| |
Main
Date: 28 Nov 2006 15:24:47
From: brewmaster
Subject: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
I've gotten to the point where I am thinking I am making the right size
bets, getting people to call when I have the best of it, etc. But Russ
made a statement "you either want your opponent to call, or you want him
to fold, so you make a bet big enough that if he calls you get a lot of
chips, or big enough that it puts too much pressure on him and he folds,
either way you need to make a big bet".
I used to overbet the pot quite often, and I won more tourneys then. I
got too smart for my own good I think.
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
On Nov 28 2006 11:24 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> I've gotten to the point where I am thinking I am making the right size
> bets, getting people to call when I have the best of it, etc. But Russ
> made a statement "you either want your opponent to call, or you want him
> to fold, so you make a bet big enough that if he calls you get a lot of
> chips, or big enough that it puts too much pressure on him and he folds,
> either way you need to make a big bet".
>
> I used to overbet the pot quite often, and I won more tourneys then. I
> got too smart for my own good I think.
The flaw I see is that by overbetting, you are likely to only to get calls from
hands that are beating you. So the situation might become that you either win a
small pot, or lose a large one.
Also, if you have a great hand, shouldnt the idea be to milk whatever you think
they'll call? Be overbetting, are you not in danger of pushing out hands that
you want to call? If you have a strong but not overly strong hand, who is going
to call an overbet unless they had you beat?
I don't think the issue is as clear as you made it out to be.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov
From: arlo payne
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
On Nov 28 2006 8:03 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
>
>
> On Nov 28 2006 11:24 PM, brewmaster wrote:
>
> > I've gotten to the point where I am thinking I am making the right size
> > bets, getting people to call when I have the best of it, etc. But Russ
> > made a statement "you either want your opponent to call, or you want him
> > to fold, so you make a bet big enough that if he calls you get a lot of
> > chips, or big enough that it puts too much pressure on him and he folds,
> > either way you need to make a big bet".
> >
> > I used to overbet the pot quite often, and I won more tourneys then. I
> > got too smart for my own good I think.
>
> The flaw I see is that by overbetting, you are likely to only to get calls
> from
> hands that are beating you. So the situation might become that you either win
> a
> small pot, or lose a large one.
Not at all. You have yoour thinking to limited.
An overbet appears to be a bluff to a weak hand with a draw or a small pair and
you get a call.
To a big hand it appears to be a bet by a bigger hand and you get a strong hand
to fold thinking they have made a good lay down.
It sounds funny but that is really how most peoples minds work.
>
> Also, if you have a great hand, shouldnt the idea be to milk whatever you
> think
> they'll call? Be overbetting, are you not in danger of pushing out hands that
> you want to call? If you have a strong but not overly strong hand, who is
> going
> to call an overbet unless they had you beat?
Many times the milker gets kicked by the cow.
>
> I don't think the issue is as clear as you made it out to be.
It really is not a matter of clear or not clear it is more of a case of
understanding the mindset of the other players. It is also a case of
understanding the difference of different limits.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
On Nov 29 2006 8:54 AM, arlo payne wrote:
>
>
>
> On Nov 28 2006 8:03 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 28 2006 11:24 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> >
> > > I've gotten to the point where I am thinking I am making the right size
> > > bets, getting people to call when I have the best of it, etc. But Russ
> > > made a statement "you either want your opponent to call, or you want him
> > > to fold, so you make a bet big enough that if he calls you get a lot of
> > > chips, or big enough that it puts too much pressure on him and he folds,
> > > either way you need to make a big bet".
> > >
> > > I used to overbet the pot quite often, and I won more tourneys then. I
> > > got too smart for my own good I think.
> >
> > The flaw I see is that by overbetting, you are likely to only to get calls
> > from
> > hands that are beating you. So the situation might become that you either
> > win
> > a
> > small pot, or lose a large one.
>
> Not at all. You have yoour thinking to limited.
> An overbet appears to be a bluff to a weak hand with a draw or a small pair
> and
> you get a call.
> To a big hand it appears to be a bet by a bigger hand and you get a strong
> hand
> to fold thinking they have made a good lay down.
