Review, Advanced Limit Holdem Strategy (Tanenbaum)

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi t_dog:

[ QUOTE ]
To be precise, Barry's text defines the Illusion of Action as "making enough plays that look like action (while generally still having positive expectation) that you get real action from opponents when you have the best of it."


[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you read Howard Lederer's limit section in the Full Tilt Poker Tournament book. He goes through a pretty good discussion, which applies to both tournament and non-tournament games, where he explains that you should fold some of the hands that would show a very small profit so that you can profit more on your other hands. I agree with this and think it's precisely the opposite from what you are saying.

Best wishes,
Mason

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
he explains that you should fold some of the hands that would show a very small profit so that you can profit more on your other hands. I agree with this and think it's precisely the opposite from what you are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting. I haven't read that book but it seems to me this is also the opposite of what Stox recommends in his book as well.
If it has any amount of EV at all then he typically advocates playing it/calling down with it.

[PJS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he explains that you should fold some of the hands that would show a very small profit so that you can profit more on your other hands. I agree with this and think it's precisely the opposite from what you are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting. I haven't read that book but it seems to me this is also the opposite of what Stox recommends in his book as well.
If it has any amount of EV at all then he typically advocates playing it/calling down with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be honest, I'm a bit confused on this one. I'd appreciate it if Mason (or someone who can clarify this) could take the time to provide an example where this would apply.

PJS

[smbruin22]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I haven't read that book but it seems to me this is also the opposite of what Stox recommends in his book as well.
If it has any amount of EV at all then he typically advocates playing it/calling down with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

agree.. how is more folding an "illusion of action"??.. maybe the author can weigh in as i won't be surprised if his ideas have been distorted here.

[Heisenb3rg]

IMO skalasnky/malmuths advice about having a tight image in limit holdem is only correct under certain (most?) game conditions.
There is no way its true in all game conditions.

If the pots are frequently multiway and large preflop and your opponents will allow your tight image to manipulate and control the potsize postflop (by turning people passive to your raises).. as well as succesfully semibluff occasionally. A tight image IMO is superior to a loose image.

However, if a full ring game is playing extremly loose postflop, a tight image wont allow you to take down more pots than a loose image, so getting people to give you excess action is more important.
Although, Im not sure how the increased ability to "protect your hand" with a tight image comes into play..

In shorthanded games, winning pots due to bluff raising is not nearly as rewarding. People showdown too much, and the pots are much smaller.
The opportunity to win pots with the "first right to bluff" as well as winning more bets when you have hand are the largest source of value.

A loose agressive image both gets you more action (when you both have a hand), as well as discourages your opponents to bluff raise you without a good draw(for they fear the bluff-reraise). Your range is weak a good % of the time in shorthanded games, so people taking a lot of shots at you can be very difficult to play against.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if a full ring game is playing extremly loose postflop, a tight image wont allow you to take down more pots than a loose image, so getting people to give you excess action is more important.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. You might get free cards when you raise. Your bets may not be raised when they should be. Your opponents may check to you when they should bet. They may play more straight forward against you than they might someone else. And so on.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Heisenb3rg]

sorry, I didnt explain my self properly.
In the first pargraph when I said "manipulate the potsize" I meant, manipulate your opponents. Things like bet/folding in big pots (because you know they know you have a good hand and wont be raising thin on you), free cards, free showdown raises etc..

By loose games, I meant loose/agressive games. In games where they dont get passive to your raises (crazy games) BUT will go even more crazy if you tick them off.

Now that I think of it though, these games are fairly rare..
Plus will be extremly profitable anyways.

Im also biased in my outlook bceause I play primarily tough shorthanded games, where Im fully confident that a LAGier image is profitable for someone who is playing a game primarily based around thin value betting.

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, if a full ring game is playing extremly loose postflop, a tight image wont allow you to take down more pots than a loose image, so getting people to give you excess action is more important.


[/ QUOTE ]
No. You might get free cards when you raise. Your bets may not be raised when they should be. Your opponents may check to you when they should bet. They may play more straight forward against you than they might someone else. And so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the book or this thread, and I don't play much poker, but I'm full of opinions and here's one: Mason, your idea of high limit poker is outdated. You expect to make most of your money from moves and otherwise break even, when today's players expect to tread water with moves and get paid off with real hands.

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the book or this thread, and I don't play much poker, but I'm full of opinions and here's one: Mason, your idea of high limit poker is outdated. You expect to make most of your money from moves and otherwise break even, when today's players expect to tread water with moves and get paid off with real hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow.

[pokerbear]

Hi. I am certain they have. But my view is that the author has weighed in by writing 80,000 words with explanations and specific requirements for when, why, and how to make specific play types.

It is impossible to say, "No,this guy or that guy generalized my comments." because it is tough to summarize without leaving out the subtilties that, in my opinion, define when a play may be +EV and when it will not.

Anyway, thanks to all for discussing my book, even those who have not read it. Perhaps they will feel differently if/when they do, and perhaps not.

-barryt