| |
Main
Date: 11 Feb 2009 17:52:42
From: MrBookworm
Subject: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
Sizing Up Your Opening Bet by Chris Ferguson
http://www.thehendonmob.com/poker_tips/sizing_up_your_opening_bet_by_chris_ferguson
The threads about no new theories in poker caused me to revisit this
topic, which seems relatively new. The idea is to change the size of your
bet based upon position. Smaller opening bets in EP (say 2 BB, gobble), up
to larger opening bets in LP (4 BB). I've seen this proposed by Chris
Ferguson a few times but I'm not sure how effective it is in practice. It
would seem that a gobble from EP is only opening you up for more callers
looking at both pot and implied odds. The example of laying down AQ to a
re-raise to save a few bets doesn't seem that much of an advantage. I
always open for the same amount, 3xBB online and 5xBB in my home game (our
blinds are .25/.50 and a raise to $2.50 will get 3-4 callers).
Does Chris Ferguson play this way himself? Anyone else tried to play this
way or thought much about it?
Dean
"When you respond to me, you are responding to a troll." - Paul Popinjay
1/16/2009
---
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 07:10:49
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
On Feb 11 2009 7:52 PM, MrBookworm wrote:
> Sizing Up Your Opening Bet by Chris Ferguson
>
http://www.thehendonmob.com/poker_tips/sizing_up_your_opening_bet_by_chris_ferguson
>
> The threads about no new theories in poker caused me to revisit this
> topic, which seems relatively new. The idea is to change the size of your
> bet based upon position. Smaller opening bets in EP (say 2 BB, gobble), up
> to larger opening bets in LP (4 BB). I've seen this proposed by Chris
> Ferguson a few times but I'm not sure how effective it is in practice. It
> would seem that a gobble from EP is only opening you up for more callers
> looking at both pot and implied odds. The example of laying down AQ to a
> re-raise to save a few bets doesn't seem that much of an advantage. I
> always open for the same amount, 3xBB online and 5xBB in my home game (our
> blinds are .25/.50 and a raise to $2.50 will get 3-4 callers).
>
> Does Chris Ferguson play this way himself? Anyone else tried to play this
> way or thought much about it?
>
> Dean
>
> "When you respond to me, you are responding to a troll." - Paul Popinjay
> 1/16/2009
A good friend of mine is a good friend of Bobby Hoff , and he asked Bobby
.how often should you bring it in for twice the BB( they dont say or use
the term "min raise")
Bobby said . "How about fucking never"
These issues are not new.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 09:23:48
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
> A good friend of mine is a good friend of Bobby Hoff , and he asked Bobby
> ..how often should you bring it in for twice the BB( they dont say or use
> the term "min raise")
>
> Bobby said . "How about fucking never"
>
> These issues are not new.
Things have changed sooo much man. Sorry you missed the train.
==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 09:34:39
From: eldo77
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
On Feb 12 2009 12:23 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> > A good friend of mine is a good friend of Bobby Hoff , and he asked Bobby
> > ..how often should you bring it in for twice the BB( they dont say or use
> > the term "min raise")
> >
> > Bobby said . "How about fucking never"
> >
> > These issues are not new.
>
> Things have changed sooo much man. Sorry you missed the train.
How would you know?
You may not have ever heard of Bobby Hoff but he is the best player I have
ever seen. Bar None.
eldo77
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 10:49:33
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
> How would you know?
Based off the inability or plain stubbornness of the 'old guard' to adapt
and the fact that at one time I believe Doggy was actually a decent player
added with the fact he, as of lately, loses 10.00 SNG on stars leads me to
believe it. Oh yeah I have actually heard current successful older
players say the exact thing also.
> You may not have ever heard of Bobby Hoff but he is the best player I have
> ever seen. Bar None.
>
> eldo77
Congrats. I think Selma Hayek is the hottest chick around. Who cares?
==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK
--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 20:35:51
From: eldo77
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
On Feb 12 2009 1:49 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> > How would you know?
>
> Based off the inability or plain stubbornness of the 'old guard' to adapt
> and the fact that at one time I believe Doggy was actually a decent player
> added with the fact he, as of lately, loses 10.00 SNG on stars leads me to
> believe it. Oh yeah I have actually heard current successful older
> players say the exact thing also.
>
> > You may not have ever heard of Bobby Hoff but he is the best player I have
> > ever seen. Bar None.
> >
> > eldo77
>
> Congrats. I think Selma Hayek is the hottest chick around. Who cares?
I don't blame you for changing the subject. You don't know jack shit about
poker.There was a time when you asked questions but you've learned so much
now in your 3/6 limit games you know it all.
eldo77
>
> ==========================================
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> ==============================
> 47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
> JBK
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 12:21:58
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
On Feb 12 2009 12:49 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> > How would you know?
>
> Based off the inability or plain stubbornness of the 'old guard' to adapt
> and the fact that at one time I believe Doggy was actually a decent player
> added with the fact he, as of lately, loses 10.00 SNG on stars leads me to
> believe it. Oh yeah I have actually heard current successful older
> players say the exact thing also.
