500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1

[ActionStan]

[ QUOTE ]

I said, "learning to play FRNL well". You don't have to play well to be profitable at live low stakes. You just have to be non-brain damaged. I haven't read your book yet, and I'm not really looking to take shots at you, but, the title is "Professional NLHE". This implies a certain degree of sophistication beyond beating $1/$2 live. Are you saying it's in fact a beginner's book? Then why doesn't the title reflect that?


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I gather, much of the material (the first volume particularly) is geared at introducing concepts applied by professional players to intermediate players. Hand planning, pot structuring, etc. Not so much that if you read this book you will be able to play 50-100NL at the bike.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read your book yet

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll fill you in.

[ QUOTE ]
the title is "Professional NLHE". This implies a certain degree of sophistication

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been a huge debate in the other thread. I think the conclusion was that it should not have been named this AND it is merely a primer for the upcoming volume 2, which is going to be more oriented towards stealing.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying it's in fact a beginner's book?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the authors did concede in the other thread that it is indeed a beginner's book.

[ QUOTE ]
Why have we decided our line for the whole hand, in advance, and in complete disreguard of any information we might obtain later in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll quote from the book on this one.

The very first sentence in the book:

Plan your hand. If we had to summarize this book in three words, that would be it.

Then it says:

Plan Your Hand in a bold box.

The planning is almost all done preflop and on the flop, as we are building big pots preflop and then deciding if we want to stack off on the flop.

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read your book yet, and I'm not really looking to take shots at you, but, the title is "Professional NLHE". This implies a certain degree of sophistication beyond beating $1/$2 live. Are you saying it's in fact a beginner's book? Then why doesn't the title reflect that?

[/ QUOTE ]

CMAR,

If you don't like the title of our book, I can accept that. But do me a favor - read it first, read the SPR stuff, read the example (a live $2-$5 example), read who the intended audience is (beginners striving to be professionals) and then make your vehement comments.


[ QUOTE ]

Your point is that bad loose players will call small re-raises but not big ones. Then why would you think MP1 would ever fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to the player who has already raised, not a player coldcalling a raise and a 3-bet.


[ QUOTE ]

Against bad players, meh, but you don't have to fall victim to fancy play syndrome and put yourself in such vulnerable positions in order to beat them.


[/ QUOTE ]

The play is not fancy. You limp with KK in EP in a live $2-$5 game, and then when the button raises (which indicates a fairly wide range) you reraise to an amount that creates a good stack-to-pot ratio for postflop commitment/maximization, keeps him in the pot with the dominated portion of his range (the portion you stand to make the most money off of when he commits - which he WILL do with hands like top pair), and either gets the pot HU or makes it unprofitable for MP1's range to coldcall.

I'm not really sure what we're debating anymore. If anyone else has any other book-specific questions, there's a review thread in the Books forum.

Thanks,

Sunny

[ActionStan]

Hi Matt,

[ QUOTE ]

the AK kills the offered implied odds problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that you aren't likely to stack off with AK when it misses or did you have something else in mind.

And for all you haters that think limp/rr means KK+, open it up baby. There's money to be made off of people, well, just like you.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
And for all you haters that think limp/rr means KK+, open it up baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a great idea.

Play big pots out of position with weak hands.

You must tear this game up.

[ActionStan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And for all you haters that think limp/rr means KK+, open it up baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a great idea.

Play big pots out of position with weak , nitty set miners .

You must tear this game up.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

(Oh, and I do alright. Thanks for asking)

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And for all you haters that think limp/rr means KK+, open it up baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a great idea.

Play big pots out of position with weak , nitty set miners .

You must tear this game up.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

(Oh, and I do alright. Thanks for asking)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome.

Honestly, if these tools are working in your game, then keep at it!

What stakes do you play?

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that you aren't likely to stack off with AK when it misses or did you have something else in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

He means exactly what you first stated.

Of course, the setminer is still likely to get a continuation bet out of the deal.

[Cry Me A River]

[ QUOTE ]
And for all you haters that think limp/rr means KK+, open it up baby. There's money to be made off of people, well, just like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is to make MP1 and buttons make mistakes. Fundamental Theorem of Poker.

By playing the hand this way, we are actually fooling MP1 and button into playing correctly.

That's why I've been calling it fancy play syndrome.

Against the vast majority of FRNL players, a limp/re-raise or a 3-bet is a very, very narrow range.

So MP1 and button will put us on a very narrow range and they will set mine against us.

Your big gotcha! is that we're going to be that rare player who ALSO limp/re-raises 78s.

Fine. Except in this particular case, we have more information than MP1 and button.

We know we have KK and we know that we will stack off on most flops.

So we know, in advance, that it is actually correct for MP1 and button to set mine against us in this hand.

So why are we contriving a situation where we are manipulating our opponents into playing correctly against us?

Particularly when if we re-raised enough to actually take away their odds to call we would be solving all our problems and actually getting back to forcing them to make mistakes.

Is it really profitable to sacrifice our stack in this hand in order to disguise when we limp/small re-raise with 78s?

[1p0kerboy]

^^^ What he said.