|
|
#1
10-03-2006, 09:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
HU NL article comments
Here are some specific points where I think the analysis is unreliable.
[ QUOTE ] 2. There are certain types of opponent where it is not necessarily advantageous to be deep-stacked. The most obvious is the hyper-aggressive maniac: it is very difficult to tell when this type of player is betting with a real hand and when he is bluffing, and so you will often have to make raises and calls with marginal hands. [/ QUOTE ] While it is true that it can be difficult to decide whether someone is bluffing, if your opponent is given to pushing light, you lose a lot of potential EV by calling allin with a shorter stack. If you are confident in your reads then you should be able to make big calls with marginal hands; it's an essential skill in headsup NL and working around it by playing allin shortstack poker is not going to maximize your earn. [ QUOTE ] Hand 1 Hero ($55.20) is SB/B with 7c2s Preflop: Hero calls, Villain checks. I have a horrible hand, but as Dan Harrington notes in his excellent book Harrington on Hold ‘Em Volume II, you will always have the odds to call from the small blind with any two cards. In any case, I am not calling here because of the strength of my cards, rather for information. I want to know whether opponent will attack my limps, and if not how aggressive he is prepared to be out of position (OOP) post flop. [/ QUOTE ] WRT limping in with 72o: keep in mind that in a cash game the blinds don't increase, and your M value is astronomical, so Harrington's advice on squeezing dubious value out of even more dubious hands is less important. It's reasonable to look for info about how active your opponent is postflop, but if you happen to ever show down a hand like this, then you are going to provoke a correct countermeasure from your opponent: he will start raising your limps. You don't want to encourage this behavior. [ QUOTE ] Hand 2 Hero ($53.20) is BB with Ac7s Villain ($201.80) Preflop: Villain raises to $6, Hero calls Flop: 4s 4d Tc (pot $12) Hero bets $6 Villain calls. Turn: 2d (4s 4d Tc) (pot $24) Hero checks, Villain checks River: Qc (4s 4d Tc 2d) (pot $24) Hero bets $14 Villain folds [/ QUOTE ] In the analysis of the hand, hero makes it clear that he thinks he's bluffing. However, he has a holding that is capable of being shown down here, an Ace high, which will split the pot with most other aces. Furthermore, hero's bet will often fail to fold out an opponent's ace high on this sort of board, and it will almost certainly be called by any paired hand. In other words, hero's "bluff" with a medium-strength made hand will only fold out worse hands, so it's of minimal value. [ QUOTE ] Hero ($60) is SB/B with Ac 6d Villain ($193.60) Preflop: Hero raises to $6, Villain calls Flop: 6c 7c 5c (pot $12) Villain checks, Hero checks Monotone flops are another good chance to pick up information about an opponent. How tight or passive are they in the face of a very scary board? Here, I have picked up middle pair – usually a strong hand (approximately equivalent to flopping top pair with a reasonable kicker in a full ring game). However, I check behind for two reasons. First, if he has no clubs, he probably won’t bet and my pair may well be good enough to win this raised pot at showdown; and second, a flopped flush would probably check here, hoping to pick off a continuation bet. Indeed, if he does hold a flush, a check is right not only because it saves me a bet, but also because if a fourth club comes, he will almost certainly have to pay off my nut flush. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree with most of this analysis. First of all, author demonstrates paranoia concerning a possible opponent flopped flush. Throughout various hand analyses he discusses flush draws as if they're a very likely part of opponents' holdings, but they're just not. In this hand, the author has flopped a pair + nut flush draw, in position, vs. a passive foe. First of call, author needs to recognize that this is a very good holding. This is a hand where it is important to get money in, because hero has huge equity vs just about any holding and yet doesn't want a cheap overcard to fall off and pair his opponent. Hero has a shot at stacking opponent if opponent has a big club and chases it. In sum, hero needs to bet here pretty much 100% of the time, and can gauge from opponent's actions on turn or river whether his pair is any good. [ QUOTE ] Hand 7 Hero ($43.80) is SB/B with 6h 3h Villain ($207.80) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain checks. Flop: 3s Ks 7s (pot $4) Villain bets $2 This is very interesting, to have another monotone flop so soon after