Stack-To-Pot Ratios: Introduction

[HustlerLA]

Matt,

You wrote that the goal is to avoid the middle ground (tough decisions) of commitment. So, what factors will help you decide to choose a line that you are not commited vs. one that you are. For the KK example, a 6xbb raise is better than a 3xbb because it results in a commited line while 3xbb leaves a marginal decision. If you were to limp with the KK or raise 2xbb, the preflop action would result in a situation where you could fold the KK if action dictated you were beat. But obviously, with KK pre-f you are at the top of possible ranges so you would prefer the line that commits you. But would you agree that a limp would be better than a 3xbb? Suppose, you knew that a 3xbb would result in a call and a marginal situation commitment wise. While a 6xbb raise would result in folds all around. In this case would your best option be a limp? More importantly, which situations/types of hands would you choose a pre-f raise that leaves you not commited?

[Sunny Mehta]

Hustler,

Definitely a good observation. We in fact make the point throughout the book that with one-pair reverse-implied-odds-type hands it is often preferable to EITHER play a big preflop pot or a small preflop pot. The pots in the middle are the ones where your opponents can sometimes have leverage on you.

-S

[Matt Flynn]

Hustler,

Great point, this'll all be easy for you to pick up. There's a side issue of when you prefer to get money in preflop because you have the best hand. Against passive opponents and many modestly aggressive ones, you prefer more money in with kings preflop and would go for 3bb instead of 2bb. However, with queens it can go the other way in current mid-stakes online game conditions. With AK you usually want more money in preflop only if you expect to win more pots when everyone misses the flop EVEN THOUGH you expect to have the best hand.

Too much for this post but you're all over it. Can't wait for you to see the book.

Matt

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cant wait for reading the whole thing. I hate that you have chosen this chapter for internet magazine as it ends with shaky conclusion which most high stakes players disagree with. Raising more preflop with some hands is a concept which will be very hard to justify as arguments against it are just too strong.

[/ QUOTE ]


the article does not argue to raise more preflop with some hands. it shows that *if* your opponents are loose and indifferent to your raise size, with 100bb stacks and kings you benefit from raising more. that's all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the problem that some have with the article is that some people are looking for a magic bullet that can be used all the time. Not all concepts can be applied to all situations regardless of how powerful they are, especially in a game such as NL.

I think the statement above clears things up: *If* you find yourself in a game like this, here is a strategy you use. If you aren't in a game like that you can't.

Perhaps this context was lost from book to article.

[jeffnc]

I think another problem some people are having is that they don't acknowledge that sometimes your opponents play well. There is no magic "trump" play in poker. The reason you have trouble sometimes is that your opponents can play in ways that make things difficult for you, either by mistake or because they're really good. Perhaps we'd like a book called "How to Easily Beat the Best Players in the World With This Simple Strategy". We just hope those guys don't get a chance to read it too.

[revots33]

Nice article, looking forward to getting the book.

Does the book discuss short-stack play at all? Playing with a short stack seems to get a very bad rap on 2+2, but it seems to me it can greatly reduce the number of commitment errors. It is much easier to maneuver into an easy push-or-fold postflop decision when you're starting with a short stack.

[Matt Flynn]

Yes it discusses short stacks and why they are so easy to play. We don't discuss much about how they win online, but it's not hard to understand. The other players are playing too loose preflop and cannot make up the money posflop against a committed short stack.

Short stacks also take a lot of skill out of the game. I'd like to see them banned.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Short stacks also take a lot of skill out of the game. I'd like to see them banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hardly "no limit" if you're limited to the other guy's short stack. But I can see the idea behind a capped buy in of some sort, from the casino's point of view.

[Ghazban]

There's a big difference between capping the maximum buyin and allowing people to sit down with a mere 20BB. I think most good players would be thrilled if the minimum buyin was raised to 50BB (obviously they'd be even more thrilled if it was higher than that but with 50BB there are still postflop decisions to be made).

[kev]

My only criticism of the article is it almost advocates playing KK in a weak tight way.

With KK on a T75Q board you have no good reason to think you don't have the best hand. Assuming you know the guy reraises with AA, the only plausible hands that beat you are 55,77,TT,QQ,QTs (15 combinations) whereas the button could have ATs,JTs,AT,KTs,JT,JJ,99,88,A7s,86s. Assuming you are a good aggressive c-betting player it would be reasonable for the button to call the flop with a wide range of hands. I wouldn't think of folding here unless I was raised on the flop or the turn. In the example the button appears to be a regular calling station donk so making a small bet on the turn would be a no-brainer for me.

Agree with the main points though, 3bb pfr is too small a raise with KK preflop and does put you in middle ground territory. Looking forward to reading the book in full.