HU NL article comments

[gergery]

I disagree and think this type of article is a good one for a magazine. There really isn't much info availabe on how to play HU well. maybe a little in Harrington's book and thats it. Seeing thought processes and adjustments you make would be pretty helpful for a lot of HU players.

Unfortunately, I agree with creeds/yves comments so this particular take on HU NL play was maybe not the right material. maybe creed should take a shot at it

-g

[Bill Haywood]

This was one of my favorite magazine articles ever. Although people can easily differ with particular actions, what I really liked was the complex reasoning applied to the hands. People might justify different moves, but the general approach was complex and shifty. Much more checking and trapping than I've done. Far more sophisticated than just pound, pound, pound until they get sick of being pushed off pots and fight back -- just when you hit your big hand. Lots of ways to skin a cat, that's what this article shows. I did sometimes think the author was reading more into a situation than he had a basis for. But look at the result: while holding jacks, he got the guy to make a rash pf all-in .

Note also that the passive limping people are criticizing was essential to the success of this particular strategy. The limping kept luring the guy into small silly pots where he kept getting outplayed. Because they were small, they were low risk, but they did frustrate him into tilting.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]

Hero ($60) is SB/B with Ac 6d

Villain ($193.60)

Preflop: Hero raises to $6, Villain calls

Flop: 6c 7c 5c (pot $12)

Villain checks, Hero checks

Monotone flops are another good chance to pick up information about an opponent. How tight or passive are they in the face of a very scary board? Here, I have picked up middle pair – usually a strong hand (approximately equivalent to flopping top pair with a reasonable kicker in a full ring game). However, I check behind for two reasons. First, if he has no clubs, he probably won’t bet and my pair may well be good enough to win this raised pot at showdown; and second, a flopped flush would probably check here, hoping to pick off a continuation bet. Indeed, if he does hold a flush, a check is right not only because it saves me a bet, but also because if a fourth club comes, he will almost certainly have to pay off my nut flush.



[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with most of this analysis. First of all, author demonstrates paranoia concerning a possible opponent flopped flush. Throughout various hand analyses he discusses flush draws as if they're a very likely part of opponents' holdings, but they're just not.

In this hand, the author has flopped a pair + nut flush draw, in position, vs. a passive foe. First of call, author needs to recognize that this is a very good holding. This is a hand where it is important to get money in, because hero has huge equity vs just about any holding and yet doesn't want a cheap overcard to fall off and pair his opponent. Hero has a shot at stacking opponent if opponent has a big club and chases it. In sum, hero needs to bet here pretty much 100% of the time, and can gauge from opponent's actions on turn or river whether his pair is any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

An awareness of a possible flush should not be considered paranoia.
A flop check into the preflop raiser is a tactical action not a passive action. In studies on well over 70% of prf raises the raiser makes a continuation bet. A check is transferring first-to-act back to the raiser. That check gives no information.
It is true that betting the flop gives the author the best chance of winning the pot. But isn't the object of the game to win chips?
Most of the hands Ac6d dominates isn't very dangerous. Since any club makes the author's hand a flush, there are only four overcards to fear instead of the usual six.
Here the author is hoping to win a big pot with both players making flushes. He has a better chance of stacking his opponent when he checks the flop as opponent will be more willing to defend with a small club.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
This was one of my favorite magazine articles ever. Although people can easily differ with particular actions, what I really liked was the complex reasoning applied to the hands. People might justify different moves, but the general approach was complex and shifty. Much more checking and trapping than I've done. Far more sophisticated than just pound, pound, pound until they get sick of being pushed off pots and fight back -- just when you hit your big hand. Lots of ways to skin a cat, that's what this article shows. I did sometimes think the author was reading more into a situation than he had a basis for. But look at the result: while holding jacks, he got the guy to make a rash pf all-in .

Note also that the passive limping people are criticizing was essential to the success of this particular strategy. The limping kept luring the guy into small silly pots where he kept getting outplayed. Because they were small, they were low risk, but they did frustrate him into tilting.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I can tell you is, if I'm playing HU, and my opponent plays like the author of the article, I will play him as long as he wants.

[theBruiser500]

rich E. your article is terrible, you are clearly not qualified to write this essay.

[cwar]

I really liked it, I disagreed with a lot of the strategy BUT articles that outline this kind of thinking through hand are very valuable, thanks for taking the time Rich I hope you do another one.