Can we just get preflop out of the way? part I

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
"why are we raising all pairs in ep?"

bc sets are really good at winning and generally disguised.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you only hit a set 1 time in 9. So 8 times you will raise, miss your set and have to fold. At 3xBB, that's 24bb it's costing you when you miss. And that's if you don't c-bet. If you c-bet a few times and get played back at, then raising small pairs in EP gets really expensive, and can cost you all the profit you make from the one time in 9 that you do make a set. Provided your opponent pays you off. And then there's set over set, or suckouts to straights & flushes.

FR, overplaying small pairs from EP is just too expensive. 6-max is a little differant, since it's much less likely your opponent has a hand at all, so your small pair just might be best even if the flop comes with overcards.

[jstill]

i wasnt talkin fr but not raising pairs in six max is pretty piss poor in my opinion... those 7 of 8 times u dont flop a set u take the pot down with a c bet 5 or 6 of them (far more than the 1/3 times u need to break even on the bluff and even less often if u bet alittle less than the pot). so the play (c betting) is definitely +++EV. And again u want the pot larger so its not a crap pot the 1 in 8 times u do flop a set. Sometimes u ll run bad on c bets cuz they ll have hands and wont fold or maybe will resteal (really doesnt happen as often as u think I dont think) but c betting is easily the play, again u only need them to fold 1/3 of the time to make it better than cking and thats if u pot it which u dont have to vs most villains who will fold for 2/3 pot bets or 4/5 pot bets just as easily and never catch on as long as ur sometimes doing it with hands (betting less than the pot)when u know u have to second barrel with TPGK or something and want to control the pot size .

I'm sure these same priniples apply to opening pairs in late mid position and later position in full ring altho I have little experience there.

[6471849653]

Compared to 6-max limit holdem

- when the first to act, one gets one (some prefer two, especially on early positions) seat tighter and plays up to all pairs from all positions. With any stack sizes.

- as basic strategy one prefers to come in with an open-raise, even if there's already one limper (or two with the more or less better hands). One thinks about the options too. Some limping under favorable cases and less raising under unfavorable cases. I refer to limit holdem, too.

- as far as I see, the big blind's theoretical defense minimums happen to be around the same as the open-raiser's minimums when it's a standard raise (though 3x means more calling than 4x), maybe cutting some high crap away (but like at limit holdem that's not all important vs. stealers). Vs. stealers one can also re-raise more often, and one does not has to have a strong hand for it every time, e.g. some just below a calling hand could try a re-steal.

- what one should cold call with, I refer to limit holdem, just adding some more implied hands.

- vs. likely big pairs I will muck the suited connectors from all seats - Brunson may think differently - and I don't generally cold call with them without late position or the big blind even vs. theoretical open-raises, and when I call with them they can be one gappers too as the difference is small (75s and 54s is like I look at it).

- I don't rate to cold call (with position and out of the BB) with suited connectors that are under maybe a 45% line until they go under the (open-)raiser's minimums, so I am not dominated too often; in cases, I however might reraise with some of them.

- the subject of the SB has many opinions. I open with maybe 55% of the hands and raise them all (that sure is clear enough, no different from any other position). S&M and Negreanu will raise just the premium hands, e.g. Negreanu says that if he open-raises (vs. the BB who calls with a lot of hands) e.g. some crap ace, it doesn't get value on the flop and if it does it's -EV, so that's his argument against (he is also known more generally as a player who also limps preflop), and the S&M(almuth) think about the horror of being out of position (at limit holdem). (When playing 1:1 the BB (calls) is out of the position but he is not the one who will continue with the bet on the flop, so that's one difference to when the SB open-raises in ring games.)

- I don't cold call on the SB with small nor medium suited connectors like I do when I am on the BB or on late positions.

- what to call a 3-bet with when one open-raised - as far as I see if it's not vs. a big pair then suited connectors and high cards that are good enough often enough (AQ vs. AJ+ has to do), and all high suited hands (gambling) and more or less connected other cards, and all pocket pairs - (the pocket pairs basically against the big pairs too, not the suited connectors, not in my preflop strategy). The re-raise costs that much money that one doesn't has to call more often (and the opponents do not reraise all the time). Vs. a likely steal re-raise one has the option to raise it again.

