ciaffone deep stack CP article

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll grab my copy when I get home and post the passage word for word so we can see.

[/ QUOTE ]

The excerpt can be found in the SSNL FAQ.

[phydaux]

Well. I stand corrected.

Geez, for nearly a year I've been calling raises from OOP with SCs & small pairs because "Bob says it's OK..."

[Leopard]

Is there a consensus that it's profitable against poor, loose players? Ciaffone talks about decent opponents.

[smbruin22]

on the OOP, i just remembered this... one of ciaffone's key tenet's is don't build drawing hands OOP. and i agree wholeheartedly with this (maybe some horrendous loose-passive game, it's ok)

and the last poster was probably correct, with horrible competition, lower PP's are probably O.K. at 200BB.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we discuss set-over-set in detail in an appendix in volume 2 of PNL. that section was written a few months ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

And won't be published for nearly a year.

Damn you Matt! You're a tease! Just like all those [censored] in high school, putting out to all the football players but would they go out with me? No way! Well, I saw to it they got theirs on prom night...

Um, so Matt, when is vol I coming out again?

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry about that. We're doing a total grammar and style overhaul based on Mason's feedback. So far there have been no content comments. Ed's been rewriting madly for almost two weeks nonstop and is done editing. He's now writing a chapter we decided to add to Fundamentals (more examples on pot control, hand reading, commitment, and so forth). Then Sunny and I will go through it. Then it's back to Mason.

The required writing style is simpler and should make Volume 2 go faster. Also, nothing in Volume 2 will be anywhere near as complicated to present as stack-to-pot ratios.

Thanks for your patience!

Matt

[Barfunkel]

[ QUOTE ]
i still don't understand the email... but as per phydaux' 5/10, i think ciaffone would think that hitting a set on 3's on flop is great if everyone is 60-80BB (3-4X PFR times 20) . but above that it gets dangerous. basically, non-linearity.... EDIT: more thought... small stack, 33 = mediocre. medium stack = great. deep stack = poor-mediocre. mega-deep = terrible.. basically as the stacks get massive (500BB for instance), you need to have the nuts on all-in??

[/ QUOTE ]

With mega-deep stacks wouldn't you have more room to manouver and to win the pot without getting the set? Say you just call the c-bet and then raise the turn, representing a slowed set. With 100bb AA might think he has the odds to call, with 200+ he has to think that the opponent's river bet is going to be too expensive worth a mere pocket pair.

[thunder911]

What am I missing in the replies?

In BC example we are talking about calling 1.5% or less of your stack with a small pair.
(standard raise with at least 200BB stacks)

For some reason it jumped to the 5%/10% rule which is vastly different.

[thunder911]

[ QUOTE ]
What am I missing in the replies?

In BC example we are talking about calling 1.5% or less of your stack with a small pair.
(standard raise with at least 200BB stacks)

For some reason it jumped to the 5%/10% rule which is vastly different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I answered my own question......????????
Still looks like a nobrainer play of small pair vs 1.5% of your stack.
Set over set is so rare its hardly worth considering.