book either. the spr stuff is ok for n00bs that don't know whats going on and generally stack off way too light with stuff like TPWK, but for anyone that has a clue about NLHE the book just presents a really convoluted way of deciding when to get AI.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

I think the advice in the book is not very suitable for the 1/2 online 8tabler. But I stil think it's a lot of the advice is valid.

I have implemented different preflop raise sizes into my game and so far I can say with confidence that it's better than having a standard open amount.

I guess an example helps here, when a donkey is in the BB and I'm OTB I will often raise 3BB with weaker hands and 4BB with stronger hands. The preflop minraise has also found a place in my game, usually with small pairs in early positon when there are many fishies at the table.

What I also noticed is taht balancing is not as important as you might think. I know it's hard to quantify, but the difference in exploit-ability between overpotting only 1/3 of all sets vs overpotting 1/4 of all sets and 1/6 of all flush draws is really really small.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

The book is pretty good IMO.

It got me thinking in a different view of my game and helped me really understand the importance of aggression. I agree that taken literally the book isn't a whole lot useful in practice, and I think that you have to make "adjustments" a large fraction of the time from the general strategy the book preaches because in 100BB stack online games, your SPR is going to rarely be near target.

It's great theory though and it did present some ideas that I was eager to try out, and have actually used them to improve my game.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

i haven't read it, but from what i've seen and heard, i think there are some helpful concepts, but that maybe the authors get a little carried away with it. i feel the same way about nltap.

at the same time, i also think that a lot of online players are way too stubborn about things like varying bet sizes both preflop and on the flop. a lot of online school thought is the product of multitabling and convenience. i think there is a good middle ground where we can gain some small edges here and there without giving competent opponents more to work with when it comes to reading our hand. most of my variations are tied to position and board texture though as opposed to hand strength.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

I've read the book a couple times now, and I sometimes wonder if either I'm reading a different book than the rest of you or if I have some weird mental defect that allows me to see the material presented in such a fashion that doesn't give me the impression that the only thing the book talks about is preflop raise sizing. I mean seriously people, is that the only thing that you guys got out of this? Yes they suggest sizing your raises to try and get a favorable SPR. Everybody noticed that. It just seems that the instant that everyone read that they were to busy being indignant to notice the sentences on the same friggin' page where Ed, Matt, and Sunny also mention that you don't have to do this and if you are playing against opponents that will figure out what you are doing you should not do this.

The actual focus of the book was to present a way of thinking about the hand from the instant you are dealt you hole cards that lets you start planning the hand based around what kind of hand you are most likely to wind up with postflop and what your opponents are likely to do. When playing hands where the most likely situation on the flop is to have either top pair or an overpair this basically boils down to:

a) Trying to get it all-in when we flop a big hand (set, top two, quads) or have a decent one pair hand and favorable SPR against an opponent or opponents who will stack of with something we beat.

b) Playing for a small/medium size pot when we flop a TP/overpair hand when we are against a villain or villains who will only be getting it all-in for the size of our stacks if they have a hand that beats us.

Here is where a problem that the authors have mentioned repeatedly on this forum occurred. In the decision as to what should be included in Vol I and what should be left for Vol II they decided to keep the material about planning around getting it all-in but to leave the in depth material about how to deal with speculative hands and stealing postflop for Vol II. Apparently, people were expecting this book to be nothing more than that NL equivalent of SSHE and seemed to be under the distinct impression that Vol I would cover all pertinent topics. It doesn't. It is just the first in a series.

The book actually has helped me. SPR gave me a nice structured framework with which to keep stack sizes in mind from the beginning and do a much better job of planning hands in a fashion that helps me avoid being faced with a difficult all-in decision that I'm not prepared for. It helped me to figure out exactly how to adjust my preflop range according to my opponents stack sizes. Commitment threshold has helped by defining a point where I need to look at the situation and decide whether or not I want the chips in the middle.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

Another point to make.

Lets assume a standard 100NL 6-Max game. You are raising using the tried and true 2+2 method of 4BB + 1BB for every limper and you will also add 1BB to your raise size if you are in the blinds.

Hand 1 it is folded to you in the cutoff and you raise to $4. Hand 2 there are three limpers and you raise to $7. Hand 3 there are three limpers and you are in the BB so you raise to $8.

What percentage of your opponents do you believe have figured out how you are sizing you raises?

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of your opponents do you believe have figured out how you are sizing you raises?