> It sounds funny but that is really how most peoples minds work.
Yes, we'll all be millionaires if they are all so predictable. so what you are
saying is that if you overbet the pot, people might be intimitated unless they
had the nuts and fold a strong hand, or call with a weak hand because they think
you must be bluffing. er...hang on... that cant be right....so which is it?
What this 'strategy' says is that your opponent will do exactly what you want
them to do...call with weak hands and fold strong but non-nut hands....Sounds
great...but if you really cant see the flaw in this wishful thinking, my respect
for you has diminished.
The first few times you overbet the pot, people might be wary of what you are
doing, and let you get away with whatever you are trying to do. But once they
see that's your betting style, you are back to square one.
> >
> > Also, if you have a great hand, shouldnt the idea be to milk whatever you
> > think
> > they'll call? Be overbetting, are you not in danger of pushing out hands
> > that
> > you want to call? If you have a strong but not overly strong hand, who is
> > going
> > to call an overbet unless they had you beat?
>
> Many times the milker gets kicked by the cow.
Fine, I accept that. Except that the same can be said of overbetting
constantly, in that you can get your finger burnt badly. So what's the
difference?
>
> >
> > I don't think the issue is as clear as you made it out to be.
>
> It really is not a matter of clear or not clear it is more of a case of
> understanding the mindset of the other players. It is also a case of
> understanding the difference of different limits.
>
>
Yes, the punters are all mugs at your dizzy highs. At least that's what you
seem to be saying.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 20:28:27
From: Dr Zen
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 06 9:31:25 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com >
wrote:
>
>
>
>On Nov 29 2006 8:54 AM, arlo payne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 28 2006 8:03 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Nov 28 2006 11:24 PM, brewmaster wrote:
>> >
>> > > I've gotten to the point where I am thinking I am making the right size
>> > > bets, getting people to call when I have the best of it, etc. But Russ
>> > > made a statement "you either want your opponent to call, or you want him
>> > > to fold, so you make a bet big enough that if he calls you get a lot of
>> > > chips, or big enough that it puts too much pressure on him and he folds,
>> > > either way you need to make a big bet".
>> > >
>> > > I used to overbet the pot quite often, and I won more tourneys then. I
>> > > got too smart for my own good I think.
>> >
>> > The flaw I see is that by overbetting, you are likely to only to get calls
>> > from
>> > hands that are beating you. So the situation might become that you either
>> > win
>> > a
>> > small pot, or lose a large one.
>>
>> Not at all. You have yoour thinking to limited.
>> An overbet appears to be a bluff to a weak hand with a draw or a small pair
>> and
>> you get a call.
>> To a big hand it appears to be a bet by a bigger hand and you get a strong
>> hand
>> to fold thinking they have made a good lay down.
>> It sounds funny but that is really how most peoples minds work.
>
>Yes, we'll all be millionaires if they are all so predictable. so what you are
>saying is that if you overbet the pot, people might be intimitated unless they
>had the nuts and fold a strong hand, or call with a weak hand because they think
>you must be bluffing. er...hang on... that cant be right....so which is it?
>
It can be both. Are you just not getting that he's saying that how
they look at your bet depends on what they are holding?
Have you never faced a bet and thought "this is either a very strong
hand or the guy is completely FOS"?
>What this 'strategy' says is that your opponent will do exactly what you want
>them to do...call with weak hands and fold strong but non-nut hands....Sounds
>great...but if you really cant see the flaw in this wishful thinking, my respect
>for you has diminished.
>
I think there's some truth in it that a player will tend to categorise
his hands: strong ones are in a different category from those that can
only catch bluffs. Do you not think like that about your hands? Do you
not think about what they can or can't beat that your opponent might
have? The weak hand in question can only beat a bluff. It's easy for
them to convince themselves that that is what you have. Harder for the
strong hand because it sees itself as somewhere else on the spectrum
of possible hands.
>The first few times you overbet the pot, people might be wary of what you are
>doing, and let you get away with whatever you are trying to do. But once they
>see that's your betting style, you are back to square one.
The way Russ advocates playing, I don't think they see you do much of
anything.
