NLHE:TAP \"Concepts\" Discussion Post (somewhat long)
 

I just finished read No Limit Hold'Em: Theory and Practice and I would like to hear some opinions on questions I had on some of the 60 concepts at the end.


here goes:

Concept No. 17: If youre preflop raise is called behind you, check a lot of flops.

"thats true even if there is only one caller"
"you should usually check if you don't have very much, and you should check a lot of your good hands as well."

is this before C-bets became popular??
this Concept seems completely opposite of most of what i have read and experienced......




Concept No. 47: It it's clear your opponent has a hand at least worth a call, but he raises instead, it's almost never a bluff.

1. First of all a basic question, he says that post flop the big blind folds - but then youre headsup with the BB for the rest of the hand, is this a typo? and he was meaning to say that youre in the rest of the hand with the PFRasier?

2. What range would you put the person on based on the hand action of this illustrated hand. (guess you have to have the book for this one)



Concept No. 55: Unlike limit, limping first in on the button is frequently correct.

In this section it talks about raised on the button with hands like J9s cuts down on your implied odds (600 stack, 5-10blinds, with a PRasie to 30 you cut down implied odds from 600-10 to 600-30).

my question is: What about min raises from the button with a hand like J9s (or small pocket pairs/ A-X suited - hands that have potential play well after the flop and can win big pots) in order to make a bigger pot for the times you do hit - since it wont be multiway. any theories/ideas/experiences?


Concept No. 56: Pot odds (as opposed to implied odds) matter a lot less in deep stack no limit than in limit.


I may be just confused about the wording of some of this, if you have the book please read it and answer.

Is this concept saying that hands like KJ preflop in Limit are okay to play if youre getting 5-1 on your money (because its not a 5-1 underdog against any hands other than AA and KK) but that you should NOT play them in NL because it is bound to end up a marginal hand - midpairmidkicker, or TPGK post flop?
(just want some clarification)





okay so that was kind of long, thanks in advance - look forward to hearing your input.

Re: NLHE:TAP \"Concepts\" Discussion Post (somewhat long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 56: Pot odds (as opposed to implied odds) matter a lot less in deep stack no limit than in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this one mainly means you can draw to hands when you have incorrect pot odds because of the implied odds of the pay off when you hit.

Re: NLHE:TAP \"Concepts\" Discussion Post (somewhat long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 56: Pot odds (as opposed to implied odds) matter a lot less in deep stack no limit than in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this one mainly means you can draw to hands when you have incorrect pot odds because of the implied odds of the pay off when you hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not what it is saying. What they basically mean is that the money in the pot PF is so small compared to the amount that you are trying to win (your opponents stack) that it doesn't really matter. Your implied odds are still almost the same.

In limit this is not true, because the money that goes in PF makes a big portion of the final pot size.

Re: NLHE:TAP \"Concepts\" Discussion Post (somewhat long)
 

I strongly disagree with concepts 17 & 55. At least as far as the games I play in, which are flooded with weak-tight players who are often looking to hit a big flop or fold.

Having said that, I think many concepts in the book will apply to certain games but not others. I think Sklansky even makes mention of this fact at some point in the book.

Re: NLHE:TAP \"Concepts\" Discussion Post (somewhat long)
 

Well, what you must realize is, that two plus two is dedicated to only publish the finest books around, and in addition to that Sklansky is close to superhuman, so there are no errors in this book.

Re: NLHE:TAP \"Concepts\" Discussion Post (somewhat long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 47: It it's clear your opponent has a hand at least worth a call, but he raises instead, it's almost never a bluff.

1. First of all a basic question, he says that post flop the big blind folds - but then youre headsup with the BB for the rest of the hand, is this a typo? and he was meaning to say that youre in the rest of the hand with the PFRasier?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously a typo. You are either in the hand with the BB or the preflop raiser. I think he meant to say you are in the hand with the preflop raiser.

[ QUOTE ]
2. What range would you put the person on based on the hand action of this illustrated hand. (guess you have to have the book for this one)

[/ QUOTE ]

Up until villain's river check raise, you might put him on AA-66, AK, KQ-K9, 98 (and maybe a few other hands). After his river check raise, you probably put him on AA-KK, TT, 66-77, or KT (all hands that beat yours).

