2x bring-in
David Nicoson
One of the most common mistakes in No-Limit Hold 'em is coming in for a
raise that's too big. In early position, you want to keep your raises
at about two times the big blind. With four to six players to act
behind you when you're in middle position, raise to about two and a
half big blinds, and raise to about three times the big blind from late
position.
If you're representing a big hand by raising from early position, it
stands to reason that you'll only get played with by huge hands. Why
risk four, five or more bets to win only one and a half bets in the
blinds when you're often going to be running into monsters along the
way? If you're holding A-Q rather than A-A and a player comes over the
top, you can lay it down without having risked much.
http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/proLessons.php?lesson=20
Agree or Disagree? Please discuss.
garycarson
It's probably worth paying attention to pretty much anything Ferguson
says about bet size, he's one of the few who've actually done research
on the subject.
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
tling
On Oct 13 2005 10:59 PM, garycarson wrote:
> It's a good article.
>
> It's probably worth paying attention to pretty much anything Ferguson
> says about bet size, he's one of the few who've actually done research
> on the subject.
>
> Gary Carson
>
>
> David Nicoson wrote:
> > Chris Ferguson writes at FullTilt:
> >
> > One of the most common mistakes in No-Limit Hold 'em is coming in for a
> > raise that's too big. In early position, you want to keep your raises
> > at about two times the big blind. With four to six players to act
> > behind you when you're in middle position, raise to about two and a
> > half big blinds, and raise to about three times the big blind from late
> > position.
> >
> > If you're representing a big hand by raising from early position, it
> > stands to reason that you'll only get played with by huge hands. Why
> > risk four, five or more bets to win only one and a half bets in the
> > blinds when you're often going to be running into monsters along the
> > way? If you're holding A-Q rather than A-A and a player comes over the
> > top, you can lay it down without having risked much.
> >
> > http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/proLessons.php?lesson=20
> >
> > Agree or Disagree? Please discuss.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
FellKnight
> wait, so he's condoning the min raise from e.p.? eww
No... hes talking about raising 2x (= 3x total).
Fell
--
Visit http://www.fellknight.com for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
(STILL IN BETA MODE)
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
David Nicoson
> No... hes talking about raising 2x (= 3x total).
>
> Fell
Hmm, I don't read it that way. For late position he says raise *to* 3x
the big blind. That would make it the same as the EP raise, and it's
clear from the discussion that he advocates raising less from EP.
Jeff burns
On Oct 13 2005 8:18 PM, FellKnight wrote:
> On Oct 13 2005 8:09 PM, tling wrote:
>
> > wait, so he's condoning the min raise from e.p.? eww
>
> No... hes talking about raising 2x (= 3x total).
>
> Fell
> --
> Visit <a href="http://www.fellknight.com" target="_blank">http://www.fellknight.com</a> for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
> (STILL IN BETA MODE)
fell he is saying double the BB 2x means 2 times the BBor double the BB the way
he is saying it.
John Forsberg
On Oct 14 2005 5:18 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> On Oct 13 2005 8:09 PM, tling wrote:
>
> > wait, so he's condoning the min raise from e.p.? eww
>
> No... hes talking about raising 2x (= 3x total).
No he's not. It's actually pretty common to see good players min-raising from
early position.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Nick Wool
On Oct 14 2005 5:57 AM, John Forsberg wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 14 2005 5:18 AM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13 2005 8:09 PM, tling wrote:
> >
> > > wait, so he's condoning the min raise from e.p.? eww
> >
> > No... hes talking about raising 2x (= 3x total).
>
> No he's not. It's actually pretty common to see good players min-raising from
> early position.
>
Hmm...not arguing with top player's play, they can get away from a hand when
they sense they are beat, but probably not a good idea for the majority of
players here.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
FellKnight
> On Oct 13 2005 8:18 PM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13 2005 8:09 PM, tling wrote:
> >
> > > wait, so he's condoning the min raise from e.p.? eww
> >
> > No... hes talking about raising 2x (= 3x total).
> >
> > Fell
>
> fell he is saying double the BB 2x means 2 times the BBor double the BB the
way
> he is saying it.
I dunno I read it twice and it still looks like 3x to me, but I'm tired so
maybe I'm all f00ked :)
Fell
--
Visit http://www.fellknight.com for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
(STILL IN BETA MODE)
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
John Forsberg
On Oct 14 2005 7:12 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
> Hmm...not arguing with top player's play, they can get away from a hand when
> they sense they are beat, but probably not a good idea for the majority of
> players here.
Should I infer That you think it's easier to get away from a huge pot than a
small one?
Nick Wool
On Oct 14 2005 6:22 AM, John Forsberg wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 14 2005 7:12 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > Hmm...not arguing with top player's play, they can get away from a hand when
> > they sense they are beat, but probably not a good idea for the majority of
> > players here.
>
> Should I infer That you think it's easier to get away from a huge pot than a
> small one?
>
You infer whatever you want to infer, it is your brain...but most players I've
seen can easily get married to their 'big' hands, TPTK with AK/AQ, unimproved
big pairs etc, even when they enounter stiff resistance. These players really
do need to thin the field with a resonable raise, otherwise they are inviting
players to take a lot of their chips on the cheap.
I suppose top players are not so married to their 'big' hands, and can make big
laydowns eaiser, so they dont need to thin the field as much.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
pokerAddict
He's clearly advocating a minimum raise in EP.
Isn't the BB supposed to call a min. raise with any reasonable hand? If so,
that means the EP min raise isn't going to get everyone to fold. If it's later
in the tournament where there's antes then the BB is definitely going to have
the pot odds to call with a lot of hands. And if anyone besides the blinds call
that wimpy raise, they'll have position on the EP raiser and the blinds. So I
don't like the play.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
John Forsberg
> You infer whatever you want to infer, it is your brain...but most players
> I've
> seen can easily get married to their 'big' hands, TPTK with AK/AQ, unimproved
> big pairs etc, even when they enounter stiff resistance.
Well, they suck. They should stop doing that before they start worrying about
the intricacies of proper bet-sizing pre-flop.
> These players really
> do need to thin the field with a resonable raise, otherwise they are inviting
> players to take a lot of their chips on the cheap.
If they are that bad they need to quit the game. And I'm still not convinced
that it's better for them to raise big.
Raising big means that they combine being too tenacious post-flop with a narrow
hand range pre-flop (because it's more expensive they can't play stuff like 55
or 78s) which well might make them a juicier target than if they raised small
with a lot of hands.
John Forsberg
On Oct 14 2005 7:44 AM, pokerAddict wrote:
> Isn't the BB supposed to call a min. raise with any reasonable hand?
That's true by definition. But that doesn't mean the bb should call with a lot
of hands against an early position min-raise. For one he's got negative implied
odds coming out of his ass if he plays a h2h-pot out of position against a
strong hand range.
> that wimpy raise, they'll have position on the EP raiser and the blinds. So I
> don't like the play.
If you stand of the other side of an issue and one of the most brightest, most
well-researched poker players in the world is on the other you may want to
re-think your position.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Flushed
you need to increase to a size that does.
"pokerAddict" <benf...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1129268696$639...@recpoker.com...
pokerAddict
On Oct 14 2005 12:53 AM, John Forsberg wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 14 2005 7:44 AM, pokerAddict wrote:
>
> > Isn't the BB supposed to call a min. raise with any reasonable hand?
>
> That's true by definition. But that doesn't mean the bb should call with a lot
> of hands against an early position min-raise. For one he's got negative
> implied
> odds coming out of his ass if he plays a h2h-pot out of position against a
> strong hand range.
>
> > that wimpy raise, they'll have position on the EP raiser and the blinds. So
> > I
> > don't like the play.
>
> If you stand of the other side of an issue and one of the most brightest, most
> well-researched poker players in the world is on the other you may want to
> re-think your position.
>
Maybe. But I'd assume that's a play that would work with pros and not with
amateurs. A pro is gonna go "oh-oh. He's not min raising from EP without AA KK
or AKs, maybe QQ. Meanwhile, I"ve got T-Js (or TT or JJ maybe) and I'm behind.
I'm gonna fold even though I'm the BB cuz my BB isn't really mine anymore, it's
in the pot. He's got position on me. I'll find a better spot." While an
amateur is more likely to go, "I need to defend my big blind even though I've
got Axs (or 67s or maybe any two cards?). Also, an amateur not in the blinds is
less likely to understand the meaning of a min. raise from EP and you will
probably see more than one non-blinds caller.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
garycarson
waving your arms in the air trying to catch that windmill.
The exact amount of the raise isn't really all that important. Chris
has written before that you should generally not vary your raise based
soley on hand strength and that most of the time an optimal bet size is
maybe a little more than half the pot. A pot size bringin is about 4
times the big blind.
Those recommendations are game theory recommendations, not optimally
exploitive. If you know players will call allin bets with any two
cards, then of course make an allin bet whenever you get AA. His advice
in this article is along the same lines. If the only information you
have is your cards and your position, then his advice is important.
On average you should probanly be raising about 1/2 the pot, maybe a
little more than that on average, but you should make smaller than
average raises from the front because it's more dangagous with mediocre
hands up front, and you don't want to scare them off if you have a
monster. If such a raise with AQ will intice players with TT to fold
and players with 67 to call (which is what you seem to be suggesting)
then that's a pretty damn good outcome.
>From the back go ahead and make bigger raises (closer to pot size)
because it's not as dangerous.
An example of a really, really stupid raise is Danny's 10k bluff raise
into a $35 pot with players still behind him. He's laying a hell of a
price hoping nobody behind him wakes up with AA and that neither of the
limpers is slowplaying. It's a stupid raise, that most of the time
will win the blinds. Danny thinks it was a good raise because it won
the blinds. But, Danny is an idiot. Chris is not. Pay attention to
Chris.
Gary Carson
q
pokerAddict
> > Your Online Poker Community - /
I'm suggesting that pros will fold even with almost-premium hands while amateurs
will still call with random hands. Therefore, on the flop with amateurs and an
EP raise, you will not have as much information about their holdings as you
would against a pro. If a player wants to stay on 67 or 35 or whatever and I've
got AA, yes I want that, but I also want to know if there's a chance I'm up
against a straight or two pair if the flop is a harmless-looking 467. By
raising to 3x or 4x the BB I'm more likely to get amateurs with 67 or 35 to fold
while a min raise is probably enough to get a pro to fold. Raises are to
generate info and folds. you'll get both with pros but neither with amateurs.
Also, as an amateur, I don't respect my own ability to get away from AA on a
flop of 467 or similar. I'm making a continuation bet on the flop and if I'm
raised I'm probably re-raising rather than folding and then I'm feeling
pot-committed when he pushes with the nuts.
Nick Wool
I think I must be missing something here. Far from it for me to argue with
someone like as good as Carson....here I must ask what the purpose is for
raising? If it is purely to sweeten the pot when you have a strong hand, then
yes, 2BB is fine when you are playing something as good as the top pros. But
surely top pros must also be looking to crack big hands on the cheap?
Say another pro is at the table with you, sitting in LP/button with baby pairs
(or even TT) or suited connectors in a deep stack game, facing a 2BB preflop
raise from another pro from UTG, are you seriously telling me that they would
fold everytime? Might they not be tempted to look at the flop at a relatively
cheap price? So what has your 2 BB raise achieved? You are telling them you
might have a strong preflop hand, anything from Ace painted to big pairs, but
the min raise has not told you anything about their hand, plus they have
position on you. Added to the fact that the BB will now be justified in calling
with any 2 cards for the odds here, surely a recipe for disaster? And yet
Carson tells us that this is good?
I am merely asking this for clarification, but flame away if you must, because I
have now questioned post made by top players.
I haven't read the original article by Chris Ferguson, but maybe the 2BB
bring-in came with warnings?
