Bryce's Pre-Flop Bible

[sweetjazz]

Hi guys,

I am a MHUSH poster and familiar with Bryce's posts. You should *really* think about what he is saying in his post here.

The QJ vs. A4 and AK examples are really worth thinking about it.

First, the QJ vs. A4. The assumption here is that you are in a pot where nobody has limped, a single player has raised in late position and you are sitting in the SB. Most likely if you 3-bet, you will see a flop HU OOP against the original raiser (with the BB folding). Of course, every so often the BB will wake up with a big hand and will CC or cap. (We assume that BB is reasonable and doesn't routinely call 2 more because he's already invested 1 SB in the pot.)

Given those assumptions, what are the relative merits of QJ and A4? Well, they both are medium strength hands compared to the range of our opponent who we assume raises in his position with a wide range of hands. Do you we expect to take A4 high or QJ high to showdown and win? No, this will happen virtually never. What happens if we flop an A? Well if our opponent doesn't have an A or at least a pair, he will usually fold right there. In that case, our QJ was just as good as A4. If he has an A, we will probably lose more with A4 (as we will often go to SD), whereas we will give up with QJ (I hope you will at least, for your wallet's sake!). If he has a lower pair, then we make more money with A4 and we still give up with QJ. What if we flop a Q? Again if our opponent does not have at least a pair or a draw, he's checking out regardless of what we have. If he has a Q, it is sometimes with a better kicker and sometimes with a weaker kicker, so we do okay with QJ and we give up with A4 (usually, unless we think a draw is likely and we consider taking A high to showdown). If he has a lower pair, we do good with QJ but have to give up with A4. And so on. If you consider all the possible circumstances that can occur, weight them according to their likelihood, and see which had has a higher EV *taking into account that those our opponent folds it doesn't matter which hand we have* and you'll see that QJo does better than A4o. I've played hundreds of thousands of hands at middle limit SH games where these issues come up all the time, and I have learned this by experience. (That said, I generally fold QJo and A4o against a tight stealer in the SB, while I usually raise QJo and rarely raise A4o against a loose stealer.) So has Bryce.

As far as AK, I sometimes cap and sometimes just call. It depends on my image and whether my opponent will calldown AJ UI even after I cap. As you move up in limits, you'll find more players who realize that folding AJo after being capped when they don't flop a pair or a good draw is a prudent thing to do. However, that same opponent is likely to bet AJ on the flop and on the turn in a raggedy board if you just call the preflop 3-bet and just call the flop (as it looks like you might be peeling a hand you intend to fold on the turn). Some will fire again UI on the river (though this is generally not advised), whereas others will often check and call (usually finding some draw on the board which you might have missed or paranoid about being bluffed off a "good starting hand"). Against these opponents, it is often much better not to cap. I won't even mention how often AJ spews chips on Axx flops if they aren't capped before the flop.

I don't know the dynamic of small stakes games these days. In general, I imagine the play after the flop is probably generally atrocious by your opponents and therefore some of the Bryce's ideas may not be applicable in your games. But I assure that they do apply in typical middle limit shorthanded games, so it is well worth becoming acquainted with the ideas he presents in this article. And middle limit full ring games often play like SH games for most hands, with the first four players folding their hands.

Do not become married to the idea of hot and cold equity. It's a useful concept, but it's certainly not the only one in making any decision at the poker table, including the decision preflop of whether to fold, call or raise with your holding.

[BenA]

[ QUOTE ]

Do not become married to the idea of hot and cold equity. It's a useful concept, but it's certainly not the only one in making any decision at the poker table, including the decision preflop of whether to fold, call or raise with your holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you here. But when I say equity, I don't mean 'hot and cold.' I mean everything you expect to win in a pot, which includes all of your play, reads, protections, etc... If anyone ever considers equity solely in terms of their hole cards, they are destined to lose. In terms of money won, I could easily respect an argument in which QJ does better (moneywise) than A4, but that doesn't mean that I separate them into two different worlds and assign them particular preflop plays. I don't think anyone is dismissing Bryce's post, I just think that its actually too specific to be a "preflop-bible."

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
my staple games are PP 20/40 and 30/60

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remembered to drop it in small stakes

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, I want to point out that this is an advanced article mostly aimed towards the sort of games I play (where most hands are HU). In these smaller pots it's usually impossible for the defending player to realize most of their equity and things like implied odds take a big role. Knowing things like how often your opponent will release for one bet on the flop when he misses are critical.

Now, it usually IS the best idea to get the most money in pre-flop with the best hand, and at lower stakes, especially ring games, where pots are more likely to be multi-way this is even more true (since hot / cold equity and actual equity begin to merge as the pots become larger).

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're a stud, and you decided to put a theory post in a forum where people play games that it doesn't apply to? Makes sense.

[ QUOTE ]
(Snarky!)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
...if anyone has any specific questions I'll probably be happy to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's big of you.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a MHUSH poster and familiar with Bryce's posts. You should *really* think about what he is saying in his post here.
...
I don't know the dynamic of small stakes games these days. In general, I imagine the play after the flop is probably generally atrocious by your opponents and therefore some of the Bryce's ideas may not be applicable in your games.

