2+2 NLH Conundrum

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
but recognize the bias and that there may be errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be so much more helpful if the critics of this book would include examples instead of generalities.

Could you provide what you think some of the major errors are? Specific examples please, not "pre-flop rasing section is bad."

As a reader of the book and someone with little NL experience in comparison to most others, it would be of great benefit to hear which specific advice advocated in the book experienced players have issues with.

Thanks!

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but recognize the bias and that there may be errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be so much more helpful if the critics of this book would include examples instead of generalities.

Could you provide what you think some of the major errors are? Specific examples please, not "pre-flop rasing section is bad."

As a reader of the book and someone with little NL experience in comparison to most others, it would be of great benefit to hear which specific advice advocated in the book experienced players have issues with.

Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to write up a standard blurb for this - I think I post it about once a week [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

The debate centers around how you vary your raise size preflop when you're the first raiser. There are three basic approaches you can take:

1) Constant value (ie 4BB)

2) Varied based on previous action (ie. 3BB + 1BB per previous limper)

3) Varied based on hole cards and previous action


Slansky advocates approach 3) in many cases. You should be able to pick them out by reviewing that section - the paragraph I highlighted on p117 in my previous post in an example.

A lot of players feel that approach 3) is very dangerous against good opposition because it reveals too much about your hole cards. Additionally, many people feel that the edge it gives you if you get lucky and your opponents are oblivious is small. Small edge & big danger = bad, or so the thinking goes. Most of these people advocate approach 2). Some advocate 1) against extreme fish because it keeps them from wondering why you vary your bet.

Those who advocate approach 3), including Slansky, usually suggest applying some randomization to hopefully hide exactly what you're doing. This of course reduces the danger, but also reduces the edge you're getting.

Another controversial idea from NLH:TAP is that Slansky advocates set farming (playing small PP to hit a set) with a big starting pot. I think this is wrong because set farming requires substantial implied odds and ballooning the pot preflop is contrary to that. I don't know I've ever seen much debate on that point.

[Red_Diamond]

T&P has me wondering on one aspect. Sklansky claims to take a big bluff stabb in the BB if there are a few limpers and you find a hand like J4o. However, if you find a hand like J9h then it's ok to check because you may cheaply hit a good draw. I'm not so sure on this, especialy since Brunson just wrote a litte article recently how players who try to stab in the BB when the pot is limped to them are playing it wrong. He says ALWAYS take the free present and be thankful they are giving it to you.

I'm not saying one is right or the other, just something I will have to do more thought on myself. I clearly understand both sides of the story.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
T&P has me wondering on one aspect. Sklansky claims to take a big bluff stabb in the BB if there are a few limpers and you find a hand like J4o. However, if you find a hand like J9h then it's ok to check because you may cheaply hit a good draw. I'm not so sure on this, especialy since Brunson just wrote a litte article recently how players who try to stab in the BB when the pot is limped to them are playing it wrong. He says ALWAYS take the free present and be thankful they are giving it to you.

I'm not saying one is right or the other, just something I will have to do more thought on myself. I clearly understand both sides of the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a suspicious section for many reasons. FWIW, I always take the card or raise for value there depending on hand contents. I never pure-bluff or semi-bluff that spot.

[udbrky]

Didn't he say to sometimes raise it as a bluff to vary your play? I believe I remember the part saying that it's easy to get away from your hand if you're called, and if not, you take down a nice pot.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't he say to sometimes raise it as a bluff to vary your play? I believe I remember the part saying that it's easy to get away from your hand if you're called, and if not, you take down a nice pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything with the words "easier to get away from your hand" is usually bad advice. Just saying...

[7n7]

How about a blog, SplawnDarts? I'd read it... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I guess I must have read this book much differently than others, b/c I don't come to the same conclusions that a lot of posters have on this forum.

The message that I read from pg. 117 regarding "When You Want Action" was to raise as much as you could get away with it, depending on the game, the players, your image, etc. If your opponents are thinking players, then you'll need to be sure you mix it up enough so that they have a difficult time putting you on a hand. If it's a table full of idiots who don't think on anything other than level 0, then pop it up whenever you pick up AA.

As for his p/f raising in general, again the strategy presented in no way implies to me that you always raise 3x with AA/KK, 4x w/AK, etc. In other words, I don't believe he advocates that the size of your raise is based purely on the hand you hold. It depends on your opponents, stack sizes, and what type of pot you're trying to play (aka pot size manipulation).

Whenever I read some of the critques of this book, a lot of the comments center around what they perceive Sklansky to be saying absolutely when there are several paragraphs, sentences, etc. wrapped around his examples that say otherwise.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
How about a blog, SplawnDarts? I'd read it... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I guess I must have read this book much differently than others, b/c I don't come to the same conclusions that a lot of posters have on this forum.

