Winning No-Limit without calling (ever)

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Easily exploitable... an OOP opponent would only need to check/call you to the river, and then put you all in. You can't raise or call, so you'd have to fold your hand and forfeit the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf.... only a moron would think this. please next time use your brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well KillSadie, I see you're still padding your post count with immature little one-liners. Let's look at your last batch:

[ QUOTE ]
Tons of vegans are fake.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
this thread sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
you know he was back on the streets in a day.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah this was posted weeks ago. we all got over 200 million etc etc etc. no need for any of us to play it again. delete thread plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
WRONG

tl;dr

edit(read it): wow you owe that kid a [censored] laptop. people who feel the need to brawl just because they drank some beer are the [censored] of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
OP sounds like he drives a truck.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
BEST OOT TOPICS THAT END IN THE LETTER 'S'

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
ive.. never heard of this. you probably created it yourself.


as for avoiding a slow roll, the only way to get slow rolled is if you call the last bet and flip your cards first for some retarded reason. problem SOLVED. so if you get slow rolled its your own fault. let it gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[/ QUOTE ]

These are your eight most recent posts, nine if you include trying to call me a moron. Do you ever have anything intelligent to say or do you just like playing on Mommy's computer?

[ATrebek]

So here is the prop bet we are considering:

Friend buys in to $1/2 NL game at local joint and plays by these rules:
1. No calling bets - must raise or fold. Exceptions are All-In bets or action not open to him for whatever reason.
2. He is allowed to check if no one else bets, but if someone bets after him he must raise or fold.
3. No limping preflop, must raise to $4 or fold.

He must show at least a $50 profit (game is $100-$200 buy in) and play for at least 4 hours. If he makes profit, I match it, if he loses money (more than $50), he pays me the amount he lost.

Sound fair/interesting/stupid/boring? I realize variance will play a larger role over one session that skill will, but it should be entertaining at least. I plan on playing at the table with him when he does this, but I will not intentionally exploit him.

[whaahhahahah]

i think rake will play a big part in this.

the other problem is that the typical 1/2 nl game live has 9.5 people to a flop. most flops someone bets.

[curious123]

lol, Jesus won the ME playing strict rof (except when in the blinds).

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
He must show at least a $50 profit (game is $100-$200 buy in) and play for at least 4 hours. If he makes profit, I match it, if he loses money (more than $50), he pays me the amount he lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he needs 7BB/hr or better. It will depend on the table. I think he can do it if it's tight/weak (pick up a lot of dead money in position) or loose/passive (called down with his monster hands). At a $1/$2 this probably won't be a problem.

If I were him, though, I would definitely NOT want you at the table -- even if you aren't exploiting his play, you are taking away 1 of the seats he needs to make money.

[PantsOnFire]

Yes, I believe it would be possible to beat an average NL cash game playing like this. However, I think you would have to be very smart about it. For example, fold more against players who seem to know what you are doing. Also, it might be better to fold your draws, especially heads up or against players who will not pay you off.

But this would be far from optimal strategy. There are too many situations where calling is correct and folding or raising are incorrect.

When I look at my stats or feel my aggression factor is slipping, I play this raise or fold method at microlimits (i.e. cash won or lost is irrelevent to BR) as an exercise to get a more aggressive frame of mind. When you do this, you begin to recognize the situations where a call would be better.

[eisanm]

I think you can play like this and be +ev, but of course it won't be possible to achieve the max +ev, since you remove an option which will sometimes be your best +ev option.

For some people though, playing a raise or fold game might even improve their EV if they have a big leak of calling too much in the wrong places.

I'm quite sure you can beat a game, but I can't say for how much, and I can't prove it. I suppose that against certain opponents this will be close to optimal and you hardly ever want to call them anyway.

[eisanm]

I would take this prop bet being the player playing rof. I'm not sure if I would be able to make it in only 4 hours, and I'm not sure I could comfortably play 2-5 NL, but apart from that, I'm sure that it can be done.

By the way, if you have good reads on your friend and reasons to believe that he cannot pull it off, then of course this bet could be +ev for you instead... it's player dependant and also the type of game/opposition will matter.

[AaronBrown]

Some years ago I wrote an article that got misquoted as recommending this strategy. While that's too extreme, I do claim that one fundamental principle of poker is that you always need a good reason to call. If you're not sure what to do, raise or fold. Raising or folding on a hunch won't kill you, it may work, and it certainly puts pressure on the other players; thoughtless calling will make you broke.

The trouble with saying "never," is there are some situations in which a call is clearly +EV. This is basically when there's little deception left. If you have 9 outs on the river, and there's no chance of inducing a fold, and there's $10,000 in the pot with $3,000 for you to call, either folding or raising is just giving money away. If a bunch of loose players are in the pot preflop, and you've got a couple of low cards, it can be worth a call; but not a raise.

So to me the question reduces to, is the EV loss from not calling when it makes sense greater or less than the advantage of a good player in an average $2/$5 no-limit game? My guess is less, so a good player would still make money, but less than she would if she was allowed to call sometime. An average player might do better by refusing to let himself call.

All players do better by enforcing the discipline of only calling with a specific good reason. Generally, if you have the best of it you raise, both to get more money in the pot and to force hard decisions on the other players. If you don't have the best of it, you fold. While folding doesn't force a hard decision on this hand, the fact that you fold a lot makes it hard for the other players to know how much to bet. Checking and calling make it easy on the other players, and put the same amount of money in the pot whether you're ahead or behind. That only makes sense in narrow circumstances.

[Reckless1der]

I actually did an experiment like this playing 6 max 1/2 limit online once. I would only raise or fold, never call. It worked remarkably well for about 30 - 40 hands, then the table went on tilt and things got crazy. I think it would work better at full ring limit after you tighten up your VPIP to the low teens.

I still believe it to be a great training aid, kind of like concentrating on one part of a golf swing while at the driving range, but I imagine it's a death wish if you try it at a NL table for any extended period of time.