>
>> >
>> > Also, if you have a great hand, shouldnt the idea be to milk whatever you
>> > think
>> > they'll call? Be overbetting, are you not in danger of pushing out hands
>> > that
>> > you want to call? If you have a strong but not overly strong hand, who is
>> > going
>> > to call an overbet unless they had you beat?
>>
>> Many times the milker gets kicked by the cow.
>
>Fine, I accept that. Except that the same can be said of overbetting
>constantly, in that you can get your finger burnt badly. So what's the
>difference?
None, that's a valid point. They both have pluses and minuses.
>
>>
>> >
>> > I don't think the issue is as clear as you made it out to be.
>>
>> It really is not a matter of clear or not clear it is more of a case of
>> understanding the mindset of the other players. It is also a case of
>> understanding the difference of different limits.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, the punters are all mugs at your dizzy highs. At least that's what you
>seem to be saying.
Dude, I was reading some of Tommy Angelo's pieces. They do seem to be
a bit on the muggy side. Also, someone posted a couple of hands Dags
had played at high limits in which the play would not have disgraced
some of the fish at .05/.10.
--
Dr Zen
King of the wild pixels.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 10:56:25
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
On Nov 29 2006 10:28 AM, Dr Zen wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 06 9:31:25 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >On Nov 29 2006 8:54 AM, arlo payne wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 28 2006 8:03 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Nov 28 2006 11:24 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I've gotten to the point where I am thinking I am making the right size
> >> > > bets, getting people to call when I have the best of it, etc. But Russ
> >> > > made a statement "you either want your opponent to call, or you want
> >> > > him
> >> > > to fold, so you make a bet big enough that if he calls you get a lot of
> >> > > chips, or big enough that it puts too much pressure on him and he
> >> > > folds,
> >> > > either way you need to make a big bet".
> >> > >
> >> > > I used to overbet the pot quite often, and I won more tourneys then. I
> >> > > got too smart for my own good I think.
> >> >
> >> > The flaw I see is that by overbetting, you are likely to only to get
> >> > calls
> >> > from
> >> > hands that are beating you. So the situation might become that you
> >> > either
> >> > win
> >> > a
> >> > small pot, or lose a large one.
> >>
> >> Not at all. You have yoour thinking to limited.
> >> An overbet appears to be a bluff to a weak hand with a draw or a small pair
> >> and
> >> you get a call.
> >> To a big hand it appears to be a bet by a bigger hand and you get a strong
> >> hand
> >> to fold thinking they have made a good lay down.
> >> It sounds funny but that is really how most peoples minds work.
> >
> >Yes, we'll all be millionaires if they are all so predictable. so what you
> >are
> >saying is that if you overbet the pot, people might be intimitated unless
> >they
> >had the nuts and fold a strong hand, or call with a weak hand because they
> >think
> >you must be bluffing. er...hang on... that cant be right....so which is it?
> >
>
> It can be both. Are you just not getting that he's saying that how
> they look at your bet depends on what they are holding?
>
> Have you never faced a bet and thought "this is either a very strong
> hand or the guy is completely FOS"?
Of course their hands will be a major consideration in how they look at your
overbet, but what you are saying is that the opponent will fold strong non-nut
hands, and call with weak hands? Because for the 'strategy' to work, that what
needs to happen. And if that is not wishful thinking, I dont know what is.
> >What this 'strategy' says is that your opponent will do exactly what you want
> >them to do...call with weak hands and fold strong but non-nut hands....Sounds
> >great...but if you really cant see the flaw in this wishful thinking, my
> >respect
> >for you has diminished.
> >
>
> I think there's some truth in it that a player will tend to categorise
> his hands: strong ones are in a different category from those that can
> only catch bluffs. Do you not think like that about your hands? Do you
> not think about what they can or can't beat that your opponent might
> have? The weak hand in question can only beat a bluff. It's easy for
> them to convince themselves that that is what you have. Harder for the
> strong hand because it sees itself as somewhere else on the spectrum
> of possible hands.
So when they have a weak hand, they will call because they think your overbet is
a bluff, yet when they have a strong non-nut hand, they will fold because they
think you have the nuts. It'll be nice if they all play like that.