[/ QUOTE ]It doesn't matter as long as it doesn't depend on our hand.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The book actually has helped me. SPR gave me a nice structured framework with which to keep stack sizes in mind from the beginning and do a much better job of planning hands in a fashion that helps me avoid being faced with a difficult all-in decision that I'm not prepared for. It helped me to figure out exactly how to adjust my preflop range according to my opponents stack sizes. Commitment threshold has helped by defining a point where I need to look at the situation and decide whether or not I want the chips in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this part could be valuable, but it's really not very complicated (hint: don't play speculative hands against shallow opponents), and from what I've read from respected posters, the authors WAY overdo it trying to fit everything into their paradigm.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

I haven't read the replies but I disagree Pokey. It helped me and I've been playing poker seriously for 4 years now. In fact since reading it I've been crushing the games I play. I really don't think that there are enough discussions about pot control, commitment, and how to bet to get your opponent all in on the river with betting on the flop and turn at the micro limits.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think that there are enough discussions about pot control, commitment, and how to bet to get your opponent all in on the river with betting on the flop and turn at the micro limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when you get right down to it, that's pretty much all we discuss here in this forum. I mean, how can you even really play poker at a decent level without understanding these concepts?

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

I see your point Pineapple. Guess I shouldn't disagree in the small stakes forum. This book is good for inexperienced players and people who play micros. Better?

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of your opponents do you believe have figured out how you are sizing you raises?

[/ QUOTE ]It doesn't matter as long as it doesn't depend on our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it does. If our opponents realize we are raising a set amount based on limpers, and they are 2+2'ers, they probably think that we are a 2+2 as well, and will give us more respect. If they do not realize we are raising based on limpers, and instead think we are raising based on hand strength, they will give us more action when we raise less, even with a higher quality hand.
Just because we aren't giving away any information doesn't mean that they won't think they are getting information, and if they think they are getting information they might act on it, and if we do not consider that possibility we will not properly interpret their actions.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of your opponents do you believe have figured out how you are sizing you raises?

[/ QUOTE ]It doesn't matter as long as it doesn't depend on our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it does. If our opponents realize we are raising a set amount based on limpers, and they are 2+2'ers, they probably think that we are a 2+2 as well, and will give us more respect. If they do not realize we are raising based on limpers, and instead think we are raising based on hand strength, they will give us more action when we raise less, even with a higher quality hand.
Just because we aren't giving away any information doesn't mean that they won't think they are getting information, and if they think they are getting information they might act on it, and if we do not consider that possibility we will not properly interpret their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. First of all, we WANT them to respect us. That makes our life so much easier. Second of all, it's pretty easy to tell who is a solid player regardless of their PF bet size. Catcher used to minraise PF all the time, ZOMG he must be a donk. Come on. PF bet sizing is such a small part of the game I can't believe it's being debated seriously. Raising the same amount is unexploitable, while the same cannot be said for differing PF raises.

And one other thing. Why would you raise less with your big hands to encourage action? You want to give them better implied odds and bring more people into the pot? I haven't read the book, but if this is what they're advocating, this is truly a beginner's book. This crap will not work at MSNL and maybe not even at SSNL.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

It's a good book, very strong conceptually but has little use to someone who reads 2+2 everyday.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

There will never be a good book on NL imo, and this certainly didn't change my opinion

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of your opponents do you believe have figured out how you are sizing you raises?

[/ QUOTE ]It doesn't matter as long as it doesn't depend on our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it does. If our opponents realize we are raising a set amount based on limpers, and they are 2+2'ers, they probably think that we are a 2+2 as well, and will give us more respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are overestimating the significance being linked w/these boards.

[ QUOTE ]
If they do not realize we are raising based on limpers, and instead think we are raising based on hand strength, they will give us more action when we raise less, even with a higher quality hand.
Just because we aren't giving away any information doesn't mean that they won't think they are getting information, and if they think they are getting information they might act on it, and if we do not consider that possibility we will not properly interpret their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

if they are making use of incorrect info, then this is a very good thing for us. no info is better than bad info

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

Pokey,

I think the problem with this (and most poker books) is that they don't go into any advanced strategies. So its helpful for someone picking up NLHE or wants to beat the small stakes for a marginal profit, but I've yet to see a book that goes into any advanced thinking on NL. Maybe bobbo's book if it ever gets out.. I mean there's a reason that books cost $30 while good NL coaching starts at ~$200/hr.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

Looks like there aren't many posters here who have peeked into a live casino. Fact of the matter is that online poker is far more evolved and advanced. The online players are superior because live players go to a casino to gamble. Players playing $1/2 to $5/10 at a live casino play exactly like the morons at micro stakes online.