the last. I can rely on his memories of the previous hand being fresh in his mind. Hero raises to $4, Villain calls It is very rare that a made flush would bet here, because I will almost certainly fold, so I rule that out for the moment. Therefore, suspecting weakness, I make a bet which will look most like I am attempting to extract value with a made flush. His call is in keeping with my “cynic” read – note that with each extra piece of evidence, my reads become more and more reliable and I am more prepared to back them up with significant bets. [/ QUOTE ] A minraise to set up a bluff on the next street is somewhat novel, but giving the opponent a chance to draw a cheap card to continue on is an error. If you think the opponent is weak, raise enough to knock him out, don't play pattycake. [ QUOTE ] Hand 9 Hero ($54.60) is SB/B with 5h 7s Villain ($195.80) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain raises to $6, Hero calls It has now become clear that he has a standard raise size, so there is no further point trying to glean information from this – it is now only relevant information if he were to put in a minimum or oversize raise. My call is a little loose, but I have position and I have been fairly successful so far at taking pots away without card strength. [/ QUOTE ] Opponent has to be incredibly bad for this call to be profitable. 75o misses the flop the vast majority of the time. If villain bets any flop, as most people do after raising from the big blind, then the 75 is just not going to hit often enough to be useful. [ QUOTE ] Hand 11 Hero ($61.60) is SB/B with 3d 3h Villain ($187.80) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain checks. I was expecting another raise preflop here after my fold on the previous hand, and had intended to limp-re-raise as a means of stopping that in its tracks. He checks behind though – a shame, because low pocket pairs play fairly well preflop but are still hard (even HU) to play with confidence post flop unless you hit your set. [/ QUOTE ] What does it mean of a hand that it "plays fairly well preflop?" This is meaningless phrasing. 72o plays pretty well preflop, you fold it. If a hand is difficult to play with confidence postflop, then it should be played in such a manner that is unlikely to get to a flop, i.e. raised. [ QUOTE ] Hand 14 Hero ($63) is BB with As 7d Villain ($185.60) Preflop: Villain raises to $6, Hero calls. Flop: 3s Js 9s (pot $12) Hero checks, Villain checks Turn: 9c (3s Js 9s) (pot $12) Hero checks, Villain bets $2, Hero calls. Turn: 9c (3s Js 9s) (pot $12) Hero checks, Villain bets $2, Hero calls. A paired and flushed board? Enough to scare anyone, but I’m still confident my flush would be good if it hits. An interesting subplot here is Villain’s use of the minimum bet – last time he used it, I read it for weakness and forced him to fold. An interesting bluff or double bluff situation therefore arises – is he actually strong, because last time he was weak? Or is that what he expects me to conclude, and so he is actually weak still? I start to hope that one way or another, I get to see his cards at showdown to determine how many levels he is capable of thinking on. [/ QUOTE ] Here is another hand where hero flops a very strong draw and chooses to play it in a manner to minimize the size of the pot. Hero needs to force his opponent to make decisions; reads are useful but so are pots! If hero had fired the turn for the pot, or check/raised, or done something, then hero would've had a shot at doubling up rather than just settling for a $20 win. Noticing a tendency to minbet, and then wondering how many levels an opponent is capable of thinking of, is the wrong way to approach a minbet; a minbet in a raised pot is a sign of total poker incompetence, and THAT is the message that hero should be taking from this encounter: that he is dealing with an utter fish. [ QUOTE ] Hand 15 Hero ($85) is SB/B with 6h 7h Villain ($161.60) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain checks. More backchat about chasing and being a fish comes my way between hands, so I expect another bout of aggression here, and would be very happy to call a raise with 7-6 suited in position. However, it does not arrive. [/ QUOTE ] If hero wants to play 7-6 suited in position in a big pot, he should raise with it himself. It's just that simple. [ QUOTE ] Flop: 8c 6d 4s (pot $4) Villain checks, Hero checks. I have a perfectly decent hand to show down, and a gutshot draw which will probably be paid off if it hits. I elect to keep the pot small, and check behind. [/ QUOTE ] Why is hero thinking of small pots? That's generally bad advice in NL hold'em cash games. Hero seems unaware of the strength of his holding