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.

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

[ QUOTE ]


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?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LMAO!!!!!!

Min-raise...lol. Good one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.



[/ QUOTE ] I won't go into details but I read some pretty good stuff in defense of the mini raise. The primary reason being, it really pisses off the other players.

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

[/ QUOTE ] I won't go into details but I read some pretty good stuff in defense of the mini raise. The primary reason being, it really pisses off the other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wierd minraises on later streets can be extremly frustrating and tilt-inducing. The preflop minraise rarely, if ever, has that effect.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LMAO!!!!!!

Min-raise...lol. Good one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.



[/ QUOTE ] I won't go into details but I read some pretty good stuff in defense of the mini raise. The primary reason being, it really pisses off the other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the OP was talking pre-flop, open min raising. For example, the blinds are 15/30, and you open t60. lol. No, that doesn't induce tilt, that makes people "lick their chops."

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

I can make that exact move pay 3 times versus any table in the world.

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

Okay, I'll ask: I have read some arguments in favor of min-raising in NLHTAP. So, why will it make people lick their chops, and why is that bad?

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

Most of the time it's not good to minraise. Some players who actually belong to a limit table, constantly minraise. That is bad, because in NL you can change the bet size to your advantage. With a minraise you are giving cheap cards to people with drawing hands.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the time it's not good to minraise. Some players who actually belong to a limit table, constantly minraise. That is bad, because in NL you can change the bet size to your advantage. With a minraise you are giving cheap cards to people with drawing hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I still think the OP's question is perfectly reasonable, as Sklansky and Miller advocate min-raising with "big-pot hands" to raise the stakes.

No reason to laugh at him at all (I know you didn't).

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the time it's not good to minraise. Some players who actually belong to a limit table, constantly minraise. That is bad, because in NL you can change the bet size to your advantage. With a minraise you are giving cheap cards to people with drawing hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I still think the OP's question is perfectly reasonable, as Sklansky and Miller advocate min-raising with "big-pot hands" to raise the stakes.

No reason to laugh at him at all (I know you didn't).

[/ QUOTE ]


thanks, im glad someone finally understood where i was coming from.


minraise PF in a not-quite multiway pot with hands that either make big hands or none at all. raise the stakesand make a big pot in hopes of hitting your set when it isnt quite multiway, etc.


plus you might just be able to pick up the pot with a c-bet if you miss, etc.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the time it's not good to minraise. Some players who actually belong to a limit table, constantly minraise. That is bad, because in NL you can change the bet size to your advantage. With a minraise you are giving cheap cards to people with drawing hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I still think the OP's question is perfectly reasonable, as Sklansky and Miller advocate min-raising with "big-pot hands" to raise the stakes.

No reason to laugh at him at all (I know you didn't).

[/ QUOTE ]

Just show me where they talk favorably about:
Being first to enter the pot pre-flop, and for a min raise (25/50 blinds, and you make it 100). Or, a few limpers have entered the pot, pre-flop, and you min raise then. I'll obviously stand corrected. I just doubt that they would talk favorably about this situation since if you want to "build the pot" as the OP suggests, you would obviously raise it more. And, by min-raising, you're getting no information from your opponents since anyone with half a brain will call a min raise to bust you since you're making it cheap for them.
I laughed at OP, but I'm okay with being wrong about this since I see SO MANY donkies min-raising pre-flop every single day.
Please don't confuse this with min-raising while on the flop, where your opponent has already bet (say the pot) and you make the minimum raise.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the time it's not good to minraise. Some players who actually belong to a limit table, constantly minraise. That is bad, because in NL you can change the bet size to your advantage. With a minraise you are giving cheap cards to people with drawing hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I still think the OP's question is perfectly reasonable, as Sklansky and Miller advocate min-raising with "big-pot hands" to raise the stakes.

No reason to laugh at him at all (I know you didn't).

[/ QUOTE ]

Just show me where they talk favorably about:
Being first to enter the pot pre-flop, and for a min raise (25/50 blinds, and you make it 100). Or, a few limpers have entered the pot, pre-flop, and you min raise then. I'll obviously stand corrected. I just doubt that they would talk favorably about this situation since if you want to "build the pot" as the OP suggests, you would obviously raise it more. And, by min-raising, you're getting no information from your opponents since anyone with half a brain will call a min raise to bust you since you're making it cheap for them.
I laughed at OP, but I'm okay with being wrong about this since I see SO MANY donkies min-raising pre-flop every single day.
Please don't confuse this with min-raising while on the flop, where your opponent has already bet (say the pot) and you make the minimum raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think he is talking about concept 29 (p. 267 in nlhtap), where sklansky/miller are saying: "It's ok to make small raises (2-3x the big blind) to build the pot or to set up future plays" As an example S/M present someone who hast ATs in early position. And I have to say, that it seems pretty reasonable for me to do this in some spots to bring variaton to your game.

BTW.: In particular preflop-raising is an often discussed topic. Some say you shouldn't vary the amount of it anytime, some say you should vary it, dependent what your position is and some (eg. S/M) say you have to vary it according to your holding and the intentions what you want to archieve with it, but you have to be also deceptive. So it seems to me, that the only thing which is widely accepted without contradiciton is, that the preflop-raise has to be the bigger the more players have entered the pot... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

greetings!

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

Read concepts No. 24 (page 262) and No. 29 )starting on page 267).

Apart from that I can hardly see a reason to ever laugh at somebody seriously asking a question in a forum.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Read concepts No. 24 (page 262) and No. 29 )starting on page 267).