I havn't read the book but it most definately must be useful for a live game player where players are clueless and double and triple up over the stupidest hands. When you and a moron are 3 stacks deep... you need a plan to get it all in. You wont get it all in if you just 3/4 pot it over and over.

What it comes down to is that this book does not teach you how to beat advanced players. It teaches you how to effectively destroy live fish (or nl $0.01/0.02 online). The internet in general is a whole different ballgame.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of your opponents do you believe have figured out how you are sizing you raises?

[/ QUOTE ]It doesn't matter as long as it doesn't depend on our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it does. If our opponents realize we are raising a set amount based on limpers, and they are 2+2'ers, they probably think that we are a 2+2 as well, and will give us more respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are overestimating the significance being linked w/these boards.

[ QUOTE ]
If they do not realize we are raising based on limpers, and instead think we are raising based on hand strength, they will give us more action when we raise less, even with a higher quality hand.
Just because we aren't giving away any information doesn't mean that they won't think they are getting information, and if they think they are getting information they might act on it, and if we do not consider that possibility we will not properly interpret their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

if they are making use of incorrect info, then this is a very good thing for us. no info is better than bad info

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. I'm not saying it is a bad thing if they think incorrect things, but rather we have to interpret their actions in the context of what they think about our hand, if they do think about our hand. If we raise to 4bb with no limpers on the button with 67s and it gets showed down, then next hand raise to 7bb in the c/o after 3 people limped to us with TT, they might think we raise large with our strong vulnerable PP, and next time we raise to 7$, they might try to take the pot away from us if overcards come. Might be thinking too deep for most opponents, but at higher levels and vs some opponents it is something to consider about your table image.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

i want bobbo's book to come out soooo badly [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

Pokey, I assume from this post that you haven't read the ridiculously long thread in Books & Publications. The authors have made it a point to answer queries and criticism about the book and some clarification of some of the issues discussed here can be found there.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

This is why we need a real online player to write a book instead of these live newbs that play 10 hands an hour.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i want bobbo's book to come out soooo badly [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Bobbo

come up with $750, and you can get a copy now..... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A few weeks ago I read Professional No-Limit Hold'Em Volume I. At the time, I honestly thought it was pretty bad in its advice. Since then I've had some time to reflect on the subject matter and I've come to the conclusion that I was right all along.


[/ QUOTE ]
It's BAD??? I disagree, I think PNL is the best NLH book that has been published. Not close here.

[ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who found this book reasonably unhelpful? I mean, who exactly are Matt, Sunny, and Ed playing against that let them get away with this crap? Sure, everybody limp-reraises KK from UTG on occasion -- when table conditions are perfect, when there's some aggro-monkey in LP who can't resist raising to punish limpers, etc. -- but as a general rule?? Where are these idiots who let you raise to 8 BBs with rockets and then don't turn around and recognize that something odd is going on when we minraise 87s?


[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't what they say. Those are some plays in certain circumstances which could work. Everything is contextual.

[ QUOTE ]

The main theme of the book seems to be this whole Pot-to-Stack Ratio stuff. Yes, it's very nice and interesting and all, but stack decisions are such a small part of my typical game that I can't imagine building my strategy around them. Given that 99% of the time you are fighting for a smaller-than-all-in pot, shouldn't we be paying a great deal of attention to these other hands?


[/ QUOTE ]

THIS is a great point. Basically, they are all about the "big" pot, where most pots (not 99%, more like 70%) are small pots. And yes, those affect your earn incredibly. That said, constantly thinking about SPR is vital.

**Fwiw, I have a small amount of SPR stuff in my book. What's funny is before PNL was published I sent a chapter to Matt Flynn to read, and it was all about playing draws; and incidentally, I based it all upon SPR. So, we both wrote about the same thing and came to similar conclusions without ever referring to one another along these lines. Does go to show how vital it is, whether you know it or not.

[ QUOTE ]

OK, I get the point -- "if it's all going into the middle, you should have a plan." Fine. But why are we designing strategies around my betting double-pot on the flop, pot-and-a-half on the turn, and then pot on the river? Do any of us play against opponents who will let us do that on a regular basis? I have a hard enough time getting the live ones to pay off pot-on-the-flop, pot-on-the-turn, let alone a river bet as well. Are your opponents so dazzlingly stupid that they won't notice that you've changed your usual "3/4ths-pot flop, 1/2-pot turn" into "double-pot flop, pot-and-a-half turn"? Mine don't seem to be.