here (middle pair plus straight draw) vs. a passive foe who will telegraph his own hand strength quite clearly. This is a bet, bet, and bet some more situation, since opponent seems too passive to bluff. [ QUOTE ] Hand 17 Hero ($84) is SB/B with Jd Tc Villain ($162.40) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain checks. Flop: 8h 2s 4h (pot $4) Villain checks, Hero checks. Turn: 9c (8h 2s 4h) (pot $4) Villain checks, Hero checks. River: 3h (9c 8h 2s 4h) (pot $4) Villain checks, Hero checks. This is a fairly inconsequential hand [/ QUOTE ] No, it's not. Hero's check on the turn is pretty poor. He's got a nut draw, two overs, and villain is very passive; a bet is likely to take it down. With 14 cards to improve him, hero's happy to take it down with a bet but loses nothing if villain calls. [ QUOTE ] Hand 24 Hero ($91.60) is BB with 3c 9s Villain ($153) Preflop: Villain folds A real pattern now and I make a mental note to start respecting his calls and raises from the button a bit more than I have so far. [/ QUOTE ] This is 5 hands after villain has limped in with 32o, so hero's perception of villain's standards is off. Villain is merrily limping in with trash just like hero is. [ QUOTE ] Hand 27 Hero ($96.40) is SB/B with 7s 6s Villain ($148) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain raises to $6, Hero calls. A raise from the big blind, which could be a big hand based on his recent history of passivity. I make a slightly loose call with suited connectors, shooting for a big pot from a hand he gets himself attached to. Flop: Kh 6d 2h (pot $12) Villain checks, Hero checks. Turn: 7d (Kh 6d 2h) (pot $12) Villain bets $6, Hero calls. Things take a turn (sorry) for the better as I hit two pair – although note I should never have been allowed to get here. He now decides to make a delayed continuation bet. I decide that now is a good time to exploit the vulnerability to slow playing which I detected earlier, and just call, hoping he will bluff on the river as he did on Hand 20. [/ QUOTE ] Hero has chosen a very poor hand to trap with. Middle two pair is easily counterfeitable, and this is now a board with two flush draws on it. It is a bad mistake not to raise here and get money into the pot, allowing a larger bet on the river as well. [ QUOTE ] Hand 28 Hero ($130.40) is BB with Qh Ts Villain ($112) Preflop: Villain calls, Hero checks. Sensing again the chance of a big pot in the near future, I am happy to revert to “playing nice” out of position, even though my hand is strong enough for a raise. I want to keep this one on the hook. [/ QUOTE ] Hero's confused about the method of generating a large pot. The way to generate a large pot is to start with a preflop raise. Limps rarely generate big pots. 
|
|
#3
10-03-2006, 12:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HU NL article comments
Creed,
Thanks for taking the time to go through the article and make specific comments. That's much more helpful for all concerned than the criticisms in the original thread. I would like to take the chance to respond to the (constructive) criticisms you make. I would also like to point out that these criticisms are of the specific actions taken on specific hands, as opposed to criticisms of the reads made and the conclusions drawn. I'd refer you and anyone else to my comments in Dynasty's original thread regarding micro vs macro strategy comments, and the purpose of the article. I think it should also be stressed that there is rarely a correct way of playing a hand HU. HU games, as I tried to convey in my article, are strongly dependent on feel and momentum. My comments are in <font color="red"> bold red</font> below (and, so everyone's clear, all normal text from here on is Creed's original post): Here are some specific points where I think the analysis is unreliable. [ QUOTE ] 2. There are certain types of opponent where it is not necessarily advantageous to be deep-stacked. The most obvious is the hyper-aggressive maniac: it is very difficult to tell when this type of player is betting with a real hand and when he is bluffing, and so you will often have to make raises and calls with marginal hands. [/ QUOTE ] While it is true that it can be difficult to decide whether someone is bluffing, if your opponent is given to pushing light, you lose a lot of potential EV by calling allin with a shorter stack. <font color="red"> The situation I have in mind is not so much when the opponent is given to pushing light. If he is pushing light, it is obvious that you want a big stack to obtain maximum value when you have a big hand. I am more thinking of games where I am going to have to raise/re-raise light in order to slow him down and move him off his bluffs. For