No Limit or Pot Limit theory GCA
RussGgca
When speaking of holdem, the best way to play this game is pot limit.
Obviously limit is an acceptable way to play any game, though far from the
most skillful. Playing holdem for maximum results with the best player
having the best chance of winning, should only be done in one manner, and
that is pot limit.
Of course you will get the clowns or the incompetents stating that No Limit
is the best way to play this game, but this has been a fallacy perpetrated
on the public since they brought the WSOP into play. By far, the pot limit
players of the world are the best players in the world. Certain games need a
no limit structure, such as low-ball [any variation], five card stud [any
variation], but not holdem. Holdem should be played in a pot limit style for
the best players to have the greatest edge.
Believe me when I say, pot limit separates the men from the boys. Obviously
No Limit requires great skill. However, if No Limit requires great skill, go
to the ten power to understand the difference between the two games. I will
go into detail on why soon. Any one with any ability can play No Limit
holdem. As long as they are aggressive, they have a chance. Far more chance
than they would have in Pot Limit. How much brain power must you have to
just be able to stick all your chips into the pot anytime? Reading any book
will give you the knowledge of knowing when you can 'flip the coin' or stick
all your money in with a coin flip type of outcome. Same as picking a pro
football game with the spread.
Take a game of No Limit or Pot Limit with the blinds being $15-$25. Normally
the buy-in on a game would be about 40 times the large blind, though some
games may make it 20 times the large blind. However, we are not here to
discuss the buy-in. It will be one of the two, or close enough to where it
doesn't make a difference.
Now the No Limit player can play the game with limited success, provided his
stack doesn't get too big. Most No Limit players, and I mean most No Limit
players know very few moves, even if considered to be world class. The
reason behind this is there are fewer moves to know.
Take a game as I just mentioned, with blinds of $15-$25. Have your normal
player buy into the game with the normal buy-in of $1000. Basically, it is
very easy for him to play this game. Far easier than pot limit. In fact, I
believe I could train a monkey, Dave Keiser, or even a Razoo to do play this
game where they could be winning players in a very short period. Playing No
Limit requires basically 3 moves. The opening, getting the raise or betting
the flop, and stacking off on the turn. Making it even simpler, opening,
getting a raise, and stacking off before the flop. Very simple, even a
monkey could be trained to do this.
They turn the cards over and one person is an 11-10 favorite or a 6-5
favorite. Big deal, for as often as these guys are the favorite, they are
also the dog. However when they don't, you don't see this or even understand
this. The play begins when these people get larger stacks. Say they get
there stack to $5000. Do you think by playing very tight and having your
opposition know what you hold when you play a hand, you will be able to hold
onto your chips? The answer is NO.
You see games in No Limit and in Pot Limit where some people have Big Stacks
as compared to small stacks. The better players always want to be able to
cover all stacks. The players who are not so good, prefer to play a smaller
stack. Obviously there is a skill to playing both stacks. However, the skill
to playing a large stack in comparison to a small stack is so great, that
the ones playing the small stacks are limited to their potential, as they
must quit when they reach a certain amount, as they don't know how to play a
big stack.
Take a No Limit situation where the blinds are $15-$25. Easy to play when
your stack is $1000. What happens when you make a few hands and your stack
gets to $5000 or more? You are playing one a hand a half hour, and at this
level your opposition knows this. What do you do when you are dealt AA?
Raise a lot, raise a small amount. raise a larger amount. No matter what you
do, players will realize you have not been playing many hands and will play
many hands against you, provided they can cover your stack and you stack is
large enough to go after.
Number 1 lesson in No Limit or Pot Limit poker is not to tell the opposition
what you have, until the majority of the money is committed to the pot. This
is where the strength of the best players lay. For once you tell your
opposition what you have, they know what they must do to win or to minimize
your position. Believe it or not, I was once fortunate enough to have a
proposition given to me where we both bought $10,000 worth of chips in a no
limit holdem game and I gave the opposition two black aces. One stipulation,
he could not stack off until after the flop. Blinds were $15-$25. Needless
to say, he lost within the first five minutes when a flop came 2,3,4, and I
held 5,6,. He had made it $100 as usual, before the flop, the rule being 4
times the big blind. Then stacked off every time after the flop.
Think of this while playing No Limit for cash. This is one of the reasons
that the tournament players have no chance against the cash players.[I will
leave cheating out of this post] The cash players can always put these
tournament champions on a hand. While a cash player can have anything and
will gamble with it, the tournament player doesn't have the skills, as far
as even giving you a free card, when warranted to trap you.
