a noob's take on HOW TO DOMINATE $1 and $2 NO LIMIT HOLD'EM

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
You sound like you’re making the transition from limit to no limit. I assume this from the mixing of “pot equity” theories with that of the best hand.

It’s more accurate in no limit to say that the whole pot belongs to the player with the best hand at the moment. And then we ask ourselves, “Is it financially viable to try to change that?” My examples also assume the bettor is a good player, meaning he bets the size of the pot to prevent your obvious draw. If you call you still only have a so called “50% pot equity”. Those bets and calls don’t give you the pot odds to match much of any kind of draw and it can cause stack anxiety in looking at another and greater pot sized bet. (These grow exponentially.)

Even with 16 outs, you still only have about a one third chance, with one card, of coming from behind and making your hand. It doesn’t compute.

Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam,

Pot equity is not strictly a limit concept.

12 outs twice is 47% on the flop. Many players and writers advocate raising with such good equity to give yourself 2 ways to win - either he folds or calls. If he calls, you win 47% of the time. The combined fold equity plus pot equity when calls makes the raise a winning play.

Are you assuming that a 1-2 player will always call the raise and that you therefore have no fold equity? I guess that may be true with some calling stations, but it cannot be universally true, even at 1-2.

Finally, if Player A has Jc8c on a JhTh2s board vs Player B who as KhQh, which hand would you prefer to get your money in with? The best hand at the moment? Or the hand with 21 outs twice? And can the best hand at the moment really be the hand with less than 40% equity?

PS 15 true outs is 29:15 against with 1 to come heads up. If the pot is 300 and someone bets 300 at us, are you suggesting to fold?

[howtodominate]

Good words, Binions. I've read some of your other posts and consider you a mature and experienced player.

The matter of 12 outs twice is covered in the book's Discussion on Gambler's Fallacy and is not a subject of Bet-and-Win88's premise.

This thread has tangeted far beyond the original context. The subject Discussion, A/T suited, early in the book, addresses position only. This thread has gone awry in suddenly talking about how and why to win the hand, not a subject of that particular chapter. The chapter (Discussion) is intended to cover only advantage and disadvantage of position. Odds and how to play the player and win the hand are in later Discussions.

Folks, the book is different. It first drills, repitiously, the various disciplines of playing no limit. Then it gathers all those disciplines together and talks about how to apply them in play and why and how we should break the disciplinary rules to Dominate the game. The Discussion Bet-and-Win88 chose to discuss, a Discssion early in the book, is limited to the advantages and disadvantages of position, only.

That puts your good comments way ahead of the subject. Your comments are not wrong; they just don't apply to the limited Discussion Bet-and-Win88 referenced in the first place. We're not discussing how to win a hand in the chosen Discussion, just what position will mean in later Discussions.

All comments, so far, obviously are from experienced players and hold merit. The book reads like a text book in that has drills and then combines them for overall strategy and reasons for exceptions to the drills learned. It takes the reader through A B C and then on into the alphabet. (I think B might be position.)

:-)

I suppose it is my mistake to write a book in the same format I teach individuals no limit poker. But please read the entire book before making comment.

Thank you.

Sam