example, when a player raises every single button, and make pot-sized continuation bets when checked to, regardless of whether or not he has hit a hand. I like to have the ability to re-raise all-in preflop or check/raise all-in over a couple of these continuation bets with marginal holdings, but it is not inconceivable that I will choose a flop which he has genuinely hit for this sort of move. I am looking to curb his play with minimal risk, and force him to play in a more rational way. If he does so, I will buy more chips to cover him; if not, I will change tables. That's my preference for how to approach players like that - it may not be yours, but I think some may find it helpful, even if only in the short term whilst developing their skills.</font> If you are confident in your reads then you should be able to make big calls with marginal hands; it's an essential skill in headsup NL and working around it by playing allin shortstack poker is not going to maximize your earn. <font color="red">It is difficult to be confident in reads early on, but I do take this point subject to what I said above.</font> [ QUOTE ] Hand 1 Hero ($55.20) is SB/B with 7c2s Preflop: Hero calls, Villain checks. I have a horrible hand, but as Dan Harrington notes in his excellent book Harrington on Hold ‘Em Volume II, you will always have the odds to call from the small blind with any two cards. In any case, I am not calling here because of the strength of my cards, rather for information. I want to know whether opponent will attack my limps, and if not how aggressive he is prepared to be out of position (OOP) post flop. [/ QUOTE ] WRT limping in with 72o: keep in mind that in a cash game the blinds don't increase, and your M value is astronomical, so Harrington's advice on squeezing dubious value out of even more dubious hands is less important. It's reasonable to look for info about how active your opponent is postflop, but if you happen to ever show down a hand like this, then you are going to provoke a correct countermeasure from your opponent: he will start raising your limps. You don't want to encourage this behavior. <font color="red">True - but it is my control to a certain extent whether I show a hand down. I like to play as many pots as possible early on against an unknown opponent to find out as much about them as I can. At the same time, I am aware of how they may be perceiving me, and of course if a hand like this does get shown down my table image will alter - and I will alter my game accordingly.</font> [ QUOTE ] Hand 2 Hero ($53.20) is BB with Ac7s Villain ($201.80) Preflop: Villain raises to $6, Hero calls Flop: 4s 4d Tc (pot $12) Hero bets $6 Villain calls. Turn: 2d (4s 4d Tc) (pot $24) Hero checks, Villain checks River: Qc (4s 4d Tc 2d) (pot $24) Hero bets $14 Villain folds [/ QUOTE ] In the analysis of the hand, hero makes it clear that he thinks he's bluffing. However, he has a holding that is capable of being shown down here, an Ace high, which will split the pot with most other aces. Furthermore, hero's bet will often fail to fold out an opponent's ace high on this sort of board, and it will almost certainly be called by any paired hand. In other words, hero's "bluff" with a medium-strength made hand will only fold out worse hands, so it's of minimal value. <font color="red">I'm not sure I agree. I think a river bet has at least some chance of folding out other Ace-high hands, and possibly x2 hands. It also, on reflection, stands a chance of getting called by a Kx hand as a bluff-catcher. This is my experience - yours may be different.</font> [ QUOTE ] Hero ($60) is SB/B with Ac 6d Villain ($193.60) Preflop: Hero raises to $6, Villain calls Flop: 6c 7c 5c (pot $12) Villain checks, Hero checks Monotone flops are another good chance to pick up information about an opponent. How tight or passive are they in the face of a very scary board? Here, I have picked up middle pair – usually a strong hand (approximately equivalent to flopping top pair with a reasonable kicker in a full ring game). However, I check behind for two reasons. First, if he has no clubs, he probably won’t bet and my pair may well be good enough to win this raised pot at showdown; and second, a flopped flush would probably check here, hoping to pick off a continuation bet. Indeed, if he does hold a flush, a check is right not only because it saves me a bet, but also because if a fourth club comes, he will almost certainly have to pay off my nut flush. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree with most of this analysis. First of all, author demonstrates paranoia concerning a possible opponent flopped flush. Throughout various hand analyses he discusses flush draws as if they're a very likely part of opponents' holdings, but they're just not. <font color="red">I don't see how it's possible to put villain on a range which includes or rules out flush draws. He only needs to have one club in his hand to hold a flush draw, and that makes up a significant portion of possible starting hands. It is not a probable holding, but it is certainly a possible holding. What I try to do through the article is show that paranoia does exist on monotone flops (although I don't feel I suffer from it), and that this paranoia is exploitable. The other point about monotone flops is that it is very difficult to win a big pot unless your opponent has a flush himself. </font> In this hand, the author has flopped a pair + nut flush draw, in position, vs. a passive foe. First of call, author needs to recognize that this is a very good holding. This is a hand where it is important to get money in, because hero has huge equity vs just about any holding and yet doesn't want a cheap overcard to fall off and pair his opponent. Hero has a shot at stacking opponent if opponent has a big club and chases it. In sum, hero needs to bet here pretty much 100% of the time, and can gauge from opponent's actions on turn or river whether his pair is any good. <font color="red">I don't think a bet is as clear as you make out here. If he has a flush (which is unlikely, but one of the few ways I'm going to win a big pot here), he's going to try to check raise me off my hand, and I may be forced to fold a hand I really like. It is dangerous to re-open the betting when you don't want to see a check-raise. If he has a weaker hand than mine, without a big club, he's not going to call a value bet anyway. And if he has a big club (K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and maybe J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]) then I can be fairly confident he will give me plenty of action on the next two streets if the fourth club hits. Don't get me wrong, I can see the argument for the bet, too. But I don't think it is categorically the best play.</font> [ QUOTE ] Hand 7 Hero ($43.80) is SB/B with 6h 3h Villain ($207.80) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain checks. Flop: 3s Ks 7s (pot $4) Villain bets $2 This is very interesting, to have another monotone flop so soon after the last. I can rely on his memories of the previous hand being fresh in his mind. Hero raises to $4, Villain calls It is very rare that a made flush would bet here, because I will almost certainly fold, so I rule that out for the moment. Therefore, suspecting weakness, I make a bet which will look most like I am attempting to extract value with a made flush. His call is in keeping with my “cynic” read – note that with each extra piece of evidence, my reads become more and more reliable and I am more prepared to back them up with significant bets. [/ QUOTE ] A minraise to set up a bluff on the next street is somewhat novel, but giving the opponent a chance to draw a cheap card to continue on is an error. If you think the opponent is weak, raise enough to knock him out, don't play pattycake. <font color="red">I find the minimum raise to be an effective tool in situations like this. It may not be strong in terms of size, but the message it sends is "please call me - I have a great hand, I want more of your money in the pot". It can take down the pot there at minimum risk, and if it fails a more sizeable bet on the turn will have a very good chance to finish the job. I chose to represent the flush, and I chose to do it in this way. Again, it is not the only way, but it can be effective, and was here.</font> [ QUOTE ] Hand 9 Hero ($54.60) is SB/B with 5h 7s Villain ($195.80) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain raises to $6, Hero calls It has now become clear that he has a standard raise size, so there is no further point trying to glean information from this – it is now only relevant information if he were to put in a minimum or oversize raise. My call is a little loose, but I have position and I have been fairly successful so far at taking pots away without card strength. [/ QUOTE ] Opponent has to be incredibly bad for this call to be profitable. 75o misses the flop the vast majority of the time. If villain bets any flop, as most people do after raising from the big blind, then the 75 is just not going to hit often enough to be useful. <font color="red">Agreed - this was a loose call.</font> [ QUOTE ] Hand 11 Hero ($61.60) is SB/B with 3d 3h Villain ($187.80) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain checks. I was expecting another raise preflop here after my fold on the previous hand, and had intended to limp-re-raise as a means of stopping that in its tracks. He checks behind though – a shame, because low pocket pairs play fairly well preflop but are still hard (even HU) to play with confidence post flop unless you hit your set. [/ QUOTE ] What does it mean of a hand that it "plays fairly well preflop?" This is meaningless phrasing. 