[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is fair. I think sometimes you can't aim to put your stack in there, but you should aim to get the pot as big as possible. ie, pot pot pot. if your opponents ARE dumb enough though, by all means charge them.

[ QUOTE ]


Look, I'm all in favor of planning and I'm a big fan of extracting value, but we've also got to be realistic. In the games we play, we simply can't get away with most of these moves. Our opponents are not blind and not unthinking; they actually pay SOME attention to our behavior. I really want to get something useful out of this book; if you liked it or found it beneficial, please let me know what it was that helped you -- I want to share in the intellectual bounty!

[/ QUOTE ]

reread the REM part, I liked that the best.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is why we need a real online player to write a book instead of these live newbs that play 10 hands an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]
fwiw, Matt Flynn is an incredible NL player, who has played big games online as well. I've played 10-20 NL live with him and he is an amazing player.

Sunny as well is an accomplished NL player who has played for some time and posted for a while. I am not sure if he's played much online but he's certainly a very solid player.

Ed Miller is a strong limit player who was brought on to help with the writing. He's obviously brilliant and can WRITE well.

I think the pedigree of the authors shouldn't be in question.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

We only need one bible, which is NL:T&P. I wonder when will there be a book close to that level released, probably never

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why we need a real online player to write a book instead of these live newbs that play 10 hands an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]
fwiw, Matt Flynn is an incredible NL player, who has played big games online as well. I've played 10-20 NL live with him and he is an amazing player.

Sunny as well is an accomplished NL player who has played for some time and posted for a while. I am not sure if he's played much online but he's certainly a very solid player.

Ed Miller is a strong limit player who was brought on to help with the writing. He's obviously brilliant and can WRITE well.

I think the pedigree of the authors shouldn't be in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good player doesn't have to be a good author. I don't know if they try to get fancy on the book or else. I personally don't think the material helps the current online play much, unless you have just started

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

What I learned in the book:

1) I now 3 bet AK preflop more than before and it makes my decision easier postflop (I think)

2) This is not really in the book, but I've given some thought about my opponents' commitment threshold and it makes it easier to bluff them off a pot

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

thanks everyone for the great discussion in this thread....Sean and Bobbo, thanks for the great clarifications....

things are a bit hectic for me right now, but I wanted to paste one post (and my reply) from the Review thread in the Books forum that I thought y'all might dig....

poster Sounded Simple wrote:


"I have a question regarding how to avoid being exploited when using SPR by setminers.

Pre-flop
- You are on the button with 100BB.
- BB is a setminer (although this is unknown to you since you have only played 20 hands) and also has 100BB
- You have AA and would like an SPR of <10 so you raise to 6bb (assume this is online so you cant easily raise more)
- SB folds and BB calls so there is 13BB and your stack is 94BB.
- Your SPR is 7.2 and you decide to commit provided no obvious draws come in.

Post Flop -
- The flop comes Jh 6d 3c, you decide to commit and set about getting the money in the middle
- BB checks, you bet the pot, BB calls, Pot = 39bb, stacks are now 81bb
- Turn and river are safe and it all goes in on the river.
- BB shows 66 for a set.

So how do we prevent "unknown" setminers from exploiting us when we use SPR for 1 pair hands?
We are giving them the two pieces of information they need
(a) We most likely will have TP on the flop.
(b) We WILL stack off with it.

Some of my initial thoughts are -
- Raise even more pre-flop (say 10bb) to deny them odds to hit their set.
(Problem with this is you wont get any action at all from these guys or even anyone else online)

- Dont commit with TP against these guys, steal pots with all sorts of hands (including trash) and get out if they look like they want to get the stacks in.
(Problem here is that you need a solid read on them that they will only stack off with a set or better - that takes time but if they know you use SPR then they have a read on you pretty quick)

- Mix it up against them. Similar to their last point just vary the raises and steal lots.
(Again the problem is that we need the read!)


So to summarise my question.
SPR is intended to simplify decisions for us against unknowns. How do we stop it from simplifying decisions for the unknowns against us?

BTW - This is not a criticism of the concept, Im just trying to get this right."



I replied:


"Hi Sounded Simple,

Thank you for the well organized post.

