So your strat is to flop straights and cooler people with 2p?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@ZuneIT - Is that example taken from Poker's 1% or did you come up with it? I haven't read that one.

And more important, what's your point?

Stacks much bigger is this 1/3. Avg stack over 150bb as many had been playing all night.
2 players over 1k & 3 with $700. Max buyin $500.
It was far from a typical 1/3 game.

I don't know anyone who wouuld play Eds hand the way he did.

Yeah I wouldn't expect many players at 1/3 (or 2/5) to play hands like Ed Miller would. That doesn't say anything as to whether his line was appropriate. And it does seem appropriate on 853TQ to triple barrel, dependent on read on villain.

Given that the title is "Poker's 1%" I think that's supposed to be the point.

I would not by any means argue that this exact play with these sizings is correct in all (most?) games against all villains at 1/3 or 2/5. But this example hand is used precisely because folks will look at it and say "just a maniac blasting away and getting lucky" but there is more going on in this example.

Miller doesn't do the math but
1-(40/70)=43% so he would need to continue with 43% of his range to keep villain from profitably raising ATC. He's opening somewhere between 22-30% from c/o. So he's continuing with a minimum of 9-13% or so of all hands. A4s probably on the cusp but the bottom of his possible continuing range and he does have position.

The flop is 8 hi which tends to benefit the in position player. Villain bets 70/115. Hero is behind all v's Ax and overpair hands. Hero's A might be good vs KK- and hero has a gut shot + bdfd. If hero bluff raises this flop it's going to be hard for v to continue with The weaker overpairs (and stacks are deep enough that positional advantage isn't negated) or AK, AQ hands oop. Hero does have some overpairs and all sets in his range. If villain started with idk say AJs+, AQo+ 88+ and say continues with 99+ hero has 32% equity vs his continuing range and maybe 35% to 50% fold equity.

So he raises flop which is probably immediately profitable without villain even having any ridiculously lite stuff ... and villain calls.

Turn is an overcard to the medium pairs villain continued with and brings the nfd. It's less likely v has QQ and he likely folded AQ to the flop raise so it's not a card that helps his range. Hero turned a nfd so his equity is still 31% vs v's continuing range and a bet may even fold some pairs like JJ and 99 that he called flop with.

Hero's range wants to continue most of the time and should still have a decent number of bluffs as well. He should give up with the worst of those bluffs. Probably Those without A or K blockers and that didn't pick up equity such as bdfd of other suits. But he's certainly betting all his sets and maybe hands like AA that flatted pre so he's going to continue betting with the stronger bluffs here also.

River gin cuz book intro obv. But his example hand is meant to illustrate the concepts of min defense frequency, position and recognizing dynamic flops and range advantages, making immediately profitable bluffs (whether or not they work), barreling decent turns and that when done with the right continuing range, when you run into the stronger or stubborn part of a villain's range and plans A, B and C didn't work you still end up with enough equity to get lucky what looks like more than your fair share of the time.

Now It may be correct to exploitively fold pre if villain only raises a nitty range for example. But if he is decent and will 3! a reasonable range vs a late position open then we should defend our open liberally as well. We should also continue a lot of flops either as peels, floats or raises. I'm not saying Millers 1% strat fits 1/3 - 2/5 games filled with loose passives who don't bluff enough can't fold and only raise pre or arrive on rivers with tight, strong ranges. It doesn't and exploitive deviations can and should be made (the book instructs you to deviate under such conditions. But the concepts are valid and it's good to understand that deviating is to exploit specific villain imbalances imo as opposed to just a default strat based on accepted heuristics derived from the aggregate imbalanced play of a particular pool of players.

This intro just like the pf ranges posted from the Course earlier are easy fodder imo and similarly without putting them in the context of the rest of the book including the disclaimers, they remain somewhat out of context. Imo again.

Millers 1% book was valuable to me as a simplified primer for the concept applications in Jands's first book. I read Janda first but for me I had trouble seeing the complete vision of an overall strategy through all the math until I read Miller's book. (Miller keeps it simple and just says stuff like to use 70% continuing frequency and 2/3 flop 1/2 turn 1/3 river bluff to value ratios where Janda does all the math for various Bet sizes etc.) Then when I went back to Janda's book it all fit much better. Again those strats are all about correct frequencies and balance and are not in their pure form best for typical 1/2 - 2/5 games across the board. Ed admits as much.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FWIW, I am reading Janda's new book and just thought I'd circle back to this thread since that book wasn't available when this thread was live.

9 handed utg opening range:
77+, A9s+, AQo+, KQo, suited Broadway's, A2s-A5s.