72o plays pretty well preflop, you fold it. <font color="red">Fair point. I meant that it plays well hot-and-cold.</font> If a hand is difficult to play with confidence postflop, then it should be played in such a manner that is unlikely to get to a flop, i.e. raised. <font color="red"> I'm not convinced. My preflop raises are being routinely called, and almost any flop without a 3 in it is potentially difficult. Why build a pot when you're going to hate 7/8 flops? Small hands for small pots.</font> [ QUOTE ] Hand 14 Hero ($63) is BB with As 7d Villain ($185.60) Preflop: Villain raises to $6, Hero calls. Flop: 3s Js 9s (pot $12) Hero checks, Villain checks Turn: 9c (3s Js 9s) (pot $12) Hero checks, Villain bets $2, Hero calls. Turn: 9c (3s Js 9s) (pot $12) Hero checks, Villain bets $2, Hero calls. A paired and flushed board? Enough to scare anyone, but I’m still confident my flush would be good if it hits. An interesting subplot here is Villain’s use of the minimum bet – last time he used it, I read it for weakness and forced him to fold. An interesting bluff or double bluff situation therefore arises – is he actually strong, because last time he was weak? Or is that what he expects me to conclude, and so he is actually weak still? I start to hope that one way or another, I get to see his cards at showdown to determine how many levels he is capable of thinking on. [/ QUOTE ] Here is another hand where hero flops a very strong draw and chooses to play it in a manner to minimize the size of the pot. Hero needs to force his opponent to make decisions; reads are useful but so are pots! <font color="red">Agreed, but see comments in the original thread about the point of the article. Not perfectly played, but an interesting consideration. Say he'd bet 1/3 of the pot - my actions and thinking would have been identical. Could be a weak-lead, could be a blocker. He weak-led a few hands earlier, and got raised - there is a genuine chance he is using the same bet, hoping for the same outcome.</font> If hero had fired the turn for the pot, or check/raised, or done something, then hero would've had a shot at doubling up rather than just settling for a $20 win. Noticing a tendency to minbet, and then wondering how many levels an opponent is capable of thinking of, is the wrong way to approach a minbet; a minbet in a raised pot is a sign of total poker incompetence, and THAT is the message that hero should be taking from this encounter: that he is dealing with an utter fish. [ QUOTE ] Hand 15 Hero ($85) is SB/B with 6h 7h Villain ($161.60) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain checks. More backchat about chasing and being a fish comes my way between hands, so I expect another bout of aggression here, and would be very happy to call a raise with 7-6 suited in position. However, it does not arrive. [/ QUOTE ] If hero wants to play 7-6 suited in position in a big pot, he should raise with it himself. It's just that simple. <font color="red">Agreed in a vacuum, but against an opponent who seems vulnerable to being slowplayed? I think the implied odds justify my projected strategy.</font> [ QUOTE ] Flop: 8c 6d 4s (pot $4) Villain checks, Hero checks. I have a perfectly decent hand to show down, and a gutshot draw which will probably be paid off if it hits. I elect to keep the pot small, and check behind. [/ QUOTE ] Why is hero thinking of small pots? That's generally bad advice in NL hold'em cash games. Hero seems unaware of the strength of his holding here (middle pair plus straight draw) vs. a passive foe who will telegraph his own hand strength quite clearly. This is a bet, bet, and bet some more situation, since opponent seems too passive to bluff. <font color="red">Agreed - I played this too passively. The river overbet on this hand is germane to the subject matter, though.</font> [ QUOTE ] Hand 17 Hero ($84) is SB/B with Jd Tc Villain ($162.40) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain checks. Flop: 8h 2s 4h (pot $4) Villain checks, Hero checks. Turn: 9c (8h 2s 4h) (pot $4) Villain checks, Hero checks. River: 3h (9c 8h 2s 4h) (pot $4) Villain checks, Hero checks. This is a fairly inconsequential hand [/ QUOTE ] No, it's not. Hero's check on the turn is pretty poor. He's got a nut draw, two overs, and villain is very passive; a bet is likely to take it down. With 14 cards to improve him, hero's happy to take it down with a bet but loses nothing if villain calls. <font color="red">Agreed - but inconsequential for reads.