Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > PL/NL Texas Hold'em > Micro Stakes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-22-2007, 01:44 PM
Aviston Aviston is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 200
Default Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size

[ QUOTE ]
bingo. you got it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read the book from front to back quickly and have been going through and rereading each chapter in preparation for these threads. Unfortunately, I forgot that on page 146 (since I haven't reread that part yet) you clearly defined the commitment threshold as 'one-fourth of the remaining money." Oops, guess I could've found my own answer [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-22-2007, 01:48 PM
Sunny Mehta Sunny Mehta is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: coaching poker and writing \"Professional No-Limit Hold\'em\" for Two Plus Two Publishing with Matt Flynn and Ed Miller
Posts: 1,124
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size

Couple interesting tidbits... This is a key chapter IMO because it sets up a lot of the rest of the book. The idea of "risk versus reward" drives a lot of the future concepts. Thinking about NL in that specific way is not discussed a whole lot, particularly not in books. Yet general poker theory teaches us that fundamentally we should play differently in big pots compared to small pots. In Limit this is discussed quite a bit - perhaps because it's so much easier to gauge how big or small the pot is (just add the number of bets). So we really wanted to come up with the NL equivalent.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-22-2007, 02:28 PM
QTip QTip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: OH
Posts: 6,131
Default Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. If your opponent has a draw and you are made, you don't want them to fold, specifically. You want them to be making a mistake if they continue. The difference is a difference in thought process, and it has both subtle and gross implications on correct strategy.

For example, if your goal is to make them fold as frequently as possible, you should just overbet all-in. This is the ammount that will get the most folds. The problem is that the only hands that will call are the hands that have you crushed, so going all-in is a -EV proposition many times. On the other hand, if you just bet the most that they will call incorrectly a somewhat frequent portion of the time, then that is a very +EV play. Sure it's much higher variance. He's going to suck out far more frequently than if you just overbet push. But low variance != high winrate in no-limit. In fact in this case, they can be quite the opposite.

Note that I'm just talking in general terms, and not responding to any particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase here:

I was saying that your goal is to have your opponent make the biggest mistake they will. When they have odds, their biggest mistake would be folding. When they don't have odds, their biggest mistake would be calling. (This excludes any raising options).
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-22-2007, 04:28 PM
retleftolc retleftolc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 282
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size

IMHO . . . If we uNL players were more wiling to take an extra second and look at the size of the stacks in the hand, the decisions to be made become much less difficult. Doing this one thing helped me up my winrate more that anything else at these levels. It also helps slow things down enough for you to actually think, and not react.

"I have a OESFD- MUST PUSH!!!" used to be a typical thought process for me. When I take the extra sec to look at his stack it helps me internalize what really needs to happen. You may say, but what does this have to do with the pot size discussion? For me it is the pot size discussion.

I suck at poker (meaning I have a modest winrate), but I believe understanding big pot vs small pot will make just about anybody a +EV uNL player.

I guess my point is that this chapter should not and cannot be over-looked. Everything else I have learned since this has built on this.

Just my .5 cents. . .

Ret
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-22-2007, 04:35 PM
Aviston Aviston is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 200
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size

Agreed. Unfortunately, I believe the authors did such a fine job in this chapter explaining things that there isn't much to discuss [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-22-2007, 05:38 PM
Matt Flynn Matt Flynn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Badugi, USA
Posts: 3,285
Default Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size

[ QUOTE ]

I think a more open preflop raising range is more optimal for online 6max just because c-bets work so frequently and you have better position more often than in FR

[/ QUOTE ]

works well in position. in the bigger games often the button will call behind.

so when selecting a seat you want a tight player on the button so you get to act last postflop more often.


[ QUOTE ]
I often limp ALOT in live FR 1/2 NL games where the stacks are pretty deep usually 300-1200 dollars. These players play so bad postflop I think you are losing alot of money by pricing out bad players preflop. which is pretty opposite the 2+2 general stlyle of play and I get some flack for but w/e. intersted what others think about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

if it makes you more money then it's good. my only concern would be make sure you're counting all the little losses to know whether those limps are truly profitable, and adequately comparing your limps to raises to see that EV[limping] > EV[raising].

one thing is that when a limper fires big he tends to get more credit than someone cbetting.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-22-2007, 05:41 PM
Matt Flynn Matt Flynn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Badugi, USA
Posts: 3,285
Default Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I was curious about where the blurry line is when it comes to big pot vs. small pot. Are we saying once 1/3 of the smallest stack goes in we are big pot world?

[/ QUOTE ]


it is blurry. might use SPR of 4 because i like to plan ahead, but it's your call where you want to set that line.


