A hand from my first NL session

[gregorio]

[ QUOTE ]

I dunno, obviously im pretty frustrated, but I just don't understand where some of the stuff in PNL helps, because it just seems like more than anything the examples illustrate a concept thats very helpful to think about and understand, but doesnt actually incorporate well into the real world.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Maybe PNL is suited for FR live games, but for 6-max online, so much of PNL (like the SPR that is like half the book) rarley applies. Unless you shortstack, you are almost never getting the SPR they suggest for TP or OverP hands. No way you can raise to 6BB and get 2 callers. Only time you get the small SPR ratio they like is if it is 3-bet PF, in which case I am often not liking my TPTK or overpair hand much on the flop anyway. Most of the time, you get the 13ish SPR they say is so horrible. OK, so that is a horrible SPR for AK, KK etc, but that's what you get when you raise 3-4BB PF and get one caller, and that's how the games go, so most of their advice completely misses the reality of the 6-max games online.

Anyway, sorry for the hijack.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I dunno, obviously im pretty frustrated, but I just don't understand where some of the stuff in PNL helps, because it just seems like more than anything the examples illustrate a concept thats very helpful to think about and understand, but doesnt actually incorporate well into the real world.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Maybe PNL is suited for FR live games, but for 6-max online, so much of PNL (like the SPR that is like half the book) rarley applies. Unless you shortstack, you are almost never getting the SPR they suggest for TP or OverP hands. No way you can raise to 6BB and get 2 callers. Only time you get the small SPR ratio they like is if it is 3-bet PF, in which case I am often not liking my TPTK or overpair hand much on the flop anyway. Most of the time, you get the 13ish SPR they say is so horrible. OK, so that is a horrible SPR for AK, KK etc, but that's what you get when you raise 3-4BB PF and get one caller, and that's how the games go, so most of their advice completely misses the reality of the 6-max games online.

Anyway, sorry for the hijack.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, this might explain some of it. most all of my NL play comes from live fullring.

in my games raises of 4-10xbb are common because those are the amounts i commonly raise with all kinds of holdings.

a question for you guys that dispute the PNL concepts. how much effort/time/sample size did you dedicate to altering your style? did you raise to 6xbb a couple times and it didn't work so you quit(after all, if i was in your shoes, making money with a trusted and true style before reading the book i could see the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude coming into play)? i could see this as a reason you didn't have as much success with the larger preflop raises(not that this is the only thing the book discusses, but seems to be what you guys are saying is unrealistic).

surely if you consistently used it as a strategy, people would eventually be forced to adjust by calling or maybe even just get impatient, wanting to play. i guess it's possbily some bias towards the more typical 2p2 or whatever style of play because, as i stated earlier, if you're already making money, why stop doing what you were having success with, especially if it seems as if nobody is going to give action? alot of people don't like change and/or are skeptical of new things by nature. alot of my NL play was self-taught from a limit grinder's perspective being just thrown into the fire. for that reason i was pretty open to new ideas despite developing a style that was winning money at a pretty good clip.

so OP, since you are playing live i suggest you try to raise bigger with a wider range. that would be my initial answer if you aren't getting called(live or online). true, it's impossible sometimes to get the SPRs they recommend in the book. but keep in mind that a)target SPRs are relative to your type of opponent and b)books are meant to offer direction, not the end all, be all answer to proper poker strategy.

so what i'm saying, is don't give up on PNL yet. i will defer to the online 6maxers for the time being because i'm sure there are differences in the games. but as a FR live player, my earn has increased significantly by applying these concepts. granted this could also be sample size, but my decisions seem to be so much easier than they were before. i also avoid alot of traps, have become very good at inducing bluffs/bluffraises, usually know what i'm going to do as many as 3 streets ahead of the action and better maximize value against my opponents' ranges.

sorry for hijacking, but earlier i came in and gave my thoughts and since they are heavily influenced by my experiences with playing a style that is a result of PNL i thought i would try to defend it a bit.

in a nutshell, raising pf as much as they will call is going to make your overpair hand play easier postflop. just experiment and see what amounts different opponents will call pf with various stacksizes and go from there. if you haven't read PNL i highly recommend it. even if it has flaws in the actual application of the strategy, it will get you thinking in the right way. good luck.