</font> [ QUOTE ] Hand 24 Hero ($91.60) is BB with 3c 9s Villain ($153) Preflop: Villain folds A real pattern now and I make a mental note to start respecting his calls and raises from the button a bit more than I have so far. [/ QUOTE ] This is 5 hands after villain has limped in with 32o, so hero's perception of villain's standards is off. Villain is merrily limping in with trash just like hero is. <font color="red">I disagree. Villain has just open-folded his button twice running. This, if anything, suggests he has stopped limping trash and may be tightening his starting hand requirements. </font> [ QUOTE ] Hand 27 Hero ($96.40) is SB/B with 7s 6s Villain ($148) Preflop: Hero calls, Villain raises to $6, Hero calls. A raise from the big blind, which could be a big hand based on his recent history of passivity. I make a slightly loose call with suited connectors, shooting for a big pot from a hand he gets himself attached to. Flop: Kh 6d 2h (pot $12) Villain checks, Hero checks. Turn: 7d (Kh 6d 2h) (pot $12) Villain bets $6, Hero calls. Things take a turn (sorry) for the better as I hit two pair – although note I should never have been allowed to get here. He now decides to make a delayed continuation bet. I decide that now is a good time to exploit the vulnerability to slow playing which I detected earlier, and just call, hoping he will bluff on the river as he did on Hand 20. [/ QUOTE ] Hero has chosen a very poor hand to trap with. Middle two pair is easily counterfeitable, and this is now a board with two flush draws on it. It is a bad mistake not to raise here and get money into the pot, allowing a larger bet on the river as well. <font color="red">I agree regarding the larger river bet, but you are assuming Villain will call. I don't necessarily think he has anything at all here, but my read is that he will continue a bluff on the river. I don't necessarily give him credit for either flush draw (as you said yourself, flush draws aren't a big part of Villain's range heads-up), so the only card I really don't want to see is a King. Make that 2 an overcard, and the risk of counterfeiting becomes much greater. A possible analogy would be playing a premium pair HU against a raise preflop. I would routinely call in that spot in a vacuum, which is risky, but has a higher possible reward. Here, I chose a higher-risk strategy, but one which I felt had a higher potential payoff.</font> [ QUOTE ] Hand 28 Hero ($130.40) is BB with Qh Ts Villain ($112) Preflop: Villain calls, Hero checks. Sensing again the chance of a big pot in the near future, I am happy to revert to “playing nice” out of position, even though my hand is strong enough for a raise. I want to keep this one on the hook. [/ QUOTE ] Hero's confused about the method of generating a large pot. The way to generate a large pot is to start with a preflop raise. Limps rarely generate big pots. [/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">Previous hands have shown that Villain is capable of playing loose enough postflop to allow pots to be built then. However, this is more macro strategy again. For this one hand, it is probably correct to raise. However, I don't want Villain to feel he is being completely outplayed and leave. I want to play lots more hands with him until I get all his chips. Like I said at the start, good post and thanks for starting the debate. In depth debates on HU play are not common creatures, so this sort of thread can only benefit everyone.</font>
|
|
#5
10-03-2006, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HU NL article comments
[ QUOTE ]
Rich -- do you mind telling us your poker background and experience in no limit (heads up) cash games? [/ QUOTE ] cts - Given your post in the original thread, which appeared to imply that only 4 year olds play $1/$2 games, I don't see how this would assist the debate. I'd prefer to talk poker rather than CVs. However, I will say that I have not won the WSOP, that I cannot post a PT screenshot showing I have won $100k at 50 BB/100 in the last month, and that I am not a professional poker player. I will also say that I am a dedicated amateur who has won consistently at both tournament and cash HU games ever since I started playing them. Proof of age available on request. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#6
10-03-2006, 02:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HU NL article comments
I guess fundamentally I feel like playing small-ball poker and making individual reads in a ton of unraised pots is not the way to make money headsup. Bet your hands hard, make your opponent do the reading, and count on him to make mistakes in big pots; that's the way to win.
