Sklansky's recent article:

[Pokey]

So I was reading the April 2007 edition of the 2+2 Magazine and I came across this article. In it, Sklansky describes the following situation:

You're fifth seat at a $5/$10 NL table with $800 in front of you (the table is nine-handed, and everybody covers you).

1. You're dealt 77, the first two players fold, and the next two players limp. Action is on you. <font color="red">Sklansky recommends limping behind</font>, calling if raised.

2. Two more players behind you call, the SB folds and six see a flop of 732 rainbow. It is checked to you. <font color="red">Sklansky recommends checking</font>. He suggests that if someone behind you raises, your best bet is probably to smooth-call.

3. Everybody checks and the turn comes with an off-suit queen. The hand is checked to you. <font color="red">Sklansky recommends checking again</font>.

Personally, I don't know exactly how a $5/$10 NL table plays, so I put it to the forum:

if you replaced "nine-handed $5/$10 NL table" with "standard uNL table" would Sklansky's advice be good, bad, or uncertain? I have my own opinions about the answers, but I'd like to give others a chance to hash it out before I chime in with my $0.02 worth.

So: apply Sklansky's advice to a uNL table and evaluate his suggested plays.

[SCBielski]

I personally don't like it because it is far too passive of an approach and puts a lot of faith in other people betting, although I play 6-max so I know very little about full ring.

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
So I was reading the April 2007 edition of the 2+2 Magazine and I came across this article. In it, Sklansky describes the following situation:

You're fifth seat at a $5/$10 NL table with $800 in front of you (the table is nine-handed, and everybody covers you).

1. You're dealt 77, the first two players fold, and the next two players limp. Action is on you. <font color="red">Sklansky recommends limping behind</font>, calling if raised.

2. Two more players behind you call, the SB folds and six see a flop of 732 rainbow. It is checked to you. <font color="red">Sklansky recommends checking</font>. He suggests that if someone behind you raises, your best bet is probably to smooth-call.

3. Everybody checks and the turn comes with an off-suit queen. The hand is checked to you. <font color="red">Sklansky recommends checking again</font>.

Personally, I don't know exactly how a $5/$10 NL table plays, so I put it to the forum:

if you replaced "nine-handed $5/$10 NL table" with "standard uNL table" would Sklansky's advice be good, bad, or uncertain? I have my own opinions about the answers, but I'd like to give others a chance to hash it out before I chime in with my $0.02 worth.

So: apply Sklansky's advice to a uNL table and evaluate his suggested plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I suck at NL but I think it is pretty hard to build a pot by checking. That said, typically if we were thinking that there was any chance that anyone had a piece of the board we would be betting. But top set on the flop and no one betting the Queen on the turn indicates that betting is only going to get a bunch of folds.

If the pot was raised pf we could at least hang our hats on the possibility of someone having an over pair on the flop. In that case I would be betting at UNL. But in the example it seems that no one has a piece so our best bet is to check the turn and hope someone hits something on the River or that we induce a bluff on the river. This solution seems to make the most money since no one is going after the pot on the flop or turn and if we bet, most likely people fold.

Then again,

At a very loose table betting the flop might still be the right answer if you think that people will stay in with over cards hoping to spike something on the turn.

So maybe the right answer is that "It depends" (on the table).

Greg

[calmB4storm]

I'll take a stab at this. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Edit: I suck at basic math. For some reason I thought you had effective stacks of 800 big blinds. Seeing as this is not the case, I hate this line for uNL. Way too hard to build a pot playing so passively. Not sure about $5/10, but for .05/.10 this line seems terrible.

[jjb108]

PF:
Full Ring the limp is fine. Set value is good.

Flop:
Meh, I usually bet but this as I'm hoping someone slowplayed their monsta. But the board is soooo damn dry a check/call isn't too bad.

Turn:
I have to bet sometime and this is it. I'm betting 1/2 pot.

All in all. I favor bet bet bet. Flopped top set in an unraised pot and you usually win a small pot.

[Scuba Chuck]

Betting into a flop with 6 players, with his mediocre position... That's a lot of strength. These are things you learn at higher stakes. TP doesn't pay off as much there like it does down here.

[Acein8ter]

In one of the 2+2 books, he mentions that if you flop a real strong hand to check it and allow another player to hit a card so they have top pair, 2nd pair, etc... You basically want them to have the 2nd best hand.

In order to check in this example, we really need to examine the texture of the flop. Not too coordinated and a rainbow.

If no one raised PF, theres a pretty good chance that no one has pocket Q's for a higher set at the turn. (But you can never be sure , right?)

There is an optimal way to play every hand and he is trying to play to get the most $$$ out of that particular hand. You could check the turn, then re-raise at that point but then the person may fold and you will not win another bet on the river. (Provided that you still have the best hand)

[fees]

its [censored] at unl, have you ever been called down with A2 at HSNL? bet bet, bet bet bet bet, bet bet bet, bet RAISE bet

[Spanky1974]

I've only played $2/$5 live, but I'm at least betting the turn here. It's all read dependent here. Drunken live game, you might get a couple callers with 1/2 pot bet on flop. FR uNL, I'm checking the flop here. You have the nuts and the turn card is likely to help at least one of the 5 other people in the pot. Hard to get much value here in FR most times I think.

[Redd]

Pokey,

Usually I try to load my replys to your posts down with math so we're speakin' the same language (ps: arctan permutation asymptote?) but I'm gonna respond very qualitatively here.

I play 50NL and I'd basically play this hand the exactly opposite way as Sklansky at a 50NL table. In my experience, playing passively like this just doesn't get a bet that often, and the times that I do c/c a dry flop, he just checks behind or gives up on the turn. Maybe I'm giving off timing tells or I'm exploitable because I generally don't play my non-monsters sneaky, and other people have more luck with deception of this nature. But it's been my experience that you get alot more money in by just betting and hoping someone is donkalicious enough to call.

Having said that, I'm sure $5/10 is much more aggressive, and much more tight, so I could conceivably see this working better up there.