Having a flick through the 2p2 NL book...

[illuminati]

And read that pot-odds pf as described in SomethingClever's post...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
eliminate blind defense from your mind

[/ QUOTE ]

So you fold a near-broadway one-gapper for 1% of your stack getting 5.5 to 1?

Edit: I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are not applicable to NL due to the stacks left to bet post flop. This has confused me somewhat and left me wondering what some of you chaps think regarding this.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
And read that pot-odds pf as described in SomethingClever's post...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
eliminate blind defense from your mind

[/ QUOTE ]

So you fold a near-broadway one-gapper for 1% of your stack getting 5.5 to 1?

Edit: I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are not applicable to NL due to the stacks left to bet post flop. This has confused me somewhat and left me wondering what some of you chaps think regarding this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have read your post three times and do not know what it means.

[illuminati]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sklansky alludes to the fact that you should not think "I am getting 6:1 with KJo pf after a minraise, and I'm only that much of a dog if he has AA or KK, thus I should call" (paraprahed obviously).

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]


Sklansky alludes to the fact that you should not think "I am getting 6:1 with KJo pf after a minraise, and I'm only that much of a dog if he has AA or KK, thus I should call" (paraprahed obviously).

[/ QUOTE ]
Aha. I am pretty sure that's bad advice, though obviously I'd much rather have 46s than KJ in that spot. It certainly helps eradicate harder post-flop decisions to fold KJ in spots like that, but that doesn't mean it's the right play.

[Unknown Soldier]

yeah because the size of the pot pf is usually v. small relative to the pot at the end. You arent paying 1 to win the 5 or whatever.

Bottom line post flop play is much more important to pf (the deeper you are in relation to the size of the bet pf, the more this is true) which is why calling w/ J9o in his hand really isn't bad and really doesn't matter a whole lot.

[Gelford]

I think that Mason and Sklansky must hate me by now, since I've been dissing this book over and over again.


It is a beginners book, and Sklansky seems totally unaware of dynamics and handranges at a poker table.

Tho when I attack this book, the yay sayers go, but you must understand, that it is written with deepstacked live poker in mind.


On a different note, if you ever flop top set in a multiway limped pot, you really should check both flop and turn in order to extract, you see ... it does not always depend!


/end rant

[David Nicoson]

[ QUOTE ]


Sklansky alludes to the fact that you should not think "I am getting 6:1 with KJo pf after a minraise, and I'm only that much of a dog if he has AA or KK, thus I should call" (paraprahed obviously).

[/ QUOTE ]
That's correct for the reverse implied reason, but more fundamentally this thinking ignores the fact that we have to beat all those other players that create the nice pot odds.

[Grunch]

I have often tried to say on these forums that in NL pot odds are close to meaningless preflop.

I get slammed every time, but I'm right. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Poker monkey]

aba20's take on Sklansky: [ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First off, thank you Aba. I don't think you or Diablo realize how helpful and encouraging it is to have high stakes players spend a little time down here and share their insights and stories.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to emphasize this comment, especially the part about it being encouraging. It really is. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Somebody asked about what are some good books for NL cash, and you said there aren't any. Have you read Phil's Little Green Book or NL Theory and Practice? I was considering getting them, and a high stakes pro's comments would be helpful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I have read phils book and it is ok but not great. NL theory and practice isn't very good either. I guess they will help your game put the forums are much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
I have often tried to say on these forums that in NL pot odds are close to meaningless preflop.

I get slammed every time, but I'm right. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sort of. I mean, the current odds are kind of irrelevant, but you need to be thinking of the implied odds on *both* sides. That is you need to compare:

A. How often KJ will catch a piece of the flop, but still be behind AA, and how much you will lose in those spots.

B. How often KJ will beat AA, and how much you will win in those spots.

Obviously you will win more in B than in A, but B will happen much less often than A (and obviously skill of opponent, position, etc weigh heavily in these situations). The reason playing 46s (or suited connector of your choice) is considered better is that you will generally lose much less in situation A, and to a lesser degree an opponent might have a harder time putting you on a hand, though if you routinely play small suited connectors, good opponents are going to notice.

So the actual amount you are committing preflop probably is somewhat irrelivent if it's only 2-5% of your stack, and what Sklansky is saying in his sometimes ackward and poorly edited way is that you need to consider potential the stack impacts of all future streets preflop.