- should one cold call or 3-bet is one subject; I refer to limit holdem though I am more likely to just cold call at nl-holdem vs. early open-raises when I have a slick hand. But I prefer to reraise the stealers with maybe the 55%+ slick hands, and basically the same goes for pocket pairs vs. all seats, no different from limit holdem other than there are some implied hands that do not need to fold when it's nl-holdem.

- preflop semi-bluff reraises could possibly be made with the first not good enough to call with hands, more vs. stealers who fold a lot.

- the BB's bluff-raise with the Sklansky T5 type of hands is not in my repertoire as one must steal the pot with them a very high percentage of the time in case it's not a big deal of what one holds, just some theoretical minor detail. I think many hands then play better by raising than by checking, e.g. XT when it's unsuited (and has no nut kickers) does not play very well in more or less multiway pots and out of position, so if I am going to make a raise from the BB as a bluff type, it will be with two unsuited high cards in case the quality of my hand matters at all.

[Victor]

phydauz, im not talking about full ring. do ppl still play that?

[Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
phydauz, im not talking about full ring. do ppl still play that?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes i hear ppl play that at these things called "casinos". these people called "donkeys" often visit these "casinos"

[phydaux]

It's 6-max vs FR, or as I like to call it "the Jocks vs the Nerds."

Some people belive that if they decide something is right for them, then it's right for everyone. So since they don't do something, then nobody must do it. Because who could possibly disagree with them? Dr. Al calls this the "Ego Fallacy."

Expert NL players like 6-max, and for several good reasons. So many expert NL cas hgame players, and most of the NL cash game pros, gravitate toward 6-max. Leaving the FR tables full of nothing but chumps. And me. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

So I play my tight/aggressive FR strategy, and the 6-max players berate me for my nitish ways, very similar to the way jocks bully the nerds in jr. high schools. Meanwhile I'm crushing the FR tables, mostly dure to the lack of any real compitition. And I'm experiencing far less varience than my aggro-jock 6-max friends.

So please, all you NL "experts," please continue to play 6-max. Because the last thing I want is for decent players to start showing up at my FR tables.

[Victor]

interesting. i usually play on ub and rarely see a fr game. usually those tables are for hu matches.

[MATT111]

I didn`t read this thread but the single most important thing preflop in SS-MSNL games is getting it HU with the fish IP.
So for example you are UTG w/Q7s in a 6-max game. There`s a big fish in the BB, other players on the table are average/weak TAGs. You raise.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
It's 6-max vs FR, or as I like to call it "the Jocks vs the Nerds."

Some people believe that if they decide something is right for them, then it's right for everyone. So since they don't do something, then nobody must do it. Because who could possibly disagree with them? Dr. Al calls this the "Ego Fallacy."

Expert NL players like 6-max, and for several good reasons. So many expert NL cas hgame players, and most of the NL cash game pros, gravitate toward 6-max. Leaving the FR tables full of nothing but chumps. And me. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

So I play my tight/aggressive FR strategy, and the 6-max players berate me for my nitish ways, very similar to the way jocks bully the nerds in jr. high schools. Meanwhile I'm crushing the FR tables, mostly dure to the lack of any real compitition. And I'm experiencing far less varience than my aggro-jock 6-max friends.

So please, all you NL "experts," please continue to play 6-max. Because the last thing I want is for decent players to start showing up at my FR tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize there is a FR forum that seems to get a lot of traffic? I think you have more competitiion than you realize. There is nothing wrong with playing FR, especially if you are a grinder. I played FR for a year before I got comfortable with 6-max.

If you want to learn how to excel in marginal situations and play a more LAGgy style (24/15 instead of 12/6) then I invite you to visit the dark side or 6-max as you Jedi commonly call it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
You realize there is a FR forum that seems to get a lot of traffic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do. Just as I realize that this forum is for people making the transition from limit to NL.

If the mods would like to make an addition to the sticky saying this forum is EXCLUSIVELY for limit players transitioning to 6-max NL, then I'll go away.

However, until that happens I will continue to provide honest answers to honest questions, and share my experiences of what adjustments I had to make when I changed over from limit to NL.