Hopefully, I have explained to you that most No Limit players know only the
most basic moves, compared to the Pot Limit Players.
Now we come to the Pot Limit Players. The best Pot Limit Players always have
big stacks. They think more like chess players as they know 3 bets isn't
going to get the job done. The dominant Pot Limit players usually divide the
table in to sections. Position is everything and Pot Limit and No Limit
players know this. Don't even think you will get position on a good or great
No Limit or Pot Limit player. It isn't going to happen. Best way to face
this situation is to space yourself between each other and divide the table.
I know if a player with a big stack sat down behind me, I would just offer
the player behind him $100 or more to change seats. In fact, I have paid as
much as $2600 to change seats in a game.
This is why you should not attempt to gain position on the other players you
consider you opposition. Always space yourself at least 2 seats between the
opposition. Some times they will have to give you a seat the best of it.
Believe it, they do know it and seat changing is a variant that occurs as
frequently as possible in these games. It is almost comical as they may be
playing four handed and everyone is sitting next to each other. One of the
ways to get more room is to lock the seat up to your left. Courtesy will
allow you to have space, but don't you believe that another individual can
take that seat without your permission.
Now we get to Pot Limit games, the games where the best professionals excel.
Po Limit players realize they must think many moves ahead in this game. They
understand they must play more hands than normal, when playing big stacks.
The edge they have with the big stack is that everyone knows if they [little
stacks] screw up, they go broke. The big stack knows this also and thus
plays accordingly, never telling his opposition anything, especially the
small stack. These he will gamble with on many occasions knowing he may have
the worst of it, but also knowing when they get larger stacks, these people
are his, provided they don't quit.
World Class Professionals will play Aces before the flop the same way they
will play any other type of hand. You won't know. They will let you raise,
and wait, hoping to get a raise behind them to be able to get at least the
majority of the money in before the flop. If they can't so be it. They will
do everything they can, and you will have no idea to what they have.
Many times they will have nothing, but you will have told them what you
hold. Boards like 6,7,8 and similar boards are very dangerous to the people
that play extremely tight. Those without the moves needed to play big stacks
are most susceptible. Since bluffing is such a large part of the game, they
will use the 'call bluff' when certain flops come down, gambling on the
large pair you have. When you have a large stack and you are a No Limit
player, you are a Pot Limit players dinner. You can't stack off and they
know how to get position, since this is the name of the game.
Playing big stacks in Pot Limit makes the players think ahead. They think,
what if I call this bet, what will I have to call the next time? They think
of how much to raise in each instant, as to get the pot to maximum value to
bluff or to win on the river. The great players don't bet to get called all
the time, even when they have the nuts and know they will be able to get X
amount if they bet this amount. There way of thing is this, if I bet this
amount to milk this guy, then when I try to steal with a big bet, it will
strike him that I am not milking him. They would rather not get called, as
they can steal this much or far more. They put you to the test as far as
calling. In pot limit, if you are always in the position of calling, you are
the loser. For the big stack is not the big stack by accident.
Big stacks don't just get to be big stacks. Many make sure they have enough
to cover all players when they sit down. If you consider yourself the best
in your game, or even one of the best, you will have the big stack, or close
enough to the big stack to not make much of a difference.
Remember in Pot Limit, there are more moves than in No Limit. Basically it
takes at least 5 bets to get a big stack all in in pot limit. I mean Pot
bets. Usually it would take seven or so. No Limit players are used to making
3 moves as this is all they can think to. Pot Limit requires greater skills,
far greater and more bets. You must analyze the hand from the beginning. You
thoughts must be HOW, WHEN,and WHAT. How much to bet, when to bet, and what
to bet. This is something that No Limit holdem players lack.
Remember, any fool can play a large stack and stack off on a coin flip, as
in No Limit. It takes architectural skills to build a pot and win it in Pot
Limit. I used to have a standard joke when I played Pot Limit and someone
asked me what I did for a living. I would answer I was an architect, meaning
I build pots. This is a skill to the game that most players can never
comprehend. I could play every hand in pot limit and still beat a World
Class Game. This means seeing more than 90% of the flops. For, I will know
what they have, let them GUESS what I have. After all, the name or the
slogan of holdem is any two will do. And it will, when played with the right
position against the right opposition.
Maybe I am rambling on too long, so I will end this post at this time.
