Professional No-Limit Holdem SSNL Discussion - Page 12

MikeyPatriot · #**111** 07-30-2007, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If we're putting ourselves in tricky situations then we will be putting our opponents into just as many, and more vs people who play badly preflop. Since we play better than our opponents this is exactly what we wan to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily true. If we raise ATs from the CO to 3.5BB and the aggressive BTN calls with any sort of drawing hand (and the blinds fold), we are in a very awkward SPR spot and she is in a very good SPR spot. This is further magnified when you hit a flop like T65, with two to a flush. You bet 2/3 pot, get called. Turn is an offsuit 9. Now what?

mittman84 · #**112** 08-03-2007, 09:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If we're putting ourselves in tricky situations then we will be putting our opponents into just as many, and more vs people who play badly preflop. Since we play better than our opponents this is exactly what we wan to do.

[/ QUOTE ]This is so true and everyone overlooked it in this thread. My copy is shipping today, looking forward to reading it.

Jamougha · #**113** 08-03-2007, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we're putting ourselves in tricky situations then we will be putting our opponents into just as many, and more vs people who play badly preflop. Since we play better than our opponents this is exactly what we wan to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily true. If we raise ATs from the CO to 3.5BB and the aggressive BTN calls with any sort of drawing hand (and the blinds fold), we are in a very awkward SPR spot and she is in a very good SPR spot. This is further magnified when you hit a flop like T65, with two to a flush. You bet 2/3 pot, get called. Turn is an offsuit 9. Now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Say we raise from the CO with a drawing hand and they call from the button with ATs? Or QTo? Say they called in your example with KTs? Single examples are worthless.

The point is that if you look at the ranges involved, our range is both less defined and stronger. If we have to make difficult decisions than so do they, but to as great or an even larger extent.

Unknown Soldier · #**114** 08-03-2007, 12:46 PM

agree w/ jam

conversely, if we make things easier for us with this spr thing (i think i know what it means - ratio of pot to stack?) then we make things easier for our opponents.

Lets say with the AQ eg ie trying to get 10bbs or so in pf to get a hand dominated, so we min-raise tag re-raises we min-raise, if im the tag on the other end im playing very cautiously, im calling pf w/ QJ or w/e because folding would be a mistake (however if you advocate minraising w/ scs too then 3b QJ isn't bad ip), but im not putting much money in with top pair, no more then if he had made a standard raise. This gives him alot of FE, however he might not know that though so he might not exploit me that way by double barreling(who folds top pair at ssnl??), but if he does and starts doing it liberally. I'd adjust quickly (just as i do in a standard raise/call situation), i'd 4b light, play back at cbets etc, it will be the same as a standard raise situation in the end

it's a nice way to mix things up, that's all imo. Your opponents will soon adjust, it's best used against bad tags, but bad tags play bad anyway.

MikeyPatriot · #**115** 08-03-2007, 01:16 PM

Jam,

K. I see your point now. I still think playing TP type of hands against good, smart, tricky, aggressive, etc. players OOP is death and is probably easier if we can get to a "good" SPR. Course we may just want to switch tables if someone is giving us trouble like that.

U.S.,

Your example is incredibly hard to follow.

Unknown Soldier · #**116** 08-03-2007, 01:21 PM

i know, i suck at explanations

basically im not putting in more money w/ TP w/ a dominated hand like QJ in this scenario then i would if he made a standard raise and i called.

If he trys to exploit my weak play in these situations, then i'd just adjust anyway.

I wouldn't be making any pf mistakes vs his range either.

#**117** 08-03-2007, 02:46 PM

I just ordered the book too.

pineapple888 · #**118** 08-03-2007, 06:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems as though most of the book is concerned with overly complex lines perhaps in dealing with top pair ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good one pair hands can be difficult to play. At awkward stack sizes, often you have to check the turn in position for pot control and to induce what you hope are bluffs. In so doing, you give free cards. It's not ideal.

PNL solves the top pair problem with stack to pot ratio manipulation. But there's a lot more to the book than this one topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK this all seems bass-ackwards to me. Why go into contortions with AQo, as mentioned in a post by one of the authors, in the hopes that AJo donk 3-bets so you can donk 4-bet? I mean, this is simply ludicrous on its face, trying to get so much money in with a highly marginal hand. How often will this donkbet sequence really happen, and what if AK reraises? And who cares if you can't bet the flop and jam the turn with TPTK, since when did that become the goal? Play some poker. Yeesh.

Stack to pot ratio IS critical. Of course. The trick is to know how to play various types of hands for various ratios with various reads. That's what we do here. Not go into contortions, getting a ton of money in with AQo so that, yay, now we can bet the flop and jam the turn if we hit!!! [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]