I'm not fighting for the dinky pot. I'm looking to participate in gaming activities with people bad at said gaming. I'd like to be there with them when they miss value bets, make horrible calls, and the like, in hopes that I will do so less often and profit. The money in the pot is attractive from the viewpoint that I'm not lighting money on fire with my initial investment, and it allows me to do a little worse than break even from then on. However, the hope is that the bad players will actually allow me to do better than break even, as they are collectively being really bad at poker.

Again, the fighting for pots thing seems like an old HPFAP concept being applied to a different game than is described in the book. I'm more of an Ed Miller take off the training wheels fan in this spot.

Not like I'm close minded. I will read through that thread thoroughly. I obviously need more convincing on the matter. Thank you.

What strikes me as odd is that a big part of your argument is how poorly your opponents play - and I seem to be applying a dated mindset to the modern game. Okay... but the average 2015 player is significantly better than the average 2004 player... or am I imagining things?

Does average opponent matter? Once I'm at a table where people are limping a lot, I'm pretty happy because they're clearly below average.

I actually don't think folding is a huge mistake. If you want to argue 0EV silliness, then sure, whatever. I'll give you that even a great player is making near zero. I think clear fold is a stretch and would need some proof beyond saying we don't like playing bad hands. HUHU LHE is all about playing bad hands, it is why it is fun. This is a wide range spot for us, because we're getting a substantial discount and people have telegraphed bad hand strength.

I think you just kind of made my overall point. If a great player is likely making near 0, what is a good player making? Or a merely above average player? I'm going to assume that most of the ppl that post here aren't great players and almost certainly not the player asking the question.

The question was "what would you play?" In the context of a Small Stakes game, I'll make the not-bold assertion of being a great player. Small pond, and all. That's how I'd see the spot, it is clearly an attractive one to get in there. You want to fold until the edge is big? Fine. I don't care what hands anyone plays. The process Ed puts out in his post is one that is ignored sometimes, in the desire to "avoid tough spots".

How do you learn to play wide range poker? You find spots that are close. This is a close one. I think it is marginally profitable to play wide. If someone isn't good enough to pull it off, how will they ever learn to be?

Again, I'm not arguing that folding is terrible. I'm saying that "avoid tough spots" or other reasoning isn't enough to make me afraid of close spots. Show me how it is a clear fold.

You are a great debater sir. I see how you have reached your elevated status. I'm not really arguing that it is a clear fold. I think I have brought up plenty of valid points and you have countered them admirably. As you say, how does one learn if they don't ask questions or challenge the status quo when they have a differing opinion?

I'm looking forward to reading Ed's post. He is, quite easily, my favorite poker author.

On a related note, is there any recommended literature for modern LHE?

So, close spot. Can't really go wrong here.

read sshe. read about game theory. talk to avoidthe9to5. play 10,000 hours. win.

that was my path anyway.

Well, I've done 1, 4, and 5.

yeah you don't need 2 and 3 to beat the poo flingers

If there's an actual book out there on modern LHE - that is good - I'd like to read it

read the stoxtrader book

Modern LHE = Philip Newall's books. He posts around the forums at times, and if you added in MoP you'd be well covered. Bellatrix did a huge series for DeucesCracked covering the Mathematics of Poker in depth. The concepts aren't LHE specific, but building up a foundation of Game Theory from the ground up.

As a live only player, I have no idea how you integrate those concepts into your game. I guess you do the same homework away from the tables as an online player, but not having HH to go over makes it seem a big ask. In essence you are looking at your game from the viewpoint of not allowing an expert to exploit you. There are video series from OnTheRail15 and DosXX that contain a lot of key concepts if you're going that route.

The time commitment for trying to work that stuff out isn't small. iirc, AvoidThe9to5 claims something on the order of 10k hours away from the tables, or something like that. He could be quoting Gladwell and making a point, but I'd guess something on that order to become LHE ninja along those lines. If you're doing well now, do you have that kind of spare time to invest?

All of us used WITHG as our gateway to shorthanded poker. I'm not sure how it works as a live full ring player or in modern online games, but more than half the midstakes posters I could name started with it. If nothing else, it is the modern HPFAP as the book everyone read.

Yeah I think avoids number is probably more like 5k hours. He's really using all that study now!!!

I don't know what MoP (Math of Poker?) is. But I'll check out Newall. His books are available on... Amazon?

I started applying some of what Ed Miller was talking about into my session tonight. I'm still not really on board with completing really weak hands from the small blind, but I defended lighter and limped along in position against the weaker players with a much wider range than usual tonight. Opening up didn't benefit me financially. I definitely lost more than I would have normally, but I actually felt very comfortable with the process. I wasn't thinking "man, these *******s cost me money tonight" - it was more like "this makes a lot of sense to me."

I would say I did pick a couple bad spots to speculate but overall I felt I played an amazing session.

Already ordered Furthering Limit Hold Em and put MoP and a cpl others on my wish list. Speaking of my wish list, how is Ed's 1% book? I've been meaning to get it for some time but honestly I find it a bit silly to study NLHE concepts when I play it so rarely.

I haven't read a poker book in like 4 years.

I enjoy reading about poker.

I too enjoy reading about poker

Two MP tight passive players limp....I am next to act in SB with As2c...BB Is a bit agro pre....should I complete?

Absolutely

Was he in some way considering fold?

I always complete here but I'm starting to question whether I should be a bit more picky in certain scenarios.

Here are my arguments for folding

1) tight Passives often limp with any Ace...potential for RIO
2) tight players are less likely to pay me off if I hit an Ace
3) the threat of a raise from agro BB who senses weakness.
4) weak Ace oop hard to actualized equity.
5) if my kicker hits it will be tough to hold up as best hand.

Are you guys pretty much always calling an Ace rag bpre flop assuming it's an unraised pot? Are there spots you would fold?

Loose, reasonably agro pre player Open limps HJ....he is fit or fold post, plays carefully to aggression and will just call down draws and top pair or worse,but will raise two pair or better on flop. He is never folding if it's two bets back to him.

The SB seems Tagish, I've seen him iso limpers a couple of times..raises


I am in BB with KJo. I stoves the numbers...me 32%...SB 39%...HJ 29% base on my estimates. I have a very tight image a the moment.

Is this just a call or a 3 bet?

It might be a good idea to wait more than 15 minutes to have your last round of questions answered before posting a whole new hand.

I'm kind of on the fence on this thread in general. The FAQ asks for one hand to a thread for good reasons, the writers of the FAQ wanted to make sure that it was possible to have good/detailed discussion of hands. We've generally been pretty reluctant to have a thread about one person (with the exception of a well). The idea of having a "let's answer every question on the mind of Poster A" seems bad to me somehow, and again, posting a question about one hand and then immediately posting a whole new hand makes me kind of want to just point to the FAQ and close the thread. If we want to debate that (and I'm not closing the thread), maybe we could have multiple viewpoints in the LC thread?