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Nick Wool
On Oct 14 2005 6:50 AM, John Forsberg wrote:
> On Oct 14 2005 7:29 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > You infer whatever you want to infer, it is your brain...but most players
> > I've
> > seen can easily get married to their 'big' hands, TPTK with AK/AQ,
> > unimproved
> > big pairs etc, even when they enounter stiff resistance.
>
> Well, they suck. They should stop doing that before they start worrying about
> the intricacies of proper bet-sizing pre-flop.
OK...take it a step at a time. Now I almost certainly do suck, when compared to
the top players. I have no illusions on that score. But are we not told by
numerous books and articles by top players that the purposes of preflop
raises are to define your opponents' hands better, plus to thin the field? I
fail to see how a min raise can do that. Maybe on a table full of pros, but
even then I would doubt that, as you are giving away them both position and
*some* information by your small raise (ie., you possibily have a strong preflop
hand), but because it is still relatively cheap to see the flop, you have no
idea what they are calling with. Have I missed something here?
> > These players really
> > do need to thin the field with a resonable raise, otherwise they are
> > inviting
> > players to take a lot of their chips on the cheap.
>
> If they are that bad they need to quit the game. And I'm still not convinced
> that it's better for them to raise big.
No, we need all the bad players we can find. You might be able to win from the
top players, but players like myself depend on the bad players. And if I might
say so, players like you need players like me. We feed from the worst players,
and in turn are food to the better players, which in turn feed players like
you. I think you'll find that if any part of food chain breaks down, you'll
certainly suffer a lot more than recreational players like myself. So get off
your high horse.
> Raising big means that they combine being too tenacious post-flop with a
> narrow
> hand range pre-flop (because it's more expensive they can't play stuff like 55
> or 78s) which well might make them a juicier target than if they raised small
> with a lot of hands.
>
So its ok to min raise with 55 or 78, but 3BB would be too expensive? Why?
ML
field but being miserable at teaching it. An expert at something does
NOT necessarily make an expert at teaching it.
This is either bad advice or bad communication.
Regards,
ML
Matt Ruff
>
> I haven't read the original article by Chris Ferguson, but maybe the 2BB
> bring-in came with warnings?
Here's the link again:
http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/proLessons.php?lesson=20
-- M. Ruff
Liam Too
> OK...take it a step at a time. Now I almost certainly do suck, when compared to
> the top players. I have no illusions on that score. But are we not told by
> numerous books and articles by top players that the purposes of preflop
> raises are to define your opponents' hands better, plus to thin the field? I
> fail to see how a min raise can do that. Maybe on a table full of pros, but
> even then I would doubt that, as you are giving away them both position and
> *some* information by your small raise (ie., you possibily have a strong preflop
> hand), but because it is still relatively cheap to see the flop, you have no
> idea what they are calling with. Have I missed something here?
You are missing a lot. I've been advocating min raise in EP and I've
been telling also that raising 4BB will not scare away AK or better.
Now, by raising 2BB you save a lot of money (like another 2BB) if
someone in LP re-raised, because you need to fold your AQ in this
instance. You just know that the raiser has AK or better, if not, then
you need to re-evaluate your play.
Do you get it now, min raise in EP is a way to save money and not to
thin out the field.
Michael Sullivan
> might have a strong preflop hand, anything from Ace painted to big
> pairs, but the min raise has not told you anything about their hand, plus
> they have position on you. Added to the fact that the BB will now be
> justified in calling with any 2 cards for the odds here, surely a recipe
> for disaster? And yet Carson tells us that this is good?
You can't combine coming in for a small raise with never playing
anything but premium hands. In general, against optimal competition,
the more you raise when you raise, the better a hand you must have to do
it. So the more you raise, the tighter your preflop range has to be.
But when the stacks are *deep*, having too tight a preflop range makes
you very exploitable post-flop. If the stacks are deep enough, how much
you raise almost doesn't matter -- to keep from being exploited, you'd
have to raise so much that you mostly just pick up the blinds, and once
in a blue moon get reraised a pile AA or KK only, and the risk/reward
pattern is such that you earn very little or even lose.
So the idea is that you raise small, but play more hands than the
traditional ABC crowd would have you play from EP.
So the day comes when they put you on AK and try to bluff you off with
nothing, but oops, this time you're playing 109s and have top pair plus
a flush draw.
I think you still have a confusion about optimal vs. exploitive play.
What you do when you know your opponents are making certain known
mistakes might get you slaughtered against opponents playing optimally.
But it's more profitable when you are correct about their tendencies.
Optimal play is about what you do when you don't know your opponent's
tendencies. The good thing is that it should be a winner against all
but the strongest opponents, so it's a good *default* strategy and well
worth thinking about.
Michael
Nick Wool
LMAO....So the purpose of the min raise is to save money...good point!!!! Why
just limp in and fold to any raised, you'll save even more money. No, wait!
Fold in the first place...you'll now save even more money!
Nick Wool
On Oct 14 2005 4:32 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> Nick Wool <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> > might have a strong preflop hand, anything from Ace painted to big
> > pairs, but the min raise has not told you anything about their hand, plus
> > they have position on you. Added to the fact that the BB will now be
> > justified in calling with any 2 cards for the odds here, surely a recipe
> > for disaster? And yet Carson tells us that this is good?
>
> You can't combine coming in for a small raise with never playing
> anything but premium hands. In general, against optimal competition,
> the more you raise when you raise, the better a hand you must have to do
> it. So the more you raise, the tighter your preflop range has to be.
That might be how you play it...most advice I read/heard say you either stock to
the same size roase whatever hand you hold, or you randomised your raises.
> But when the stacks are *deep*, having too tight a preflop range makes
> you very exploitable post-flop. If the stacks are deep enough, how much
> you raise almost doesn't matter -- to keep from being exploited, you'd
> have to raise so much that you mostly just pick up the blinds, and once
> in a blue moon get reraised a pile AA or KK only, and the risk/reward
> pattern is such that you earn very little or even lose.
Did I say that you must only raise with certain big hands? All I said was that
you have no information at all if your min raise was called. I had always
thought that a raise was there to help you to define hands....a min raise is not
very helpful to say the least.
> So the idea is that you raise small, but play more hands than the
> traditional ABC crowd would have you play from EP.
And by the same token, because your raise are small, people will be calling with
a much wider range of hands.
> So the day comes when they put you on AK and try to bluff you off with
> nothing, but oops, this time you're playing 109s and have top pair plus
> a flush draw.
And the day will come that you have AA, on a flop 27K, losing 27 in the blinds,
or K7 at button.
> I think you still have a confusion about optimal vs. exploitive play.
> What you do when you know your opponents are making certain known
> mistakes might get you slaughtered against opponents playing optimally.
> But it's more profitable when you are correct about their tendencies.
> Optimal play is about what you do when you don't know your opponent's
> tendencies. The good thing is that it should be a winner against all
> but the strongest opponents, so it's a good *default* strategy and well
> worth thinking about.
>
No, I think you pretend to be an authourity on game theory. You might think
that min raises are Optimal play, the trick howver, is to prove it. As far as I
can see, CF havent lay open his research for us to make a decision.
If the same advice was posted by an unknown guy, you'd see the flame from a mile
off. Instead, here we have either silence or people sprouting fancy terms in
defence. You ever heard of the term 'false positive'?
> Michael
Raider Fan
> >
>
> No, I think you pretend to be an authourity on game theory. You might think
> that min raises are Optimal play, the trick howver, is to prove it. As far
as I
> can see, CF havent lay open his research for us to make a decision.
>
> If the same advice was posted by an unknown guy, you'd see the flame from a
mile
> off. Instead, here we have either silence or people sprouting fancy terms in
> defence. You ever heard of the term 'false positive'?
>
Hey Nick, do you by any chance live in Cincinnati?
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Nick Wool
Thanks for the link...I have no doubt that CF is a great player, but has he ever
played with 'real' people before? If so, this cannot msake sense.
'If you're representing a big hand by raising from early position, it stands to
reason that you'll only get played with by huge hands. '
My experince is that at our sort of level, you are more likely to get a line of
people waiting to crack your big hand with 67/22/55/Kx suited/Ax suited if you
only min raise. And by raise so little, you have no idea what they are calling
with.
Liam Too
Nick Wool wrote:
> LMAO....So the purpose of the min raise is to save money...good point!!!! Why
> just limp in and fold to any raised, you'll save even more money. No, wait!
> Fold in the first place...you'll now save even more money!
Keyword: EP
Read Ferguson's article again, he's talking about play in early
position, nothing more. You're talking about play in all positions or
the whole poker in general.
garycarson
Nick Wool wrote:
> > I think you still have a confusion about optimal vs. exploitive play.
> > What you do when you know your opponents are making certain known
> > mistakes might get you slaughtered against opponents playing optimally.
> > But it's more profitable when you are correct about their tendencies.
> > Optimal play is about what you do when you don't know your opponent's
> > tendencies. The good thing is that it should be a winner against all
> > but the strongest opponents, so it's a good *default* strategy and well
> > worth thinking about.
> >
>
> No, I think you pretend to be an authourity on game theory. You might think
> that min raises are Optimal play, the trick howver, is to prove it. As far as I
> can see, CF havent lay open his research for us to make a decision.
You havn't looked very hard.
He's published some of his work in the academic lit. I've downloaded a
couple of his papers off the web. Since, Chris doesn't have any
academic affiliation, all of his published stuff that I'm aware of is
co-authored with his dad. I've posted links before, I'm not going to
look it up again just for you.
Some of the research on bet sizes isn't his original work, some of it
goes back a couple of decades. Visit a library sometime.
>
> If the same advice was posted by an unknown guy, you'd see the flame from a mile
> off. Instead, here we have either silence or people sprouting fancy terms in
> defence. You ever heard of the term 'false positive'?
We aren't talking about experimental research, you dumb fuck.
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
DennisP
Nick Wool wrote:
>
> Thanks for the link...I have no doubt that CF is a great player, but has he ever
> played with 'real' people before? If so, this cannot msake sense.
Who do you think Chris continues to beat to get to all his final tables?
David Nicoson
> My experince is that at our sort of level, you are more likely to get a line of
> people waiting to crack your big hand with 67/22/55/Kx suited/Ax suited if you
> only min raise. And by raise so little, you have no idea what they are calling
> with.
In practice, this is my experience in live games. It does perhaps
indicate the impatience of the players in our games. Frankly, if I
min-raised UTG in my Monday night game, people would look at me and
literally laugh. Someone would probably min-re-raise blind, just for
comedic value. Given that people will call 5x bring-ins with lots of
hands, I believe 5x is more optimal for that game.
John Forsberg
On Oct 14 2005 3:12 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> OK...take it a step at a time. Now I almost certainly do suck, when compared
> to
> the top players. I have no illusions on that score.
I didn't say you suck. I said that people who find TP, two pair and the like to
be a tough laydown in a multi-way pots suck.
> But are we not told by
> numerous books and articles by top players that the purposes of preflop
> raises are to define your opponents' hands better, plus to thin the field?
Yes, that's some of the purpose.
> I
> fail to see how a min raise can do that. Maybe on a table full of pros, but
> even then I would doubt that, as you are giving away them both position and
> *some* information by your small raise (ie., you possibily have a strong
> preflop
> hand), but because it is still relatively cheap to see the flop, you have no
> idea what they are calling with. Have I missed something here?
Yes, you make money even if they call and you can do it with more hands than if
you raise big. If you think you can get away with raising bigger go for it, but
you are gambling that your opponents won't be able to exploit it. Raising
smaller is *harder* to take advantage of than raising big, which is why Ferguson
advocates it. The reason I think it's harder to take advantage of isn't because
of any superior knowledge of mine but it's something I've observed good players
with an un-exploitative aiming approach to the game do.
Note that a simple way to take advantage of a tight player who raises big is to
simply fold and the you exploit him by not allowing him to get the value he
should have gotten on his good hands.
> No, we need all the bad players we can find. You might be able to win from
> the
> top players,
I was speaking from their perspective, which I thought that you did as well. I'd
get my ass handed to me by the top players.
