#631
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Volume 1 Review Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Most of our l/rr's will be hands like AQ+/KK+. [/ QUOTE ] Then you are giving away too much information by limp reraising. In which case you should raise more to make it less profitable. [/ QUOTE ] It is pro's vs. cons'. I would rather have a player knowing my range and I have a good SPR where he can't benefit from it than him not knowing as much of my range and be able to put me to difficult decisions because my SPR is in the danger zone. It sounds like you are saying that you believe that making a small 3-bet doesn't offer an SPR that is low enough for you to get AI profitably. Is that what you are trying to debate? |
#632
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Volume 1 Review Thread
[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you are saying that you believe that making a small 3-bet doesn't offer an SPR that is low enough for you to get AI profitably. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. There is more to this game than SPR. Even Matt and Sunny have said there is a lot more they wish they could have put into volume 1 that they are putting into volume 2. Even you yourself said: [ QUOTE ] Just because you hit your target SPR doesn't mean you 100% commit. [/ QUOTE ] even though the authors made it pretty clear that they are committing on any non-ace flop. Things to think about outside of SPR: [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] What information have we gained about our opponents' holdings at this point? [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] What information have our opponents gained about our holdings? [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] As the hand has been played, if we stack off on the flop will it be profitable for us? [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Have we played the hand in a way that is unprofitable for our opponents? In this example we didn't make the button's play unprofitable. A lot of the time we limp in EP we are going to have a hand that we have to fold to a raise. As a matter of fact, in a later example in this section we limp with AJs in EP and then fold to a raise. Our reraise is so small it makes a call with a pair profitable for our opponent. If all of our opponents' actions on the hand are profitable, then how are we making money on this hand? |
#633
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Volume 1 Review Thread
Only thinking about SPR is a sure way to cut your bottom line.
|
#634
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Volume 1 Review Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It sounds like you are saying that you believe that making a small 3-bet doesn't offer an SPR that is low enough for you to get AI profitably. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. There is more to this game than SPR. Even Matt and Sunny have said there is a lot more they wish they could have put into volume 1 that they are putting into volume 2. [/ QUOTE ] PB, you can be so bull-headed. Where did I say that there wasn't? I am talking very specifically about a hand that you brought up and I feel like you are putting words into my mouth. Allow me to spell it out... It seems like you are saying that you need to 3-bet more to achieve a lower SPR because you feel that an SPR around 4 is now low enough given the situation. Is this not what you are saying? |
#635
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Volume 1 Review Thread
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you are saying that you need to 3-bet more to achieve a lower SPR because you feel that an SPR around 4 is now low enough given the situation. Is this not what you are saying? [/ QUOTE ] Threads, Here is what I'm saying. SPR simply combines all of the preflop action into one and that can be deceiving. We need to think deeper than that. Think of each individual action before the flop and how we are profiting from them individually. (Like I said, SPR simply combines all of them) We limp UTG. We are going to do this with a lot of hands in a game of this nature. Another player limps. The button raises with what is probably a fairly wide range. This is +EV for him. We reraise. Why are we reraising? Because we have the better hand and we want to put more money into the pot. But we fail to raise enough to limit juicy implied odds for the button to call our raise. So he calls profitably. He's made two profitable plays against us. If the preflop action had just been one play, it would be different. If we raise to 10bb and the button calls, he is doing so unprofitably. Do you see how my second example is way, way different from the first example? Yet they have the same SPR? Hmmm.... Think about that for a bit. |
#636
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Volume 1 Review Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] My last post touches on those types of concepts, and we'll have a lot to say about that in Volume Two. [/ QUOTE ] I'm sorry, that won't do. If your book is bunk, I want to know now, not after Volume 2. [/ QUOTE ] The book is not bunk, no matter what side of any rational debate you're on. Productive discussion revolves around examples, styles and where to draw "the line" in different scenarios. The fundamental concepts of SPR are no more bunk than pot odds or stack sizes are bunk. Those things can't be bunk because they exist, and understanding them can only help your game. |
#637
