Concepts from NLTP (28/29) - Advises to minraise

[sandman-54]

[ QUOTE ]
As Bobbo alluded to, you're making up the bulk of your money exploiting your edge in much more marginal post flop scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make any sense, unless, I suppose, you're at a table full of experts. Marginal situations, by definition, have choices that are comparable in EV terms.

And, on top of that, pre-flop situations come up more often than post-flop situations and things like getting in a pot, in position, against a weak player and manipulating the pot size will set up the post-flop situations where you have more +EV.

[sandman-54]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a lot of time to respond in detail to this, but I'll say that in general this all sounds pretty bad for online 6max games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finding exceptions to the concept should be a rewarding feeling, but is actually a sign of grasping the concept. To find the exception and understand why or why it does not apply requires an understanding of the concept. For you, the concept my be too elementary, but I think you understand the theory behind it.

[ QUOTE ]
In these games, hands that are calling $20 more are generally calling 40 more as well. This is all player dependent but w/e. However, hands that are calling 40 more are basically never calling 110 more. That sounds pretty absurd but maybe I'm missing something. If you make it 55 or so v. 2 limpers with a decently wide range of hands, you can do so w/ big hands profitably w/o revealing the strength of your hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play online, but your analysis seems sound. The general point that was made in concept no. 28, however, was that you shouldn't raise an amount that will give away your hand (bringing your opponent closer to correct play on later streets) and also offer your opponent the correct odds to draw.

In your case, raising a standard amount would have a greater expectation because it would keep underdogs like KJ and AT (and maybe even 97o) calling. This is worth more to you than scaring them off and trying to get hands like 55 and 32s to call you without the proper implied odds. However, in the $5-10 blind and even some of the $2-5 blind no-limit games in Las Vegas, raising to 8 times the size of the big blind from behind two limpers is not going to keep hands like KJ or AT around, and is ultimately announcing your hand, while allowing a hand like 55 to easily trap you in a now-larger pot.

[sandman-54]

[ QUOTE ]
So, to sum it up, you all agree that those concepts that i quoted are erroneous for MSNL shorthanded games?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, the book is assuming a deep-stacked full ring game throughout. Now, I'd like to struggle with your take on it as well as struggle to wrap my head around the manuscript's concepts, but you, yourself, haven't written anything of substance in this thread that gives reason or evidence to believe that these two particular concepts are erroneous. Please enlighten me.

[LucidDream]

Plain and simple without going into detail. The wider your opening range is the less implied odds you are giving.

[sandman-54]

[ QUOTE ]
Plain and simple without going into detail. The wider your opening range is the less implied odds you are giving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. I think that most of the posters are used to playing 6-max online games. In these games, since it is (obviously) short-handed and (apparently) has weak players, raising a middling amount is done with a wider opening range of hands than the games DS and Ed are used to (that's not to say that they are wrong). With a wider opening range, you aren't giving your opponent as much information, and thus are not giving high implied odds.

Concept No. 28 is related to an earlier statement on page 37: "The more your opponents know about the exact nature of your hand, the more you have to bet immediately to avoid offering them too high implied odds." I think that the most important thing to get from this is to try to find where the detrimental middling bet-size would be, in consideration of other factors, and not to try to look at 8 big blinds as a definite middling amount.

[ob1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, to sum it up, you all agree that those concepts that i quoted are erroneous for MSNL shorthanded games?

[/ QUOTE ]
heres the thing. lets take out metagame, as in opponents play with you enough to pickup on what you're doing (and then exploit it) because that is an obvious weakness of these minraises. (if it is "always" one type of hand / etc.)

so, ignoring that, the reasoning is to build the pot - and the counter, really, to me is... if you are a good player, with just 100bbs, you can build a pot limped or raised regardless... but if youve built a pot bigger (by raising a more standardized size) you often just pick up more money in isolation on the flop etc.

esp. in the aggro current games, with 100bb unless vs a specifically predicatable opponent (generally the nits, but some lags or tags fall into this category) cutting down implied odds is not NEARLY as important as maximizing raw earn vs weaker hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

good post

[Black winter day]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, to sum it up, you all agree that those concepts that i quoted are erroneous for MSNL shorthanded games?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, the book is assuming a deep-stacked full ring game throughout. Now, I'd like to struggle with your take on it as well as struggle to wrap my head around the manuscript's concepts, but you, yourself, haven't written anything of substance in this thread that gives reason or evidence to believe that these two particular concepts are erroneous. Please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play Nl400, so i use the amounts from those blinds.

I personally raise and reraise with a pretty wide range of hands, especially in position.
Raising more because you have a big hand is exactly what it is - playing your cards face up.Raising less is to allow everyone to the pot and then do not know where you stand.Any sign of weakness - and you will get reraised and you don't want to pay off every time one of the players hits.Conversely, you can't fold every time someone reraises you and you have AA on JT5 flop.So, the less players there are in the pot with you - the better.

So, i raise to 16 with 56s and QQ.I do it, because i don't want people putting me on a hand and also to acuire (sp?) wilder image to get payed off later with my good hands.I reraise to 50-52 from the blinds if (for example) the button opened for 16 with KK and might also do it with A5s (player dependand obviously).They might get tired and repop with KJ only to find out i am sitting there with Aces.Next time, they will fold when i have nothing...Etc etc.

Basically, i don't want to play a multiway pot with a hand that is having troubles to improve, like big PP.
The same way i don't want limp in LP with 56s if folded to me (as they suggest too), cause i will mostly flop nothing and will have to bluff.And the more opponents there are, the more hard it is to bluff the away.I might ocasionally flop a monster and stack someone who doesn't expect to see that hand from a raiser.

In any case, varying your preflop raise sizes based on the strength of your hand, online , where most people now have stats on you and will catch on what you doing is an erroneous concept.
Minraising only with hand that play well multiway to sweaten the pot is also a bad idea, cause your hand become transparent as well and you will get payed off less when you hit your draw and you might also get squeezed by an observant opponent and will have to fold an otherwise legitimate hand.There are other important reasons too, just this is becoming too long to write them all here.

Also, what Bobbo said is true, in capped buyin games it's less important to cut down implied odds, what's more valuable is to maximise your postflop earning against weaker hands and opponents.

I didn't mean to insult Sklansky or anything, since you say it yourself that "his book is for deep stacked FR live games", where the opponents are weaker as well and implied odds are much much more important, since you almost always have them preflop i stated that those ideas would be wrong for capped 6max online.

[wdead]

super system is so much better than no limit theory and practice

[hasugopher]

I've said this over and over again (or similar things):

If you give this book to your someone new at the game who's playing your typical live donk-fest or soft, low limit online games, it will be extremely helpful.

For the tough, shorthanded games (which are typically found online), it's a joke.

Yeah, sometimes I'll raise JJ to vary up my play. ha.

[MATT111]

[ QUOTE ]

Minraising only with hand that play well multiway to sweaten the pot is also a bad idea,

[/ QUOTE ]


I do not generally disagree with this but I do this from time to time (usually from the blinds) with a implied odds hands after 1 or more bad players have limped. It allows me to play a bigger pot when I like the flop and I get away cheaply in a sitaution I don`t have FE. It worked really well for me as nobody is aware of what I am doing.