Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > PL/NL Texas Hold'em > Micro Stakes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-27-2007, 01:13 AM
Sean Fraley Sean Fraley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 974
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 8: The REM Process - \"Equity\", \"Maximize\", \"RI

[ QUOTE ]
where do you buy this book? does it explain equity,hand range, maximize, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

Amazon, Border's, Barnes & Noble, etc. Basically if you have read a primer text on Hold 'Em such as Getting Started In Hold 'Em, it will begin to fill you in from that point on.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-27-2007, 04:22 PM
Sunny Mehta Sunny Mehta is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: coaching poker and writing \"Professional No-Limit Hold\'em\" for Two Plus Two Publishing with Matt Flynn and Ed Miller
Posts: 1,124
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 8: The REM Process - \"Equity\", \"Maximize\", \"RI

[ QUOTE ]
A hypothetical hand to illustrate my point is this (let's make it $1/$2 unraked with $150 effective stacks just to make it easy):

Hero is Button and has Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and raises to $8. Villain (BB) is a player of the type I see a lot in $25NL/$50NL who sees almost every flop, has next to no aggression on the flop and turn, but very high aggression on the river. He calls the raise, as he usually does.

On the flop, the pot is $17 and the flop comes T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. Villain checks, Hero bets $14, Villain calls. There is a possible straight on board and villain is so passive that pretty much the only thing he will raise is a straight. The issue is that while he is afraid to bet without the nuts, he isn't willing to let almost any of his made hands or pretty draws go either. This means that his calling range here is any ten, any eights or sixes with an overcard kicker, any OESD or FD, T8, T6, 86, TT, 88, 66. QQ+ would have gotten 3-bet preflop, but AK or JJ would get smooth-called by this guy. We'll assume that he would let unimproved overcards go on this flop.

Turn comes Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and the pot is currently $45. Villain checks. The queen gives us top two pair which is great since while villain will probably give up a pair of eights or pair of sixes to a bet, He will call with any top pair or worse two pair. The problem is that the queen completes a possible straight draw for villain, and the fact that it also completes the flush draw means that villain is unlikely to bet the straight if he has it. The low aggression on the turn also means that if villain caught a flush, I often won't see a bet on the turn but will see a big bet on the river. Here is where I get frustrated with these guys. My default action here is to check behind and call anything up to a pot size bet on the river. This keeps the pot from getting to big when I'm behind, but I think that I lose a lot of value on my TP or two pair hands because I become afraid of being behind on any remotely scary board. I don't even want to think about how nasty hands like this are when I'm OOP.

Basically, I realize that you really can't put loose calling stations on a narrow range, and on any dry board I basically treat TPGK like the nuts. The problem is that on hands like this I would like to squeeze every last chip possible out of them because they would call a big bet on the turn and get all-in on the river with worse two pairs, and any top pair/overpair. Unfortunately far too many of the times that I've tried this I get shown a hand that beats me and lose a stack.

So, what are your viewpoints on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Sean,

Preflop is fine if you will steal often enough, although raising a little less or a little more can also be considered depending on how much fold equity each extra bb will yield you.

Flop, I like your bet and your analysis, but I find it hard to believe that he won't raise strong non-straight hands like sets and top two.

Turn, checking makes no sense because it sounds like you will not have a tough decision if he raises you. Ditto if he jams the river. It sounds like you're saying that he will play very passively with worse hands, and aggressively only with better hands. Players like that are cash cows to play against because the hand reading becomes a cinch. Things you need to remember in terms of how to exploit them is:

1) Be willing to fold seemingly strong hands like two pair on a flush board, etc when they make a big move.

2) Be willing to value bet them thin on the river if they've been passive and you are likely ahead - that means putting in another bet (even if only half-pot etc.) with your overpair or strong TPTK instead of checking behind.

3) Be willing to make the occasional big bluff if the stack/pot ratio gives you good leverage to put them to a stack decision - but be careful to do it only when you're pretty sure they'll fold - i.e. an obvious and very scary card comes, NOT when a kind of unpleasant card comes and you aren't sure they'll fold.

-S
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2007, 01:49 PM
QTip QTip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: OH
Posts: 6,131
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 8: The REM Process - \"Equity\", \"Maximize\", \"RI

Great. I'm glad to see these studies are back and rolling. I'm in the FR forum, and the sticky is not at the top of our forum, so I didn't know it was back.

Anyway, I just started rereading this section, and I'm not quite done. However, I do have a couple things here that I'll throw out, and I'm sure I'll have more tonight.

1. Page 112, 2nd paragraph, you talk about adding semi-bluffing type hands to villains range against which we are a 3:2 favorite. You talk about adding 1 percent to your equity for each of these hands. I'm not good at the poker maths (it's a constant battle that I'm working on...perhaps hopeless)...why 1% for each one?

2. I'm a huge fan of this book; however, I think this is one spot there could have been a little bit more in the form of a type of quiz...kind of like Ed did in SSHE with counting outs or whatever. (I know there's only so much you can do in one volume...hard to make everyone happy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) I guess I could simply make one myself or pick like hands from every session; however, I'm sure I'd screw some up. It would be nice to have the community perhaps have an "estimate your equity" type quiz or post where we could all work these things out together. I do plenty in PokerStove and so forth, but I got to say that most of what I do at the table is "feel", and I rarely have an "exact" type number in my head.