First off, poker is a game of gathering information, and if by "unknown" you are trying to imply that you have very little to no information about your opponent, your decision making is inherently going to be more difficult and less accurate than if you know even some tendencies of your opponent. SPR and REM can help, but remember that integral parts of both equations involve knowing things about your opponents' ranges and tendencies.

Secondly, you go on to mention playing against a "setminer." Perhaps if your regular game features a decent amount of these, that immensely helps make him less unknown. Even just knowing that he's a setminer tells you some important things about his range and tendencies. You know that he's probably very tight preflop and also fairly tight-passive postflop.

Start with your preflop raise. When you raise to 6bb, what range do you expect to get called by? How much of that range includes worse hands on this flop? Can he have KK or QQ or AJ or even TT? Or will he never stack off with those hands? It would be very hard for me to believe that he'd never commit with a hand worse than AA, but if indeed it is true, you simply need to realize that your target SPR against this player is very small with one pair hands.

Since you are well above your target SPR, even with a pfr to 6bb, you should play more carefully postflop and perhaps try and exercise pot control. To actually get your target SPR against this player heads up, you might have to raise to an obscene amount pf, which is simply not practical. However, that doesn't mean that raising to an amount that doesn't achieve your target SPR is unprofitable.

Remember ranges!

You are not going to always have AA when you raise to 6bb, and he is not always going to have 66 and flop a set. What will he do with hands like KQ when you raise to 6bb? If he'll call then you get his stack when he flops top pair. If he'll fold pf, then you can rob him blind by making a 6bb raise with a very wide range of hands. What if he calls pf but then check-folds everytime he doesn't have a set or strong top pair or overpair? You can rob him blind by raising to 6bb preflop and then betting the flop a high percentage of the time. The combined steal equity as well as pot equity that you have in this situation makes it highly positive EV.

You also don't have to raise to 6bb. If he'll fold the same range preflop, you can get away with making a smaller raise so that you keep the same pf steal equity but can manage the pot easier postflop. But if he'll call more liberally preflop but check/fold a lot postflop, then you actually make more by stealing when you raise to 6bb.

This is just a start on how to tackle these types of situations. Now that we have laid out the groundwork for how we negotiate these "equations" - (by using REM and SPR!) - we will have much more to say in future volumes on adjusting to specific situations and filling in the specific "variables".


Thanks for reading,

Sunny
"

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

Hello Sunny, since you replied to this thread promptly, I have a few question to ask if you are still around. My previous comments seem to be criticizing, however, I just feel that you guys don't really put enough information into this book for us readers. The best thing I like about Sklansky's books is that he knows how to put things in brief, while stating every key point precisely. I am not saying that you don't write a good book, but it might take you 3 books to express your understanding of poker. I will definitely buy Volume II if there is one. All I can say right now is Volume I is definitely not a completed book, and advanced players can't really profit much on this. It's a good read for beginners, no doubt

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

I think I had been saying this since the first or second Discussion Group came out. Looks like a level or a joke.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

when SSNL regulars start open raising to 6bb and crap like that, no one with half a clue is going to let them get away with it, pure and simple. i dont really know how else to put it. since we almost all play like 99% of our hands online, the book isnt very applicable.


another thing i dislike is the triskaidekaphobia stuff, because youre basically saying that 100bb deep we shouldn't be raising to 3.5bb preflop because our SPR will be 13. that seems kinda stupid, because you can't just open to $6 every time or you won't get any action unless youre behind or on one end or the other of a cooler. when youre playing live this is a lot better since raise sizing is a little less standard and no one will realize what youre doing.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
We only need one bible, which is NL:T&P. I wonder when will there be a book close to that level released, probably never

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's BAD??? I disagree, I think PNL is the best NLH book that has been published. Not close here.


[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh*

I guess I'll be re-reading PNL soon -- too many good players have found at least SOMETHING that they like in it for me not to have missed something. I think I fell into the classic blunder that so many experienced 2+2'ers have done: I read a part that was jarringly incorrect for my games and I mostly stopped listening. Time to re-open my mind and try it again.

As soon as I finish re-reading Schoonmaker's Psychology of Poker. I promised myself I'd do that almost a year ago, and I've finally gotten around to it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The main theme of the book seems to be this whole Pot-to-Stack Ratio stuff. Yes, it's very nice and interesting and all, but stack decisions are such a small part of my typical game that I can't imagine building my strategy around them. Given that 99% of the time you are fighting for a smaller-than-all-in pot, shouldn't we be paying a great deal of attention to these other hands?


