![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Chained to the keyboard
Aug. 7th, 2007 11:37 amWith my American freelance on holiday, I'm kind of stuck to the keyboard for a fortnight. Even the trips to the gym are nigh-on impossible. All energy is sapped. I dread to think what the scales will say when I have the courage to stand on them.
I've ordered Professional No Limit Hold'em. Winning In Tough Hold'Em Games, Phil Gordon's Little Blue Book and the Snyder Tournament Formula Book, so that's a little light reading for me.
I'm not sure why I buy these tournament books. It's not as if I can keep up with the improvements taking place in the games that I do play, let alone in ones that I don't. I have the "Kill Phil" Book and the three Harrington Books, and I doubt that I've read more than 20 pages of all of them.
Most of the useful things that I learn only come to me from playing, anyway, although the occasional snippet in a text-book is worth the expenditure. Many of the things that I am doing in NL at the moment are horribly exploitable, and I continue to scratch my head at the fact that only about 1 player in a hundred has the wit to exploit it. When more players exploit me, I'll change my style of play.
The Sklansky-Miller line rightly criticises the "big bet with a bluff, smaller bet with a strong hand" tactic, but then faults it for the wrong reason (well, the wrong reason in most no limit games, which are full of flawed players) -- that such a play is exploitable. Ferguson, too, seems to come up with the line (when justifying certain strategies) that "this is right because it doesn't matter what your opponent does in repsonse".
One thing that I learnt when quoting spreads on sports games was, if you knew that your counterpart was a buyer, you didn't quote the "correct" spread -- you upped it by a point or two. Your counterpart could exploit this by going short, but you knew that he was already far too short for comfort, so that just wasn't going to happen.
The "unexploitable" play is rarely the profit-maximising play in the limits that I am sitting down in.
+++++++++++++++
Yesterday, I'd just sat down in a game on a site that I don't play that often, and I picked up Aces second hand in. My "standard" raise in the cut-off is, if it is passed round to me, 4.5 or 5 times the big blind, with around 35% to 45% of my hands. If I know that the Big Blind is weak-tight, my hand strength gets to the looser end of the range and the amount I raise gets to the lower end of the range (because the raise has more of a semi-bluff element to it). If the Big Blind is a calling machine, my hand strength tightens to the narrower end, and the amount I raise goes up (because the bet has more of a value-raise element). Other changes occur, depending on my image at the table.
Anyhoo, it's correctly stated that you shouldn't adjust the amount you raise dependent on the strength of your hand. Even though for many players it's tempting to raise less than you normally would when you pick up Aces, it gives too much away in terms of information. But then I thought to myself. "Hold on. These guys don't know me from Adam. They have no previous plays from me to work with".
So I chucked in a 3.5 x the Big Blind raise.
I guess that my general point here is that No Limit games play very differently from site to site and from time of day to time of night. You could guarantee a profit in all of these games by playing unexploitably, but you can win more by playing in a way that a good player could exploit, if you were playing against a good player in this particular hand, but you aren't. Bad players lean towards consistent errors (i.e., they make the same kind of mistake again and again). The trick is to see what kind of mistakes they make, and to adjust your play accordingly. Don't assume that your opponent will play perfectly and act from there. Assume that he will make the same kind of mistake that bad players usually make at this level/on this site/at this time of day, and act accordingly. Sometimes you will be wrong, and he will turn out to make a different kind of mistake, or, horror-of-horrors, to be a good player. But that doesn't make your initial standpoint wrong.
++++++++++
I've ordered Professional No Limit Hold'em. Winning In Tough Hold'Em Games, Phil Gordon's Little Blue Book and the Snyder Tournament Formula Book, so that's a little light reading for me.
I'm not sure why I buy these tournament books. It's not as if I can keep up with the improvements taking place in the games that I do play, let alone in ones that I don't. I have the "Kill Phil" Book and the three Harrington Books, and I doubt that I've read more than 20 pages of all of them.
Most of the useful things that I learn only come to me from playing, anyway, although the occasional snippet in a text-book is worth the expenditure. Many of the things that I am doing in NL at the moment are horribly exploitable, and I continue to scratch my head at the fact that only about 1 player in a hundred has the wit to exploit it. When more players exploit me, I'll change my style of play.
The Sklansky-Miller line rightly criticises the "big bet with a bluff, smaller bet with a strong hand" tactic, but then faults it for the wrong reason (well, the wrong reason in most no limit games, which are full of flawed players) -- that such a play is exploitable. Ferguson, too, seems to come up with the line (when justifying certain strategies) that "this is right because it doesn't matter what your opponent does in repsonse".
One thing that I learnt when quoting spreads on sports games was, if you knew that your counterpart was a buyer, you didn't quote the "correct" spread -- you upped it by a point or two. Your counterpart could exploit this by going short, but you knew that he was already far too short for comfort, so that just wasn't going to happen.
The "unexploitable" play is rarely the profit-maximising play in the limits that I am sitting down in.
+++++++++++++++
Yesterday, I'd just sat down in a game on a site that I don't play that often, and I picked up Aces second hand in. My "standard" raise in the cut-off is, if it is passed round to me, 4.5 or 5 times the big blind, with around 35% to 45% of my hands. If I know that the Big Blind is weak-tight, my hand strength gets to the looser end of the range and the amount I raise gets to the lower end of the range (because the raise has more of a semi-bluff element to it). If the Big Blind is a calling machine, my hand strength tightens to the narrower end, and the amount I raise goes up (because the bet has more of a value-raise element). Other changes occur, depending on my image at the table.
Anyhoo, it's correctly stated that you shouldn't adjust the amount you raise dependent on the strength of your hand. Even though for many players it's tempting to raise less than you normally would when you pick up Aces, it gives too much away in terms of information. But then I thought to myself. "Hold on. These guys don't know me from Adam. They have no previous plays from me to work with".
So I chucked in a 3.5 x the Big Blind raise.
I guess that my general point here is that No Limit games play very differently from site to site and from time of day to time of night. You could guarantee a profit in all of these games by playing unexploitably, but you can win more by playing in a way that a good player could exploit, if you were playing against a good player in this particular hand, but you aren't. Bad players lean towards consistent errors (i.e., they make the same kind of mistake again and again). The trick is to see what kind of mistakes they make, and to adjust your play accordingly. Don't assume that your opponent will play perfectly and act from there. Assume that he will make the same kind of mistake that bad players usually make at this level/on this site/at this time of day, and act accordingly. Sometimes you will be wrong, and he will turn out to make a different kind of mistake, or, horror-of-horrors, to be a good player. But that doesn't make your initial standpoint wrong.
++++++++++