>but players like myself depend on the bad players. And if I
> might
> say so, players like you need players like me.
Somewhere in this conversation you appear to have made some strong judgement
about my skill. I think you shouldn't do that since there definitely aren't
enough data in my posts to tell whether I suck or am super-good (actually there
probably are enough data to conclude that possibly couldn't be true). Fwiw I
certainly don't share that kind of high opinion about my ability.
> So its ok to min raise with 55 or 78, but 3BB would be too expensive? Why?
I was making the point that a smaller raise allows you to have a wider hand
range, the specific hands are merely possible examples.
To make it a little bit clearer:
What hand range could you profitably open-raise to 100bb from UTG?
Obviously the answer is AA and my contention is that the profitable hand range
keeps expanding all the way down to 2.
If you want specifics you could try asking a game theory geek but I strongly
doubt they'd be willing to share their hard work without good reason.
John Forsberg
On Oct 14 2005 6:59 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> No, I think you pretend to be an authourity on game theory.
I think you're reading Sullivan in a much different light than he's writing.
> can see, CF havent lay open his research for us to make a decision.
I doubt that will happen anytime soon, since his work is based on difficult
research and actually is fairly valueble information (as opposed to pretty much
anything in print and the vast majority of the advice on this and other groups).
Doing high-level work and giving it away for free to his opponents would be so
not in his best interest.
> If the same advice was posted by an unknown guy, you'd see the flame from a
> mile
> off. Instead, here we have either silence or people sprouting fancy terms in
> defence. You ever heard of the term 'false positive'?
But evaluting strategy advice based on who wrote it is a perfectly valid
approach. If you know that CF is very smary and good at what he does you should
consider his strategy to likely be correct even if you have no clue as to how he
arrived at it.
John Forsberg
On Oct 14 2005 9:35 PM, John Forsberg wrote:
> I doubt that will happen anytime soon, since his work is based on difficult
> research and actually is fairly valueble information (as opposed to pretty
> much
> anything in print and the vast majority of the advice on this and other
> groups).
> Doing high-level work and giving it away for free to his opponents would be so
> not in his best interest.
Don't I look like a twit?
Peg Smith
wrote:
It's apparent that Nick doesn't have a clue who Chris Ferguson is.
Peg
XaQ Morphy
>
Peg, I fixed your post for you.
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
Nick Wool
On Oct 14 2005 8:47 PM, Peg Smith wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2005 11:05:25 -0700, "DennisP"
> wrote:
>
> >Nick Wool wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for the link...I have no doubt that CF is a great player, but has he
> >> ever
> >> played with 'real' people before? If so, this cannot msake sense.
> >
> >Who do you think Chris continues to beat to get to all his final tables?
>
> It's apparent that Nick doesn't have a clue who Chris Ferguson is.
>
> Peg
LOL..I have no idea who Peg is, that much is true. 'Real' people', not just top
pros. He is giving advice to us lesser mortals, and if we were to min raise
coming in from EP, we most likely would be slaughtered everytime.
Nick Wool
LOL...Yes, I am a dumb fuck, certainly compared to you and Jesus when it comes
to poker ability, but you should at least first.look up the definition of 'false
positive'.
Nick Wool
No, you would save more money in EP by limping, or even more by just folding.
If saving money is your only concern.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Nick Wool
On Oct 14 2005 8:39 PM, John Forsberg wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 14 2005 9:35 PM, John Forsberg wrote:
>
> > I doubt that will happen anytime soon, since his work is based on difficult
> > research and actually is fairly valueble information (as opposed to pretty
> > much
> > anything in print and the vast majority of the advice on this and other
> > groups).
> > Doing high-level work and giving it away for free to his opponents would be
> > so
> > not in his best interest.
>
> Heh. http://tinyurl.com/8vxnx
>
> Don't I look like a twit?
>
No, that title is mine for daring to question a top player's advice at what I
think would be bad play at my sort of level.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Liam Too
> No, you would save more money in EP by limping, or even more by just folding.
> If saving money is your only concern.
"Why risk four, five or more bets to win only one and a half bets in
the
blinds when you're often going to be running into monsters along the
way? If you're holding A-Q rather than A-A and a player comes over the
top, you can lay it down without having risked much."--Chris Ferguson
The above says it all.
Dwight Abbott
Yeah, where are all the people that flame even the idea of a min raise. You see
it so often here in RGP. I would say the majority detest min raises. Where are
you all? Weigh in. Is Ferguson right or wrong? This whole thread blows me
away as Nick says, since a min raise has been endorsed by Ferguson and Carson,
suddenly it's ok. If it was anyone else, he would have been flamed to death.
Dwight
> > Michael
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Nick Wool
Does it? so are you going to vary your raise with your holdings? And according
to the above, it implies that the ONLY purpose of a raise to steal the blinds.
Is that correct?
I had thought a preflop raise from EP was for a varity of reasons, defining
hands better, sweetening the pot, and yes, steal the blinds if no one else has a
hand.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
FellKnight
> Yeah, where are all the people that flame even the idea of a min raise. You
see
> it so often here in RGP. I would say the majority detest min raises. Where
are
> you all? Weigh in. Is Ferguson right or wrong? This whole thread blows me
> away as Nick says, since a min raise has been endorsed by Ferguson and
Carson,
> suddenly it's ok. If it was anyone else, he would have been flamed to death.
>
> Dwight
I do think Ferguson is flat wrong, with the exception of late in a tourney
(to be explained later). NLHE is a game of implied odds. Tournaments are
about winning pots uncontested. Minimum raises (UTG or otherwise) do not
accomplish those goals. Furthermore, such raises invite people behind you
to see a relatively cheap flop, with position, *and* implied odds on their
side.
This does not apply as much late in a tourney, when the stacks are shallow
enough that implied odds are almost non-existant anyway. People will fold
to a minimum raise, because each BB has great value, and has the added
benefit of losing you less chips when you have to lay down your hand to a
big re-raise. In late rounds, where the average stack is 5-15 M, the
minimum raise is ok from early position IMO.
Fell
--
Visit http://www.fellknight.com for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
(STILL IN BETA MODE)
________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Dwight Abbott
In the past many respected posters have basically pooh poohed the min raise.
Saying things like..
"A min raise especially with a good hand, invites more limpers thus making it
very hard to battle all of them post flop. A lot of people will laugh at a min
raise and limp right on in. Now when the flop comes, there is a bigger pot
(because of the many limpers) and it will probably be worth drawing to. If you
min raised with a good hand, you may flop something like top pair and then be
stuck trying to defend it against multiple draws."
I guess on the other hand, if you have the better hand preflop you want as many
callers as possible in order to maximize your return. Also, the min raise helps
define your hand preflop and makes a continuation bet more credible. And CF is
saying min raise from early postiion as it allows you to lose less if someone
behind you with a better hand enters the fray.
This is all very confusing to me.
So all you naysayers of the min raise. Where are you? Why is a min raise so
bad?
Dwight
On Oct 13 2005 7:27 PM, David Nicoson wrote:
> Chris Ferguson writes at FullTilt:
>
> One of the most common mistakes in No-Limit Hold 'em is coming in for a
> raise that's too big. In early position, you want to keep your raises
> at about two times the big blind. With four to six players to act
> behind you when you're in middle position, raise to about two and a
> half big blinds, and raise to about three times the big blind from late
> position.
>
> If you're representing a big hand by raising from early position, it
> stands to reason that you'll only get played with by huge hands. Why
> risk four, five or more bets to win only one and a half bets in the
> blinds when you're often going to be running into monsters along the
> way? If you're holding A-Q rather than A-A and a player comes over the
> top, you can lay it down without having risked much.
>
> <a href="http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/proLessons.php?lesson=20" target="_blank">http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/proLessons.php?lesson=20</a>
>
> Agree or Disagree? Please discuss.
Dwight Abbott
On Oct 14 2005 3:24 PM, FellKnight wrote:
> On Oct 14 2005 3:06 PM, Dwight Abbott wrote:
>
>
> > Yeah, where are all the people that flame even the idea of a min raise. You
> see
> > it so often here in RGP. I would say the majority detest min raises. Where
> are
> > you all? Weigh in. Is Ferguson right or wrong? This whole thread blows me
> > away as Nick says, since a min raise has been endorsed by Ferguson and
> Carson,
> > suddenly it's ok. If it was anyone else, he would have been flamed to
> > death.
> >
> > Dwight
>
> I do think Ferguson is flat wrong, with the exception of late in a tourney
> (to be explained later). NLHE is a game of implied odds. Tournaments are
> about winning pots uncontested. Minimum raises (UTG or otherwise) do not
> accomplish those goals. Furthermore, such raises invite people behind you
> to see a relatively cheap flop, with position, *and* implied odds on their
> side.
>
> This does not apply as much late in a tourney, when the stacks are shallow
> enough that implied odds are almost non-existant anyway. People will fold
> to a minimum raise, because each BB has great value, and has the added
> benefit of losing you less chips when you have to lay down your hand to a
> big re-raise. In late rounds, where the average stack is 5-15 M, the
> minimum raise is ok from early position IMO.
>
How about a cash game? Is the min raise ever ok there?
> Fell
> --
> Visit <a href="http://www.fellknight.com" target="_blank">http://www.fellknight.com</a> for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
> (STILL IN BETA MODE)
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
willre...@yahoo.com
> It's a good article.
>
> It's probably worth paying attention to pretty much anything Ferguson
> says about bet size, he's one of the few who've actually done research
> on the subject.
>
> Gary Carson
> www.garycarson.com
He's talking in the context of never open-limping, even from early
position. So you would be raising with a fairly wide variety of hands
and you would want to minimize your commitment to the hand, in case you
have to lay it down to a re-raise. Since he is opposed to varying your
raise by how good your hand is, I think his logic is clearly correct
that small raises are the way to go.
Well, recently I stopped open-limping in most stages of NLHE
tournaments and I have found smallish raises fairly useful but the
double-the-blind raise in the early part of a tournament always seemed
flawed in one respect. For instance, when the blinds are 25-25 and most
players have about the same 5K they started with (act III at Foxwoods
but lots of similar tournaments around) can a raise to fifty really put
pressure on anyone? I think it makes more sense to make ones EP raise a
raise to 75 and save the double-the-blind raise for a bit later in the
tourney. Maybe raise the 25-50 to 125 and the 75-150 to 300, going to
the double-the-blind raise when it is a little more telling. When the
stacks are somewhat smaller, I could see starting out with the min
raise.
Shortly thereafter, at 150-300, you get a twenty-five buck ante and his
advice vis. a vis. antes seems very sound.
I agree with him but make small adjustments upward when the blinds are
low in comparison to the stacks.
Will in New Haven
--
"I woke up Sunday morning with no way to hold my head that didn't
hurt
And the beer I had for breakfast wasn't bad so I had one more for
desert.
Then I fumbled through my closet for my clothes
And found my cleanest dirty shirt
And I washed my face and combed my hair and stumbled down the stairs to
meet the day."
Kris Kristofferson "Sunday Morning Coming Down"
>
> David Nicoson wrote:
> > Chris Ferguson writes at FullTilt:
> >
> > One of the most common mistakes in No-Limit Hold 'em is coming in for a
> > raise that's too big. In early position, you want to keep your raises
> > at about two times the big blind. With four to six players to act
> > behind you when you're in middle position, raise to about two and a
> > half big blinds, and raise to about three times the big blind from late
> > position.
> >
> > If you're representing a big hand by raising from early position, it
> > stands to reason that you'll only get played with by huge hands. Why
> > risk four, five or more bets to win only one and a half bets in the
> > blinds when you're often going to be running into monsters along the
> > way? If you're holding A-Q rather than A-A and a player comes over the
> > top, you can lay it down without having risked much.
> >
> > http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/proLessons.php?lesson=20
Dwight Abbott
On Oct 14 2005 5:01 PM, willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> garycarson wrote:
> > It's a good article.