I think what you will find in the real world, once you get past 25/50 cents, is
that they are far more likely to fold with a weak hand in the face of strong
action, and far more likely to call you with a strong non-nut hand if they see
you constantly overbetting the pot. I know I would, and I am not even a good
player.
> >The first few times you overbet the pot, people might be wary of what you are
> >doing, and let you get away with whatever you are trying to do. But once
> >they
> >see that's your betting style, you are back to square one.
>
> The way Russ advocates playing, I don't think they see you do much of
> anything.
>
How so? Russ blindfolds them durting a game, or does he use a special software
to blank out their screens? I know he is a self-confessed cheat, but even
that's beyond him, surely?
> >> >
> >> > Also, if you have a great hand, shouldnt the idea be to milk whatever you
> >> > think
> >> > they'll call? Be overbetting, are you not in danger of pushing out hands
> >> > that
> >> > you want to call? If you have a strong but not overly strong hand, who
> >> > is
> >> > going
> >> > to call an overbet unless they had you beat?
> >>
> >> Many times the milker gets kicked by the cow.
> >
> >Fine, I accept that. Except that the same can be said of overbetting
> >constantly, in that you can get your finger burnt badly. So what's the
> >difference?
>
> None, that's a valid point. They both have pluses and minuses.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I don't think the issue is as clear as you made it out to be.
> >>
> >> It really is not a matter of clear or not clear it is more of a case of
> >> understanding the mindset of the other players. It is also a case of
> >> understanding the difference of different limits.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yes, the punters are all mugs at your dizzy highs. At least that's what you
> >seem to be saying.
>
> Dude, I was reading some of Tommy Angelo's pieces. They do seem to be
> a bit on the muggy side. Also, someone posted a couple of hands Dags
> had played at high limits in which the play would not have disgraced
> some of the fish at .05/.10.
>
If you enter a table assuming that they are all mugs, then whatever you do
shouldnt affect your winnings too much if your assumptions holds. But beware
that these fish are not sharks in disguise.
> --
>
> Dr Zen
> King of the wild pixels.
> http://gollyg.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 21:39:12
From: Dr Zen
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 06 10:56:25 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com >
wrote:
>
>
>
>On Nov 29 2006 10:28 AM, Dr Zen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 06 9:31:25 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Nov 29 2006 8:54 AM, arlo payne wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Nov 28 2006 8:03 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Nov 28 2006 11:24 PM, brewmaster wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I've gotten to the point where I am thinking I am making the right size
>> >> > > bets, getting people to call when I have the best of it, etc. But Russ
>> >> > > made a statement "you either want your opponent to call, or you want
>> >> > > him
>> >> > > to fold, so you make a bet big enough that if he calls you get a lot of
>> >> > > chips, or big enough that it puts too much pressure on him and he
>> >> > > folds,
>> >> > > either way you need to make a big bet".
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I used to overbet the pot quite often, and I won more tourneys then. I
>> >> > > got too smart for my own good I think.
>> >> >
>> >> > The flaw I see is that by overbetting, you are likely to only to get
>> >> > calls
>> >> > from
>> >> > hands that are beating you. So the situation might become that you
>> >> > either
>> >> > win
>> >> > a
>> >> > small pot, or lose a large one.
>> >>
>> >> Not at all. You have yoour thinking to limited.
>> >> An overbet appears to be a bluff to a weak hand with a draw or a small pair
>> >> and
>> >> you get a call.
>> >> To a big hand it appears to be a bet by a bigger hand and you get a strong
>> >> hand
>> >> to fold thinking they have made a good lay down.
>> >> It sounds funny but that is really how most peoples minds work.
>> >
>> >Yes, we'll all be millionaires if they are all so predictable. so what you
>> >are
>> >saying is that if you overbet the pot, people might be intimitated unless
>> >they
>> >had the nuts and fold a strong hand, or call with a weak hand because they
>> >think
>> >you must be bluffing. er...hang on... that cant be right....so which is it?
