How to Dominate $1 and $2 No Limit Hold'em

[Jim C]

I don't think 4card said he was not a winning no-limit player. He said he was not a winner in "high stakes deep stack" no limit holdem. $1/$2NL is not that type of game. There is an enormous difference between those two statements, and your conclusion that he's not a winning player makes no sense. For all we know, 4card might crush the 1/2. I also think you are using his modesty to diminish his (serious) criticisms of your book.

The example from page 88 is *your* example, howtodominate, not 4card's. He was quoting your book! The lack of all of the necessary supportive information right there in the hand description is a shortcoming in your book, not a problem with our understanding. When I read it, I don't remember reading, "your opponent, who has a $4k roll of $100 bills behind his stack, gets his mail at the poker room, and who only bets into the preflop raiser with the stone nuts, now makes a pot-sized bet into the field." Furthermore, where are you playing 1/2 so deep that we are worried about a "several hundred dollar" turn bet and another huge all-in bet on the river? Where can you play 1/2 with thousand-dollar stacks? Sign me up! Oh yeah, the Wynn, and generally only the nits that 4card described are that deep. And, if somehow a "typical" 1/2er *were* that deep, doesn't that suggest that we have very good implied odds? The whole thinking is confused.

I also think it is terrible advice, and should be considered only as a rather extreme departure from basic strategy because of a very thorough and precise opponent read. I haven't read your whole book, but from what I've seen, "nit bible" is a pretty good description. Coming to the conclusion that a fold is correct here must result from an attitude where something other than maximizing EV is paramount. You said it yourself: you want a "better opportunity". Presumably, you want to only put your money in as a prohibitive favorite. That, by definition, does not maximize EV.

Given a table full of typical $1/$2 live-game players, a pot that is raised preflop and called in several spots, and 100-200BB stacks, you bet your ass we're committing with top set. And no, we don't call the flop, unless we feel that the only way we can get the money in is to raise the turn. On the turn a K or Q would change our plans, but we are crushing the range of a 1/2 flop donk bettor, and we have good equity even if we're behind. A fold is just horrible in comparison. If it were my last buyin on earth and starvation was the result of losing this hand, I *might* be able to fold to the donk bet, but I'd hate myself for it and might end up dead from suicide anyhow. Since you feel your book mostly illustrates that no-limit is a "people game", can you explain why you feel that a typical 1/2 player would bet into the preflop raiser when he flops the nuts? I must say I rarely see this. In my experience, the "typical" opponent will either c/c or c/r, and mostly the former. Underplaying monster hands is rampant among those opponents.

No doubt becoming a nit would be a vast improvement for the majority of players. No doubt playing a nit strategy will beat the low-stakes games. Admittedly, your book targets $1/$2 (live?) games, which are filled with terrible opponents that will pay off the unimaginative nit.

That said, I do not think this strategy will win as much money as possible. From what I've read, the focus is much more on reducing risk and variance than it is either making the most profit or playing the opponents. I think it's *fine* advice given those rather large qualifications. In my opinion, it is not particularly sophisticated advice that will help experienced players, however.

My suggestion is read enough of this book to know how these guys think, so you understand why you don't give them any big action and why its so easy to blow them off of hands.

Edit: if we *knew* he had KQ, we would sometimes have to call anyway, depending on how much money is involved. We have 35% equity against the nuts, and there is just no way we can limit his range that much. Sorry, Sam, but this hand is a huge red flag. I really don't understand how you can defend it. Admit this was a bad example. That way, people might be willing to see if the rest of your book has good stuff rather than concluding you are simply confused about the game.