However, I will answer reasonable questions. By the way, I have never seen
Mike Caro play pot or no limit. Not in any game. This is the game I pick in
all duels[pot limit, anything]]. I will make the same statement I have been
stating for more than 20 years now. I eat world champions like kids eat
cheerios. So, I know all the great players haven't left RGP. Some or most
pretenders have. After all, you can't lose face can you.
Russ G [wcp, in all poker games] new...@aol.com
Russ...@aol.com
Lamont Cranston
AL
>From: twoba...@webtv.net (Lamont Cranston)
I see this post, but I never got the post it referred to.
AOL problem?
could someone email it to me please?
Scott N
players as well? Say two WCP and a good player with 4 average?
Obviously all the games can't be filled with scared callers or
players open like a book to read.
What about tricky players who also can play any two very well and
you might not be able to read? Isolate? Avoid and play only against
weak?
> I could play every hand in pot limit and still beat a World
>Class Game. This means seeing more than 90% of the flops. For, I
>will know what they have, let them GUESS what I have.
What about players who play just as tough and KNOW what you up to in
playing loose/super aggressive and are playing back at you? Or the
ones who play just better hands than what you would in situations,
putting you behind?
Obviously there must be more to being a WCP at such games than being
the aggressor. Could you list the top 5 skills needed for such games?
I believe Mason put Hand Reading #1. Agree?
Just curious
Scott N
JonCooke
I think your technical stuff is good.
I'm a good bridge player:
When I'm playing a bridge hand, experience sends me maybe two possible
strategies to think about, and I'll play the hand through in my head
each way to see which works and who I need to have what, or sometimes
I'll just know what to do because I've seen it so many times before. A
beginner could follow my reasoning away from the table, but be
hopeless at generating the same way of thinking himself.
I'm wondering about how you process what to do on any given poker
hand.
Where do you start from?
Do you do a lot of thinking during a hand or do you follow your
instincts at the table and work out later what was best as a learning
experience.
When I play pot limit omaha, I tend to play with a strategic objective
of where the money is coming from, and get a bit more involved in
hands that lie alongside my ojective.
For example:
A short stack gambler joins the game - raises almost every hand - I
tend to stop playing anything but good heads up hands, and I'm always
looking to manipulate the pot, by the size of my raises, so that he's
going all-in for an amount that is still live for me to re-raise.
Or, someone's on tilt. I'll stay in pots that they're in slightly more
than normal.
Or, there's a strong, aggressive player with a big stack in the game
across the table - I'll play very few hands without position on him.
Then I have tactical things that come up in pots I play. Normally who
is in the pot with me - should I be bluffing/ will I get paid if I
hit/ will he bluff if I check when I should bet. Can I tell what he
has - bread and butter things.
I'm interested in HOW you think when you play. A similar description
to mine, maybe with some example hands.
I'm interested also in a bit more detail on manipulating pot sizes
early, taking into account whether or not you might want to bluff late
in a hand; that is a very interesting concept, that I hadn't thought
about before you mentioned it in your heads up play post. Could you
give a bit more explanation?
Thanks Russ...
Steve N
"Lamont Cranston" <twoba...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> Uh, Oh! Strangely, I agree with some of what he said. <
Its not strange, I agree with much of what he says in this post too.
Despite what many of us may think of Russ personally, he can play, I've
verified that with some world-class sources, and he often has alot to say
that makes sense. If he'd stick with imparting his knowledge of cheating
and poker, and stay away from the personal attacks and the revenge business,
he would be a valuable contributor to RGP.
Steve N
Nate Grover
adjust when they are deep and hold big pairs.
This is pretty standard PL/NL knowledge.
You say:
"World Class Professionals will play Aces before the flop the same way
they
will play any other type of hand. You won't know."
It's just not that hard to vary your play. This isn't
earth-shattering advice. Sometimes you raise a lot, sometimes you
raise a little. Sometimes you call and hope for a re-raise
opportunity. Pretty simple. If you're deep and you see a flop with
AA, proceed carefully. Don't commit unless you know your opponent is
way too aggressive. In that case, check to him. Duh.
You say:
"Playing No Limit requires basically 3 moves. The opening, getting the
raise or betting the flop, and stacking off on the turn [I assume here
you mean the Texan use of the word turn, as in 'flop']. Making it even
simpler, opening, getting a raise, and stacking off before the flop."