> >
> > It's probably worth paying attention to pretty much anything Ferguson
> > says about bet size, he's one of the few who've actually done research
> > on the subject.
> >
> > Gary Carson
> > http://www.garycarson.com/
>
> He's talking in the context of never open-limping, even from early
> position. So you would be raising with a fairly wide variety of hands
> and you would want to minimize your commitment to the hand, in case you
> have to lay it down to a re-raise. Since he is opposed to varying your
> raise by how good your hand is, I think his logic is clearly correct
> that small raises are the way to go.
>
> Well, recently I stopped open-limping in most stages of NLHE
> tournaments and I have found smallish raises fairly useful but the
> double-the-blind raise in the early part of a tournament always seemed
> flawed in one respect. For instance, when the blinds are 25-25 and most
> players have about the same 5K they started with (act III at Foxwoods
> but lots of similar tournaments around) can a raise to fifty really put
> pressure on anyone? I think it makes more sense to make ones EP raise a
> raise to 75 and save the double-the-blind raise for a bit later in the
> tourney. Maybe raise the 25-50 to 125 and the 75-150 to 300, going to
> the double-the-blind raise when it is a little more telling. When the
> stacks are somewhat smaller, I could see starting out with the min
> raise.
>
> Shortly thereafter, at 150-300, you get a twenty-five buck ante and his
> advice vis. a vis. antes seems very sound.
>
> I agree with him but make small adjustments upward when the blinds are
> low in comparison to the stacks.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
What about min raises when opening a pot from EP in a cash game? At the $25
tables I play, it seems that 50 cents isn't going to stop anyone from limping.
So you are really pushing very few people out with a 2X BB raise.
With the min raise the things I can think of that you accomplish is:
1. Building a bigger pot than a limp call (which is good if you're raising with
a premium hand to start)
2. Gaining credibility for the continuation bet post flop when the flop missed
you but you want to represent that it hit you.
3. Cutting your losses if a monster hand enters the pot.
The main downsides of the min raise that I can think of
1. It encourages limpers and doesn't thin the field like you might want to do
with a medium strength or speculative opening hand.
2. No single person has much invested in the pot and the pots probably start
out smaller, so if the flop hits you hard, you may not have anyone pot committed
enough to pay you off.
3. The min raise can indicate weakness which may be good or bad depending on
your hand, opponents etc.
4. It's less likely to steal the blinds/pot preflop with a min raise.
That's about all I can come up with right now.
So, I'm still confused because of the heavy opposition I've seen to min raises
on this forum, but think I'm going to give the thing a try. Do you think it's
advised to open min raise in a cash game?
Dwight
_______________________________________________________________
willre...@yahoo.com
I don't advocate min-raising in cash games, from any position. Part of
the reason is that the stacks are usually so deep, compared to the
blinds, that speculative calls have enormous implied odds and good
post-flop players have a great deal to gain by playing hands where you
have defined your hand.
Note that I don't min-raise in a tournament when the stacks around the
table are so deep compared to the blinds, although I do raise less than
I used to in early and certainly less than I raise in a cash game.
> With the min raise the things I can think of that you accomplish is:
>
> 1. Building a bigger pot than a limp call (which is good if you're raising with
> a premium hand to start)
>
> 2. Gaining credibility for the continuation bet post flop when the flop missed
> you but you want to represent that it hit you.
It also means that your continuation bet can be smaller. Your overall
risk is smaller and you can play more actively without jumping off a
cliff. You can play the modern style, misnamed hyper-aggressive,
because it is really a super-active style and needs to play smaller
pots.
> 3. Cutting your losses if a monster hand enters the pot.
>
> The main downsides of the min raise that I can think of
>
> 1. It encourages limpers and doesn't thin the field like you might want to do
> with a medium strength or speculative opening hand.
>
> 2. No single person has much invested in the pot and the pots probably start
> out smaller, so if the flop hits you hard, you may not have anyone pot committed
> enough to pay you off.
Most flops miss most hands. If a method lets me win pots and not lose
as much when I have to bail, I will take it. Some of the time.
>
> 3. The min raise can indicate weakness which may be good or bad depending on
> your hand, opponents etc.
The first couple of times you do it, your opponents will assume
SOMETHING about the strength of the hand. Since you are not basing your
raise size on the strength of your hand, they will often be wrong.
Although they might be right at random.
>
> 4. It's less likely to steal the blinds/pot preflop with a min raise.
However, the profitable secondary steal is cheaper. You raise to 4*BB
and get the BB caller and a neutral flop, you can bet maybe 4*BB or
5*BB or a little more for your continuation bet to cash in on the 4.5BB
in profit you may have generated. This is sometimes worth it but you
are risking quite a few chips. If you made it 2.5*BB, you are now
making a smaller continuation bet to pick up an admittedly smaller
profit. The ratio of risk to reward is the same but you can give up
more cheaply and make the attempt more often. You can increase slightly
the fraction of the pot you make for your continuation bet and seem
more sure of yourself.
If the BB calls your bet and then BETS the flop, you can re-raise more
cheaply if you choose to defend your steal. You can call if the flop
has produced a draw for you, or raise to semi-bluff. And, if the stacks
are deep, you are not getting the bottom two-thirds of your stack
involved. Playing lots of small pots means that you are making more
decisions. If you are making good decisions, this can be very good for
your game.
>
> That's about all I can come up with right now.
>
> So, I'm still confused because of the heavy opposition I've seen to min raises
> on this forum, but think I'm going to give the thing a try. Do you think it's
> advised to open min raise in a cash game?
No. I still don't like it in cash games and my raises in tournaments
tend to be small but not minimum. However, I have seen the advantage of
smallish raises and no longer rag on people who advocate them.
Will in New Haven
--
"Broken windows and empty hallways
A pale dead moon in the sky streaked with gray
Human kindness is overflowingAnd i think it's going to rain today."
Randy Newman - "I Think it's Going to Rain Today"
TD Lowball
Nick Wool <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> LOL...Yes, I am a dumb fuck, certainly compared to you and Jesus when it
> comes
> to poker ability, but you should at least first.look up the definition of
> 'false
> positive'.
It's impossible to have a type I error when you arent testing a
hypothesis.
TD Lowball --
TD Lowball
Nick Wool <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> LOL..I have no idea who Peg is, that much is true. 'Real' people', not just
> top
> pros. He is giving advice to us lesser mortals, and if we were to min raise
> coming in from EP, we most likely would be slaughtered everytime.
Chris has how many more WSOP bracelets than you do?
TD Lowball --
TD Lowball
"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with him but make small adjustments upward when the blinds are
> low in comparison to the stacks.
>
> Will in New Haven
This seems to fit in just fine with TJ Cloutier's 3xBB flat opening bet.
I'm not sure how much you gain by "optimal" opening bets vs 3xBB bets
since the difference between them is 0.5BB.
I like the idea of adapting raises to the total money in the pot preflop.
The ratio's of antes to live blinds yeilds a "Dead money factor". DMF ==
(Live Blinds + Antes + Dead Blinds)/(Live Blinds)
DMF is much high in stud/tournaments than it is cash hold'em games.
Hence you should be more agressive with larger opening bets as the DMF
rises.
TD Lowball --
garycarson
Nick Wool wrote:
> On Oct 14 2005 8:47 PM, Peg Smith wrote:
>
> > On 14 Oct 2005 11:05:25 -0700, "DennisP"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Nick Wool wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the link...I have no doubt that CF is a great player, but has he
> > >> ever
> > >> played with 'real' people before? If so, this cannot msake sense.
> > >
> > >Who do you think Chris continues to beat to get to all his final tables?
> >
> > It's apparent that Nick doesn't have a clue who Chris Ferguson is.
> >
> > Peg
>
> LOL..I have no idea who Peg is, that much is true. 'Real' people', not just top
> pros. He is giving advice to us lesser mortals, and if we were to min raise
> coming in from EP, we most likely would be slaughtered everytime.
You're right. Chris doesn't know what he's talking about. He's never
actually played poker or actually studied mathematics. He's just an
actor, reading a script for a TV 'reality show'.
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
John Forsberg
On Oct 15 2005 12:06 AM, Dwight Abbott wrote:
>
> Yeah, where are all the people that flame even the idea of a min raise. You
> see
> it so often here in RGP. I would say the majority detest min raises. Where
> are
> you all?
Min-raising has been advocated by very good players here for several years. So
has open-limping.for that matter, though not by the same set of very good
players,
You really shouldn't pay much attention to the certainty of others on rgp,
there's way too much noise in the way of ignorance for that. You should make it
your business to listen to Ferguson though, not because of his tournament
results but because of his work on the subject.
willre...@yahoo.com
Nick's argument, that min raises would not work for NICK, requires a
better answer than that. Superman might suggest that the proper weapon
for elephant-hunting was a letter-opener. This would not be the proper
weapon for most people. That would be true no matter how many elephants
he had killed, unless he did the thought experiment about "would this
work for other guys."
I think that Ferguson HAS thought about whether this would work for
other players and I think it is good advice but Nick's concern is not
trivial. CF is a better player than we are and what works for him might
not work for us.
Will in New Haven
--
This hand will raise now;
There is no I to do it,
The cards themselves act.
garycarson
willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Nick's argument, that min raises would not work for NICK, requires a
> better answer than that.
No, it doesn't.
He's been given a better answer, had that answer explained to him, had
the part of that answer he doesn't understand explained to him, and he
still spouts gibberish.
Superman might suggest that the proper weapon
> for elephant-hunting was a letter-opener. This would not be the proper
> weapon for most people. That would be true no matter how many elephants
> he had killed, unless he did the thought experiment about "would this
> work for other guys."
Chris has actually done some mathematical modelling of this -- game
theory analysis.
Yes, you can do better than he suggest against certain types of
players. But, the approach he is suggesting is not exploitable by any
type of player.
That has been explained to nickwit.
>
> I think that Ferguson HAS thought about whether this would work for
> other players and I think it is good advice but Nick's concern is not
> trivial. CF is a better player than we are and what works for him might
> not work for us.
This isn't about what works for Chris. And, Nick's concern is not just
trivial -- it's ignorant.
But Nick can do whatever he wants with his money.
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Michael Sullivan
> On Oct 14 2005 10:30 PM, Liam Too wrote:
>
> > Nick Wool wrote:
> > > No, you would save more money in EP by limping, or even more by just
> > > folding.
> > > If saving money is your only concern.
> >
> > "Why risk four, five or more bets to win only one and a half bets in
> > the
> > blinds when you're often going to be running into monsters along the
> > way? If you're holding A-Q rather than A-A and a player comes over the
> > top, you can lay it down without having risked much."--Chris Ferguson
> >
> > The above says it all.
>
> Does it? so are you going to vary your raise with your holdings?
I'm pretty sure CF doesn't advocate that.
> And according to the above, it implies that the ONLY purpose of a
>raise to steal the blinds. Is that correct?
At a tight game, and at an optimal game, that is one fairly likely
outcome. Any hand range that you would play from EP against good
opponents is going to be fairly strong, and all your good opponents are
going to know that. This will happen a lot. you don't gain or lose
from how much you raised in this case.
Another possible outcome is that nobody has a great hand, but a couple
people are willing to call. That is your worst case scenario for
raising small. You now wish you had raised more and gotten more money
in the pot, because anything in your range is probably in reasonable
shape against whoever called you.
Another likely outcome is that somebody has a good hand and reraises
you. Now, betting small is good. If you are at the bottom of your
range, you may fold -- those were hands that you couldn't afford to
raise with if you were raising to 5-6xBB, you would have folded them.
So you lose a bit more money here, but OTOH, you got more blind pickups,
and more of the second class situations than if you played tighter.