[Matt Flynn]

Hi James.

Part of the problem here is people are assuming we recommend planning hands around commitment for online 6-max. We recommend planning hands, but there is more to it than simple commitment and therefore more to it than SPR. E.g., you might plan to steal or to hit and play a smaller pot, or all of the above depending how how the flop comes and the betting goes.

For loose live games with 100bb stacks, using SPR to plan for commitment is the nuts, especially if you don't have good stealing skills.

Matt

[Mandor_TFL]

[ QUOTE ]
For loose live games with 100bb stacks, using SPR to plan for commitment is the nuts, especially if you don't have good stealing skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet I am not so sure about that when you get raised on the turn here. Against maniac's and gamblers I agree totally. But against a lot of live players who only play their cards and do not think about what you might have I am not sure. Against many live players a turn raise here screams obscene strength. Again assuming live player is one of the more standard passive players who prefer calling. OP lack of a read since the villain is new makes this hand very hard.


As you indicate in your book your SPR should vary dependent on the type of villain you face. Against probably the majority of live villain's I think this is a fold even if we had a favorable SPR. Again assuming villain is your average live player who as we know never raises unless they have something they think is big.

[piggity]

Lots of good discussion here, thanks everyone for contributing.

[ QUOTE ]

It's like in the hand above, putting in 1/3 of stack and then having to fold because the turn blows, definiely does suck, but isnt that better than having to stack off simply because you made it to where now you have to call??


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around this as well. I assume the larger initial bets are supposed to accomplish more than just help the commitment decision?

[fabadam]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi James.

Part of the problem here is people are assuming we recommend planning hands around commitment for online 6-max. We recommend planning hands, but there is more to it than simple commitment and therefore more to it than SPR. E.g., you might plan to steal or to hit and play a smaller pot, or all of the above depending how how the flop comes and the betting goes.

For loose live games with 100bb stacks, using SPR to plan for commitment is the nuts, especially if you don't have good stealing skills.

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm currently reading PNL, about halfway thru SPR part that seems to be the entire 2nd half of the book.
Meantime, I'm 4-tabling 50NL on-line (I never play live), mostly 6-max, with some FR but mostly on tables that start out short-handed.

The above rings true for me. My observations:
(1) A vast majority of hands, the tried SSNL style of 4BB+1/limper followed by a c-bet takes down the pot.
It may need some thinking when people peel the flop, but overall, it works. The pot control principle works well, especially if you combine it with sometimes (OOP) delaying your c-bet to the turn.
(2) On-line, nearly all pots are HU postflop, also
(3) you will meet aggression on the flop a lot, especially when it's drawy.

All in all, planning pots for commitment with goodish flops just doesn't come into play that often. I know that NL (and especially as Ed Miller seems to view it) revolves around winning the big pots, but there just are tons of 15BB ppots up there for stealing, so I don't even mind pushing it in as a 30-70 underdog some of the time.

Edit: I have to learn to type someday

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of good discussion here, thanks everyone for contributing.

[ QUOTE ]

It's like in the hand above, putting in 1/3 of stack and then having to fold because the turn blows, definiely does suck, but isnt that better than having to stack off simply because you made it to where now you have to call??


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around this as well. I assume the larger initial bets are supposed to accomplish more than just help the commitment decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

the larger pf bets do make it easier to commit postflop. they also extract more value in such a way that we are ahead more often when the money goes in.

in this hand, it's not like a flush draw just came in. as far as drawing hands(on the flop) go, we are behind 89 and that's it right? that's a very bluff-happy/semibluff-happy board. against an aggressive player we usually need to continue because we see pair/draw combos pretty freakin' often. at least often enough to get the money in here(IMO).

as far as the 1/3 our stack thing goes, as i said it's perfectly fine to get away from a hand when a horrible card comes. but i feel that really doesn't apply here because his range is weighted more towards a pair+draw(or just a draw) than a straight or set.