NL CASH: article by me in 2+2 magazine

[jay_shark]

Creed , I think your article was pretty good for the intended purpose .

It's impossible to list all the exceptions of when you would deviate from a raise/fold from the button or even when it may be correct to limp in such a short space .

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe cwar once said that you can never judge someone's HU play from pre-flop and I generally believe that to be true. I think it's the optimal strategy to mix up your pre-flop ranges so that patterns aren't detectable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's better to alter your preflop play based on your opponent's reactions to it, rather than to vary your play for the sake of being unpredictable. If your opponent is making some sort of consistent mistake, then you should pound on it, not try for some sort of unexploitable mix yourself.

Also, most guys who make weird preflop plays are not experienced regulars trying to be unreadable, they really are telegraphing their hand strength.

[ QUOTE ]
The same could be said about "passive drawing". I love it. If you call OOP with a set just the same as when you are drawing or have TPTK, 2nd pair or even bottom pair, it is very difficult for your opponent to counter even with the positional advantage. All of your hands look the same and your opponent is going to start checking a lot of turns IP where you can capitalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer checkraising a wide range to checkcalling a wide range, and I think it's a stronger move, but the more aggressive your opponent the more checkcalling becomes the nuts.

But let's get back to the point of the article here, which was identifying weak HU opponents: guys who checkcall gutshots to dummy straights on the flop and draw for the pot on the turn are just bad, and they're not hard to find.

[MasterLJ]

I totally agree that these are good general concepts, but I for one am not a huge fan of pigeon-holing anything when it comes to HU playstyles.

Good article overall.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]


I've given up bluffing on the river in low stakes games. I can rep a hand perfectly and it seems I will get looked up by TP type hands way way way too often for it to be profitable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you were just saying that people were folding to your pot-sized river value raises, so you preferred minraising for value. If they are folding often enough in a certain spot on the river to make a value minraise superior to a value pot-sized raise, then a bluff pot-sized raise in that spot should show a profit.

[xSCWx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I've given up bluffing on the river in low stakes games. I can rep a hand perfectly and it seems I will get looked up by TP type hands way way way too often for it to be profitable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you were just saying that people were folding to your pot-sized river value raises, so you preferred minraising for value. If they are folding often enough in a certain spot on the river to make a value minraise superior to a value pot-sized raise, then a bluff pot-sized raise in that spot should show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that most people at low stakes don't put you on hand ranges and are just [censored] random. You really just need to play your odds against their insanely wide hand range and make your buff bluffs towards scare cards even if they don't match up with your line.

If they are the type to call you anyways just start turning mid-high strength hands into bluffs and watch them get paid over and over again.