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Volume 1 Review Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My last post touches on those types of concepts, and we'll have a lot to say about that in Volume Two. [/ QUOTE ] I'm sorry, that won't do. If your book is bunk, I want to know now, not after Volume 2. [/ QUOTE ] The book is not bunk, no matter what side of any rational debate you're on. Productive discussion revolves around examples, styles and where to draw "the line" in different scenarios. The fundamental concepts of SPR are no more bunk than pot odds or stack sizes are bunk. Those things can't be bunk because they exist, and understanding them can only help your game. [/ QUOTE ] Pot odds can determine your play, unexploitably. You call all-in or you don't. This discussion is about whether SPR is useful and in what way. It's interesting and I want to hear more, specifically about application. |
#638
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Flynn & Sunny Mehta will be my guests 10/17
Hi Everybody,
This post also appeared on other forums. As you probably know, they are two of the three authors of “Professional No-limit Hold’em. Colin Moshman was my guest on September 19. He is the author of “Sit ‘n Go Strategy.” Stoxtrader, co-author of “Winning In Tough Hold’em Games,” was my guest on August 29. Mason and David were my first two guests. The show is called “Poker Psychology with Dr. Al Schoonmaker,” and it can be heard at holdemradio.com every Wednesday at 8:30 to 9:30 PM, Pacific Time. All shows are archived, and you can download most of them to your PC or iPod a few days after the broadcast. Click on “Podcast Channels” and “Poker Psychology.” There are three recorded segments for each show. Unfortunately, someone hacked into our server, and several shows are not currently available. We hope that they will be available soon. I’m an educator, not an entertainer. Most guests are writers and thinkers, not “celebrities.” Instead of typical interviews, we have intelligent conversations about poker psychology and strategy, legal issues, turning pro, bankroll management, and similar topics. You can submit questions in advance for Matt, Sunny, or any other guest or for me by: • Sending me a PM • E-mailing alannschoonmaker@hotmail.com Please say “Question for Name” in the subject line. I hope you enjoy the shows and learn something from them. Regards, Al |
#639
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Volume 1 Review Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you really needed the book to help you with this river decision you need to reevaluate your game. [/ QUOTE ] I think you need to reevaluate your post reading skills. That's not what he meant. Obviously it was an easy river decision because of how he played the hand earlier. If he had played the hand different earlier (starting with limping), then he could indeed have been faced with a tough river decision. [/ QUOTE ] Nope I read it correctly, any way he played it, it wouldn't have been a tough river decision either way, ducy? (I am not saying that you should mash the call button cuz you have a set either) [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand this argument. There was no river decision to make. The OP was put all in on the turn. Or am I missing something (not unusual btw) |
#640
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Volume 1 Review Thread
X-Post from 1p0kerboy's Full Ring Forum thread:
All, I will just make a couple points, as I feel this debate is starting to run its course. First off, let's say you want to play a certain range in EP and would ideally love to get, say, 10bb into the pot, but feel that everyone would fold most of the range you want to play against to a 10bb raise. Then you realize that the button has the tendency to raise a wide range if you limp AND will call a small reraise on top of that. So you plan to exploit him by limping and making a small reraise to 10bb. Those of you saying button is somehow justified in his isolated decision to call your reraise based on his initial decision (mistake) to raise after you limped UTG, is globally shortsighted imo. Secondly, I believe many of you are way overestimating the implied odds required by your opponent to play this situation profitably, even given the isolated decision. Almost no one in this thread has cited anything in the way of math to back up some of the implied odds assertions made. (Save for CMAR who did give a little bit of implied odds math, however he missed/overestimated a few things in what is a very complicated decision tree.) We will have more to say in V2, but allow me to give a few observations... You estimate implied odds by looking at what you stand to make on average in a given situation over all possible outcomes, not *the most you can possibly make in one particular outcome*. So, saying "OMG the raise is ten percent of my stack therefore I'm getting 10-to-1 in implied odds!" is incorrect. When you call 10 percent of your stack, your implied odds are usually much less than 10-to-1. I know many of y'all know all that. But perhaps what you don't know is that, even if you held the BEST POSSIBLE implied odds hand (pocket sixes) in terms of preflop-to-flop play, and your opponent held the BEST POSSIBLE hand to pay you off (pocket aces) and you both did in fact get all-in EVERY TIME you flopped a set, you STILL wouldn't have enough equity to make 10-to-1 profitable. Do the math. You'll be surprised. (The things most people get surprised at is how much set-over-set cuts into equity, as well as how much the sucking-out-equity an overpair has even when the underpair flops a set.) In addition to the above, if we then pile on the fact that ranges are almost always wider than AA and 66, the implied odds situation is even more grim. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] -S |
|
|