This is probably a wash. If you are at the *top* of your range, then
the small raise really shines. Because you have a wide hand range, and
everybody knows that -- you will be getting reraised much more often
than when you open for 5-6xBB. And you can then put quite a bit of
money into the pot with your premium hands. Either picking up a lot
more than the blinds, or going into the flop with a bunch of money in
preflop that you got in while ahead.
Of course, you can come up with lots of scenarios where your opponents
will play in a way that you do better with big raises. I propose that
if that is true, such opponents are making mistakes which a larger raise
exploits.
Michael
Michael Sullivan
Context. This is a min raise to open the pot, not a min raise after a
limper, or after a big raise and a call, or postflop, etc.
With 1.5BB in the pot, a 1BB raise, represents 2/3 of the pot -- that's
a significant raise. It's less than I would have guessed, but it
doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that it would be the
optimal open raise size from UTG.
Many of the min-raise scenarios that people laugh at are when the
min-raise is some tiny fraction of the pot, like 10% or less. That kind
of raise is either a tricky move designed to exploit somebody (or could
be FPS), or the sign of a really weak player who doesn't understand the
relationship of bet and pot sizes.
Michael
Dwight Abbott
On Oct 15 2005 8:11 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> Dwight Abbott <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 14 2005 9:59 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > Yeah, where are all the people that flame even the idea of a min raise.
> > You see it so often here in RGP. I would say the majority detest min
> > raises. Where are you all? Weigh in. Is Ferguson right or wrong? This
> > whole thread blows me away as Nick says, since a min raise has been
> > endorsed by Ferguson and Carson, suddenly it's ok. If it was anyone else,
> > he would have been flamed to death.
>
> Context. This is a min raise to open the pot, not a min raise after a
> limper, or after a big raise and a call, or postflop, etc.
>
True, but I still see lots of people who basically make the blanket statement "A
min raise is never a good idea." Those people havn't chimed in yet and I guess
they are not going to.
> With 1.5BB in the pot, a 1BB raise, represents 2/3 of the pot -- that's
> a significant raise. It's less than I would have guessed, but it
> doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that it would be the
> optimal open raise size from UTG.
>
> Many of the min-raise scenarios that people laugh at are when the
> min-raise is some tiny fraction of the pot, like 10% or less. That kind
> of raise is either a tricky move designed to exploit somebody (or could
> be FPS), or the sign of a really weak player who doesn't understand the
> relationship of bet and pot sizes.
>
I can see people laughing at this.
>
> Michael
Dwight Abbott
On Oct 15 2005 4:12 AM, John Forsberg wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 15 2005 12:06 AM, Dwight Abbott wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, where are all the people that flame even the idea of a min raise. You
> > see
> > it so often here in RGP. I would say the majority detest min raises. Where
> > are
> > you all?
>
> Min-raising has been advocated by very good players here for several years. So
> has open-limping.for that matter, though not by the same set of very good
> players,
>
> You really shouldn't pay much attention to the certainty of others on rgp,
> there's way too much noise in the way of ignorance for that. You should make
> it
> your business to listen to Ferguson though, not because of his tournament
> results but because of his work on the subject.
>
I think this is good advice. And the many people that jumped on the "min raise
suck in all situations." bandwagon (myself included up to now) is an example of
how a group of people can become dogmatic.
Dwight
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Dwight Abbott
I like this style too because it keeps you more involved in the game and makes
it easier to generate action when you've got a big hand.
Good point. And this assists in playing the super active style.
> If the BB calls your bet and then BETS the flop, you can re-raise more
> cheaply if you choose to defend your steal. You can call if the flop
> has produced a draw for you, or raise to semi-bluff. And, if the stacks
> are deep, you are not getting the bottom two-thirds of your stack
> involved. Playing lots of small pots means that you are making more
> decisions. If you are making good decisions, this can be very good for
> your game.
>
> >
> > That's about all I can come up with right now.
> >
> > So, I'm still confused because of the heavy opposition I've seen to min
> > raises
> > on this forum, but think I'm going to give the thing a try. Do you think
> > it's
> > advised to open min raise in a cash game?
>
> No. I still don't like it in cash games and my raises in tournaments
> tend to be small but not minimum. However, I have seen the advantage of
> smallish raises and no longer rag on people who advocate them.
>
No more ragging from me either. I went into my $25 cash game last night and
messed around with raising to 3x BB in early position (I normally do 4 or 5x.)
with mixed results, but it's too early to make any kind of judgement either
way. I also tryed out CF's strategy of varying raise size by position. I think
this applies even if you are not opening the pot. I see a lot of potential
advantages with this concept and am going to incorporate it into my game and see
how it goes.
Dwight
> > Your Online Poker Community - /
John A. Fish
> Another likely outcome is that somebody has a good hand and reraises
> you. Now, betting small is good. If you are at the bottom of your
> range, you may fold -- those were hands that you couldn't afford to
> raise with if you were raising to 5-6xBB, you would have folded them.
> So you lose a bit more money here, but OTOH, you got more blind pickups,
> and more of the second class situations than if you played tighter.
> This is probably a wash. If you are at the *top* of your range, then
> the small raise really shines. Because you have a wide hand range, and
> everybody knows that -- you will be getting reraised much more often
> than when you open for 5-6xBB. And you can then put quite a bit of
> money into the pot with your premium hands. Either picking up a lot
> more than the blinds, or going into the flop with a bunch of money in
> preflop that you got in while ahead.
But what about the scenario where you min raise with aces and get 5
callers. The flop is rags so you make a standard bet. Then somebody
pops you back. You don't know whether he has some stupid two pair or
just happens to think he can steal the pot from a fish. So what do you do?
> Of course, you can come up with lots of scenarios where your opponents
> will play in a way that you do better with big raises. I propose that
> if that is true, such opponents are making mistakes which a larger raise
> exploits.
Exactly. And most of us here are not big money pros and play in these
types of exploitable games. I can certainly see how CF's strategy could
work against pros (and especially against pros that know his style) but
I really can't see how it works at the games we mere mortals play. I am
sure that Dwight will have some interesting reports coming and I predict
that he will abandon this style.
Regards,
John Fish
garycarson
John A. Fish wrote:
> But what about the scenario where you min raise with aces and get 5
> callers. The flop is rags so you make a standard bet. Then somebody
> pops you back. You don't know whether he has some stupid two pair or
> just happens to think he can steal the pot from a fish. So what do you do?
>
If you want to play early position in such a way that life is easy,
just fold or go all in from the get go.
You won't end up with much at the end of the day that way, but life
will be easy for you.
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
John Forsberg
On Oct 15 2005 6:06 PM, John A. Fish wrote:
> Exactly. And most of us here are not big money pros and play in these
> types of exploitable games. I can certainly see how CF's strategy could
> work against pros (and especially against pros that know his style) but
> I really can't see how it works at the games we mere mortals play.
It works against your opponents (otherwise the good players would play just like
your opponents against CF when he uses this strategy), it just so happens that
raising big works better against a lot of really crappy players.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Michael Sullivan
> On Oct 14 2005 4:32 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> > Nick Wool <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote:
> > > might have a strong preflop hand, anything from Ace painted to big
> > > pairs, but the min raise has not told you anything about their hand, plus
> > > they have position on you. Added to the fact that the BB will now be
> > > justified in calling with any 2 cards for the odds here, surely a recipe
> > > for disaster? And yet Carson tells us that this is good?
> > You can't combine coming in for a small raise with never playing
> > anything but premium hands. In general, against optimal competition,
> > the more you raise when you raise, the better a hand you must have to do
> > it. So the more you raise, the tighter your preflop range has to be.
> That might be how you play it...most advice I read/heard say you either
> stock to the same size roase whatever hand you hold, or you randomised
> your raises.
I'm talking about sticking to the same size raise (from a given position
& action in front). Try reading what I said again with that in mind.
You make a decision about what your intial raises from EP will be. That
decision affects what hands you should decide to raise with from EP in
the way that I described. I don't pretend to know exactly what optimal
play is, but the math on that effect is very clear. Whatever it is, the
statement I made is very unlikely to be false.
I do not advocate varying the size of an intial raise based on what you
hold, *ever* when trying to approximate optimal play (though it's
obivously useful when exploiting people known to not pay attention to or
misjudge that information leak).
> Did I say that you must only raise with certain big hands?
Not specifically, but the more you raise preflop, the more danger you
face if your range contains a lot of non-premium hands. Losing to crap
postflop when you hold a preflop monster is not the only danger to
consider. Another danger is running into a better preflop hand.
> All I said was
> that you have no information at all if your min raise was called. I had
> always thought that a raise was there to help you to define hands
huh? That's a second order effect that is often very useful,
*especially* against bad opponents, but it's not the raison d'etre.
The primary purposes of a raise are to a) get money in the pot when you
think you are ahead or b) get somebody to lay down a hand that is now
ahead of you or has outs to beat you.
>....a min raise is not
> very helpful to say the least.
In this case, it represents a bet of around 2/3 of the pot. That's
enough to discourage intelligent opponents with mediocre and poor hands
if they do not believe they can exploit you post flop, and it's enough
to sweeten things if somebody wants to play with you and you have a big
hand.
> > So the idea is that you raise small, but play more hands than the
> > traditional ABC crowd would have you play from EP.
> And by the same token, because your raise are small, people will be
> calling with a much wider range of hands.
They could do that, but since your range from EP is still quite strong,
if they are playing crap, you will be ahead and making money on their
calls.
> > So the day comes when they put you on AK and try to bluff you off with
> > nothing, but oops, this time you're playing 109s and have top pair plus
> > a flush draw.
> And the day will come that you have AA, on a flop 27K, losing 27 in the
> blinds, or K7 at button.
That day will always come, unless you are betting so much that you
cannot be profitable. The point is that if you have a wide range, you
are not as exploitable postflop.
There is a common kind of hand that you see discussed here a lot:
NL deep stacks. poster has huge PP, raises 3xBB (or whatever), one
caller. Flop rags. opponent has just flopped two pair with their 72o
or whatever and takes Mr PP to the cleaners.
What people often say is something like: "If the stacks are huge,
calling with 72o is not necessarily an error, and it's definitely
correct if you will pay off your whole stack when 72o flops a monster.
Why? Because the implied odds are there. "
There are two approaches to dealing with this problem. One is much
expounded on by various folks who post here, and I don't agree with it
at *all*. That is to bet a lot when you have a big PP "so they don't
have implied odds to draw out on you.".
IMO, this is completely wrong headed. The more you overbet preflop with
big hands, the more equity you are giving up to good players. You are
paying a lot of insurance preflop to avoid the problem hand that only
happens once in 10 times.
The real answer is that when the stacks are deep, you need to be much
more critical postflop, and understand that you can't assume that the
caller of a small bet preflop has high cards. This means you will often
be letting go of overpairs on the flop to very aggressive opponents.
And they may be stealing the pot a lot. But you will get them back for
a lot more on the days that you actually flop something. And if you
haven't put much in preflop, their stealing is worth less.
The more you put in the pot preflop, the more incentive you have to call
down with your overpair even though there's a nagging sense in the back
of your head that you are beat.
Big preflop bets are not the answer, unless you get raised. Then you
can get a *lot* of money in preflop without the leaks that making huge
initial raised saddle you with.
> No, I think you pretend to be an authourity on game theory.
The only thing I pretend to be an authority on is running a small trade
printing business, because that's what I do for a living.
I'd like to see what I've said to make you think that. I've never
suggested that I have any academic credentials at all, nor have I ever
argued from authority. I've stated positions based on what I understand
to be true, and I've sometimes made logical and mathematical arguments
that you are free to poke holes in.
If you pay attention, you'll notice I'm quick to retract when I'm
convinced of having made an error.
You usually don't offer analysis in reponse to stuff you disagree with,
so I'm not often retracting anything in response to you.
To the extent that real authorities on game theory occasionally post
here, I take what they have to say very seriously.
