Review: Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games by Stox/Zobags

[YertleTurtle]

I agree that the blind vs. blind and re-stealing section is specifically suited for limit play but I think an intelligent player could read these sections, play around with hand ranges in pokerstove and come up with some nice responses based on PT stats on opponents. I am in no way a NL expert so take this with a grain of salt.

uDevil - I know your question was directed at Stox but I thought I would take a stab at it. Although bluffing and semi-bluffing are less successful in lower limit games this doesn't mean that you should make drastic changes to your hand ranges in stealing and defending positions. The adjustments should be made to counter the higher percentage of rake and in the way hands are played after the flop (value-betting more and semi-bluffing/bluffing less).

YT

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
uDevil - I know your question was directed at Stox but I thought I would take a stab at it. Although bluffing and semi-bluffing are less successful in lower limit games this doesn't mean that you should make drastic changes to your hand ranges in stealing and defending positions. The adjustments should be made to counter the higher percentage of rake and in the way hands are played after the flop (value-betting more and semi-bluffing/bluffing less).

YT

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Yertle,

The problem I have is that value betting more and bluffing and semibluffing less means I'll generally be betting less because my opening range includes hands that often have little value after the flop. In that case, I'll often be pushed out of the hand immediately because if my hand doesn't have enough value to bet, I can't call either.

Just because bluffs and semibluffs won't often succeed in these games doesn't mean players don't try. When they do, I'll usually be defenseless. That's why I'm led back to reconsider my opening range.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem I have is that value betting more and bluffing and semibluffing less means I'll generally be betting less because my opening range includes hands that often have little value after the flop. In that case, I'll often be pushed out of the hand immediately because if my hand doesn't have enough value to bet, I can't call either.

Just because bluffs and semibluffs won't often succeed in these games doesn't mean players don't try. When they do, I'll usually be defenseless. That's why I'm led back to reconsider my opening range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bear in mind that the the opening recommendations are given for "tough" games. If you're in a loose game where a raise from the HJ is still likely to lead to a four or five handed pot then you can't use the stox/zobags playing recommendations.

In a "tough" game, if you pop it from the HJ with pocket fives, there are three likely outcomes which are most likely; a) you'll steal the blinds, b) you'll play against the BB with position or c) you'll be three bet and isolated.

If you're not in that type of game, then the SSHE charts and playing recommendations figure to be more applicable.

Also, you're in the types of games described in WTHEG the hands you're playing do have value, even against aggression (which will be the norm). You're showing down a lot of poor and marginal hands as the nature of the aggression in these games dictates that you must bet, raise and show down hands with values which would appear very weak in the context of a game with multiway pots. A player not doing this would be run over in the HU post flop play typical of the games the authors describe.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem I have is that value betting more and bluffing and semibluffing less means I'll generally be betting less because my opening range includes hands that often have little value after the flop. In that case, I'll often be pushed out of the hand immediately because if my hand doesn't have enough value to bet, I can't call either.

Just because bluffs and semibluffs won't often succeed in these games doesn't mean players don't try. When they do, I'll usually be defenseless. That's why I'm led back to reconsider my opening range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bear in mind that the the opening recommendations are given for "tough" games. If you're in a loose game where a raise from the HJ is still likely to lead to a four or five handed pot then you can't use the stox/zobags playing recommendations.

In a "tough" game, if you pop it from the HJ with pocket fives, there are three likely outcomes which are most likely; a) you'll steal the blinds, b) you'll play against the BB with position or c) you'll be three bet and isolated.

If you're not in that type of game, then the SSHE charts and playing recommendations figure to be more applicable.



[/ QUOTE ]

The book does a good job of describing how to adjust the starting hands for looser opponents based on equity against their range. I've done that. I just wonder if I've made a sufficient adjustment when I take into account that I have very little fold equity later in the hand. I'm thinking that I should exclude marginal raising hands that have no showdown value.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you're in the types of games described in WTHEG the hands you're playing do have value, even against aggression (which will be the norm). You're showing down a lot of poor and marginal hands as the nature of the aggression in these games dictates that you must bet, raise and show down hands with values which would appear very weak in the context of a game with multiway pots. A player not doing this would be run over in the HU post flop play typical of the games the authors describe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I need to find the right value of showdown strength against my typical opponents. I think I am currently giving my opponents too much credit for "toughness", so I tend to push my marginal hands too much (because a tough opponent might fold) and call down too liberally (because a tough opponent doesn't need a better hand than mine to bet). Dumping some marginal starting hands would help solve this problem.

[stoxtrader]

The hand charts in WITHG are not all that wide. I think for 6 handed they would maybe get you to something like 26/20 or so. maybe even slightly less, depending on your blind play.

I would almost make the arguement that playing against bad players means you can WIDEN your opening ranges because you will have a post flop edge.

Other than that, I cannot tell you how to adjust your ranges other than to say I suggest you go through the same iterative process over time checking your results that we did for our 3 pros and adjust your ranges accordingly.

for instance, you may see that your lowest pockets do very well but your suited one gappers dont. add an extra pair and take a way a suited gapper in each position, etc....

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
The hand charts in WITHG are not all that wide. I think for 6 handed they would maybe get you to something like 26/20 or so. maybe even slightly less, depending on your blind play.

I would almost make the arguement that playing against bad players means you can WIDEN your opening ranges because you will have a post flop edge.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for straightening out my thinking. I know Ed Miller would agree with you, as he has said that we should be looking for extra opportunities to get into hands with bad players. I clearly still have fundamental weaknesses.

If the problem is not preflop, it must be postflop. So if I now play a little more loosely before the flop, doesn't that suggest I need to play a little more tightly postflop? I say this because, on average, my hands will be a little weaker while my opponents' hands will have the same strength as before.

If it is also right to bluff/semi-bluff less, then my postflop play will also generally be more passive (compared to what it would be with tighter preflop play).

Since my opponents are bluffing and semibluffing (despite the fact that it is generally a mistake in these games), my more passive play also forces me to play yet more tightly postflop.

So it seems that the net effect of looser preflop play (even if it is aggressive play) is tighter and more passive postflop play. That goes against the grain for me, but I have to consider that it is correct.

[mattnxtc]

I ordered the book the other day...cant wait to read it.