|
|
#11
08-08-2007, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Profession NL HE example
[ QUOTE ]
For those who don't have the book- the example is a 1-2$ game with 200 Effective stacks. Very loose player limps in Middle position and you limp with KhTh on the button. sb folds, BB checks (bb likes to bluff and pays off with mediocre hands) . Flop is K 4 4r and the flop is checked to you. [/ QUOTE ] omg, raise preflop. 
|
|
#12
08-08-2007, 09:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Profession NL HE example
whoa why are we overlimping KTs there? ugh.
Looks like I'll have to give this book a read. anyways, I usually check behind the flop there in the described scenario. IMO the times we induce a bluff or get paid by a 2-outer that would have folded to a flop lead, makes up for the times that he has a worse king and sucks out. we want our villain to make mistakes, and this is a case where I think checking blows the doors wide open for him, whereas betting generally allows him to play correctly.
|
|
#14
08-08-2007, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Profession NL HE example
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] whoa why are we overlimping KTs there? ugh. Looks like I'll have to give this book a read. [/ QUOTE ] Does not compute. [/ QUOTE ] lol i was like wtf i raise there like 80% - and that low because in live games here there's a lot of limp-reraising. this is the first quote that got me jumping to grab the book. anyway fwiw here's the setup: p. 135 "The big blind likes to bluff and also pays off with mediocre hands. That's one reason you limped preflop."
|
|
#15
08-08-2007, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Profession NL HE example
[ QUOTE ]
anyway fwiw here's the setup: p. 135 "The big blind likes to bluff and also pays off with mediocre hands. That's one reason you limped preflop." [/ QUOTE ] That's actually a reason to raise and let him call from the blinds oop with his dominated hand and your hand that can play well as a draw also, in position. There's really no reason to limp this and let the blinds outflop you with J2o, in a 4-way pot.
|
|
#17
08-08-2007, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Profession NL HE example
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] whoa why are we overlimping KTs there? ugh. Looks like I'll have to give this book a read. [/ QUOTE ] Does not compute. [/ QUOTE ] lol i was like wtf i raise there like 80% - and that low because in live games here there's a lot of limp-reraising. this is the first quote that got me jumping to grab the book. anyway fwiw here's the setup: p. 135 "The big blind likes to bluff and also pays off with mediocre hands. That's one reason you limped preflop." [/ QUOTE ] Matt, Mostly I was concerned with characterizing it as a WA/WB scenario when the opponents can have a series of hands with 7-10 outs. I'm transitioning from limit and that description wouldn't really jive on this hand in that world. I don't really have any real comments other than it just seems an incorrect (but not wildly so) term to use.
|
|
#18
08-09-2007, 12:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Profession NL HE example
[ QUOTE ]
So you wanna go for some pot control and inducing some bluffs is a bonus. You're not getting called by anything you beat if you start firing hard. [/ QUOTE ] That quote is pretty much the crux of the example. Obviously there are other ways to play this hand - raising pf clearly being one of them. The point of this hand was just to give an example of using pot control. And actually, I think it exemplifies it well. Sure, opponents have combined x outs and zOMG you're giving them a free card on the flop blah blah blah. Bottom line is that the pot is small, the board is paired, your hand is mediocre, there are zero draws, and you're playing against a habitual bluffer. In this type of no-limit situation, controlling the pot, getting to showdown, and playing such that you let the bluffer do his thing without putting you to a stack decision are all paramountly more important than "protecting your hand." Remember, there are NL newbies that don't understand a lot of those things which some of you take for granted. There are players who just think "Top pair. Bet it baby. Oh crap, I just got raised. Now what?"
|
|
#19
08-09-2007, 12:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Profession NL HE example
[ QUOTE ]
Might be a bit OT, but aren't they limping awfully lot in general in their hand examples in that book? [/ QUOTE ] not sure how far you are into the book, or if you've finished the whole thing, but a couple comments.... one is that in general I think people's almost religious rejection of limping on this forum is fairly silly, two is that we purposely included limping in a few hand examples early on in the book while making separate non-pf-related points.....but even having said that, if you look at the end of the book ("Planning in Practice") where we show 15 hand examples to "put together" everything we taught in Volume One, the hero either raises, reraises, or calls a raise in 14 out of the 15 hands. The only hand which we limp for the actual sake of limping is the final hand in which we have AJ UTG in an eight-handed game. And even in that hand, I believe we mention the possibility of raising, but explain that limping is better based purely on the current game conditions. PS - thanks a lot for the comments guys...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