What I have done is gotten a decent math education, and read a lot of
books and papers on game theory (among other subjects), because I find
it interesting. I've read the archives of RGP pretty seriously (there's
a lot more good math pre 2003 than there is now), and keep track of
blogs like Jerrod's and Bill Chen's. I'm also a reasonably strong
amateur backgammon player, and thus very used to doing certain kinds of
probability and betting analysis that are also valuable in poker.
I also generally know a lot of disparate things about various unrelated
subjects. That happens to smart and analytical people who keep their
brain and desire to learn alive into middle age.
> You might think
> that min raises are Optimal play, the trick howver, is to prove it.
That'd be a nice trick. If I could prove something significant about
optimal play for a game as difficult as preflop hold'em, I really
*would* be (or at least become) a game theory expert. It's possible
that I could do that if I made it my life's work, but I don't put that
kind of energy into a typical usenet post.
I'm operating on intuition based on what I know about optimal play for
simpler games which, unlike HE, have been solved.
That intuition says that optimal bets in NL poker like games are
generally going to be somewhere between 1/2 pot and pot sized.
Consider googling RGP for "[0,1] game" if you want to learn a *lot*
about game theory and its poker applications.
> If the same advice was posted by an unknown guy, you'd see the flame from
> a mile off. Instead, here we have either silence or people sprouting fancy
> terms in defence. You ever heard of the term 'false positive'?
I'd be interested if you can google an example. This situation is
qualitatively different from when "min-raises" typically get laughed at
in that the minimum raise represents a reasonable fraction of the pot.
Michael
Nick Wool
false positive: Believing an assertion purely on the strength on the person's
reputation, without first exmining the evidence.
Nick Wool
As a former teacher, your inability ro read and comprehend simple sentences are
quite amazing. Do please get your tongue out of the top players' backsides, and
take a lesson in reading comprehension. I have never said that it would not
work for top pros playing with top pros. I said that it would be bad play on my
sort of level, with the people I normally play against.
Silly me, and I had always thought that poker is a situational thing, where you
adjust your game to the people you are playing against.
conmanh...@yahoo.com
LOL
<Do please get your tongue out of the top players' backsides,
Good read on the situation. Yes, Gary is just a fanboy. Ask Daniel
for confirmation.
> I had always thought that poker is a situational thing, where you adjust your game to the people you are playing against.
Gary said that and exactly that to you five times and you continue to
disagree.
As Peg would say, "Ploink"
Peace! ConManHuckster(Tm)
garycarson
Nick Wool wrote:
but you should at least first.look up the definition of
> > > 'false
> > > positive'.
> >
> > It's impossible to have a type I error when you arent testing a
> > hypothesis.
> >
> > TD Lowball --
>
> false positive: Believing an assertion purely on the strength on the person's
> reputation, without first exmining the evidence.
>
>
Are you real?
Nobody can be this stupid. You must be a troll. Unless you're Danny
Boy. He could be this stupid. But, if you're not Danny Boy then you
must be a troll.
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Nick Wool
On Oct 15 2005 8:26 PM, conmanh...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> LOL
>
> >
> Good read on the situation. Yes, Gary is just a fanboy. Ask Daniel
> for confirmation.
>
> > I had always thought that poker is a situational thing, where you adjust
> > your game to the people you are playing against.
>
> Gary said that and exactly that to you five times and you continue to
> disagree.
>
> As Peg would say, "Ploink"
>
> Peace! ConManHuckster(Tm)
Another who would seem to need redaing comprehension lessons. Gary has not
agreed, and would be up to his favourite trick of making clever remarks. Good
day to you too, sir.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Nick Wool
Are you trying to be philosophical? If so, I think therefore I am.
You may think that the term 'false positive' can only be used in the context of
controlled experiments....look up this reference to boarden your mind if you
wish to talk about the philosophy of science:
'....accept a wrong idea just because it was supported by someone we respect
(false postive).'
Shermer M (2002). 'Why people Believe Weird Thing'. P57. W H Freeman. New
York
Now you may think Shermer is a dumb fuck as well, but he is more respected in
the scienticfic field than you ever will be. I was going to recommend you read
Popper as well, but I think that would be beyond you.
Nick Wool
A/ is fine, except that you are giving a cheap shot at cracking your hand, plus
you'll be out of position.
B/ The top pros might lay down to a min raise, how many recreational players do
you know that would do the same even if they have a marginal hand?
> >....a min raise is not
> > very helpful to say the least.
>
> In this case, it represents a bet of around 2/3 of the pot. That's
> enough to discourage intelligent opponents with mediocre and poor hands
> if they do not believe they can exploit you post flop, and it's enough
> to sweeten things if somebody wants to play with you and you have a big
> hand.
If anything, I would have thought that the top pros would be the one who can
exploit their better position.
> > > So the idea is that you raise small, but play more hands than the
> > > traditional ABC crowd would have you play from EP.
>
> > And by the same token, because your raise are small, people will be
> > calling with a much wider range of hands.
>
> They could do that, but since your range from EP is still quite strong,
> if they are playing crap, you will be ahead and making money on their
> calls.
Who said anything about trash? You have a range of bigger opening hands because
you are raising small, they would also have a wider range of calling hands for
the same reason. Plus they have position.
A clear example would 33 at the button...4BB, and most people would think hard
before calling...2BB, most people would have no trouble in auto-calling. Yes,
you might want them to call if you have AA/KK UTG, but even here you are giving
them a real cheap shoot to crack your AA/KK. The same arguement goes for A8
suited at the button...you min raise coming in with 55 UTG, how many people do
you at my sort of level do you think will fold A8 suited? 8 high flop, missed
your 5, what do you do?
Yes, but at least they'll be paying more for the chance of cracking your big
pairs with trash if you raised between 3-5 BB coming in. That's why I said that
the min raise might be fine for the pros, but not for people at my level who has
great difficulty in laying down a big pair post flop. Even the most loose fish
will think twice about calling 3-4 BBs with 27, whereas they might be more will
to call a min raise.
I make the point because you were implying a 2x bring in as optimal play. Thank
you for saying that it was only your 'intuition'.
> > If the same advice was posted by an unknown guy, you'd see the flame from
> > a mile off. Instead, here we have either silence or people sprouting fancy
> > terms in defence. You ever heard of the term 'false positive'?
>
> I'd be interested if you can google an example. This situation is
> qualitatively different from when "min-raises" typically get laughed at
> in that the minimum raise represents a reasonable fraction of the pot.
>
:)
really? YOU do a google of RGP, and see the amount of flame the posters get
when they mentioned that they min raise coming in. Then come back and tell me
that it was only my illusion that these people get flamed.
garycarson
Nick Wool wrote:
> On Oct 15 2005 8:34 PM, garycarson wrote:
>
> > Nick Wool wrote:
> > but you should at least first.look up the definition of
> > > > > 'false
> > > > > positive'.
> > > >
> > > > It's impossible to have a type I error when you arent testing a
> > > > hypothesis.
> > > >
> > > > TD Lowball --
> > >
> > > false positive: Believing an assertion purely on the strength on the
> > > person's
> > > reputation, without first exmining the evidence.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Are you real?
> >
> > Nobody can be this stupid. You must be a troll. Unless you're Danny
> > Boy. He could be this stupid. But, if you're not Danny Boy then you
> > must be a troll.
> >
> > Gary Carson
> > http://www.garycarson.com/
>
> Are you trying to be philosophical? If so, I think therefore I am.
>
> You may think that the term 'false positive' can only be used in the context of
> controlled experiments....look up this reference to boarden your mind if you
> wish to talk about the philosophy of science:
>
> '....accept a wrong idea just because it was supported by someone we respect
> (false postive).'
LOL. Okay, I thought I was done with you but I couldn't resist this
one. I found it real hard to beleive that Shermer would use such a
non-standerd definition, so I looked it up.
You can find it on the web at
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm
------------------
19. Overreliance on Authorities
We tend to rely heavily on authorities in our culture, especially if
the authority is considered to be highly intelligent. The IQ score has
acquired nearly mystical proportions in the last half century, but I
have noticed that belief in the paranormal is not uncommon among Mensa
members (the high-IQ club for those in the top 2 percent of the
population); some even argue that their "Psi-Q" is also superior.
Magician James Randi is fond of lampooning authorities with Ph.D.s --
once they are granted the degree, he says, they find it almost
impossible to say two things: "I don't know" and "I was wrong."
Authorities, by virtue of their expertise in a field, may have a better
chance of being right in that field, but correctness is certainly not
guaranteed, and their expertise does not necessarily qualify them to
draw conclusions in other areas.
In other words, who is making the claim makes a difference. If it is a
Nobel laureate, we take note because he or she has been right in a big
way before. If it is a discredited scam artist, we give a loud guffaw
because he or she has been wrong in a big way before. While expertise
is useful for separating the wheat from the chaff, it is dangerous in
that we might either (1) accept a wrong idea just because it was
supported by someone we respect (false positive) or (2) reject a right
idea just because it was supported by someone we disrespect (false
negative). How do you avoid such errors? Examine the evidence.
--------------------
He isn't defining the term false positive. He's using the term to
identify one of the two kinds of errors you can make when using an
appeal to authority arguement.
What's the term for making the error of assuming your readers are
educated?
LOL
I shouldn't laugh at you. I know you're probably trying to understand.
But, I just can't help myself.
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Nick Wool
On Oct 15 2005 12:36 PM, garycarson wrote:
> willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Nick's argument, that min raises would not work for NICK, requires a
> > better answer than that.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> He's been given a better answer, had that answer explained to him, had
> the part of that answer he doesn't understand explained to him, and he
> still spouts gibberish.
>
So where is this better answer? You certainly did not provide it. All you seem
to be able to do is to make insulting remarks to anyone who dares even to
question that you must be right all the time.
If you read my original replies, I didn't even say that it was not good or
wrong, only that if we try it at our level, we would be leaking chips left right
and centre.
Maybe you as a jumped-up poker player have now really believe the hype
surrounding yourself, and really consider yourself beyond reproach.
> Superman might suggest that the proper weapon
> > for elephant-hunting was a letter-opener. This would not be the proper
> > weapon for most people. That would be true no matter how many elephants
> > he had killed, unless he did the thought experiment about "would this
> > work for other guys."
>
> Chris has actually done some mathematical modelling of this -- game
> theory analysis.
>
> Yes, you can do better than he suggest against certain types of
> players. But, the approach he is suggesting is not exploitable by any
> type of player.
>
> That has been explained to nickwit.
A stupid man making stupid remarks, or even a clever man making stupid remarks.
I think I would have more experince playing against bad players than you do...A
min riase in our level either leave them lining up to take a cheap crack at your
big pairs, or outdraw your marginal holdings. Not exploitable? How not so?
> >
> > I think that Ferguson HAS thought about whether this would work for
> > other players and I think it is good advice but Nick's concern is not
> > trivial. CF is a better player than we are and what works for him might
> > not work for us.
>
> This isn't about what works for Chris. And, Nick's concern is not just
> trivial -- it's ignorant.
Whatever gets you through the night, you keep thinking that anyone who dares ask
questions are ignorant.
> But Nick can do whatever he wants with his money.
>
Nick Wool
My god, you do need reading lessons. Both Shermer and I used the term to mean
the same; over-relience on authority. Yet you are saying that he has the right
in using it, and I made a mistake?
my first use of the term:
'If the same advice was posted by an unknown guy, you'd see the flame from a
mile off. Instead, here we have either silence or people sprouting fancy terms
in
defence. You ever heard of the term 'false positive'?'
Shermer usage of the term:
'While expertise is useful for separating the wheat from the chaff, it is
dangerous in that we might either (1) accept a wrong idea just because it was
supported by someone we respect (false positive).'
How is the usage different? I suppose that's what you get when you try to
credit jumed-up poker players with too much intelligence.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Nick Wool
>
> He isn't defining the term false positive. He's using the term to
> identify one of the two kinds of errors you can make when using an
> appeal to authority arguement.
