tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Okay I am curious as to 2+2s consensus here because I got these blatlently wrong.. and it puzzled me if I was wrong or the book was wrong.

You're on the button with KJs
Unknown UTG raises, unknown CO calls.. You?

You're on the button with T9s
LAG UTG raises, calling station CO calls...You?

explain your answers.

edit:
1/2 structure, 6 handed, the book says 1/2$ limit but doesnt mention how much rake there is.

Im also a tool and realized he was talking about KJo and not KJs.... The T9s question still applies tho.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

both folds. both hands suck against a raise, it could get capped, and also the kjo is so bad against an utg raise and a coldcaller because of the high chance our hand is reverse dominated.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Edit: I'm assuming 5-10 6 handed with 1-2 blinds.

They're both close. Hand #1 I fold, but I question myself about it. I feel like being dominated is too much of an issue. Im assuming the blinds are unknown. If even 1 is a loose bad player I think you should call.

Hand #2 How lag is utg? good lag or bad lag? blinds? Id call vs bad lag, fold vs good one, call with loose blinds.

Not really enough info to go on here.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Id cc in both of them, 3bet in 1 w/ a read. I feel like I am wrong in both spots, but they are both such pretty hands and I make alot of flushes.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

which tanenbaum book? The "advanced" one he wrote by himself is pretty crappy, but the one he wrote with Lawrence Mak and Terry whats-his-name is fairly good imo.

I think both those hands can be folded.

The kjs hand is close but unknowns typically raise like 17% of hands utg and its hard for the coldcaller to play enough dominated junk for us to get >31% equity.

That plus we get capped a lot and they're unknown so we don't know their postflop tendencies makes me wanna fold.

The t9s hand is a pretty easy fold imo. its not much different from kjo.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

those questions are totally player and rake dependent. 1) I'm likely folding because I assume UTGs have reasonable raising standards until otherwise prove. (I'm confused is it KJo or KJs in 1?)

2) I'll CC (since he is a LAG) if I know that the SB and BB are likely to come along because we have a 5 way pot and I have a great m-way hand and the button.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

I hated the advanced limit holdthem. I thought most of the advice was terrible for today's midstakes games. If 1 is really KJo I'm folding. 2 I'm usually ccing, sometimes 3bet, rarely fold depending on the particulars (esp. the blinds).

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

[ QUOTE ]
2 I'm usually ccing, sometimes 3bet, rarely fold depending on the particulars (esp. the blinds).

[/ QUOTE ]

fluff,

should the fact that the game is presumably high raked and online and only at $1/$2 change our view?

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

[ QUOTE ]
the game is presumably high raked

[/ QUOTE ]

This should make us fold more often, but there should still be cases where CC and 3bet are correct.

The 3bet case (for me) is when the raiser is very loose, and one or both of the blinds are bad and will call for 1 or 2 bets indiscriminately. In this situation we will have basically even equity, but the 3bet gives us a significant postflop strategic advantage, and adds value to our stronger 3bets. When we win after 3betting, we expect that the pot will generally be large. This should negate the impact of the rake somewhat, right?

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

I fold both.

reason: I'm a nit.
detailed reason: KJs doesn't fair well against an unknown UTG opening range and domination issues are huge.
T9s doesn't have enough equity 3-way.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

The first: I cc KJs and fold KJo. Dunno if KJs is a 3-bet. I like fluffs arguments for 3-betting T9s. I guess those apply to a KJs hand as well.


Second: I always cc here.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Both seem like easy folds, especially at these levels. Call if you like to play dominated pretty hands for 2 bets. But, it's online poker and folding is boring.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Based on what I've seen from unknowns at these limits I think both are folds but T9s is probably slightly closer to a hand that you could play profitably than KJs. KJo is an easy fold here (3-betting it is nuts in this spot) and while I wouldn't really say that calling with KJs is a huge leak I think if you did it 100% of the vs an unknown at the lower limits you'd be in a bad spot more than a good one.

Rob

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the game is presumably high raked

[/ QUOTE ]

This should make us fold more often, but there should still be cases where CC and 3bet are correct.