See .. this is where you morons just dont get it . The new strategies that
you "fuzzy-nutters" use DOESNT FUCKIN WORK , long term . You morons each
have a night where you book a win , throwing yourself against the laws of
probability , and you fail to realize that the same strategies are why you
are going broke in legendary numbers .
You morons keep quoting the fact that I lost a small amount at SNG's on
one site , yet clearly show that I am about the same amount winners to
another site .
people like you arent stupid
YOU ARE JUST PLAIN IGNORANT !!
And by the way Bobby Hoff might be one of the top 5 NLHE cash players in
the world
>
> > You may not have ever heard of Bobby Hoff but he is the best player I have
> > ever seen. Bar None.
> >
> > eldo77
>
> Congrats. I think Selma Hayek is the hottest chick around. Who cares?
>
> ==========================================
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> ==============================
> 47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
> JBK
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 12:52:50
From: MrBookworm
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
> See .. this is where you morons just dont get it . The new strategies that
> you "fuzzy-nutters" use DOESNT FUCKIN WORK , long term . You morons each
> have a night where you book a win , throwing yourself against the laws of
> probability , and you fail to realize that the same strategies are why you
> are going broke in legendary numbers .
Doggy,
So the strategy here that Chris Ferguson proposes doesn't fucking work?
I would submit that he's a pretty successful tourney player (he even went
from $0 to $10K on Full Tilt playing SnG and Tourneys
http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/chris-ferguson-challenge). 5 WSOP bracelets,
Main Event win in 2000, etc. 2nd in the NBC heads-up championship in 2005,
2006 AND won it in 2008. You can't do that if you don't know what the fuck
you're doing. He has a Ph.D. in computer science and uses his knowledge of
game theory to play(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ferguson).
If someone like that suggests that it may make sense to open min-raise
from EP then I'm going to take a look at that idea. From what I've seen
you are a losing player at anything above micro stakes and I don't think
you have a Ph.D. Feel free to fetch.
Dean
"When you respond to me, you are responding to a troll." - Paul Popinjay
1/16/2009
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 16:35:20
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
On Feb 12 2009 2:52 PM, MrBookworm wrote:
> > See .. this is where you morons just dont get it . The new strategies that
> > you "fuzzy-nutters" use DOESNT FUCKIN WORK , long term . You morons each
> > have a night where you book a win , throwing yourself against the laws of
> > probability , and you fail to realize that the same strategies are why you
> > are going broke in legendary numbers .
>
> Doggy,
>
> So the strategy here that Chris Ferguson proposes doesn't fucking work?
>
> I would submit that he's a pretty successful tourney player (he even went
> from $0 to $10K on Full Tilt playing SnG and Tourneys
> http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/chris-ferguson-challenge). 5 WSOP bracelets,
> Main Event win in 2000, etc. 2nd in the NBC heads-up championship in 2005,
> 2006 AND won it in 2008. You can't do that if you don't know what the fuck
> you're doing. He has a Ph.D. in computer science and uses his knowledge of
> game theory to play(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ferguson).
>
> If someone like that suggests that it may make sense to open min-raise
> from EP then I'm going to take a look at that idea. From what I've seen
> you are a losing player at anything above micro stakes and I don't think
> you have a Ph.D. Feel free to fetch.
>
> Dean
>
> "When you respond to me, you are responding to a troll." - Paul Popinjay
> 1/16/2009
Do you honestly think that all the old timers played exactly the same ?
You dont think that they varied their "bring in "?
So this one thing is why Ferguson is a great player?
You morons just line up to say stupid shit !!
What strategy does this make obsolete? What does it replace ? How is it
better ?
At least when I am discussing this with someone with a brain like Patti or
Stephen .. I know there is a sound mind behind the responses!!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 12:45:30
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
> And by the way Bobby Hoff might be one of the top 5 NLHE cash players in
> the world
Once again:
>> > Congrats. I think Selma Hayek is the hottest chick around. Who cares?
==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Feb 2009 21:02:47
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
On Feb 11 2009 7:52 PM, MrBookworm wrote:
> Sizing Up Your Opening Bet by Chris Ferguson
>
http://www.thehendonmob.com/poker_tips/sizing_up_your_opening_bet_by_chris_ferguson
>
> The threads about no new theories in poker caused me to revisit this
> topic, which seems relatively new. The idea is to change the size of your
> bet based upon position. Smaller opening bets in EP (say 2 BB, gobble), up
> to larger opening bets in LP (4 BB). I've seen this proposed by Chris
> Ferguson a few times but I'm not sure how effective it is in practice. It
> would seem that a gobble from EP is only opening you up for more callers
> looking at both pot and implied odds. The example of laying down AQ to a
> re-raise to save a few bets doesn't seem that much of an advantage. I
> always open for the same amount, 3xBB online and 5xBB in my home game (our
> blinds are .25/.50 and a raise to $2.50 will get 3-4 callers).
>
> Does Chris Ferguson play this way himself? Anyone else tried to play this
> way or thought much about it?