(1) accept a wrong idea just because it was
supported by someone we respect (false positive)
BTW, if you really think that when a writer writes an explaination, then put the
term in brackets at the end of the explanation, isn't defining the term, it
really is a good thing that you got out of teaching...or were you pushed? With
dumb statements like that, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the latter.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
John Forsberg
On Oct 15 2005 11:04 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> If anything, I would have thought that the top pros would be the one who can
> exploit their better position.
That may well be an even *stronger* reason to raise small. If you have deep
money and a very good player with position on you you're often going to have to
give up somewhere along the line due to really reverse implied odds whether you
make it 2bb or 5bb pre-flop. In all those cases where you have to give up the
pot you *really* prefer to have made it 2bb to start with.
Now arguebly the bigger raise will make the good player with position (or gpwp)
to simply fold pre-flop. But it's not at all certain that will be enough to
compensate for his steals since he now takes 150% more from you when he does
manage to steal. And if you're raising big enough to discourage the gpwp:s from
all steal attempts you're risking too much those times when someone picks up a
better hand.
Meanwhile the bigger raise means you'll make about the same amount as the small
raise most of the time when you're not called.
Anyways, just a line of thought that goes in the opposite direction.
DennisP
> B/ The top pros might lay down to a min raise, how many recreational players do
> you know that would do the same even if they have a marginal hand?
>
Again, who the hell do you think think CF keeps beating to make final
tables? Sure, there are pros in those tourneys, but with all the sats
these days he is beating a bunch of amatuers using his advice.
Also, you are ignoring the part of the article someone posted earlier
that if the raise isn't effectively narrowing the field to 1-2 then you
need to adjust.
Michael Sullivan
> But what about the scenario where you min raise with aces and get 5
> callers. The flop is rags so you make a standard bet. Then somebody
> pops you back. You don't know whether he has some stupid two pair or
> just happens to think he can steal the pot from a fish. So what do you do?
You do what you always do in a poker situation. Analyse the situation
and your opponent. If you can't tell whether you are beat and the bet
doesn't make sense as a value bet without something that beats you, then
you just make sure to call often enough for blufffing to be unprofitable
or indifferent in the long run for your opponent (that will be a
different frequency depending on the bet and pot size -- the game theory
is left as an exercise to the googler) and otherwise let it go. You
will lose money when your opponent has a hand and you call, and when
your opponent doesn't have a hand and you fold. You will win money when
you call with a better hand. If he's betting enough that you can fold a
lot, you will win a lot when you call and are correct.
Note that you don't expect to make a ton of money from approximating
optimal play unless your opponent is making big GT mistakes. Optimal
play keeps you from *losing* against really good players, and is an
appropriate strategy to use against players you haven't been able to
read. Optimal play probably does best against otherwise good players
who succumb to FPS. Show them a leak and they will exploit it. Don't
show them a leak, and they will sometimes throw equity at you trying to
exploit nonexistent ones. It also does well against really bad players,
but understanding the mistakes of the bad players will let you do better
still.
> > Of course, you can come up with lots of scenarios where your opponents
> > will play in a way that you do better with big raises. I propose that
> > if that is true, such opponents are making mistakes which a larger raise
> > exploits.
> Exactly. And most of us here are not big money pros and play in these
> types of exploitable games.
Carson says something really useful that we all need to remember in the
chapter he put on his blog recently. Even bad players do a lot of
things right. Just because a player makes a lot of mistakes, doesn't
mean that s/he makes any particular mistake. It's a good idea to
identify a player's actual tendencies before using non-optimal play as
an exploitive tactic.
> I can certainly see how CF's strategy could
> work against pros (and especially against pros that know his style) but
> I really can't see how it works at the games we mere mortals play.
The beauty of optimal strategies is that they work exactly as well
against weak players as against strong ones. They may fail to fully
exploit a weak player's mistakes, but they don't lose money because
people are making mistakes, and they often profit from those mistakes.
If someone could beat you by making mistakes, then your srategy wouldn't
be optimal, and they wouldn't be mistakes against you, and good players
would start doing that too once they understood your strategy. Optimal
play is designed to be unexploitable.
This is a common misconception abou game theory. People think game
theory == math == ABC 2+2 poker == predictable.
Not really. In fact, a true game theory player would likely be one of
the most unpredictable opponents you could face. A true game theory
player will constantly be presenting you with situations where you don't
know what he has and either folding or raising could lose you a lot.
Because the goal of the game theory player is to make your decisions
indifferent. To make it so that at any action you face, he has a range
of possible hands that make it not matter whether you play or fold.
So no, this style, if optimal, shouldn't lose money, unless playing it
gets you into situations you don't understand, such that you make even
bigger postflop errors than when you play the other way.
Michael
Michael Sullivan
> If you read my original replies, I didn't even say that it was not good or
> wrong, only that if we try it at our level, we would be leaking chips left
> right and centre.
That certainly sounds like you think it's wrong. You also don't give
any sound explication of the strategy that causes you to leak chips by
doing this. You seem to think that if an opponent ever has implied odds
to call your bet with trash, you've somehow lost money by giving them
that chance.
That's a serious, fundamental misunderstanding. And it's a good thing
for deep stack NL players that you're wrong, because when the stacks are
deep enough it's *impossible* to make a preflop bet that avoids doing
so, without giving up almost all your potential profit and playing like
a constipated mouse.
Michael
John Forsberg
On Oct 16 2005 1:29 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> Because the goal of the game theory player is to make your decisions
> indifferent.
I don't know why you wrote the above, since it's pretty obvious you know it's
not true. Either that or I've seriously missed something.
That's just true for some situations (come to think of it I even doubt that) and
it's not generally true either tactically or strategically. For instance you
won't be very indifferent towards your different options when bet into when
holding the nuts on the river. Neither will your over-arching strategy be
indifferent since you will get punished if you have the wrong one.
I think a more accurate goal statement is: Play in a way that it is impossible
to extract value from (even if it is completely known to the opponent).
Michael Sullivan
> On Oct 16 2005 1:29 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
>
> > Because the goal of the game theory player is to make your decisions
> > indifferent.
> I don't know why you wrote the above, since it's pretty obvious you know it's
> not true. Either that or I've seriously missed something.
Well, you're right. It's only a certain class of decisions that a pure
game theory player will play to make you indifferent to. But I think
it includes one of the main ones we're talking about, where you have a
middlin' hand postflop, and a game theory player is either value betting
or bluffing. They'll be bluffing just often enough that you will be
indifferent to calling or folding (unless you are outside the "middlin'
hand range" in which case you obviously should fold with crap or
raise/call with the powerhouse). And of course, you can't take that as
license to just go one way or the other, because anybody good enough to
approximate optimal will probably notice if you always making the same
decision, at which point you'll get exploited.
> That's just true for some situations (come to think of it I even doubt that)
It's definitely true for certain well defined situations, such as
betting on the river when you hold the canonical hand (something like
TPTK). It's true that even in these, there will be some holdings you
could have where you aren't indifferent at all.
> I think a more accurate goal statement is: Play in a way that it is impossible
> to extract value from (even if it is completely known to the opponent).
For many situations, the way to find that is to seek an indifference
strategy for the most common set of opponent's holdings.
Michael
TD Lowball
"garycarson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> I shouldn't laugh at you. I know you're probably trying to understand.
> But, I just can't help myself.
>
> Gary Carson
> www.garycarson.com
I think you are making a type II error. HO == Nick Wool is trying to
understand.
TD Lowball --
TD Lowball
Nick Wool <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> How is the usage different? I suppose that's what you get when you try to
> credit jumed-up poker players with too much intelligence.
>
Normal people use the term "false positive" in the context of
statistical hypothesis testing. A false positive is an incorrect
rejection of the null hypothesis, it also known as a type I error.
TD Lowball --
Nick Wool
Why did you snipped the my usage from your reply? It was plain this was not the
context which I had used the term. If by 'normal' people, your are implying
that I am not normal, then I must say that I am in good company with people such
as Shermer.
To remind you of the context:
'If the same advice was posted by an unknown guy, you'd see the flame from a
mile off. Instead, here we have either silence or people sprouting fancy terms
in defence. You ever heard of the term 'false positive'?'
_______________________________________________________________
Nick Wool
On Oct 16 2005 3:53 AM, TD Lowball wrote:
> In article <1129411950.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "garycarson" wrote:
>
> >
> > I shouldn't laugh at you. I know you're probably trying to understand.
> > But, I just can't help myself.
> >
> > Gary Carson
> > http://www.garycarson.com/
>
> I think you are making a type II error. HO == Nick Wool is trying to
> understand.
>
> TD Lowball
Very easy to mock with patronising remarks. Much harder to back it up with
reason. Care to point out where I had misused the term?
Or are you saying that 'false postive' MUST be used only in a statistical sense,
and that people like Shermer are, to use the word of Carson, 'dumb fucks' when
they used it to mean over-reliance on authority?
God, these jumped up poker players!
garycarson
Nick Wool wrote:
> To remind you of the context:
>
> 'If the same advice was posted by an unknown guy, you'd see the flame from a
> mile off. Instead, here we have either silence or people sprouting fancy terms
> in defence. You ever heard of the term 'false positive'?'
>
That's not the context, dipshit. The context is the two paragraph
section on appeal to authority that I clipped into a post earlier.
A false positive is a characterization of one of the two mistakes you
can make by automaically assuming a statement from authority is right
and assuming a statement without authority is wrong. False positive
and false negative. Those are possible outcomes, they are not logical
fallacies.
Now I'm starting to think troll again. Here I was starting to think
maybe you're sincere but deluded.
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Nick Wool
Right, you stupid deluded twat, that was the context of how I had used the
term.
If you are too stupid to read, that is your problem.
jgm
"Nick Wool" <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1129412388$640...@recpoker.com...
> Maybe you as a jumped-up poker player
yep, you've got a great read on Carson there.
> have now really believe the hype
> surrounding yourself, and really consider yourself beyond reproach.
I'd love to know what hype is surrounding Gary.
jgm
> > You're right. Chris doesn't know what he's talking about. He's never
> > actually played poker or actually studied mathematics. He's just an
> > actor, reading a script for a TV 'reality show'.
> >
> > Gary Carson
> > http://www.garycarson.com/
>
Yep, that's Carson! nice read.
garycarson
It's all that publicity my books get on WSOP broadcasts and in
CardPlayer and the invitations 5 get to televised freerolls as a reward
for all my ass kissing.
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Nick Wool
How about naming his book as 'The Complete Book of Hold 'Em Poker: A
Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning' for starters?
Oh, and I am sure his publishers would have hyped him up for the book, how else
are they expect to sell the damn thing? Maybe he has started to believe in that
hype? Who knows? Eithre that or he needs esrious help.
willre...@yahoo.com
Nick Wool wrote:
> On Oct 16 2005 4:34 AM, jgm wrote:
>
> > "Nick Wool" <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> > news:1129412388$640...@recpoker.com...
> > > Maybe you as a jumped-up poker player
> >
> > yep, you've got a great read on Carson there.
> >
> >
> > > have now really believe the hype
> > > surrounding yourself, and really consider yourself beyond reproach.
> >
> > I'd love to know what hype is surrounding Gary.
>
> How about naming his book as 'The Complete Book of Hold 'Em Poker: A
> Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning' for starters?
WTF would YOU call a poker book you were trying to sell? Maybe _The
Humble Book of Holdem: How to Win Sometimes and Keep Your Losses Down
the Rest of the Time_
Now, THAT would never fly. Not only that. It would be an much less
accurate for Carson's excellent book than the actual title. I have
ragged on Gary about the "Complete" in the title. He doesn't really
have much in the book about tournaments and his advice about NL, while
excellent, is pretty limited. But picking between the hype title and
any kind of humble title, the hype title is actually more accurate.
Most of this thread might have been avoided if you had noticed the
sentence where we were told that the raise would have to be adjusted
upward if it were failing to narrow the field to two or fewer callers
(paraphrasing) under your local conditions.