That's it till later.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-28-2007, 02:47 PM
Lego05 Lego05 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,477
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 8: The REM Process - \"Equity\", \"Maximize\", \"RI

Sean your description of the players and the reads you mention would largely give away their range.

In your example you should bet the turn to get value, but fold if he check raises you.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-28-2007, 09:47 PM
QTip QTip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: OH
Posts: 6,131
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 8: The REM Process - \"Equity\", \"Maximize\", \"RI

Had a lot of time this afternoon to reread the whole section…again and again props to a great book. Here are the few things I had left.

1. When you talk about playing drawing hands, you talk about folding, calling and raising. However, you don’t talk about betting or checking at all. You do mention that in a hand example, but that’s it. I guess we’re to treat checking like calling, and betting like raising, but I would think things get quite a bit more involved than that…esp. when we start to consider being oop and so forth. I thought that was a missing part of the text here. I thought I might prod along some discussion along those lines using this example some

A loose raiser opens for 3.5x, and I reraise with 67s to 13x. Folds to him and he calls giving us a pot of @ 27x.

Now, let’s say the flop comes down J8s2 giving me a FF. I feel like my implied odds are a bit lower here as a 3 flush on the turn will slow some down. So, I feel like I should cbet here and call most raises (or push if he c/res cbets a lot) and go from there. I’d like to see the Jack be a Q or K as I feel that makes my hand a bit more believable, but it is what it is.

Now, let’s say the flop comes down K85r. Now I feel like my hand is more hidden, to the nuts, etc. and my implied odds are a lot better. I wouldn’t be really happy about being raised here, so I’d consider checking a lot more seriously even tho the K helps my cbet some.

I’m sure there’s more to consider here along the lines of opponent types, how I’ve been playing (if they’ve been paying attention at all), and so forth.

Any other thoughts to add on that?

2. The hand example on page 128, we overlimp otb with A7s after a predictable player open limps in MP. Most would scream foul here. Now, you also over limped with KTs on page 135, but listed the reasons as the BB being one that likes to bluff and pay off with mediocre hands. I once read that one reason we raise with suited connectors is to drive out larger potential flushes. Is this a reason why we don’t raise with Axs here? Just wondering.

3. I really liked the concept of defining hands with the AQs example hand in the BB. This seems like it would only work really well with around 100x stacks tho, right? I mean, you get a whole lot smaller or larger, and things get out of whack it would seem.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-15-2007, 10:04 AM
Davis13 Davis13 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 8: The REM Process - \"Equity\", \"Maximize\", \"RI

When does the study group continue ??
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-15-2007, 10:56 AM
Brian O'Nolan Brian O'Nolan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 484
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 8: The REM Process - \"Equity\", \"Maximize\", \"RI

[ QUOTE ]
When does the study group continue ??

[/ QUOTE ]
I know that after reading PNL through the first time I have quite a few questions, mostly regarding SPR, which I imagine many others will also, as that is the main "new" topic- most good posters in the NL strat forums already have a pretty good concept of the REM process.

My main issue with the SPR section is that the utility of varying preflop raise sizing to achieve a particular SPR seems very limited. I have XX UTG in a 6 handed game. If I open for 2.5 BB, let's say on average I get 2 callers. If I open for 5 BB, obviously I will on average get fewer callers. But whatever I choose as my raise size, the final preflop pot is going to tend to be about the same. XX OTB with 2 limpers, same 6 handed game. Raise to 3 BB, lots of callers; raise to 7 BB, fewer callers, but again, the final preflop pot size is going to be similar whatever I raise to. Since there is an inverse relationship between raise sizing and total number of callers (maybe not strictly linear but I imagine fairly close), varying my preflop raise sizing seems pointless to me for the purposes of achieving a particular SPR, and thus I am better off just sticking with the 4BB+1/limper standard to avoid giving away information, and also for ease of multitabling decision-making.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-15-2007, 11:54 AM
Matt Flynn Matt Flynn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Badugi, USA
Posts: 3,285
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 8: The REM Process - \"Equity\", \"Maximize\", \"RI

[ QUOTE ]

My main issue with the SPR section is that the utility of varying preflop raise sizing to achieve a particular SPR seems very limited. .... Since there is an inverse relationship between raise sizing and total number of callers (maybe not strictly linear but I imagine fairly close), varying my preflop raise sizing seems pointless to me for the purposes of achieving a particular SPR, and thus I am better off just sticking with the 4BB+1/limper standard to avoid giving away information, and also for ease of multitabling decision-making.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Brian,

Against opponents who don't consider your range or don't use information well, you should play according to your hand. It's a big leak not too.

Against opponents who use information fairly well, which now includes many players in $1-$2 and some in $0.50-$1, you should play according to your range.

Preflop raise size variation as described in SPR is for loose live games and microstakes online games. We will discussed fixed strategies like yours in detail in PNL2, including ways to improve on your 4+1 strategy.

Matt
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.