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

[larrondo]

Hey TT.

I'm intrigued by some of your comments and I wish you'd elaborate on them a bit. I don't know much about the low limit Vegas grinder, but it seems like you're saying they are weak/tight and adverse to risk. Is that the style the book advocates? It's surprising, given the title.

[jeffnc]

It's hard to know *exactly* what the book proposes since the text is confusing or wrong. For example, in one place it states the odds of making a flush by the river when starting with 2 suited cards is something like 20% (it is *far* lower than that). This implies playing suited cards would be very valuable. In another place it says AKs is not much of an advantage over AKo. And in yet another place it ranks KQs as a better hand than AKo.

The book seems to be saying that you should be playing big cards for top pair value, and then pricing players out of their drawing-type hands with "power" betting and raising. If you can't find a table where this strategy works well, then go home and try again another time.

[Red Racer]

Well, while most of you have been posting with a partial read, I have read all the book and some of it twice.

While I could get picky about this and that in the book, enough of that has already been done.

The author’s goal is clear. It’s about dominating the small blinds games in no limit and nothing else. You start with baby steps and end with giant steps. Midway in the book it begins undoing many of those beginner’s rules and in the last 180 pages or so it advances to domination.

Limit play does not apply. Large no limit does not directly apply. Tournament play does not apply, although the book might help. If you’re a limper junkie, don’t buy it. Those are not what the book is about.

Sam concentrates on playing the people who are found in one kind of game – small no limit games - and he does it well. Read the book to the end for a ton of good poker discussion.

The book is well written and fun. I’ll keep going back to it.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Sam concentrates on playing the people who are found in one kind of game – small no limit games - and he does it well. Read the book to the end for a ton of good poker discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly do intend to read the book to the end. However, based on the repeated (almost ad nauseaum) comments about avoiding loose passive tables, I have a real problem with your premise. The players found in small no limit games are very often loose and passive. Leaving the game just because you can only play one style just seems like a really bad idea to me.

[howtodominate]

Thank you, Red Racer.

jeffnc:

The point is the good player’s skills can be better deployed in games where he’s not just waiting for the best hand.

When you read further into the book, you’ll see there are actually two kinds of games that don’t suit the good player’s play – the limper game and the wild game. The reason is that in both those style games we are playing a waiting game. We are waiting for a good flop to follow our limp or we are waiting for two good pocket cards in order to call the big raises pre-flop. There are better uses for the Dominator’s time and skills.

The player who plays, instead of waits, wants a balanced table including some loose players. He is afraid of nothing, but he’d rather have a table where he can maneuver, switch gears and be like a bar of soap in the bath tub.

The good player who plays variety has more fun.

Sam

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]

The point is the good player’s skills can be better deployed in games where he’s not just waiting for the best hand.

there are actually two kinds of games that don’t suit the good player’s play – the limpers game and the wild game.

[/ QUOTE ]


ZOMG .... R U Serious. ?? (Those are the two most profitable games with regards to achieving the highest winrate)


Sure you can't make em fold, but if you don't have to play a waiting game, just read and gamboooool ???

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is the good player’s skills can be better deployed in games where he’s not just waiting for the best hand....There are better uses for the Dominator’s time and skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly understand table seletion with respect to your strengths and weaknesses as a player, or preferred type of game. However I don't understand the advice to "go home" if the table is loose/passive (presumably because there isn't a table more to your liking.) Yes, waiting for cards and flops is not a "power game", but it's still very profitable. Why is going home better than that?

[howtodominate]

gamboooool ?? LOL If you like to gamble, you are having fun, ZOMG. Good luck to you, always.

Sam

[howtodominate]

Thank you, jeffnc

One of the things the book addresses is not only bigger wins, but more consistent wins. Being able to play the more complete game, brings consistency. (I have been playing in the ring games at the WSOP the last two weeks and have won 7 out of 8 plays. We still can't beat a bad run of luck.)

I'll sign off for awhile. The answers to the questions you are asking are in the book.

By the way, I'll have a book signing at the WSOP on Thursday through Sunday. If any of you are in town on one of those days, come offer me a smile; it'll be good to shake your hand.

Sam

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the things the book addresses is not only bigger wins, but more consistent wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I can understand that. Even now there is an article on the 2+2 Internet Magazine that discusses risk/reward and how much variance you're willing to accept. I'm personally willing to accept lack of consistency for EV, but I can't really argue where you're coming from.