The 3bet case (for me) is when the raiser is very loose, and one or both of the blinds are bad and will call for 1 or 2 bets indiscriminately. In this situation we will have basically even equity, but the 3bet gives us a significant postflop strategic advantage, and adds value to our stronger 3bets. When we win after 3betting, we expect that the pot will generally be large. This should negate the impact of the rake somewhat, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

good thoughts fluff. i'm not sure i agree about 3betting though. i'm not sure what you mean about strategic advantage; in the 1/2 game we gotta make a hand, which means we flop big, or we ain't winning a darn thing in multiway pots. everyone showsdown, and the use of meta down there--is it really necessary? also by 3 betting we bloat the pot, which may dispel the blinds into joining thus losing some of our implied odds in the process. imo if we want a family pot, best way to do this is to leave it at 2 bets if possible for the blinds to want to jump in. i agree that the game has to be loose and passive for this to happen according to plan.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

now several things i dislike about 9Ts in the context presented by heis. firstly, the raiser is a lag, but still utg. he may be a lag but his range is tight utg right?; we've been given no descriptions of the blinds; we may get re-raised or capped which destroys our implied odds; rake; our hand is a fit or fold hand, we have no sd value unless we flop a strong, and we're unlikely to win this unimproved or if we even pair up, especially in the 1/2 game where every1 sd; we're at the butt end of several broadway straights if we do make straights; we're behind a bunch of higher frush combos; rake... and something along those lines.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Just wanted to say my thoughts.. Im by no means sure of the answer and wish there was some quantitative way to analyse the situation.

Since the 1/2 games on average play fairly loose passive, dont we then expect the SB and BB to likely CALL the raises and therefore the most probable scenario is 4-5 way multiway pot in position with hands that play great multiway??

I know theres the whole implied odds thing since its a raised pot... Sklansky advocates folds with suited connectors in similar spots in HP4AP, however I always assumed because thats when the opnener has a tight range.

Here the opener and the caller have a fairly loose range (T9s hand they're loose for shorthanded, which is SUPER loose for ring).

I thought they were both easy calls (KJo is an easy fold), but tennanbaum thought T9s was an easy fold.
I hate preflop [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

fwiw, I played with Tanenbaum in the Wynn 30 game a couple of months ago and he came off as nothing more than a Vegas nit. Granted he's better than Roy Cooke, but not by much.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Assuming KJs (obviously KJo is a fold at any limit without a read), I can see folding either/both at 1/2. But at like 5/T, I don't see folding either, and KJs is closer to a 3b then to a fold here. But then, I've been accused of growing LAGGY...

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, I played with Tanenbaum in the Wynn 30 game a couple of months ago and he came off as nothing more than a Vegas nit. Granted he's better than Roy Cooke, but not by much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats interesting that you would say that Hobbs. I have never played with either of these guys so maybe my opinion on them should not be valued that highly. Nevertheless I will disclose my thoughts.

Roy Cooke: First of all, I love Roy Cooke's Cardplayer column and I have read both of his books, "Real Poker 1" and "Real Poker 2". I thought both of Roy's books were outstanding and they really helped me make big strides in my developement stage. His books are simply compilations of his old Cardplay articles but the thought process that Roy puts into every stage of every hand is expert and timeless. I personaly feel sorry for anyone who has not read these books. I am convinced that Roy Cooke is a big winner at limit holdem. No one has taught me how to think through a hand better than Roy Cooke.

Barry Tanenbaum: Whenever I read Cardplayer my first instinct is to look for Roy Cooke's column. When I'm done reading Roy's work, the next thing I do is look for Barry Tanenbaum's article. I have never been disapointed with Barry's work and I have been looking forward to reading his new book. Given the stage of limit holdem I am in right now, there is a good chance I may not learn anything new from Barry's book, but I love reading holdem books, especially by authors I highly respect. Just by reading his past Cardplayer articles, I am convinced that Barry, like Roy, has made a lot of money playing limit holdem over the years.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

