| User | Post |
|
1:34 am
June 17, 2009
|
MNFC
| | |
| Member | posts 5 | |
|
|
Post edited 8:39 am – June 17, 2009 by MNFC
Hi all,
I just had the time for a quick overview and the book seems promising. I already know I'll have much work to do on the line balancing thing.
What surprised me in SSNL is that you now advocate a fixed raise size PF while in PNLHE Vol. I you favored different sizes to create favorable SPRs. I've always sized my PF raises the same, mostly 3bb and sometimes 2.5bb when I'm stealing a hell of a lot at a very tight table, so I feel OK with this strategy. But I'm just wondering what made you change your minds? My guess would be obv that using different sizes is way too exploitable, even by bad players, except in very weak live games maybe.
|
|
|
3:55 am
June 17, 2009
|
the_wet_noodle
| | |
| Member | posts 4 | |
|
|
Post edited 11:02 am – June 17, 2009 by the_wet_noodle
Post edited 11:04 am – June 17, 2009 by the_wet_noodle
If my understanding is correct, SSNLH advocates a fixed raise size PF when in comes to your raising range but different raise sizes for different opponents.
If you make it 5$ from the BTN because the blinds are 3-bet happy people then you should make it 5$ with KK and 75s. But if you have a nit in the SB and loose passive player in the BB who tends to play a mostly fit or fold strategy then you should make it 8$-10$ with 87o and AQ and in order to maximize your steal and showdown equity.
|
|
|
5:06 am
June 17, 2009
|
Tackleberry
| | Germany | |
| Member | posts 29 | |
|
|
Post edited 12:06 pm – June 17, 2009 by Tackleberry
Mmmh … I already struggled with this topic when watching Ed Miller´s videos on stoxpoker – related to exploitative blind stealing:
I am used to raise a fixed size, mostly (or better almost always) 4x+, regardless of position and regardless of my hand. So I get AA in UTG, I raise 4x (same with 55), if I get AK on CO after 1 limper I make it 5x.
So, how to deal with the advice to lower the raise size against 3-bet-happy blind-defenders in practice? Should I adjust my entire raising-habit at each table and for example raise 2.5x in any position at a table where I face light 3-bettors? And stick with 4x at the other table where the blinds are tight fit-or-folders? Or should I stick to 4x in UTG and lower it to 2.5x in BTN?
Thanks for any input!! 
- Tack -
|
|
|
5:56 am
June 17, 2009
|
Matt Flynn
| | |
| Admin
| posts 115 | |
|
|
MNFC said:
Post edited 1:39 am – June 17, 2009 by MNFC
Hi all,
I just had the time for a quick overview and the book seems promising. I already know I'll have much work to do on the line balancing thing.
What surprised me in SSNL is that you now advocate a fixed raise size PF while in PNLHE Vol. I you favored different sizes to create favorable SPRs. I've always sized my PF raises the same, mostly 3bb and sometimes 2.5bb when I'm stealing a hell of a lot at a very tight table, so I feel OK with this strategy. But I'm just wondering what made you change your minds? My guess would be obv that using different sizes is way too exploitable, even by bad players, except in very weak live games maybe.
Nothing changed. In PNL we were talking about bad players who won't make use of the information you give up when you vary your preflop raise sizes. We said this many times. In current online $1-$2, players make enough use of this information that you should not vary your opening raise size based on hand strength.
|
|
|
6:23 am
June 17, 2009
|
Matt Flynn
| | |
| Admin
| posts 115 | |
|
|
Post edited 1:27 pm – June 17, 2009 by Matt Flynn
Tackleberry said:
Post edited 5:06 am – June 17, 2009 by Tackleberry
So, how to deal with the advice to lower the raise size against 3-bet-happy blind-defenders in practice? Should I adjust my entire raising-habit at each table and for example raise 2.5x in any position at a table where I face light 3-bettors? And stick with 4x at the other table where the blinds are tight fit-or-folders? Or should I stick to 4x in UTG and lower it to 2.5x in BTN?
Thanks for any input!!
- Tack -
Hi Tack,
4X utg and 2.5X on button would be an improvement over a one-size-fits-all approach, but you can still do better. I wrote this section (Understanding Fixed Bet Sizes) to explain why you should not use a single one-size-fits-all fixed bet size for all situations, and how to choose a good bet size for different situations. Take a look at the examples in that section. They cover several $1-$2 6-max situations and show how to think about picking a bet size for each. It is a worthwhile exercise, as these small changes earn you a few cents on average (vs. some “standard” approaches) every time you do them right.
One point: If you will have enough equity to call or reraise most of those light 3-bets, you don't care as much and have less incentive to lower your opening bet size. If you are raising with a weaker range and aren't playing kamikaze such that you will fold often to those light 3-bets, then a lower raise size benefits you. This assumes stacks aren't short. With short stacks, SPR concerns tend to override all others.
Matt
|
|
|
8:03 am
June 17, 2009
|
Tackleberry
| | Germany | |
| Member | posts 29 | |
|
|
Hehe – found it. I definitely have to read faster :-) Again, amazing stuff. Thanks a lot for the answer!!
- Tack -
|
|
Login
Search 
Home
Print this Post 
Add a New Topic
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Topic RSS 