>> >
>>
>> It can be both. Are you just not getting that he's saying that how
>> they look at your bet depends on what they are holding?
>>
>> Have you never faced a bet and thought "this is either a very strong
>> hand or the guy is completely FOS"?
>
>Of course their hands will be a major consideration in how they look at your
>overbet, but what you are saying is that the opponent will fold strong non-nut
>hands, and call with weak hands?
Sometimes.
> Because for the 'strategy' to work, that what
>needs to happen.
It needs to happen sometimes.
Nick, if the overbet is x, and your normal bet is y, and percentage
overbet is called is a and normal bet is called is b, you need x*a
>y*b for it to be worth overbetting, no? You do not need a to be more
than b.
Miller/Sklansky discuss this concept in NLHETAP. Have you read it?
As for the folding thing, you need it to happen some of the time. The
strong hand is calling your smaller bet a lot of the time. Again, if x
is small bet induces a fold and y is big bet induces a fold, you need
a percentage of y that makes up for times you are called but are not
best. The suggestion is that the big bet seems to many players to be a
bluff/nuts type bet. You hold the best hand or the worst hand.
Do you not recognise the type of player who will not fold to a bluff
but will make a "big laydown"? Most tight players have the failing of
folding too much. They look for reasons to fold. It's not wholly
unreasonable for them to look at their hand and say "well, I don't
have the nuts..." or to say "I can beat a bluff", depending on what
they have.
> And if that is not wishful thinking, I dont know what is.
>
>> >What this 'strategy' says is that your opponent will do exactly what you want
>> >them to do...call with weak hands and fold strong but non-nut hands....Sounds
>> >great...but if you really cant see the flaw in this wishful thinking, my
>> >respect
>> >for you has diminished.
>> >
>>
>> I think there's some truth in it that a player will tend to categorise
>> his hands: strong ones are in a different category from those that can
>> only catch bluffs. Do you not think like that about your hands? Do you
>> not think about what they can or can't beat that your opponent might
>> have? The weak hand in question can only beat a bluff. It's easy for
>> them to convince themselves that that is what you have. Harder for the
>> strong hand because it sees itself as somewhere else on the spectrum
>> of possible hands.
>
>So when they have a weak hand, they will call because they think your overbet is
>a bluff, yet when they have a strong non-nut hand, they will fold because they
>think you have the nuts. It'll be nice if they all play like that.
>
They don't all have to. Just some of them some of the time, so that
when your overbets are called, you make enough more that it makes up
for those times your smaller bets would have been called; and when
your overbets induce a fold, you win enough pots to make up for the
difference in bet size when the guy decides you are FOS or just has to
show down his decent hand.
It's not every hand. I think that's the point.
>I think what you will find in the real world, once you get past 25/50 cents, is
>that they are far more likely to fold with a weak hand in the face of strong
>action, and far more likely to call you with a strong non-nut hand if they see
>you constantly overbetting the pot. I know I would, and I am not even a good
>player.
>
Well, that will be good, because you are the kind of player who will
not often pay off with a weak hand anyway but you will pay me when
you have a decent hand that doesn't match mine. You are just the kind
of player I want to overbet against! It's a bit no lose with you. I'll
just be sure not to bet at all when I don't have a strong hand. As it
happens, Nick, even at the low levels I scrounge around at, this is
exactly how I play against tight players who will fold marginal hands
too much and it works very well. Yes, I lose some value on hands that
are moderately good but I make up for it by sucking the juice out of
them when they have something but I have better. It's very low risk.
>> >The first few times you overbet the pot, people might be wary of what you are
>> >doing, and let you get away with whatever you are trying to do. But once
>> >they
>> >see that's your betting style, you are back to square one.
>>
>> The way Russ advocates playing, I don't think they see you do much of
>> anything.
>>
>
>How so? Russ blindfolds them durting a game, or does he use a special software
>to blank out their screens? I know he is a self-confessed cheat, but even
>that's beyond him, surely?
>
He advocates a great deal of folding, Nick. He'd be playing a lot
tighter than the donks you rely on for your winrate.