You really need to have the perfect opponent to successfully use a technique as passive as the one you posted: he has to be really passive and super-easy to read, almost never bluffing or check/raising. You seem to have found a true fish here (the open-push with 33 he made proves that) and that is why your approach worked as well as it did. In general, aggression and position count for more than reads. I'll respond to two of your comments: [ QUOTE ] In this hand, the author has flopped a pair + nut flush draw, in position, vs. a passive foe. First of call, author needs to recognize that this is a very good holding. This is a hand where it is important to get money in, because hero has huge equity vs just about any holding and yet doesn't want a cheap overcard to fall off and pair his opponent. Hero has a shot at stacking opponent if opponent has a big club and chases it. In sum, hero needs to bet here pretty much 100% of the time, and can gauge from opponent's actions on turn or river whether his pair is any good. <font color="red"> I don't think a bet is as clear as you make out here. If he has a flush (which is unlikely, but one of the few ways I'm going to win a big pot here), he's going to try to check raise me off my hand, and I may be forced to fold a hand I really like. It is dangerous to re-open the betting when you don't want to see a check-raise. If he has a weaker hand than mine, without a big club, he's not going to call a value bet anyway. And if he has a big club (K, Q and maybe J ) then I can be fairly confident he will give me plenty of action on the next two streets if the fourth club hits. Don't get me wrong, I can see the argument for the bet, too. But I don't think it is categorically the best play. </font> [/ QUOTE ] First of all, with a hand like a pair + nut flush draw, because of your equity, you should be willing to get allin if necessary if your foe is at all aggressive; you don't fear a checkraise here, you should often be happy to get your money in. Second of all, you have a fair made hand with a good redraw to the nuts. Any time you have a good draw to the nuts you have the potential to break your foe and you should be putting pressure on your foe. You can win either through your pressure or through hitting, when the pot will already be big and you should be able to get the rest in. Finally, if he's got a big club in his hand, the way to max out your win is to bet enough that he'll chase it. He'll be perfectly willing to pay for the privilege of drawing nearly dead. [ QUOTE ] (talking about 33 preflop) If a hand is difficult to play with confidence postflop, then it should be played in such a manner that is unlikely to get to a flop, i.e. raised. <font color="red"> I'm not convinced. My preflop raises are being routinely called, and almost any flop without a 3 in it is potentially difficult. Why build a pot when you're going to hate 7/8 flops? Small hands for small pots. </font> [/ QUOTE ] I didn't make a very good case for it originally. This guy rarely bluffs. With your preflop raise signalling strength, the 3 can win in several ways: First of all, it can win unimproved if it gets checked to the river and he whiffs. It plays well hot and cold, remember? Your preflop raise might make him cautious and let you check it down for the win. Second, you can bet a ragged flop, and he can fold. Third, and this is crucial, you can hit your 3 and break the guy if he happens to like his hand at the same time. In an unraised pot, you lose two of these advantages: he's more likely to take random stabs at it and force you to fold, and you're less likely to break him if you hit your 3.
|
|
#8
10-04-2006, 08:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HU NL article comments
I think this article would have made for a nice thread in one of the strategy forums. Post it and ask "what do you think of my play"? Because while it should generate some interesting debate there, it really doesn't have much instructional value and might do more harm than good.
That said, creed has already put up some useful tips here -- I just don't feel the magazine is the place for this kind of discussion.
|
|
#9
10-04-2006, 03:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HU NL article comments
RichE,
I think this article is very beginner-oriented, and contains some flaws and bad thinking. You talk about buying in short into a Heads Up game - this is ridiculous. Your reasons for this are terrible, in my opinion. You play a Heads Up game because you believe you have a direct advantage over them. You sit because it is +EV. Why wouldn't you buyin to cover your opponent? If you don't believe you have an advantage, why would you play then? You then give the reason that you buy in short so you can get reads for cheap, and then buy in full later. Yet I'm reading your article, and even 20-30 hands in, you STILL haven't rebought to cover your opponent!! Your response to creed's opinions on you buying in short: [ QUOTE ] I am looking to curb his play with minimal risk, and force him to play in a more rational way. [/ QUOTE ] Why would you want your opponents to "curb" their play? Why would you want your opponents to play in a "more rational way"? You want your opponents to play well? This makes no sense - you want your opponents to play irrationally, to make large mistakes, and the best way to do this is to allow MORE opportunities for them to make mistakes. Namely, this means DEEPER stacks, for more play on LATER streets - TURN/RIVER. Bad villains tend to make the greatest mistakes on later streets, and put in money with less equity than ever because of the clear fact that there are less cards to come. In short (no pun intended), I think this article is at its best beginner-oriented, and should not be an example of any sort of deeper heads up thinking. Regards, yvesaint
|
|
#10
10-04-2006, 09:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HU NL article comments
Good post yves.
Rich, we're gonna need to see that proof of age [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. Jk, wish you the best, just didn't think the article was really suitable for an online poker mag.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