If you weren't a confessed cheater, I'd gladly take a 2nd mortgage on
my house to play you heads up no limit hold'em if you promise to play
this way. This strategy cannot win against a decent player. One
thing you fail to mention about no limit hold'em is that when your
opponent is deep, you cannot over-extend yourself being aggressive in
small pots. By "stacking off" for $5000 into a $200 pot, you are
being a fool.
I hope others take your no limit advice to heart and join my game
soon. I need the money.
You say:"Many times they will have nothing, but you will have told
them what you hold. Boards like 6,7,8 and similar boards are very
dangerous to the people that play extremely tight. Those without the
moves needed to play big stacks are most susceptible. "
By "moves needed to play" it sounds like you just mean the ability to
see a flop with baby cards? Again, this is not very hard to do and
any player who knows ANYTHING understands you need to mix up your
preflop hand selection to stand a chance. That goes for LIMIT hold'em
too! Or do you mean the ability to bluff when checked to? What about
if a "tight" player sees a flop of 678 and bets into you? What are
you going to do with your J2o now? Go for a bluff-raise, I dare ya.
It seems to me you are just talking about how to destroy extremely
weak players. Or do you think these strategies are unknown to all the
best players too? Just wondering.
You say:"I build pots. This is a skill to the game that most players
can never comprehend. I could play every hand in pot limit and still
beat a World
Class Game. This means seeing more than 90% of the flops. For, I will
know
what they have, let them GUESS what I have."
I think you vastly underestimate the ability of the average player to
see a flop with a speculative hand. There is no way, absolutely no
way you could see 90% of the flops in a tough pot limit game and come
out ahead. Logic tells us that if you're playing 90% of the hands,
you are playing WAY too many trash hands in early position. Even the
best cannot win by doing that.
Logic just gets in the way.
Nate Grover
plplaya
"By "stacking off" for $5000 into a $200 pot, you are
being a fool."
How? If you are sure you're ahead, or you're sure you won't get a call,
that's $200 you just made by playing good poker.
NL tournament players have more to consider if they can't reload. Risking
it all into 52-48 favorite is usually not the best plan, because when you
lose, you're out. In live NL, I'm shoving all my money in when I have the
best of it. There is no reason not too.
Whether tournament NL has more skill involved (i think it does) than live NL
is a different discussion.
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
>
>Everything Russ said is correct. What is your problem?
>
>"By "stacking off" for $5000 into a $200 pot, you are
> being a fool."
>
>
>How? If you are sure you're ahead, or you're sure you won't get a call,
>that's $200 you just made by playing good poker.
>
>NL tournament players have more to consider if they can't reload. Risking
>it all into 52-48 favorite is usually not the best plan, because when you
>lose, you're out. In live NL, I'm shoving all my money in when I have the
>best of it. There is no reason not too.
this is wrong(ish).
the reason why it might not be best to shove all your money in now, is, this is
dependent on the propensity of the opponent(s) to call now factored into the
card probabilities now, versus the probability they will call later, factored
into the changed card probabilities that occurs later. generally.
it isnt going to do much good to always shove in when you have the best of it if
you never get called unless it turns out you dont.
something like that.
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are....
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
but if those were the conditions, then he wouldnt be here at all, i think.
Steve N
"Jonathan Kaplan .com>" <NutNoPair@aol<spam> wrote in message
> but if those were the conditions, then he wouldnt be here at all, i think.
>
You're probably right, but maybe he'll finally figure it out one day.
Nothing to be lost by being hopeful :)
Steve N
plplaya
sure you are in the lead, then you want as much money in there as possible.
Every situation is different, there is no answer set in stone in NL and PL.
You are not automatically a fool for going all in on a $200 pot with $5k.
There are many reasons for making such a move. Sometimes you want a call,
other times you don't. It all depends.
My real point was to discredit the person trying to discredit Russ, who
offered correct information.
Nate Grover
> My real point was to discredit the person trying to discredit Russ, who
> offered correct information.
Russ's description of how to properly play no limit is so totally
incorrect it's laughable. If you were to bet and raise every hand and
then move all in on the flop each time without regard to stack sizes
and pot size, you will lose all your money very quickly. It think
perhaps Russ is speaking from the experience of playing when you
LITERALLY know what your opponent has. Most of us don't cheat so we
can't play that way.
Even his description of pot limit play is simplistic and absurd. To
claim that an expert can play 90% of his hands in pot limit is
absolutely wrong. You simply cannot win playing that many hands,
even if all the players are just mediocre and you are an expert.
Russ' description of how to play sounds like a lot of fun, but it is a
losing style against all but the very worst players.