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, if you have a great hand, shouldnt the idea be to milk whatever you
>> >> > think
>> >> > they'll call? Be overbetting, are you not in danger of pushing out hands
>> >> > that
>> >> > you want to call? If you have a strong but not overly strong hand, who
>> >> > is
>> >> > going
>> >> > to call an overbet unless they had you beat?
>> >>
>> >> Many times the milker gets kicked by the cow.
>> >
>> >Fine, I accept that. Except that the same can be said of overbetting
>> >constantly, in that you can get your finger burnt badly. So what's the
>> >difference?
>>
>> None, that's a valid point. They both have pluses and minuses.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't think the issue is as clear as you made it out to be.
>> >>
>> >> It really is not a matter of clear or not clear it is more of a case of
>> >> understanding the mindset of the other players. It is also a case of
>> >> understanding the difference of different limits.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes, the punters are all mugs at your dizzy highs. At least that's what you
>> >seem to be saying.
>>
>> Dude, I was reading some of Tommy Angelo's pieces. They do seem to be
>> a bit on the muggy side. Also, someone posted a couple of hands Dags
>> had played at high limits in which the play would not have disgraced
>> some of the fish at .05/.10.
>>
>
>If you enter a table assuming that they are all mugs, then whatever you do
>shouldnt affect your winnings too much if your assumptions holds. But beware
>that these fish are not sharks in disguise.
I tend to have the opposite vice. I give my opponents far too much
credit. I'm thinking "surely you couldn't..." when the truth is they
surely could, and did. Experience is fixing that slowly.
--
Dr Zen
King of the wild pixels.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 08:53:45
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
Dr Zen wrote:
> Nick, if the overbet is x, and your normal bet is y, and percentage
> overbet is called is a and normal bet is called is b, you need x*a
> >y*b for it to be worth overbetting, no? You do not need a to be more
> than b.
>
> Miller/Sklansky discuss this concept in NLHETAP. Have you read it?
I apologize for sounding like a broken record, but NLHETAP addresses
hands individually without much regard for a cohesive strategy.
Betting in proportion to your hand strength works fine if you play only
one hand against the same opponents. The book has some interesting
sections, but it's mostly a manual on how to beat dumbasses.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 14:29:58
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
On 2 Dec 2006 08:53:45 -0800, "David Nicoson" <bigdavex@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Dr Zen wrote:
>> Nick, if the overbet is x, and your normal bet is y, and percentage
>> overbet is called is a and normal bet is called is b, you need x*a
>> >y*b for it to be worth overbetting, no? You do not need a to be more
>> than b.
>> Miller/Sklansky discuss this concept in NLHETAP. Have you read it?
>I apologize for sounding like a broken record, but NLHETAP addresses
>hands individually without much regard for a cohesive strategy.
>Betting in proportion to your hand strength works fine if you play only
>one hand against the same opponents. The book has some interesting
>sections, but it's mostly a manual on how to beat dumbasses.
Dumbasses is who you should be playing.
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 17:41:10
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
brewmaster wrote:
> On Nov 28 2006 4:19 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > brewmaster wrote:
> > > On Nov 28 2006 3:51 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Nov 28 2006 4:43 PM, Stu Ungar Fan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The question is how much exactly is "big enough"? I go with Harrington
> that
> > > > half
> > > > > sized to 2/3 sized bets are big enough to get the job done. He says
> that
> > > you
> > > > > have to bet the minimum to get the job done. If you train them to view
> half
> > > > pot
> > > > > or 2/3 pot size bets as "big" when it's coming from you then that's the
> > > > ideal.
> > > > > http://stuungar.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > The downside, of course, is that you can't often overbet the pot when you
> > > > want a CALL, which I think is the crux of the issue. Having someone call
> > > > an overbet of the pot when you want them to nets many more chips than a
> > > > 2/3 pot bet.
> > > >
> > > > It is food for thought, for sure.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right, and that is Russ' point. If you want a call, and your overbet gets
> > > called, you win big. If you overbet the pot and you want a fold, and it
> > > works, you win. If you always overbet the pot they will have no idea if
> > > you are value betting or bluffing or trying to induce a call or a fold,
> > > and there is more pressure on them because the bet is bigger. Russ also
> > > said "if nobody ever calls any of your bets you will never lose." Think
> > > about that.
