***Official HOH Study Group Thread***WEEK 2

[jdefoe]

Ok, now we are going to hack the next 50 pages of this book (pages 51-101) So, lets do it, and start discussing people.

Btw, week one is pages 1-50, not 1-144! keep that in mind.

[dublAthinkntrplX]

this is kickass! i don't have much time now but this is exactly what i wanted. i'm just getting in to HoH 2 so perfect timing for me! i'll post more after i get time to review. seeya.

[RedGladiator]

hi i was reading the problem on page 101. you have 10 10, and raise, some one re-raises all in. if you lose this will leave you short stacked. anyway please read the problem before replying.
ok surely if someone was to make a stand against you they would wait till they have AK or AQ or a high pair. i would find it very difficult to call in this situation, and would most likely fold.

[jdefoe]

[ QUOTE ]
hi i was reading the problem on page 101. you have 10 10, and raise, some one re-raises all in. if you lose this will leave you short stacked. anyway please read the problem before replying.
ok surely if someone was to make a stand against you they would wait till they have AK or AQ or a high pair. i would find it very difficult to call in this situation, and would most likely fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats because when you seem to be the aggressor at the table other players love to play "sherrif" and may try to push you off a hand with any two, or maybe ace rag. Basically, what he's doing is trying to make you play for all your chips if you are going to raise like that. He expects you to have nothing and then fold, hoping that you will not raise the pot consistently like you were earlier.

[Jan]

[ QUOTE ]
hi i was reading the problem on page 101. you have 10 10, and raise, some one re-raises all in. if you lose this will leave you short stacked. anyway please read the problem before replying.
ok surely if someone was to make a stand against you they would wait till they have AK or AQ or a high pair. i would find it very difficult to call in this situation, and would most likely fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at this hand in a vacuum, the "usually correct" play would probably be to fold. But sometimes, based on another players table image, or in this example, your own table image, what seems to be a pretty routine fold can become a call.

This example is used to show you that not only do you need to observe your opponents and know how they are playing at any one time, but you also need to observie yourselft and understand how you are being perceived at the table. Harrington has set the stage by saying you have been playing very agressively for the past hour, and never had to show down a hand. In essence, you have been pushing the table around.

So, if you look at the situation from the eyes of the BB, and how he perceives your actions, it becomes entirely possible that the BB has decided to take a stand. He probably believes you are raising with a mediocre hand, and he is going to push you off that hand and let you know that he will move in if you continue to try and steal his blinds.

Knowing that the BB could be making this move with any 2 (and considering he moved all-in he probably does not want a call), it becomes reasonable to suspect your hand is best. Of course, the BB could wake up with a huge hand like AA or KK, but if you have AA or KK, would you try to push the player out of the pot? Probably not.

It is a gutsy call...not sure if it is one I would be able to make, but what you need to take away from this example is that it is just as important to understand how the table perceives YOUR play.

Jan

[bodhibabe]

there are many times in SnGs when I have wanted to play sherriff but I would never do so with "any 2", tho I might with something I wouldn't usually consider AIing early with, like AJ or AT. Would others just blast away with anything AI? Even with a bluffer's table image, I would not want to call this as Harrington suggests (unless you are comfortable with the usual 55 45 pair vs overcards thing - I like to wait for higher pockets). I just don't think people's push ranges expand that much based on one or two questionable "maybe stealing" hands.

[Jan]

[ QUOTE ]
there are many times in SnGs when I have wanted to play sherriff but I would never do so with "any 2", tho I might with something I wouldn't usually consider AIing early with, like AJ or AT. Would others just blast away with anything AI? Even with a bluffer's table image, I would not want to call this as Harrington suggests (unless you are comfortable with the usual 55 45 pair vs overcards thing - I like to wait for higher pockets). I just don't think people's push ranges expand that much based on one or two questionable "maybe stealing" hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I should have said any 2 reasonable cards. Again, I probably wouldn't make this call myself, but the whole point of the example is learning how the players at the table are reading you, and that your decisions will sometimes deviate from the usually "correct strategy" based on how the other players perceive you.

Also, the example is a live major MTT, not an online SNG where strategy will greatly differ.

[jdefoe]

I don't know if you've ever seen these hands on tv:

the first one is from a wpt season 2 match. Ok, prior to this hand Vinny Vinh was being pushed around and abused since players were frequently reraising his bets forcing him to fold.

A few hands later, Mike Keohan picks up 3 handed AQo and and makes a large raise, Antonio Esfandiari folds, and Vinny Vinh raises all in. What is the play here?
Dan suggests to call, but, mike folded his hand and vinny showed KJo.

This hand is probably a little easier to remember. Phil Hellmuth returns to the table in the WSOP after taking a few beats and picks up AK. Prior to this, Hellmuth layed down AK to AA on a flop of A 3 3. He was giving the image that he would fold big hands. So, after Phil raises with his AK, the unknown player goes all in with KJ (to try to take advantage of phil's table image), Phil calls and makes a great play. the unkown player "peeled one off on the river" accoring to phil and he left in a disgusted state!

[dublAthinkntrplX]

yeh i think in the last 50 pgs. the most important sections are on betting patterns and observing yourself. there's not too much meat in those regards besides the general guidlines but they're important.

in this vein i would like to find out how others practice tracking their opponents (and themselves). i've found note taking to be pretty essential although i don't really have a good system down for it yet (either too simple and not giving me enough info or too complex which becomes too time consuming). how do you folks handle it?

on a different topic i was thinking about the structure of this study group. i think doing 50 pgs. a week is a little arbitrary. i suggest a minor reformatting where week 1 covers parts 1&2 and from week 2 on each week will be the next part (week 2 part 3, week 3 part 4, etc). i know some of the parts are real long (part 5 is 90pgs w/50pgs of problems) but i think this will organize the group such that it will be easier and more cohesive to reference later and will be more accessible to 'future generations'. maybe this is too rapid a pace but if we take it in 50pg chunks it will take about 16 weeks to get through vol. 1&2 whereas doing it by parts will take about 12 weeks. just a thought anyway!

[jdefoe]

yeah good ideas man. I track opponents betting patterns by watching them and assessing a "range" for betting patterns. For example, in my home game, "Bill" usually raises 3x the blinds with AA and KK while he usually raises 5x the blinds with (QQ-1010) and he will usually raise about 2x the BB with suited connectors and AK or AQo to build the pot preflop, thats what i've picked up on. and thats how i do it. good luck