Here's how I interpret this concept:

When people bet a huge amount, they either have a monster or total air. Very rarely do people make huge bets with solid, but moderate hands. Thus, we might guess that people make huge bets as follows:

1- A monster (say around 60-70% of the time)
2- A bluff (say around 30-40% of the time)
3- Some hand in between (say 0-10% of the time--almost never)

So, if you can eliminate most of the chances of your opponent bluffing with air (i.e., because you are certain he has at least a calling hand from how the hand played), then the vast majority of the reason explaining your opponent's huge check raise on the river is that he has a monster hand. Now instead of your opponent having a monster 60-70% of the time, he has a monster 90+% of the time. You don't have the odds to call, so you fold.

Re: NLHE:TAP \"Concepts\" Discussion Post (somewhat long)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Concept No. 55: Unlike limit, limping first in on the button is frequently correct.

In this section it talks about raised on the button with hands like J9s cuts down on your implied odds (600 stack, 5-10blinds, with a PRasie to 30 you cut down implied odds from 600-10 to 600-30).

my question is: What about min raises from the button with a hand like J9s (or small pocket pairs/ A-X suited - hands that have potential play well after the flop and can win big pots) in order to make a bigger pot for the times you do hit - since it wont be multiway. any theories/ideas/experiences?


[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO!!!!!!

Min-raise...lol. Good one.

Re: NLHE:TAP \"Concepts\" Discussion Post (somewhat long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Concept No. 55: Unlike limit, limping first in on the button is frequently correct.

In this section it talks about raised on the button with hands like J9s cuts down on your implied odds (600 stack, 5-10blinds, with a PRasie to 30 you cut down implied odds from 600-10 to 600-30).

my question is: What about min raises from the button with a hand like J9s (or small pocket pairs/ A-X suited - hands that have potential play well after the flop and can win big pots) in order to make a bigger pot for the times you do hit - since it wont be multiway. any theories/ideas/experiences?


[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO!!!!!!

Min-raise...lol. Good one.

[/ QUOTE ]


great respose, way to help out the quality of the forums from your thourough and decisive answers

Re: NLHE:TAP \"Concepts\" Discussion Post (somewhat long)
 

Concept No. 55: Unlike limit, limping first in on the button is frequently correct.

In this section it talks about raised on the button with hands like J9s cuts down on your implied odds (600 stack, 5-10blinds, with a PRasie to 30 you cut down implied odds from 600-10 to 600-30).

my question is: What about min raises from the button with a hand like J9s (or small pocket pairs/ A-X suited - hands that have potential play well after the flop and can win big pots) in order to make a bigger pot for the times you do hit - since it wont be multiway. any theories/ideas/experiences?


[/ QUOTE ]

So you are going to min-raise speculative hands like J9 and A-x suited? There are a lot of obvious problems. A player with even the slightest amount of analytical ability will soon figure out what you are doing. Dont vary preflop raises depending on your holding.

Another problem I can think of is HUD-stats. If the bb calls your minraise he could literally have any two cards. Your stats won't help putting villain on a range(they might even trick you)

I bet a non-fish will give a more relevant comment soon.

Re: NLHE:TAP \"Concepts\" Discussion Post (somewhat long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Concept No. 55: Unlike limit, limping first in on the button is frequently correct.

In this section it talks about raised on the button with hands like J9s cuts down on your implied odds (600 stack, 5-10blinds, with a PRasie to 30 you cut down implied odds from 600-10 to 600-30).

my question is: What about min raises from the button with a hand like J9s (or small pocket pairs/ A-X suited - hands that have potential play well after the flop and can win big pots) in order to make a bigger pot for the times you do hit - since it wont be multiway. any theories/ideas/experiences?


[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO!!!!!!

Min-raise...lol. Good one.

[/ QUOTE ]


great respose, way to help out the quality of the forums from your thourough and decisive answers

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, it's just so basic though. I'll tell you what I'm always told about very basic concepts on this site...use the search feature.