BTW: I don't think the min raise is optimum under MY local conditions.
In the bar tournaments around here you have to hit people with a chair
to get them to notice a raise.* In the Acts and other tourneys at
Foxwoods, something CLOSE to Ferguson's strategy seems fine but I make
slightly larger raises than he advocates for the first couple of
levels. In cash games, I think larger raises and a smaller range of
hands that one opens with a raise are better.
* I have actually only hit ONE person with a chair in a bar tournament
and she asked for it.
Will in New Haven
--
See the False as False
The True as True
Look into your heart
And follow your nature
Sakyamuni Buddha c 500BCE
Nick Wool
>
> WTF would YOU call a poker book you were trying to sell? Maybe _The
> Humble Book of Holdem: How to Win Sometimes and Keep Your Losses Down
> the Rest of the Time_
>
> Now, THAT would never fly. Not only that. It would be an much less
> accurate for Carson's excellent book than the actual title. I have
> ragged on Gary about the "Complete" in the title. He doesn't really
> have much in the book about tournaments and his advice about NL, while
> excellent, is pretty limited. But picking between the hype title and
> any kind of humble title, the hype title is actually more accurate.
>
> Most of this thread might have been avoided if you had noticed the
> sentence where we were told that the raise would have to be adjusted
> upward if it were failing to narrow the field to two or fewer callers
> (paraphrasing) under your local conditions.
>
> BTW: I don't think the min raise is optimum under MY local conditions.
> In the bar tournaments around here you have to hit people with a chair
> to get them to notice a raise.* In the Acts and other tourneys at
> Foxwoods, something CLOSE to Ferguson's strategy seems fine but I make
> slightly larger raises than he advocates for the first couple of
> levels. In cash games, I think larger raises and a smaller range of
> hands that one opens with a raise are better.
>
> * I have actually only hit ONE person with a chair in a bar tournament
> and she asked for it.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
Will, I have been impressed with you, not because of any of great insights you
have offered, but because you seem to be fair minded in most of your posts.
Yes, I do so agree that much of this thread could have been avoided, IF the
great twat Carson could have been a little bit less self-righteous, and prepared
to see that the min raise may be great for Chris and player likes him, but a
little bit dangerous for the likes of us. instead, he was saying that the play
is right in all circumstances, and starts to insult people who question this.
Just to remind you who started the whole damn thing, here is my first 2 post.
Was I being a 'jerk' or 'nitwit' by post these?
'Hmm...not arguing with top player's play, they can get away from a hand when
they sense they are beat, but probably not a good idea for the majority of
players here.'
'...but most players I've seen can easily get married to their 'big' hands, TPTK
with AK/AQ, unimproved big pairs etc, even when they encounter stiff
resistance. These players really do need to thin the field with a reasonable
raise, otherwise they are inviting players to take a lot of their chips on the
cheap.
I suppose top players are not so married to their 'big' hands, and can make big
laydowns easier, so they dont need to thin the field as much.'
And he can hardly complain when the flame get bigger when he calls someone a
'dumb fuck' for using the term 'false positive' to describe over-reliance on
authority, when eminent scientists such as Shermer also use it in this context.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
willre...@yahoo.com
It seems to me that he was defending the article, in which it is clear
that you can't use the smaller raises if they don't get the desired
effect against your particular opponents. It is not that you, or I,
can't use them because we aren't experts. No one should use them if he
or she has opponents against whom they are not as useful as larger
raises.
I never liked min raises and I started to change my mind but it wasn't
because experts argued in favor of them. After all, there are other
experts with very good records who don't use them. What convinced me
was Chris Ferguson's REASONING, not his reputation.
>
> Just to remind you who started the whole damn thing, here is my first 2 post.
>
> Was I being a 'jerk' or 'nitwit' by post these?
>
> 'Hmm...not arguing with top player's play, they can get away from a hand when
> they sense they are beat, but probably not a good idea for the majority of
> players here.'
It should be easier to let go of a hand if you have invested less money
in it already. By the way, it IS probably easier to play the hand if
you have made a very large raise pre-flop. However, easier and more
profitable don't always coincide (even when it rains)
>
> '...but most players I've seen can easily get married to their 'big' hands, TPTK
> with AK/AQ, unimproved big pairs etc, even when they encounter stiff
> resistance. These players really do need to thin the field with a reasonable
> raise, otherwise they are inviting players to take a lot of their chips on the
> cheap.
If the stacks are deep, you just can't afford to get married to a big
hand. Being risk-averse and realizing that folding (while quite
deceptive) just can't be right with AA, one might move all-in. However,
this will just win the blinds. Therefore, you have to play the hand
post-flop and this won't always be easy. Despite the flamewar you have
gotten involved in here, I know you are capable of solving the problem
of "such and such a situation is very difficult." The solution to that
problem is to learn and improve, not to adopt risk-averse and
problem-averse strategies that fail to make you any money.
>
> I suppose top players are not so married to their 'big' hands, and can make big
> laydowns easier, so they dont need to thin the field as much.'
>
> And he can hardly complain when the flame get bigger when he calls someone a
> 'dumb fuck' for using the term 'false positive' to describe over-reliance on
> authority, when eminent scientists such as Shermer also use it in this context.
Having easily-hurt feelings is not optimum on UseNet. If you just read
for poker information and ignore the other garbage, it is possible to
gain a lot from reading RGP and Gary is one of the reasons. It is also
possible to tell him to fuck off without making a permanent enemy.
Nick Wool
On Oct 16 2005 8:33 PM, willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> It seems to me that he was defending the article, in which it is clear
> that you can't use the smaller raises if they don't get the desired
> effect against your particular opponents. It is not that you, or I,
> can't use them because we aren't experts. No one should use them if he
> or she has opponents against whom they are not as useful as larger
> raises.
Not arguing with you here, but statements such as 'when Chris says something,
you better listen', or 'so you are standing on the other side of the line here'
doesn't seem to me to be the action of someone defending the article, but more
like the attitude of 'we know best, so shut up'. BTW, those weren't his
reponses to me, but to other posters.
> I never liked min raises and I started to change my mind but it wasn't
> because experts argued in favor of them. After all, there are other
> experts with very good records who don't use them. What convinced me
> was Chris Ferguson's REASONING, not his reputation.
> >
> > Just to remind you who started the whole damn thing, here is my first 2
> > post.
> >
> > Was I being a 'jerk' or 'nitwit' by post these?
> >
> > 'Hmm...not arguing with top player's play, they can get away from a hand
> > when
> > they sense they are beat, but probably not a good idea for the majority of
> > players here.'
>
> It should be easier to let go of a hand if you have invested less money
> in it already. By the way, it IS probably easier to play the hand if
> you have made a very large raise pre-flop. However, easier and more
> profitable don't always coincide (even when it rains)
yes, I would agree with that.
> >
> > '...but most players I've seen can easily get married to their 'big' hands,
> > TPTK
> > with AK/AQ, unimproved big pairs etc, even when they encounter stiff
> > resistance. These players really do need to thin the field with a
> > reasonable
> > raise, otherwise they are inviting players to take a lot of their chips on
> > the
> > cheap.
>
> If the stacks are deep, you just can't afford to get married to a big
> hand. Being risk-averse and realizing that folding (while quite
> deceptive) just can't be right with AA, one might move all-in. However,
> this will just win the blinds. Therefore, you have to play the hand
> post-flop and this won't always be easy. Despite the flamewar you have
> gotten involved in here, I know you are capable of solving the problem
> of "such and such a situation is very difficult." The solution to that
> problem is to learn and improve, not to adopt risk-averse and
> problem-averse strategies that fail to make you any money.
My point is that most players at my level WOULD be married to their big hands,
and so would probably do more damage to their stack if they were to follow this
min raise bring in, without adjusting their game post flop. And I am not sure
that many down at my level is capable of adjusting.
> > I suppose top players are not so married to their 'big' hands, and can make
> > big
> > laydowns easier, so they dont need to thin the field as much.'
> >
> > And he can hardly complain when the flame get bigger when he calls someone a
> > 'dumb fuck' for using the term 'false positive' to describe over-reliance on
> > authority, when eminent scientists such as Shermer also use it in this
> > context.
>
> Having easily-hurt feelings is not optimum on UseNet. If you just read
> for poker information and ignore the other garbage, it is possible to
> gain a lot from reading RGP and Gary is one of the reasons. It is also
> possible to tell him to fuck off without making a permanent enemy.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
Wasn't my feeling that got hurt. Hell, if I let some jumped-up poker player
hurt my feelings that easily, I would be the most profitable patient to the
shrinks industry ever. Just thought that his abrusive style might be
acceptable IF he was right, but when its combined with such ignorance, it
deserves to be thrown back with the same sort of abuse.
But will take your advice on this one nevertheless. Gary carson, fuck off.. End
of flame war. Peace now?...:-)
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
DennisP
> My point is that most players at my level WOULD be married to their big hands,
> and so would probably do more damage to their stack if they were to follow this
> min raise bring in, without adjusting their game post flop. And I am not sure
> that many down at my level is capable of adjusting.
>
> > > I suppose top players are not so married to their 'big' hands, and can make
> > > big
> > > laydowns easier, so they dont need to thin the field as much.'
I believe you are still missing the point. Sure, you may need to learn
to fold preflop monsters post flop, but the point is more directed at
the other hands. Say you have AQo and raise 2xBB. What if someone
comes over the top? You can call and you have less invested than a
larger bet would've, or you can fold and lose little. Say two call,
one of the blinds and one in later position and your AQ misses the
flop. You put out a continuation bet of 1/2 the pot and get raised.
Again, you are getting out of the pot having invested less.
willre...@yahoo.com
Stop thinking about your level. Raise your damn level. Why be satisfied
with your limitations?
>
> > > I suppose top players are not so married to their 'big' hands, and can make
> > > big
> > > laydowns easier, so they dont need to thin the field as much.'
> > >
> > > And he can hardly complain when the flame get bigger when he calls someone a
> > > 'dumb fuck' for using the term 'false positive' to describe over-reliance on
> > > authority, when eminent scientists such as Shermer also use it in this
> > > context.
> >
> > Having easily-hurt feelings is not optimum on UseNet. If you just read
> > for poker information and ignore the other garbage, it is possible to
> > gain a lot from reading RGP and Gary is one of the reasons. It is also
> > possible to tell him to fuck off without making a permanent enemy.
> >
> > Will in New Haven
> >
>
> Wasn't my feeling that got hurt. Hell, if I let some jumped-up poker player
> hurt my feelings that easily, I would be the most profitable patient to the
> shrinks industry ever. Just thought that his abrusive style might be
> acceptable IF he was right, but when its combined with such ignorance, it
> deserves to be thrown back with the same sort of abuse.
>
> But will take your advice on this one nevertheless. Gary carson, fuck off.. End
> of flame war. Peace now?...:-)
Good luck with that one.
Will in New Haven
--
"Oh they used to laugh at me
When I refused to ride
On all those double decker buses
All because there was no driver on the top" Joni Mitchell -
"Twisted"
Michael Sullivan
> On Oct 16 2005 3:53 AM, TD Lowball wrote:
> > In article <1129411950.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "garycarson" wrote:
> > > I shouldn't laugh at you. I know you're probably trying to understand.
> > > But, I just can't help myself.
> > I think you are making a type II error. HO == Nick Wool is trying to
> > understand.
> Very easy to mock with patronising remarks. Much harder to back it up
> with reason. Care to point out where I had misused the term?
> Or are you saying that 'false postive' MUST be used only in a statistical
> sense, and that people like Shermer are, to use the word of Carson, 'dumb
> fucks' when they used it to mean over-reliance on authority?
If Gary's quote is accurate, Shermer didn't use it to mean
"over-reliance on authority", he used it to describe one possible
*consequence* of using "over-reliance on authority" as your truth test
on a single hypothesis (i.e. one data point).
Michael