Profession NL HE example

[tolbiny]

On page 135 in the REM section of PNL the example of KT on a K 4 4 board is called a way ahead/ way behind scenario which is used as justification to check behind on the flop and call a potential bluffer on the turn and river. The authors however don't mention the fact that any weaker king has ~10.5 outs against you with 15 outs to chop and 3 outs to win (k2 and k3 only have chop outs).

[Nielsio]

The suckout odds don't matter much because they're never folding their TP anyway (ie. this is a showdown hand, not a drawing hand).

[Nielsio]

So you wanna go for some pot control and inducing some bluffs is a bonus. You're not getting called by anything you beat if you start firing hard.

[Mossberg]

another thing to consider is that (depending on the villain and the action), we can often count out alot of worse kings anyways. Say we open from CO with KTs, and a 25/10 villain calls in the sb - now if he does have a king here, it's usually going to be a better king, since he's probably not playing stuff like K6 pf.

[Suwalski]

Might be a bit OT, but aren't they limping awfully lot in general in their hand examples in that book?

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]
Might be a bit OT, but aren't they limping awfully lot in general in their hand examples in that book?

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure how far you are into the book, or if you've finished the whole thing, but a couple comments....

one is that in general I think people's almost religious rejection of limping on this forum is fairly silly, two is that we purposely included limping in a few hand examples early on in the book while making separate non-pf-related points.....but even having said that, if you look at the end of the book ("Planning in Practice") where we show 15 hand examples to "put together" everything we taught in Volume One, the hero either raises, reraises, or calls a raise in 14 out of the 15 hands. The only hand which we limp for the actual sake of limping is the final hand in which we have AJ UTG in an eight-handed game. And even in that hand, I believe we mention the possibility of raising, but explain that limping is better based purely on the current game conditions.


PS - thanks a lot for the comments guys...

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
another thing to consider is that (depending on the villain and the action), we can often count out alot of worse kings anyways. Say we open from CO with KTs, and a 25/10 villain calls in the sb - now if he does have a king here, it's usually going to be a better king, since he's probably not playing stuff like K6 pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The opponents in the example are a loose limper and the BB.

Nielso-
its not so much that they will fold their TP, its trying to extract value from it when you are ahead. Both bigger and smaller kings are likely to put in bets on the turn given that the flop is checked around, but smaller kings less likely to put in bets on the flop (as they are more likely to check).

[tolbiny]

For those who don't have the book-

the example is a 1-2$ game with 200 Effective stacks. Very loose player limps in Middle position and you limp with KhTh on the button. sb folds, BB checks (bb likes to bluff and pays off with mediocre hands) . Flop is K 4 4r and the flop is checked to you.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
another thing to consider is that (depending on the villain and the action), we can often count out alot of worse kings anyways. Say we open from CO with KTs, and a 25/10 villain calls in the sb - now if he does have a king here, it's usually going to be a better king, since he's probably not playing stuff like K6 pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The opponents in the example are a loose limper and the BB.

Nielso-
its not so much that they will fold their TP, its trying to extract value from it when you are ahead. Both bigger and smaller kings are likely to put in bets on the turn given that the flop is checked around, but smaller kings less likely to put in bets on the flop (as they are more likely to check).

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't have the book, I commented on the holdings/ranges and the board. If you can turn it into a HH that would help.

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]
So you wanna go for some pot control and inducing some bluffs is a bonus. You're not getting called by anything you beat if you start firing hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

That quote is pretty much the crux of the example. Obviously there are other ways to play this hand - raising pf clearly being one of them. The point of this hand was just to give an example of using pot control. And actually, I think it exemplifies it well. Sure, opponents have combined x outs and zOMG you're giving them a free card on the flop blah blah blah. Bottom line is that the pot is small, the board is paired, your hand is mediocre, there are zero draws, and you're playing against a habitual bluffer. In this type of no-limit situation, controlling the pot, getting to showdown, and playing such that you let the bluffer do his thing without putting you to a stack decision are all paramountly more important than "protecting your hand." Remember, there are NL newbies that don't understand a lot of those things which some of you take for granted. There are players who just think "Top pair. Bet it baby. Oh crap, I just got raised. Now what?"