VIDEO: NL25 6max

[Gelford]

Back to table 4, you are on the button holding AJo again, The seat to your right has just been filled a few hands ago with a unknown short player (again we are talking 20 BB)

Folded to him in the CO and he pots it ... you say that if he wasn't short, you would threebet him, but not when he is short. I would love if you once again would elaborate (no offence jonyy, I am not after you, you posted a video and I just don't get some of the hands [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Some of these hands have been questioned before, but I kind of Grunching here.

[Gelford]

OK ... I'm 25 minutes in to the video, but have to stop now .... But here is a recap.

Let us ignore the K3o pf steal from the SB, it has been mentionrf, you consider it +EV and I like previous poster consider it spewing. Peace [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Now back to business, apart from the K3o hand that leaves us with the hands, where you fold every time with the explanation that somebody is short. I do not get it, so I appreciate if you would be so kind as to explain your view on having shortstacks at the table and why that make you lean towards folding in those three hands [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
That is correct sir, some of Sklansky's advice is gross because of his theoretical-limit background.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all the book's by both Miller and Sklansky, and they both have a perfectly good grounding to be able to adapt to different betting structures of hold 'em. If their advice is bad, it isn't because they aren't aware of the differences. In fact, in this situation that "explanation" is extra-ignorant because they explicitly say that in limit you should virtually NEVER open-limp J9s, but in NL you might have reasons to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
I have not finished NTLP yet and can not comment on his reasonings. But the key to NL is position and aggression. With J9s on the button we can have both and its a great hand to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

The position doesn't change regardless of how you play the hand. The dealer doesn't say, "I'm sorry, you played that too passively preflop, so I'm going to award the button to the player to your right."

Aggression is certainly an important weapon in NLHE, but it's the responsibility of the aggressor is to know how to wield it. The money doesn't just automatically go to whomever is most aggressive at the table. So when you raise J9s first-in from the button (as S&M acknowledge you may want to do at times), it's important to know why you're doing so.

To take down the blinds? With short effective stacks, that would be a fine reason. With deep effective stacks, there isn't much in the pot to win compared to what you hope to win in your opponents' stacks.

To set up a CB? Against opponents who routinely call PFRs and fold to CBs, that's much better. But honestly, I'm seeing fewer and fewer such opponents at NL25, so I can only imagine how it is in bigger games. Of course you can adjust with two-barrel bluffs, etc. but you're going to be staking a lot of money on a weak hand if you do this continuously. So whereas setting up a CB may be a fine plan, it may also have costs.

Now, the rationale presented in the book, implied odds, doesn't always hold. The authors suggest that you may find people attacking your limps, so you may want to raise a small amount instead. Your stack size might be such that the implied odds aren't there regardless. Or they might be so big that you're not sacrificing any IO, and the raise just serves to make it more likely you'll take a stack if you hit. But just avoiding a play because "it looks weak" -- or worse, because the macho crowd at 2+2 called it "gross" with no further explanation offered -- is not a good way to approach poker.

That said, I'm generally raising J9s OTB because taking down the blinds is preferable to getting raised and having a tough decision. It also provides some balance, and if I'm not going to get action from my good hands I may as well help myself to a lot of blinds.

But I suck at poker so take it with a grain of salt. You're far better off trusting Sklansky and Miller than me.

[Gelford]

There are very few that agree with Sklansky and Millers recommendation of limping here on 2+2 (at least in the 6max community). I haven't seen the hand in question, if it is a family pot with lots of limpers or against callingstations that you can shove river against or similar, then it might be ok, but in general limping is frowned upon in the 2+2 6max community at least above uNL. There have been long threads debating it when the book came out, but a recent example could be the aejones well post that is started today. Here you will se aejones a 1000NL regular give never limp advice.

[AKQJ10]

I recall those threads when the book came out, and I have no reason to doubt your assertion that it's the consensus of 2+2. There's still a big difference between presenting a well reasoned argument and saying not to do something just because it's consensus.

[corsakh]

AKJ, I totally repect you as a player and what you say, but really there is no need to complicate this situation [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

You have a school of 50VPIP OOP limped fish with full effective stacks on one hand and a big suited connector on the button on the the other hand. Situation can go four ways:

1) 10% chance: They fold. You take the blinds.
2) 40% chance: A blind calls. All call. You play a monster family pot in position against a bunch of fully stacked fish. Dream scenario for a big suited connector.
3) 40 chance: Blinds fold, one of the limpers calls. Chances are you probably 50-50. You risk a cbet.
4) 10% chance: Someone raises. Depending on the stacks you either call for implied odds or loose 6BB.

Numbers are specualtive, but reflect the general picture at these tables. I don't see how this can be ev-, unless you have a maniac at the table. On top of that, you are getting on your opponents nerves that pays you off later.

This is why I like suited connectors. The hand is so versitile it can play in any situation as long as you have implied odds and position.

ps Nothing wrong with limping with SC's on the button in FR, I am pretty sure this is what Sklansky is relating to in his book. Its may also be fine limping in wwith this hand from CO if you fear that the button will call a raise. And its certainly all right from MP.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
There's still a big difference between presenting a well reasoned argument and saying not to do something just because it's consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have no intention of going thru the argumentation of those threads etc and consensus is just the practice of well known players, so it doesn't have to say much as such (in general)

So yeah .... poker is poker and everybody for him self, if it aint broken don't fix it.