[/ QUOTE ]

THIS is a great point. Basically, they are all about the "big" pot, where most pots (not 99%, more like 70%) are small pots. And yes, those affect your earn incredibly. That said, constantly thinking about SPR is vital.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK; I trust that Matt, Sunny, and Ed will be tackling the small-pot stuff in Vol. 2, so I'll let that part of it go for now. As to the SPR stuff, it seems a bit stilted to me -- it looks like it's trying to quantify the "art" of poker. It's as if some art critic decided to "simplify" the process of judging art:

"What we do is we assign a score to brush technique from 0 to 10. Then we score the use of color from 0 to 10. Finally, we score the creativity from 0 to 20. Add these numbers and you have the overall painting quality, where 30+ is a high-quality painting and 35+ is a master work."

Does this description REALLY help us know good art when we see it? I find the SPR stuff equivalently vague but couched in equivalently mathematical ideas:

"SPR is the ratio of remaining stacks to the size of the pot on the flop. Now, determine how large a ratio of pot-to-remaining stacks could get into the pot while still making your postflop hand a favorite to win at showdown. This is the SPR you should aim for."

Did anybody else notice the vagueness in the middle? You've got 100 BB stacks, you're in the cutoff with QQ preflop and Isura is in the SB. How large should your PSR be to make sure that you're profitable at showdown if all the money goes into the middle and you've got an overpair? Do we really feel confident calculating this number with *ANY* degree of certainty? Even within a reasonable range? If we can't come up with a number for PSR then we can't make our estimates. Unfortunately, there's an even worse problem here: changing our PSR changes our target PSRs. When I make a huge raise, my opponent's calling range changes, both preflop and postflop. When I limp, it changes as well. By changing the PSR, my opponents become more aware of my hand and therefore they respond: I could always get a PSR of 2 with my 100 BB stacks by raising to 33 BBs preflop. Is that going to create a favorable all-in situation for my QQ? The act of manipulating the PSR changes the target PSR as well.

Also, some hands simply don't *work* with PSRs. If I've got JJ in the CO, this hand does not HAVE a "target PSR" with 100 BB stacks, because our most likely "good flop hand" is an overpair. There's no way to get 100 BBs into the middle with nothing but JJ unimproved and be a favorite against a typical opponent, regardless of the size of your PSR: if we limp we'll likely have the best hand preflop, but not if we're getting 30xPot into the middle postflop. Similarly, if we make a huge preflop raise, or we make or call a big three-bet, or we make or call a four-bet, we're either a coin-flip or a HUGE dog going into the flop, and we're definitely a huge dog if we get it all-in unimproved.

That does NOT mean that JJ is unplayable, but if it has *no* PSR, then how does this concept apply?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

OK, I get the point -- "if it's all going into the middle, you should have a plan." Fine. But why are we designing strategies around my betting double-pot on the flop, pot-and-a-half on the turn, and then pot on the river? Do any of us play against opponents who will let us do that on a regular basis? I have a hard enough time getting the live ones to pay off pot-on-the-flop, pot-on-the-turn, let alone a river bet as well. Are your opponents so dazzlingly stupid that they won't notice that you've changed your usual "3/4ths-pot flop, 1/2-pot turn" into "double-pot flop, pot-and-a-half turn"? Mine don't seem to be.



[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is fair. I think sometimes you can't aim to put your stack in there, but you should aim to get the pot as big as possible. ie, pot pot pot. if your opponents ARE dumb enough though, by all means charge them.


[/ QUOTE ]

How does PSR help us if "getting it all in profitably" is IMPOSSIBLE regardless of our PSR? Are we saying that there are some hands that are inherently "small stack hands," and that any time we get all-in with them we've made a mistake? The PSR fails us with those hands? If so, why wasn't this mentioned in the book?

[ QUOTE ]

reread the REM part, I liked that the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will. Thanks for the clarification, and I say that to everybody who has responded in this thread: I appreciate your comments.

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

Pokey,

i use a simplification:

you have AK. you know your opponents fairly well. how much are you happy putting into the pot postflop against them if you hit top pair? 2x? 4x? or 6x? ok can i reasonably play to get all-in?

that's it. since i mostly play deep-stacked live and occasionally 100bb online 10-20 6-max, i don't plan around getting all-in with AK except when the latter gets hyperaggro or i hit better than top pair. rather, i plan to steal or play a small to medium pot.


matt

Re: Thoughts on PNL?
 

didint realise bobbo was writing a book. Or is it already out?