>
> Dean
>
> "When you respond to me, you are responding to a troll." - Paul Popinjay
> 1/16/2009
Another excellent example of new poker theory. It must really burn doggy
up to be so consistently ignorant.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Feb 2009 21:04:52
From: gtech1
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
He's dead wrong generally, but somehow I think that people probably varied
their open raises based on positon even back in the old days.
On Feb 12 2009 12:02 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Feb 11 2009 7:52 PM, MrBookworm wrote:
>
> > Sizing Up Your Opening Bet by Chris Ferguson
> >
>
http://www.thehendonmob.com/poker_tips/sizing_up_your_opening_bet_by_chris_ferguson
> >
> > The threads about no new theories in poker caused me to revisit this
> > topic, which seems relatively new. The idea is to change the size of your
> > bet based upon position. Smaller opening bets in EP (say 2 BB, gobble), up
> > to larger opening bets in LP (4 BB). I've seen this proposed by Chris
> > Ferguson a few times but I'm not sure how effective it is in practice. It
> > would seem that a gobble from EP is only opening you up for more callers
> > looking at both pot and implied odds. The example of laying down AQ to a
> > re-raise to save a few bets doesn't seem that much of an advantage. I
> > always open for the same amount, 3xBB online and 5xBB in my home game (our
> > blinds are .25/.50 and a raise to $2.50 will get 3-4 callers).
> >
> > Does Chris Ferguson play this way himself? Anyone else tried to play this
> > way or thought much about it?
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > "When you respond to me, you are responding to a troll." - Paul Popinjay
> > 1/16/2009
>
> Another excellent example of new poker theory. It must really burn doggy
> up to be so consistently ignorant.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2009 21:08:59
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
On Feb 11 2009 11:04 PM, gtech1 wrote:
> He's dead wrong generally, but somehow I think that people probably varied
> their open raises based on positon even back in the old days.
Not the way being described here.
The only way doggy has ever been right in his entire life is in a broken
clock sense.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 07:27:30
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
On Feb 11 2009 11:08 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Feb 11 2009 11:04 PM, gtech1 wrote:
>
> > He's dead wrong generally, but somehow I think that people probably varied
> > their open raises based on positon even back in the old days.
>
> Not the way being described here.
WRONG AGAIN MORON .. We had geeks 30 years ago, who would try to break
down and re-examine all of the math . Always came back to the same ol
numbers
>
> The only way doggy has ever been right in his entire life is in a broken
> clock sense.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2009 05:48:12
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
On Feb 12 2009 12:08 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Feb 11 2009 11:04 PM, gtech1 wrote:
>
> > He's dead wrong generally, but somehow I think that people probably varied
> > their open raises based on positon even back in the old days.
>
> Not the way being described here.
>
> The only way doggy has ever been right in his entire life is in a broken
> clock sense.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Lol I sense a new sig for someone.
Fell
--
"Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
- Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Feb 2009 18:14:44
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Opening bet size - newish theory...
|
On Feb 11, 8:52=A0pm, "MrBookworm" <a825...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> Sizing Up Your Opening Bet by Chris Fergusonhttp://www.thehendonmob.com/p=
oker_tips/sizing_up_your_opening_bet_by_...
>
> The threads about no new theories in poker caused me to revisit this
> topic, which seems relatively new. The idea is to change the size of your
> bet based upon position. Smaller opening bets in EP (say 2 BB, gobble), u=
p
> to larger opening bets in LP (4 BB). I've seen this proposed by Chris
> Ferguson a few times but I'm not sure how effective it is in practice. It
> would seem that a gobble from EP is only opening you up for more callers
> looking at both pot and implied odds. The example of laying down AQ to a
> re-raise to save a few bets doesn't seem that much of an advantage. I
> always open for the same amount, 3xBB online and 5xBB in my home game (ou=
r
> blinds are .25/.50 and a raise to $2.50 will get 3-4 callers).
>
> Does Chris Ferguson play this way himself? Anyone else tried to play this
> way or thought much about it?
>
He wrote some very good articles on the subject but you have to
remember that it is only for _tournament_ poker and it part of an
integrated style. And he does play that style at least most of the
time in tournaments. If you are never going to open-limp, and he
doesn't, always opening small in early position (and with no limpers)
leaves you able to open some hands that you might have to fold if you
opened for more. If you allow yourself to open-limp, and I'm not
saying that people don't do fine doing this, you can have a smaller
raising range and make larger raises.
This doesn't just mean that you lose less when you fold to a re-raise,
although that is one of his points. It also means that an opponent's
logical re-raise size may allow you to take a flop and make a decision
later, without committing so many chips. With a big hand you are
tempting aggressive and over-aggressive players to re-raise you, which
may put you in position to make another raise.
I follow these guidelines in tournaments and they have worked fine
over the years. But I don't play many tournaments, really. In cash
games, I make bigger raises. Still, my late-position raises are
larger. .
--
Will in New Haven
This hand will raise now.
There is no I to do this,
The cards themselves act.
|
|