Apart from that I can hardly see a reason to ever laugh at somebody seriously asking a question in a forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love if that's all someone has ever done to me on this forum...lol.

Get over it. Just because I lmao to his min-raising pre-flop suggestion doesn't mean I wouldn't be open to ever doing it. I just think it's silly is all. If you're going to raise to build the pot, you might as well make it more than 2xbb (at least 2.5xbb, and yes, the .5 adds up), or if you're going to raise and hope you gain information by your opponents calling, you should certainly raise more than 2xbb (you're getting called with a wide range, so you gain no real information).
He mentioned building the pot for when you hit. Why not make it 2.5-4xbb? 2xbb raises pre-flop just seem senseless in no limit. This isn't new.

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

read THE POKER TOURNAMENT FORMULA from Full Tilt and Chris Ferguson suggests even min raising from EP.

with the theory behind it that if you raise from EP you dont have to raise as much because people should interpret you have strength if you are raising with that many people left to act.

also you can min raise to change up your raise sizes.
maybe you min raise to get action with AA or KK or QQ when your on the button and only a couple people are left to act.

maybe you dont want hands to fold but you want a bigger pot.

maybe your changing up your play


i think there are many valid reasons for min raising.
and 2.5xBB is hardly anything but a min raise, so advocating that and thinking 2xBB is foolish is ridiculous.


so laugh away at it but there are many valid reasons for raising 2xBB.

(FYI)

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

[ QUOTE ]
read THE POKER TOURNAMENT FORMULA from Full Tilt and Chris Ferguson suggests even min raising from EP.

with the theory behind it that if you raise from EP you dont have to raise as much because people should interpret you have strength if you are raising with that many people left to act.

also you can min raise to change up your raise sizes.
maybe you min raise to get action with AA or KK or QQ when your on the button and only a couple people are left to act.

maybe you dont want hands to fold but you want a bigger pot.

maybe your changing up your play


i think there are many valid reasons for min raising.
and 2.5xBB is hardly anything but a min raise, so advocating that and thinking 2xBB is foolish is ridiculous.


so laugh away at it but there are many valid reasons for raising 2xBB.

(FYI)

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree about the 2.5. It adds up if you're small balling the crap out of people. And, at many weak/tight tables, it does just that.

Going by what you said, I would much rather min raise with trash because the BB is calling with a really wide range, and check/folding when he doesn't hit.

I guess I've just stacked so many bad players who do this, that I can't believe someone would advocate it. I would never call their standard raises, and stacked them, but when they make it this cheap, I most certainly will get involved.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I would love if that's all someone has ever done to me on this forum...lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I rarely write in this forum. But I think I'm over it now. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think it's silly is all. If you're going to raise to build the pot, you might as well make it more than 2xbb (at least 2.5xbb, and yes, the .5 adds up), or if you're going to raise and hope you gain information by your opponents calling, you should certainly raise more than 2xbb (you're getting called with a wide range, so you gain no real information).
He mentioned building the pot for when you hit. Why not make it 2.5-4xbb? 2xbb raises pre-flop just seem senseless in no limit. This isn't new.

[/ QUOTE ]

To finally contribute something to the topic: I don't usually min-raise either, but I play short-handed most of the time. Sometimes I like to min-raise on heads-up tables for deception purposes, but that's about all.

Personally I think that a 3bb raise sweetens the pot, too. But in addition to that you get more fold equity preflop and a bigger pot to take down with a c-bet.

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

[ QUOTE ]
]I agree, but I still think the OP's question is perfectly reasonable, as Sklansky and Miller advocate min-raising with "big-pot hands" to raise the stakes.

No reason to laugh at him at all (I know you didn't).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not against minraises if you use them sparingly. There should be a reason for every bet you make and a minraise is a good decision if there is a good reason to do it. It is also true that betting pot is not always right, but it is a less expensive error than never betting more than the minimum.

People who are constantly minraising are definitely puting themselves in a vulnarable position. The other players have extra tools in their box, which are making the correct bet sizes when they need to protect their hand, betting enough for value and having only to pay a cheap price for with their drawing hands.

But I think that if it is possible to make a minraise according to the rules of the game, there could be places where it is good strategy to make such a bet. We should be thinking about this topic. I am definitely not laughing at it. (which you were right that I wasn't doing)

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

I have experimented with minraising suited connectors and pocket pairs over limpers with the intention of doubling the pot size- obviously I'll only do this with deeper stacks, as there's no need to build the pot if everyone is playing short.

The point being that if you think that the times you hit your hand and extract maximum value will end up with chips left in the effective stacks, it is better for you if the hand plays twice as big- minraisng accomplishes this very cheaply. Very rarely would you need the pot to play 3 times as big so there's no need to raise any more than the minimum.

Obviously this is exploitable if you only do this with small suited connectors and pocket pairs and never do it with big pairs (and I never would), however

a) if you are at a table with a gazillion limpers seeing a lot of flops, there's a good chance you are at a table where most of the players aren't paying enough attention to exploit you.

b) so many bad players love to minraise with big pairs that it disguises your hand somewhat (I actually had a guy "lol" at me after I showed down 89s after minraising from the button over a bunch of limpers- yes I won a big pot with my straight).

I have not decided if I like this strategy and my sample size is too small to say if it is successful (since the opportunity comes up rarely and you hit your hand so seldom when it does), but I've played around with it.