> >
> > That's pretty good tournament thinking. However, is it winning poker to
> > flop top set and win whatever is in the pot right now? Also, if you
> > have 88 and the flop is 862, two suits, how much do you WANT the
> > pre-flop raiser to bet into you?
> >
> > None of that is conclusive. In fact, I am convinced big bets are the
> > way to go but it isn't simple.
>
> There are situations (like the one you describe) where it is sometimes
> best to slow down a bit and try to induce some more money into the pot. I
> overbet out on a flopped boat the other day (holding 99, flop 922) in a
> live tourney in a pot that 5 players had called a 5 BB raise (I was in the
> SB, BB also called). Only pocket tens called (the other players all
> claimed to have AK). I was asked why I bet, and I said "I always bet".
> My real explanation there is if all four of them have a bigger pair
> (unlikely but possible) like TT, JJ, QQ, KK, and they all call, there are
> 8 cards that can come to beat me. That is 32%. Why risk it?
"I always bet" is a good explanation. It also means that people can't
assume you have just flopped the world or that you HAVEN'T when you
bet. That is all good. It is very likely that the same one guy would be
the only person who called a smaller bet.
Will in New Haven
--
"Almost cut my hair It happened just the other day
It's gettin kinda long I coulda said it was in my way
But I didn't and I wonder why I feel like letting my freak flag fly
Cause I feel like I owe it to someone." "Almost Cut my Hair" by
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
>
> >
> > Will in New Haven
> >
> > --
> >
> > "Almost cut my hair It happened just the other day
> > It's gettin kinda long I coulda said it was in my way
> > But I didn't and I wonder why I feel like letting my freak flag fly
> > Cause I feel like I owe it to someone." "Almost Cut my Hair" by
> > Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
> >
> > >
> > > > ~ MysteriAce
> > > >
> > > > "Ashes and diamonds
> > > > Foe and friend
> > > > We were all equal in the end"
> > >
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:03:52
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
brewmaster wrote:
> I've gotten to the point where I am thinking I am making the right size
> bets, getting people to call when I have the best of it, etc. But Russ
> made a statement "you either want your opponent to call, or you want him
> to fold, so you make a bet big enough that if he calls you get a lot of
> chips, or big enough that it puts too much pressure on him and he folds,
> either way you need to make a big bet".
>
> I used to overbet the pot quite often, and I won more tourneys then. I
> got too smart for my own good I think.
In cash games, I like to bet enough so that it is a mistake to call
with a draw. Given that, I want to bet the largest amount that my
opponent will call. This, of course, is for a pure situation where I am
betting a made hand against a draw and not walking in front of the
gunsights of a flopped set.
In a tournament, I tend to bet more and don't mind when they fold.
Will in New Haven
--
"Almost cut my hair It happened just the other day
It's gettin kinda long I coulda said it was in my way
But I didn't and I wonder why I feel like letting my freak flag fly
Cause I feel like I owe it to someone." "Almost Cut my Hair" by
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
>
> -----
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 23:43:15
From: Stu Ungar Fan
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
The question is how much exactly is "big enough"? I go with Harrington that half
sized to 2/3 sized bets are big enough to get the job done. He says that you
have to bet the minimum to get the job done. If you train them to view half pot
or 2/3 pot size bets as "big" when it's coming from you then that's the ideal.
http://stuungar.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 15:51:35
From: MysteriAce
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
On Nov 28 2006 4:43 PM, Stu Ungar Fan wrote:
> The question is how much exactly is "big enough"? I go with Harrington that
half
> sized to 2/3 sized bets are big enough to get the job done. He says that you
> have to bet the minimum to get the job done. If you train them to view half
pot
> or 2/3 pot size bets as "big" when it's coming from you then that's the
ideal.
> http://stuungar.blogspot.com
The downside, of course, is that you can't often overbet the pot when you
want a CALL, which I think is the crux of the issue. Having someone call
an overbet of the pot when you want them to nets many more chips than a
2/3 pot bet.
It is food for thought, for sure.
