negreanu's latest column (target weak players)

[smbruin22]

http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/inde...xml&coll=1

curious about this part of the advice and whether you agree with his general assertion...

Target weaker players

Look to play more hands against the less-skilled players at your table.

If that means stretching your starting hand requirements against them, then that's what you need to do. In fact, you'd be much better off playing a hand like 5c-3c against a weaker player than you would be by playing a hand like A-10 against a top player.

do you agree with this assertion? i think you can question the value of AT in general, but is there really that much of a spread in terms of playing these hands vs. poor/great opponents, and position has alot to with it..... i just don't see the great player being killed by your funky 53s hand, but if the great player makes power plays alot, your AT top pair on the flop looks pretty good (not great or anything though)

i really likes daniel's column... and when i said new column, it's published today in a paper and i'd never seen it before, but i know different papers publish them at different times, so it may not be new.
thanks in advance!!!

[SplawnDarts]

I believe he's basically correct on this subject - opening up against weak players just makes sense because more hands are profitable against them.

Often times I'd rather have 53s against the top player too, though, so I'm not sure I like the way he stated it.

[smbruin22]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe he's basically correct on this subject - opening up against weak players just makes sense because more hands are profitable against them.

Often times I'd rather have 53s against the top player too, though, so I'm not sure I like the way he stated it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with the general premise, just wasn't sure about the actual hand examples, as you pointed out too.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe he's basically correct on this subject - opening up against weak players just makes sense because more hands are profitable against them.

Often times I'd rather have 53s against the top player too, though, so I'm not sure I like the way he stated it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with the general premise, just wasn't sure about the actual hand examples, as you pointed out too.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing is, Negreanu like the little ones because he likes live cards. So his advice seems a bit contrary to his own apparent style. More than a little odd...

[Gonso]

I like his advice.

I'm much more hesitant to play tough players with marginal hands. Generally they don't stack off with bottom two pair or TPTK even when you make a weird straight, and they'll charge you through the nose to get there anyway.

Against a lot of weaker players you don't need a hand at all half the time, and you're chances of stacking one with a good, second-best hand are much better.

In the abstract, I'd much rather play 53s against a weak player than AT against a strong one. AT tends to get you in trouble a lot against good players... you wind up on a lot of AQ7 or KT5-type flops, trying to figure out what's going on - especially if he's aggressive as most good NLHE players are now. You probably won't make much on rare AAT or KQJ flops either.

53s? Deep enough this is a great hand to take to a bad player, and you'll usually have an easier time knowing where you stand.

[Braaak]

The funny thing is, Negreanu like the little ones because he likes live cards. So his advice seems a bit contrary to his own apparent style. More than a little odd...

He thinks he's the best player at the table.

[Vorlin]

It's true because of one simple fact:

Weak players rarely fight back. If they do, let them have their pot bacause they have the goods. But 4 times in 5, you can slap them around and have them let go of the pot without every having to show your cards.

A strong player isn't going to stand for this. You try to steal his blinds, he'll pound you hard. The first time you try, he'll keep pounding you every round even with nothing... because he knows that the money he may loose in that hand is well spent because you'll not try to tangle with him so easily for the rest of the night and that protects him from steal attempts you otherwise may have tried.

Weak players fold to a steal... so why limit it to only his blinds? Use the same approach on every hand, especially when you have position on the weak player. As soon as you're doing that, you're doing what Negranu advises.

Vorlin

[Small Fry]

Have to go with Daniel on this. Generally speaking most of your money is going to come from players worse than you - or players capable of making bigger mistakes than you. One caveat to this is your ability to play post flop. If you're a regular reader of his he's talked about an "epiphany" he's had about playing recently. I think he finally realized (truely convinced himself?) that his skills post flop are far superior to most of his competition so thats where he is trying to get in a hand. He is raising only 2.5 times bb, doing very little reraising preflop. Once these "bad" opponents get involved in a hand they have a tough time laying it down and surrender a lot more chips than they should.

Daniel makes it look easy but it takes some serious skills to adapt to and get maximum value from 8-9 other players and their assorted styles

[4CardStraight]

Wether to play 53s vs a weak player, or ATo vs a strong one, also depends on the stack sizes in play. In a deep stacked cash game (probably what DN is referring to) you can make way more money from bigger mistakes on later streets. Playing a weaker player, with cards they dont expect, in position, for a raised pot, is a big big winner. Playing a stronger player, with high cards they do expect, out of position, is asking for trouble.

If the size of the blinds or the cost of seeing the flop is an insignificant portion of your stack, you can almost play any two cards against a weaker player in position and expect positive value. They just make worse and worse mistakes as the hand plays out, especially if you are holding cards they dont put you on.