500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1

[CalledDownLight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think you're being way overly critical pokerboy. Professional does not entail deep level thinking or uncommon knowledge/skill.

[/ QUOTE ]


I really don't think the marketing tagline of ANY 2+2 book is "We'll make you mediocre".

[/ QUOTE ]

If it provided enough help to make you great they wouldn't be publishing it. No book has any really deep secrets about how to play the game. They just explain already uncovered concepts.

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you can still be conditionally committed and decide to back out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm missing the point.

I thought the point of SPR was to make our postflop decisions easy? If we're still identifying situations to not commit, why is it so important to hit a low SPR?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it is more profitable and avoids difficult commitment decisions. This is all laid out in the book PB. Just because you hit your target SPR doesn't mean you 100% commit. Nothing is 100%. You know this.

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we get the villain to put in 10BB of his 100BB stack with the hopes of set-mining this isn't going to be a very long term profitable thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't put 10BB in hoping to set-mine.

His original raise of the limpers was to either pick up the pot preflop, win the pot pot with a continuation bet, OR flop a strong hand and stack off. He will do each of these a certain % of the time, and his play here should show him profit.

He wasn't hoping to setmine until it got raised and the action came back to him. Now the problem has changed. At this point he's faced with calling 6bb to win a pot that already contains 25bb; not to mention the fact that one of his opponents have indicated that there is a very good chance he's going to flop a top pair/overpair type hand and stack off. So his decision to call with his pair here is definitely +EV.

Looking at all of the different actions as "one play" is a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize all of this, but if you can get a guy to put in 10% of his stack with a worse hand then overall the play isn't profitable just to set mine.

It is not a fallacy to take the entire effective odds of a street.

[Cry Me A River]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize all of this, but if you can get a guy to put in 10% of his stack with a worse hand then overall the play isn't profitable just to set mine.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is when his implied odds are at least 11.5:1 (in the case of MP1, more if button comes along). Or 20:1 (in the case of button, after MP1 calls).

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize all of this, but if you can get a guy to put in 10% of his stack with a worse hand then overall the play isn't profitable just to set mine.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is when his implied odds are at least 11.5:1 (in the case of MP1, more if button comes along). Or 20:1 (in the case of button, after MP1 calls).

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that it MAY be profitable to call the 3-bet but the play of the hand on a whole was unprofitable.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that it MAY be profitable to call the 3-bet but the play of the hand on a whole was unprofitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not against our range it wasn't.

[1p0kerboy]

Cross post:

Here is what I'm saying. SPR simply combines all of the preflop action into one and that can be deceiving. We need to think deeper than that.

Think of each individual action before the flop and how we are profiting from them individually. (Like I said, SPR simply combines all of them)

We limp UTG. We are going to do this with a lot of hands in a game of this nature. Another player limps. The button raises with what is probably a fairly wide range. This is +EV for him.

We reraise. Why are we reraising? Because we have the better hand and we want to put more money into the pot. But we fail to raise enough to limit juicy implied odds for the button to call our raise. So he calls profitably. He's made two profitable plays against us.

If the preflop action had just been one play, it would be different. If we raise to 10bb and the button calls, he is doing so unprofitably.

Do you see how my second example is way, way different from the first example? Yet they have the same SPR? Hmmm.... Think about that for a bit.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
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.



[/ QUOTE ]


just meant it makes it unprofitable or close to to set mine against you because when he hits the set he does not always get your stack.

the math was explained but got cut from PNL1. max effective odds vs. lrr are 10-to-1. you're 7.5-to-1 to hit a set or better. if > 1/3 of the time you hit you only get the continuation bet of say $100 instead of the full $450 then you're getting under 8-to-1 on your money effective odds wise. this sidesteps a couple cases like what happens on ace-high flops when lrr has kings - that is, it assumes set farmer doesn't take a big share of those pots, but remember when you fire on an ace-high flop and opponent has it you lose money so those balance a bit. so set farmer doesn't extract appreciably from the AA/KK/AK player. keep in mind set farmer has THE best hand to take against AA, a pocket pair. 76s will win more cold sims but 66 wins more money in practice.

[Matt Flynn]

Cry,

absolutely, MP1 is correct to call in isolation. lrr benefits from reraising more. at same time small 3bets do have their place, especially if you can steal well after making one or get a lot of make-a-hand equity that you wouldn't get if opponent would fold to a larger lrr. but obv you know that.



1pOkerboy,

originally we were thinking of just SSNL, then were trying to teach a primer on NL, then anticipated several volumes in the PNL series, making it obvious that PNL1 was just the start. now we, like Harrington, realize it's better to release the group of volumes simultaneously if avoiding these criticisms is the goal. but at some point you've got to [censored] or get off the pot. we also realize that in multivolume sets the later books rarely sell as well. HOH2 > HOH1 but the sales aren't close.


anyway PNL2 will be more explicit about what is for what game type.

[ActionStan]

Thanks, I appreciate the note.

[ QUOTE ]

I seriously was trying to get a feel for the type of players that were in your regular game that makes your line(s) profitable.


[/ QUOTE ]

For the time being, let's set this particular KK line aside. The table has to be juuuusssst right, I think, to execute it. You seem to think the table is never just right. Frankly, for most online tables, I think that is the correct judgment. So, FTP, NL50 to FTPwhatever, this line isn't so good. Done.

Limp reraising UTG with a wider range than KK+, though, is probably profitable in any game that reads limp/reraise as only KK+. That was my point with that particular quote.

Now, I don't mean to imply that I limp/reraise any 2 UTG, but I do open up my range a bit when the table will allow. I don't know that this is particularly controversial. Is it? You really do beat up on the nitty set miners and you don't pay them off when the hit their sets because you're sitting there with an unmade hand. Limp/reraising a wider range is highly exploitative. Limp/reraising with 2 wide a range and to frequently gets you playing big pots oop with bad hands. Not so good either. I'm with you there 100%.

Really, any time you present a hand that gets a large consensus of the "right" line, there is almost always an exploitative strategy. That really isn't so novel a concept, I don't think. I would bet that not enough people explore that kind of line in their game and are losing value. Just like many people don't play enough hands on the button. Many people don't 3-bet a wide enough range in the SB. Many people don't incorporate enough big turn bluffs. Pick your poison. Does this seem more reasonable?