~ MysteriAce
"Ashes and diamonds
Foe and friend
We were all equal in the end"
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:06:19
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
On Nov 28 2006 3:51 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
> On Nov 28 2006 4:43 PM, Stu Ungar Fan wrote:
>
> > The question is how much exactly is "big enough"? I go with Harrington that
> half
> > sized to 2/3 sized bets are big enough to get the job done. He says that
you
> > have to bet the minimum to get the job done. If you train them to view half
> pot
> > or 2/3 pot size bets as "big" when it's coming from you then that's the
> ideal.
> > http://stuungar.blogspot.com
>
> The downside, of course, is that you can't often overbet the pot when you
> want a CALL, which I think is the crux of the issue. Having someone call
> an overbet of the pot when you want them to nets many more chips than a
> 2/3 pot bet.
>
> It is food for thought, for sure.
>
Right, and that is Russ' point. If you want a call, and your overbet gets
called, you win big. If you overbet the pot and you want a fold, and it
works, you win. If you always overbet the pot they will have no idea if
you are value betting or bluffing or trying to induce a call or a fold,
and there is more pressure on them because the bet is bigger. Russ also
said "if nobody ever calls any of your bets you will never lose." Think
about that.
> ~ MysteriAce
>
> "Ashes and diamonds
> Foe and friend
> We were all equal in the end"
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 05:31:41
From: Will_gamble
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
In online tournaments, if you really want to keep your opponents confused
about your bets, simply use bets like 777 or 523 or 191 and they will
think you are goofy. It gets them to focus on you with the intent of
busting your goofy ass. Then they will call bets they shouldn't. Just
make sure you can deliver the mail.
---
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 11:49:40
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
I think this is good advice. If you watched the final table when Tony P
won the Sunday million, you will see that he employed that tactic.
On Nov 29 2006 8:31 AM, Will_gamble wrote:
> In online tournaments, if you really want to keep your opponents confused
> about your bets, simply use bets like 777 or 523 or 191 and they will
> think you are goofy. It gets them to focus on you with the intent of
> busting your goofy ass. Then they will call bets they shouldn't. Just
> make sure you can deliver the mail.
thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 11:33:16
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Something Russ said really got me thinking...
|
Will in New Haven wrote:
> brewmaster wrote:
> > I've gotten to the point where I am thinking I am making the right size
> > bets, getting people to call when I have the best of it, etc. But Russ
> > made a statement "you either want your opponent to call, or you want him
> > to fold, so you make a bet big enough that if he calls you get a lot of
> > chips, or big enough that it puts too much pressure on him and he folds,
> > either way you need to make a big bet".
> >
> > I used to overbet the pot quite often, and I won more tourneys then. I
> > got too smart for my own good I think.
>
> In cash games, I like to bet enough so that it is a mistake to call
> with a draw. Given that, I want to bet the largest amount that my
> opponent will call. This, of course, is for a pure situation where I am
> betting a made hand against a draw and not walking in front of the
> gunsights of a flopped set.
Often, you can flop top set and be a coin flip to draw of a straight
and flush combined. Many people don't take this into account, until the
person hits and they're broke.
The skill to playing poker is 'being able to get your money called when
you want it called'. This is a skill, not just luck. You establish this
through betting styles and aggressiveness. You establish this by over
betting hands and being compensated for not being called on hands you'd
like calls, by not being called on hands you don't want calls.
However, when the FINAL bet of a bluff or a take down comes, you should
know whether you're going to be called or not. This is what separates
the men from the boys, the third bet.
How many times do you see two rounds fired, then called by weak hands.
Then on the final round, when the person can win if he bets big, he
checks and the weak hand wins.
Tell you this, don't look for this with me.
Russ Georgiev
www.pokermafia.com
>
> In a tournament, I tend to bet more and don't mind when they fold.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
> "Almost cut my hair It happened just the other day
> It's gettin kinda long I coulda said it was in my way
> But I didn't and I wonder why I feel like letting my freak flag fly
> Cause I feel like I owe it to someone." "Almost Cut my Hair" by
> Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
>
> >
> > -----
> > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
|