Grunch's comment that it depends on how likely your opponent will go all-in is spot on imo.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-22-2007, 05:48 PM
Matt Flynn Matt Flynn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Badugi, USA
Posts: 3,285
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Q7 hand on page 52 seems to happen to me a lot. Unfortunately, the villain is not raising but merely calling the flop. For example:

I have Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], one player limps, the SB calls and I check in the BB.

The flop comes Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] giving me TPWK. I lead out a bet of 2 BB (into a 3 BB pot). The player in MP calls, and the SB folds.

While the pot now only contains 7 BB, I'm not interested in playing even a remotely large pot at this point. That usually infers a check on the turn, however, I feel at that point, most typical opponents will bet the turn after my check and I'll either a) be giving up and folding with no questsions asked, or b) calling down far too often and feeling like a donkey. On top of that, if my only goal was to fold all of the players on the flop and scoop the 3 BB pot, then I don't need any hand at all (much less a TP hand) to make that play.

Any advice on this situation? It's tough for me not to bet the flop with TP (even with a weak kicker) in a limped pot. On the other hand, I'm not interested in playing any type of medium-large pot with an extremely vulnerable hand (and one that is easily beaten by a caller).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the type of situation where I think its best not to put any more money in after the flop. I know what you're thinking - you have top pair and it can be difficult to let go of a hand that has a good chance of being best in an unraised pot. However, your kicker is weak and you are out of position, with a hand that has very little chance of improving. I would advise that you let this go and wait for better spots.

[/ QUOTE ]


in a three-handed pot you likely have the best hand. i usually check this and call flop if bet, play on from there. but you certainly can let it go. no one sees what you fold, so there's no virtual moped involved.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-22-2007, 06:44 PM
Aviston Aviston is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 200
Default Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Q7 hand on page 52 seems to happen to me a lot. Unfortunately, the villain is not raising but merely calling the flop. For example:

I have Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], one player limps, the SB calls and I check in the BB.

The flop comes Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] giving me TPWK. I lead out a bet of 2 BB (into a 3 BB pot). The player in MP calls, and the SB folds.

While the pot now only contains 7 BB, I'm not interested in playing even a remotely large pot at this point. That usually infers a check on the turn, however, I feel at that point, most typical opponents will bet the turn after my check and I'll either a) be giving up and folding with no questsions asked, or b) calling down far too often and feeling like a donkey. On top of that, if my only goal was to fold all of the players on the flop and scoop the 3 BB pot, then I don't need any hand at all (much less a TP hand) to make that play.

Any advice on this situation? It's tough for me not to bet the flop with TP (even with a weak kicker) in a limped pot. On the other hand, I'm not interested in playing any type of medium-large pot with an extremely vulnerable hand (and one that is easily beaten by a caller).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the type of situation where I think its best not to put any more money in after the flop. I know what you're thinking - you have top pair and it can be difficult to let go of a hand that has a good chance of being best in an unraised pot. However, your kicker is weak and you are out of position, with a hand that has very little chance of improving. I would advise that you let this go and wait for better spots.

[/ QUOTE ]


in a three-handed pot you likely have the best hand. i usually check this and call flop if bet, play on from there. but you certainly can let it go. no one sees what you fold, so there's no virtual moped involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming I check/call the flop, am I right in assuming we'll play this hand out as long as the pot stays small? For instance, if I check the turn and he checks as well, I might value bet the river. If, however, I check the turn and face a large bet, then I can safely fold and assume I was beat. Is this correct thinking?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-22-2007, 07:43 PM
Disconnected Disconnected is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: A peaceful place, or so it looks from space
Posts: 1,051
Default Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size

[ QUOTE ]
Let me rephrase here:

I was saying that your goal is to have your opponent make the biggest mistake they will. When they have odds, their biggest mistake would be folding. When they don't have odds, their biggest mistake would be calling. (This excludes any raising options).

[/ QUOTE ]

One small (but important, IMO) amendment which is they could still not be getting odds to call, and you'd still rather have them fold than call due to their equity, and your potential reverse implied odds. At least, I think what that AA example in the book is driving at.

I'm just thinking this out, so I actually may have it wrong. Whenever you're ahead but not a lock, your opponent by definition has some equity. So, you are hoping they'll call when they make a bigger mistake by calling than the equity you give up, and you want them to fold when they give up more pot equity than it costs them to call your bet (in terms of their new pot equity, I guess).

I'm not sure exactly what that means from a theory standpoint, but it seems like it should factor into the upcoming REM discussion.

In Theory of Poker, Sklansky talked about optimal bluffing frequency being such that no matter what, your opponent had the same negative expectation. I wonder if there's something related in terms of bet sizing where the optimal (HU) theoretical bet size would be equal to an amount that caused your opponent to have the same cost whether they called or folded.

Of course in practice, you'd like to have them call and have it be worse for them than what they give up by folding, but maybe it's an interesting theory question, anyway.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.