I call both and expect one or both of the blinds to come along pretty often. Dunno why some posters are afraid of it getting capped... and even if it did, it would be at least a 4 way pot with good multiway hands.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

It's popular to call tight players nits and assume they lose, as if the only way to win in poker these days is to be a 30/20 LAGTAG. There are many different ways to win at poker. It's not fancy and might be boring, but being a nit can definitely make money, especially live.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, I played with Tanenbaum in the Wynn 30 game a couple of months ago and he came off as nothing more than a Vegas nit. Granted he's better than Roy Cooke, but not by much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Roy Cooke is god of the nits. You cant play in the day
Bellagio 30 w/o hearing how good he is.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's popular to call tight players nits and assume they lose, as if the only way to win in poker these days is to be a 30/20 LAGTAG. There are many different ways to win at poker. It's not fancy and might be boring, but being a nit can definitely make money, especially live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn´t agree more.For the majority of players it is better to play 24/18 than 30/20 at a typical small stakes online table.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

ILP,

I never read either of anything roy cooke or tanenbaum have written, but as far as they play in full ring games they both play a very tight abc style of poker with roy being the tighter of the two. I'm sure they both are solid winners in the vegas 30 games, but I'm positive they leave things on the table be forgoing some creativity in hands.

For example, roy is a god (like MitchL said) among all of those vegas locals, and yet you never see him loosen up and take advantage of that image. He's not pounding nits in the blinds, or liberally raising the turn against these guys, even though with his image he should be. Same goes for Barry, I feel they both don't take advantage of a lot of these in game adjustments (mainly for them it should be lagging it up at times) that would boost their earns significantly.

When poker authors show a failure to adjust in game, and tackle the uncomfortable I don't find them very helpful as teachers.

Absolution,
Of course everybody doesn't have to be a LAGTAG, but imo it pulls more money and on top of that, raising is a lot more fun than folding.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Hi. Sorry I'm late to the party. I think you are talking about Limit Hold'em: Winning Short-Handed Strategies by Borer and Mak. This is not my book, though I did have a significant hand in editing and fixing it. I did not write the book or the examples.

At no time in my book (Advanced Limit Hold'em Strategies) did I either give this example, talk about six-handed poker, or discuss $1-$2 hold'em.

ALHS is completely about full game strategy at middle and lower high limits. No low limit examples, no short-handed plays.

I noticed a comment about the Wynn. I played there twice in the last several months, never for more than an hour. In both cases I was passing by or waiting for someone. First,everyone knows I play tightly in the first hour of any game. Second, the way that game was playing, tight was the only way to make money, IMO. I adapt to my surroundings, which does on occasion make me look like a nit. It's OK by me if you think I am one.

Thanks for listening. I just wanted to get the books straight since I noticed some comments about ALHS wound into this thread.

-barryt

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

fold

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

If he starts doing the things you say, he will no longer have a tight image and I don't think it will take people that long to realize he's gone from TAG to LAGTAG. TAG can win more than LAGTAG in certain games. I'm not saying that he is playing optimally because I have no idea about his games, but I think assuming a 26/16 player is not winning as much as a 30/20 is just like assuming that the 40/25 is a fish.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

i fold kjo everytime.
KJs i call almost everytime if at least 1 player is "bad". If, however UTG is 24/19 standard TAG and the sb or bb are also TAGS, i fold.

T9s ... well it sucks, he is also raising qt jt j9 ... so i like KJ way more than T9.i think t9 is call if the bb/or coldcaller is a pretty bad fish who will pay you out

My point is, it makes no sense to coldcall those hands if they can play gooood postflop

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Easy muck on both.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Unknown UTG, Unknown CO, that's impossible, and so is the answer then.

Two loose things and you have T9s; that's enough if it isn't raised, now it's raised, does it matter, I bet it does. I remember from Paradise when I was watching it a million years ago and then half a million years ago that generally even high limit players there seemed to like to cold call with suited connectors on the button even with a one gap when they were the 2nd cold caller, and if there are two cold callers they might call even with three cappers.

I don't think marginal questions are such big deals especially in good games. One is not going to get any poorer doing whatever as they don't happen too often.