Sklansky's recent article:

[allaboutmyfetti]

if a n00b came on here and posted that hand he'd get berated for pure suckage. Maybe FR 1kNL live games play way different, but I'm betting the flop and esp. the turn.

The only street that I could agree with (in a FR game, not 6m) is pf.

[SirFelixCat]

I play this high, live and I, for one, disagree with DS. The games are not tight. I would have to say that I've played this here in underground card rooms in Texas as well as at the Bike and Commerce in LA and I think his advice is terrible. I understand that he's DAVID SKALANSKY, but I just can not see not building yourself a pot. At some point, you HAVE to put a bet in. I'd have bet the flop and if called oop, I'd check the turn and try a c/r. Possibly bet, bet. Either way, you are not winning much, if anything by just checking this the whole way. Terrible, imo.

[Speedlimits]

I agree 100% w/ Sklansky. Full Ring is diff from 6max and live is diff from online.

[gedanken]

seems like image is everything

If I'm (seen as) a weak tight nit, I should have raised PF cause I'm not winning any more off this. If I'm seen as a lagtard, bet away.

If bluffy lag opponents aren't even betting, they probably have pretty lame hands. If tricky/fps players aren't betting, maybe we could make a small bet to see if they're slowplaying.

At higher blind NL, I imagine you can assume a fairly consistent TAG approach. Maybe the advice makes sense in that context, but at, say, 10nl there's a huge range of players at a table.


"I'm just speculating on a hypothosis, I know I don't know nothing!"

[derosnec]

this is one of the worst articles i've read

if he had lots of experience at nl, as opposed to theory, then no way would he have written this

[avfletch]

Given how ridiculously dry the board is I don't think there is anything wrong with it as such. The only question is whether another line has a better EV. At this point the words "read dependent" raise their ugly heads but that is kind of hard for a hand posted out of a magazine.

For everyone who thinks it's very clear cut one way or the other I'd like to know what situations could change your mind and which ones support your conclusions.

For me I'm almost certainly sticking out a moderate bet on the flop because I'd expect sucky uNL opponents to come for the ride with as little as overcards to the flop. When the Q hits then I'm starting to fire big bets (unless there's a really aggro monkey behind me) because I know they will at least call me down with something like KQo.

For the slow playing approach to work here I think we need a table that is capable of making moves and generally raising their good hands. If they are just trying to get their hands to show down then we've got to do the betting ourselves but if they are willing to stab at pots where no one shows any interest and are capable of putting in a raise when 'scare' cards (which are few and far between due to the dry texture of the board) hit then milking it might have some play to it.

[qdmcg]

[ QUOTE ]
this is one of the worst articles i've read

if he had lots of experience at nl, as opposed to theory, then no way would he have written this

[/ QUOTE ]

What qualifications allow you to say this?

I don't mean to be a dick, but if you read his article, he clearly explains that this is very situational:

[ QUOTE ]
This time the answer depends a little bit on the exact type of player you are playing against. Here I specified that they are fairly straightforward, which means you should check again! Forget the fact that you are getting frustrated that there are so few chips in the pot to reward the set you flopped. What matters is getting the most out of your hand from this point on. And that means check. Period.

If someone has a queen behind you they will bet. If you bet they will flat call. If they don’t have a queen, they may bluff. If they don’t bluff, the last card will probably give someone enough to call a small river bet from you, which is at least better than your bet taking the pot on the turn. (If the queen made a two flush the arguments are a bit more complicated, but they still usually add up to a check.)

The exception to the above occurs if the players behind you are apt to raise your bet if they hit their queen or if the players who checked to you are apt to check a pair of queens or better. But these players would do neither. Consequently, there should be no dispute that you should check raise a bet behind you and bet the river if that fails.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain a better way to get money in the pot in this situation. He specified a 5/10NL live, full-ring game where the players are playing straightforward (ie, they bet when they have it and fold when they don't).

Edit: I completely agree that this article is not very applicable (IE, this game situation is incredibly uncommon. That does not, however, make what he is saying wrong.

[kazana]

(grunching this)

Preflop:
If the pot seems to go multiway, or I've got a raise/3-bet happy villain to my left (in which case I should rather switch tables), I definitely go for the limp behind.

Flop:
Almost as dry as it gets. Chances that other players connected - very low. Easy check in MP. "Felt" good hands and pocket pairs will bet, there's only a minuscule chance of getting outdrawn.
Furthermore, betting in mid position into more players to come looks fairly strong. The whole Ax range (uNLs favourite hands) will probably fire off a bet in late position if they get checked to. They may well call a lead, but I'd rather have them connect to hopefully extract more.
If there's a bet behind me I'm most likely to call, planning a c/rai or b/3bai on the turn (whichever works best for specific villain or villains).

Turn:
After checking through the flop, there's no reason to start betting now. Hope for someone else to have connected.
A lead is a bad option, unless of course someone hit the Q in which case he'd call, but then again, he'll lead with that, too. So let him do it.

If the turn checks through you're almost guaranteed to get a caller or two for a river lead.

If you really want to bet before the river, it'd be best on the flop, but then I'd consider checking the turn again, to get some river action.

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
if you replaced "nine-handed $5/$10 NL table" with "standard uNL table" would Sklansky's advice be good, bad, or uncertain?

[/ QUOTE ]Pokey, the problem is that peoples' perception of a "standard uNL table" differ quite a bit.

A Party 10NL player might think of a table full of stations, while a FullTilt 50NL player will not think the same.

[C4LL4W4Y]

Well if all of the players are playing a straightforward game even at uNL, then not much changes, does it?

In a true micro game, where the players are playing anything but straightforward, i like a flop bet and a turn check if we're OOP vs a flop caller. if we have position on a caller, i'd probably fire the turn again.

Checking flop and checking turn is missing a lot of value in micros...you're going to see some ridiculous hands call your flop bets.