The message that I read from pg. 117 regarding "When You Want Action" was to raise as much as you could get away with it, depending on the game, the players, your image, etc. If your opponents are thinking players, then you'll need to be sure you mix it up enough so that they have a difficult time putting you on a hand. If it's a table full of idiots who don't think on anything other than level 0, then pop it up whenever you pick up AA.

As for his p/f raising in general, again the strategy presented in no way implies to me that you always raise 3x with AA/KK, 4x w/AK, etc. In other words, I don't believe he advocates that the size of your raise is based purely on the hand you hold. It depends on your opponents, stack sizes, and what type of pot you're trying to play (aka pot size manipulation).

Whenever I read some of the critques of this book, a lot of the comments center around what they perceive Sklansky to be saying absolutely when there are several paragraphs, sentences, etc. wrapped around his examples that say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, fair enough. I had to simplify a bit to keep a huge post from being gargantuan. The issue is that Slansky is advocating as big a raise "as you can get away with" only for those hands. I never saw that advice anywhere else. So if you're playing Slansky, and you see he REALLY wants to get the $$$ in preflop this particular hand, what are you supposed to think?

Personally, the first idea that would come to mind is AA/KK. Which happens to be exactly why he's doing it. So I'll probably get away from AK on a Kxx dry board when there's little chance I would otherwise (unless stacks were huge). In other words, he's committing fundamental theorem suicide.

If he just table-standard raised AA/KK, I'd likely RERAISE him with AK, and then he'd really be rolling in the action and have lots of good ways to proceed depending on stack depth and the 3x bigger pot would make it very hard to for me to escape after the flop.

Obviously this is only one possible paring of my hand and his, but it should illustrate the concepts at work.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about a blog, SplawnDarts? I'd read it... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I guess I must have read this book much differently than others, b/c I don't come to the same conclusions that a lot of posters have on this forum.

The message that I read from pg. 117 regarding "When You Want Action" was to raise as much as you could get away with it, depending on the game, the players, your image, etc. If your opponents are thinking players, then you'll need to be sure you mix it up enough so that they have a difficult time putting you on a hand. If it's a table full of idiots who don't think on anything other than level 0, then pop it up whenever you pick up AA.

As for his p/f raising in general, again the strategy presented in no way implies to me that you always raise 3x with AA/KK, 4x w/AK, etc. In other words, I don't believe he advocates that the size of your raise is based purely on the hand you hold. It depends on your opponents, stack sizes, and what type of pot you're trying to play (aka pot size manipulation).

Whenever I read some of the critques of this book, a lot of the comments center around what they perceive Sklansky to be saying absolutely when there are several paragraphs, sentences, etc. wrapped around his examples that say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, fair enough. I had to simplify a bit to keep a huge post from being gargantuan. The issue is that Slansky is advocating as big a raise "as you can get away with" only for those hands. I never saw that advice anywhere else. So if you're playing Slansky, and you see he REALLY wants to get the $$$ in preflop this particular hand, what are you supposed to think?

Personally, the first idea that would come to mind is AA/KK. Which happens to be exactly why he's doing it. So I'll probably get away from AK on a Kxx dry board when there's little chance I would otherwise (unless stacks were huge). In other words, he's committing fundamental theorem suicide.

If he just table-standard raised AA/KK, I'd likely RERAISE him with AK, and then he'd really be rolling in the action and have lots of good ways to proceed depending on stack depth and the 3x bigger pot would make it very hard to for me to escape after the flop.

Obviously this is only one possible paring of my hand and his, but it should illustrate the concepts at work.

[/ QUOTE ]

So against you, maybe the largest raise he could get away with is 3x, against me when I'm sitting there with AK, maybe it's 5x...player dependent and assuming he mixed it up a bit.

I do see your point, but I guess I just don't see how Sklansky's advice says anything is absolute, which is what critics of his book imply.

[SplawnDarts]

We may be saying the same thing in different terms. You're saying slansky's going to have to reign in that play against me. I'm saying his advice is bad against strong opposition. If you think I'm strong opposition (at least for this example) then we're effectivly saying the same thing.

My objection to that section is that as usual the answer is "it depends," but I don't think Slansky clearly explained what it depends on. Because he makes it look like it depends primarily on cards (ie. what to do "If you want action") when the section really should focus on the man (ie. what to do "Against observant preflop opponents"). This is the 2+2 bias towards science and away from art that I'm talking about.

I also prefer books that provide advice that's sound against strong opposition but might not be optimal against weak opposition, rather than the advice that's dangerous against strong opposition but optimal against weak oposition. 2+2's bias is the other direction, doubly so Ed Miller.

It's also worth noting that you're expanding and re-theorizing on what Slansky said. That's great - it's what I advised the OP to do. But you should be able to see how JUST following the advice blind might be dangerous.