In heads up play, Russ's approach can only work while the opponents
stacks are within certain ranges. Once the stacks are too small or
too big, the "bet big no matter what" approach fails to get the money
any more.
And no, there's almost no reason to ever bet $5000 into a $200 pot.
If the stacks are that deep and the pot is that small, the situations
where betting that much is correct are so rare it's not worth
discussing.
But, I would gladly play with anyone who plans to use Russ's post as a
guideline for PL and NL play.
Nate Grover
sweater
>But, I would gladly play with anyone who plans to use Russ's post as a
>guideline for PL and NL play.
So you'll play Russ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Many of you have seen Russ flood the NG with these posts on how
to obtain the tape.What a BLUFF....HE IS NOT SENDING ANY TAPES!
- Razzo [Genius] - http://tinyurl.com/bv3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jd00123
>incorrect it's laughable. If you were to bet and raise every hand and
>then move all in on the flop each time without regard to stack sizes
>and pot size, you will lose all your money very quickly.
Where does he say to play every hand in this manner?
wg bradley
describes...nobody is that stupid.
"sweater" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:ca1dgu4ttri03lkva...@4ax.com...
Pokerbase
small stack (he could teach a monkey to play a small stack
effectively). With deep stacks no limit is more complicated and you
have to play well, but still, it is not as complicated as pot limit
since it still takes more bets to get it all in in pot limit. I agree
with this entirely. There may be some bluster and exaggeration in his
post, but I'm afraid you are missing the forest for the trees trying
to pick it apart ...
Newgca
>way you could see 90% of the flops in a tough pot limit game and come
>out ahead. Logic tells us that if you're playing 90% of the hands,
>you are playing WAY too many trash hands in early position. Even the
>best cannot win by doing that.
>
>Logic just gets in the way.
>
>Nate Grover
>
>
years. Morgage your house and post somewhere [honest, honerable brokerage firm,
and then I will do the same, at least 5 figures please] and I WILL SEND A LIMO
for you.
Russ [the best] G
Newgca
>post, but I'm afraid you are missing the forest for the trees trying
>to pick it apart ...
Thank you. But they are welcome to call my bluster and exaggeration
Russ [will break you] G
Newgca
>and poker, and stay away from the personal attacks and the revenge business,
>he would be a valuable contributor to RGP.
>
>Steve N
>
Not possible. sorry
Russ [whistle-blower] G
James L. Hankins
his house" actually do so and play Russ. Probably wouldn't mean that much
as far as what Russ is saying, but statements like that just irritate me
because they guy has no intention of doing it. Hyperbole, yes, of course,
but next time choose another route. Or play Russ for your house.
"Newgca" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020611225207...@mb-mv.aol.com...
Glenn
opposition
what you have, until the majority of the money is committed to the pot"
"I could play every hand in pot limit and still beat a World
Class Game. This means seeing more than 90% of the flops"
Does what you say only really apply to short-handed PLHE?
If so the rest of this may be irrelevant.
I have no interest/ability for serious money poker so this is of academic
interest to me. But -
Take a standard PLHE situation. You're early/mid position, 2 folds and a
limper to you.
a) you have J7o
b) you have AA
From quote ii) above I presume you'll play the J7 (i.e. typical junk)
From quote i) above I presume you'll bet them (much) the same.
How do you bet in each case? limp / raise some / raise pot?
If it's a high class aggressive table you may well face a raise behind you,
no?
To "see 90% of the flops", you'll have to call or re-raise with the J7, no?
Betting the J7 (in whatever way) looks like a good way to bleed huge amounts
of chips "seeing more than 90% of the flops" (stress *see flops* )
I can't understand how these 2 quotes can live together.
Maybe you could explain the way these hands pan out.
But, like I said, it's academic to me.
cheers
Glenn
Newgca
>but next time choose another route. Or play Russ for your house.
>
Thank you Mr. Hankins. I for one would like to see Mason or Sklansky attempt to
debate me on high stakes poker.
That would really be funny
Russell R.
fact is NL can be fairly easily manipulated to minimize your opponents
edge. This was most evident at this years WSOP. Robert's Q-10 v.
Hellmuth AK. Hellmuth knew he was ahead, but should he call with such
a small edge? If the answer is yes, then you have limited a WCP to a
2-1 edge, not bad. If the answer is no dont call, now you have taken
away a ton of play from the pro.
