Concepts from NLTP (28/29) - Advises to minraise

[Black winter day]

So, i am finally finishing NLTP and i encountered 2 strange concepts, 28& 29 on pages 266/267.
Basically, what the book says is that with a strong hand (they give KK as an example) and 100BB stack (example - 1000$, 5-10NL), you should either make it like 30$ even if there were 2 limpers behind or overbet to like 120$ to cut down villains' implied odds, cause if you raise to 60-70$ you are basically telling the opponents you have a strong hand, but give them implied odds to outflop you.

They call the 30$ raise a pot builder, together with your positional advantage.

And in the next concept, they advocate to often make minraises, mostly when you have double stacks and hand that plays well in multiway pot in position, like ATs or SC.

What do you think about this stuff?
Seems pretty much the opposite of what is considere the standard preflop raising advices.
I'll pm David Sklansky with a link to this thread, would be interesting to see what he has to say.

[oyvindgee]

Most of us counters this by raising to 60-70 with small pairs and suited connectors as well. Since Sklansky wants to min raise with those he kind of creates his own problem IMO.

[jrbick]

I don't have a lot of time to respond in detail to this, but I'll say that in general this all sounds pretty bad for online 6max games.

In these games, hands that are calling $20 more are generally calling 40 more as well. This is all player dependent but w/e. However, hands that are calling 40 more are basically never calling 110 more. That sounds pretty absurd but maybe I'm missing something. If you make it 55 or so v. 2 limpers with a decently wide range of hands, you can do so w/ big hands profitably w/o revealing the strength of your hands.

Also, in general, players who are limping in 6max games don't really give much thought to the cards you have.

I'm not even going to address the minraising concept. Suffice it to say that it just isn't good (in general). You're giving up some EV postflop and it has some effects on your image that I'd just rather not have to consider.


I think you'll find that most solid players around here don't reccommend that book. Sorry Ed and David.

[silencio]

[ QUOTE ]


I think you'll find that most solid players around here don't reccommend that book. Sorry Ed and David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone have some links to review posts of this book by MSNL and HSNL regulars?

[sandman-54]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a lot of time to respond in detail to this, but I'll say that in general this all sounds pretty bad for online 6max games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finding exceptions to the concept should be a rewarding feeling, but is actually a sign of grasping the concept. To find the exception and understand why or why it does not apply requires an understanding of the concept. For you, the concept my be too elementary, but I think you understand the theory behind it.

[ QUOTE ]
In these games, hands that are calling $20 more are generally calling 40 more as well. This is all player dependent but w/e. However, hands that are calling 40 more are basically never calling 110 more. That sounds pretty absurd but maybe I'm missing something. If you make it 55 or so v. 2 limpers with a decently wide range of hands, you can do so w/ big hands profitably w/o revealing the strength of your hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play online, but your analysis seems sound. The general point that was made in concept no. 28, however, was that you shouldn't raise an amount that will give away your hand (bringing your opponent closer to correct play on later streets) and also offer your opponent the correct odds to draw.

In your case, raising a standard amount would have a greater expectation because it would keep underdogs like KJ and AT (and maybe even 97o) calling. This is worth more to you than scaring them off and trying to get hands like 55 and 32s to call you without the proper implied odds. However, in the $5-10 blind and even some of the $2-5 blind no-limit games in Las Vegas, raising to 8 times the size of the big blind from behind two limpers is not going to keep hands like KJ or AT around, and is ultimately announcing your hand, while allowing a hand like 55 to easily trap you in a now-larger pot.

[BobboFitos]

ill try to post my thoughts in a nice fashion; their concepts are borderline retarded.

i dont think DS has any exp. with SH games of today online or whatnot.

[Black winter day]

[ QUOTE ]
ill try to post my thoughts in a nice fashion; their concepts are borderline retarded.

i dont think DS has any exp. with SH games of today online or whatnot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what was all the buzz about?The NL bible etc etc...
I actually found a lot of helpful things in the book, but some of the advices there were kinda fishy and made me scratch my head.
Overall, i'd say it's still much better than the original "bible" - Supersystem.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, i'd say it's still much better than the original "bible" - Supersystem.



[/ QUOTE ]
man, i dont know. s/s is far and away the best NL strat book

[Tempest122]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ill try to post my thoughts in a nice fashion; their concepts are borderline retarded.

i dont think DS has any exp. with SH games of today online or whatnot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what was all the buzz about?The NL bible etc etc...
I actually found a lot of helpful things in the book, but some of the advices there were kinda fishy and made me scratch my head.
Overall, i'd say it's still much better than the original "bible" - Supersystem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't like NLTP much, the stuff that I agreed with wasnt grounbreaking and I didnt find alot of the advice given to be very good. I thought the supersytem NL section to be pretty useful.

[Black winter day]

So, to sum it up, you all agree that those concepts that i quoted are erroneous for MSNL shorthanded games?