[/ QUOTE ]

"When playing poker against players that are more than retarded monkeys, one needs to take into account one's reads of the other players and table dynamics when making decisions." (<u>The Big Book Of Duh</u>, 2d Edition, c. 2001, Symon &amp; Shooster Press, p. 1)

I've only been in SS for a few days. Is it normal for MHUSH posters to come in and make inflamatory posts, and when pressed explain that, "it's common sense, I just presented it in a manner that would be more applicable to my game than yours"?

Just curious.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
*taking into account that those our opponent folds it doesn't matter which hand we have*

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me preface by saying that I'm not defending A4o OR QJo from the SB as a matter of course against unknown opponents. That said, I find your reasoning both specious and not a little condescending. You're telling us to not get too wrapped up in hot and cold equity, but your defense of your position re: A4o v. QJo only takes into account best and worst case scenarios.

Suppose you're in the SB with QJo and get raised preflop by a decent player who you think knows you defend aggressively in the CO. You 3-bet, getting it HU, and the flop comes AJxr. You now can't act correctly. The point is, you shouldn't have been defending either of these hands against this opponent; the broader point is that it's much more important to know your opponent when defending than what two cards you're holding.

[Paxosmotic]

Hey Boz, if (Santa forbid) things ever stop working between you and your wife, you let me know, and you'll always have a home with me. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[The Bryce]

[ QUOTE ]
I've only been in SS for a few days. Is it normal for MHUSH posters to come in and make inflamatory posts, and when pressed explain that, "it's common sense, I just presented it in a manner that would be more applicable to my game than yours"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch out for those dirty MHUSH posters. If you're not very careful, you might learn something [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've only been in SS for a few days. Is it normal for MHUSH posters to come in and make inflamatory posts, and when pressed explain that, "it's common sense, I just presented it in a manner that would be more applicable to my game than yours"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch out for those dirty MHUSH posters. If you're not very careful, you might learn something [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Bryce, I'm certainly not opposed to learning, and if I want to learn something about playing in a short-handed 30/60 game, I'll start reading MHUSH. I play 2/4. Your coming down here to grace me with wisdom that doesn't apply to my game in a manner that makes it seem that you think it should apply to my game doesn't do me any good and does an extreme dissservice to any poster that might not read it with as jaundiced an eye as mine, and it comes off as a brag on your part (i.e. "lookit tha fa-ancy thinkin' ah kin do about mah gayme, y'all smelly small stakes play-urs!") which I don't think does you much good, either.

[The Bryce]

Oh, that's not the point. When I got started I remembered lots of new players being really obsessed with hot / cold equity. The examples in the above are things that I would do in my games, might not work in your games, but should still be demonstrative (though it's not really written with that tone, since it was written for a mid-limit crowd). If someone reads this, thinks the examples are silly, but also realizes that the idea of hot / cold equity is kind of fictitious, and that they should think in terms of the hand (especially in small HU pots) then they've gotten the point.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've only been in SS for a few days. Is it normal for MHUSH posters to come in and make inflamatory posts, and when pressed explain that, "it's common sense, I just presented it in a manner that would be more applicable to my game than yours"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch out for those dirty MHUSH posters. If you're not very careful, you might learn something [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Bryce, I'm certainly not opposed to learning, and if I want to learn something about playing in a short-handed 30/60 game, I'll start reading MHUSH. I play 2/4. Your coming down here to grace me with wisdom that doesn't apply to my game in a manner that makes it seem that you think it should apply to my game doesn't do me any good and does an extreme dissservice to any poster that might not read it with as jaundiced an eye as mine, and it comes off as a brag on your part (i.e. "lookit tha fa-ancy thinkin' ah kin do about mah gayme, y'all smelly small stakes play-urs!") which I don't think does you much good, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

boz, i've noticed you posting the last couple of days and you have alot of good takes. you are a solid poster. thebryce i remember from the shorthanded forums when i occassionally lurk there(actually i mistakenly misremembered him and confused him with another poster in that forum for which i never really held in the highest regard which is why i dismissed the post totally at first). thebryce and sweetjazz are both very good posters and there is some merit to thebryce's OP. as it was presented, however, with us not "knowing" him or being familiar with him, and he not really understanding the culture of this forum ultimately may have resulted in his ideas not being presented in a manner that fully conveyed to this forum the sentiments he intended. ultimately though, as boz has pointed out, the post does not really apply to what we in small stakes are trying to achieve and i am afraid it could be misconstrued on a couple of levels by players that are not fully versed in certain aspects of SH or HU play(more specifically in full ring: blindplay). i've noticed alot of posters in this forum struggle with blind play and so for that reason alone i could see it in the shortrun being counterproductive to introduce them to these ideas as they are still struggling to understand alot of basic concepts. so, i say thanks for the post bryce because i see where it fits into the overall picture of our poker development and there are certainly some merits to your ideas, but i think they will have limited benefit to this forum. good luck.