If that had been a PL game, Robert probably just folds the Q-10
because there is no way he can get Hellmuth to fold there (which it is
safe to say robert thought he would do). Now the Pro can use his reads
on the flop and turn to see if he is still ahead, and if so by how
much. Having multiple opportunities to do this where your edge may
increase on each street is a big edge. A move or muck NL strategy
takes this away.
I can honestly say I am a far better NL player than PL player. The
main reason why is that I can decide when to "stack off" with a
reasonable probability that I will not get called (or I am ahead). In
PL, it becomes more difficult, because that first raise is more likely
to get called, and now the flop becomes a more difficult situation.
I will say that had the WSOP been PL I NEVER would have gone broke
with the J-6d. I moved in because I was quite sure to only get called
by AK, AA, or KK, and AK is not even that big a favorite.
Then again, with what I had to do to get to that point, I doubt I
would have made it that far if it was a PL event.
Sklansky's new book speaks to this point, one can really minimize a
WCP advantage by simply forcing him to CALL for all of his chips
fairly regularly. In a PL game this becomes a failed strategy.
russ...@aol.com (RussGgca) wrote in message news:<20020611011344...@mb-fi.aol.com>...
Nate Grover
> You know, for once I'd like to some blowhard who says that he'd "mortgage
> his house" actually do so and play Russ.
I wouldn't play with a cheater for any amount, no matter how small or
how large.
Yes, I was using hyperbole but anyway, it turns out I misread his
description of no limit play. It's been noted often that Russ's
english is not very good and that's putting it nicely. I
misinterpreted his statements to mean you should simply move allin
every hand, which of course sounds crazy.
His paragraph should have said that it's a simple strategy with the
qualifer "when you are shortstacked and have a hand you like" which I
guess was implied but I missed it. Yes, it's a fairly simple game
when your very short stacked. Not much of a news flash.
Anway, I still think the post as a whole was vague, uninformative,
overly simplistic, and whenever it actually said something of value,
it tended to point out the obvious (such as the point about
short-stacked no limit play above).
Also, Russ appears to vastly understimate the ability of the typical
pot limit player to vary their preflop hand selection. And, one last
time, anyone who claims they can play 90% of their hands in a tough
pot limit ring game is wrong. Therefore, you should be suspicious of
anything else they say about how to play.
No one, not even the world's best players, could play that many hands
in pot limit against a tough lineup and come out ahead (without
cheating). Period.
Basically, the essay was next to worthless and probably would do more
harm than good to someone just getting started in pot limit hold'em.
Nate Grover
sweater
>"James L. Hankins" <jhan...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<ugdfk0...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> You know, for once I'd like to some blowhard who says that he'd "mortgage
>> his house" actually do so and play Russ.
>
>
>I wouldn't play with a cheater for any amount, no matter how small or
>how large.
>
So, you won't play him, but you spend paragraph after
paragraph talking about the errors in his strategy ..
LOL
LAME.
>Yes, I was using hyperbole but anyway, it turns out I misread his
>description of no limit play. It's been noted often that Russ's
>english is not very good and that's putting it nicely. I
>misinterpreted his statements to mean you should simply move allin
>every hand, which of course sounds crazy.
>
>His paragraph should have said that it's a simple strategy with the
>qualifer "when you are shortstacked and have a hand you like" which I
>guess was implied but I missed it. Yes, it's a fairly simple game
>when your very short stacked. Not much of a news flash.
>
>Anway, I still think the post as a whole was vague, uninformative,
>overly simplistic, and whenever it actually said something of value,
>it tended to point out the obvious (such as the point about
>short-stacked no limit play above).
>
>Also, Russ appears to vastly understimate the ability of the typical
>pot limit player to vary their preflop hand selection. And, one last
>time, anyone who claims they can play 90% of their hands in a tough
>pot limit ring game is wrong. Therefore, you should be suspicious of
>anything else they say about how to play.
>
>No one, not even the world's best players, could play that many hands
>in pot limit against a tough lineup and come out ahead (without
>cheating). Period.
>
>Basically, the essay was next to worthless and probably would do more
>harm than good to someone just getting started in pot limit hold'em.
>
>Nate Grover
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AL
>From: nate.m...@bofasecurities.com (Nate Grover)
>Basically, the essay was next to worthless and probably would do more
>harm than good to someone just getting started in pot limit hold'em.
Hi Nate - I'm just starting to learn pot limit since they are now online.
I would appreciate reading any thoughts you have that might help me get
started.
Thanks
-AL