10.9%

Caveat: may be wider than optimal but good starting point vs weaker opponents. Be prepared to tighten up vs good Agro opponents who 3! More.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No SCs? Also I think at 1/2 or 1/3 any PP is +EV UTG unless you're at the wrong table.

CAmmAndo's prose below is either extremely well done, or I'm not a good enough player to see the errors. If Miller had included something like Ando's prose in his book, it would have made sense.
Reading it in Miller's book, all I see, is a 6% BDFD come home.

Think he's probably fine

Ed goes into much more detail about barreling in The Course. You kind of need to have all his books to fully interpret them, which is the genius of his marketing I guess...

"The Course" tells you to buy "Poker's 1%" and "Playing the Player" which tells you to buy "How to Read Hands at No Limit Hold 'Em" etc.

I'm waiting for the greatest hits album.

You can get darn near all of them used/cheap on Amazon. For some reason, a lot of people don't hold on to them.

I see this as perfectly fine way to simplify the game for the average 1/2 player. Yes, KQo and AJo look VERY pretty, but those hands are not as great as they seem when you actually run the numbers. For those who say it is too loose UTG and too tight HJ that's the exact point. You are spreading your ideal MP range into multiple spots and putting more pressure on your UTG to make more bets seem stronger, while simultaneously tightening your theoretically widest range of HJ. Very brilliant counter intuition that would lead to solid post flop scenarios for hero.

The point of doing this is to end up flopping strong pairs or draws when OOP, which hero can play more profitably overall and more straight forward to gain this profit. This will definitely work to protect hero by forcing them to fold more often than they would like to hands that get hero in trouble OOP like TPGK (everyone knows Miller's thoughts on KTo yuck!). This is Miller trying to generically protect hero in early thru mid positions to force hero to understand the power of position is how we exert our aggression to build towers of chips! The chips of a poker table have always flowed in a clockwise manner and always will in the long run. This range helps the new player to loosen up earlier than they originally would and stop throwing money in when they "think" they can steal in MP when they can't.

Also, those of you who bash the whole 76s portion need to do some homework. Heck, the best hand to run in a sim to infinity against AA is actually 65s preflop. You are the smallest dog with that exact hand assuming no suits block a flush!

I take it you subscribe to Miller's range for opening UTG - 2 from the Button, from his book "The Course" have played 100s of hours using it & are successful?
22+
A2s+ KTs+ QTs+ 76s+
AQo+

Thread discussing the book with input from high quality posters on this forum:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...iller-1667224/

Lol @ link, ha.

Gcaughtininfiniteloop,muchlikemypokerstrategyG

How is A5s any different than A2s-A4s in these spots?

I think this is because two pair is more likely to hold up with A5s vs. A2s-A4s, and you hit the high end of the wheel with A5s but not A2s-A4s, plus the low end of other straights.

And of course your kicker is slightly better and you make better one pair hands with A5s than A2s-A4s.

Makes more straights and a pair of 5s wins vs 22-44. And less counterfeits obv.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**** no I don't. I have my preflop ranges for opening, 3-betting with regard to each and every position, and 4-betting with regarding to each position. Albeit, I utilize my 6-max ranges and spread them over a few positions for UTG and UTG1, and UTG2 through HJ, but CO, BTN, SB, and BB defending 3 betting four betting is all worked out. That's what I have 100's of hours using with solid success.

I was merely highlighting the subtle points Miller would be trying to subconsciously have Hero be mastering while learning to craft their ranges. These are much to basic to have a sophisticated game in mind.

This is a solid starting point for Hero to think past basic strategies and touch on some more deep concepts of their ranges. But still, these are merely just Heroes opening. For your game to actually become advanced, hero needs to work out 3-betting vs each position's open from each respective position.

4-betting ranges can be drawn up but are too advanced for 1/2, this should begin at 2/5 and even here Hero would need a solid read or history.

Final point, just because I just decided to read this forum a few months ago and have not posted thousands of times in here, does not mean that I do not take my study of this game seriously. You should be more objective about reading these posts. <Mod Edit: Insult scrubbed>

But if you were an 'average' player, looking to simplify your game, you would be thrilled to play Miller's recommended range & open/raise UTG with 76s. Right?

So, you believe open/raising UTG with 76s+, or any two broadway cards, in a 10 handed game is much to basic?

Now it sounds like you do open/raise UTG with 76s. If it's where Hero can start to think past basic strategies then it sounds like you are, as you are recommending it to the average player looking to think past the basics.

So, the book is incomplete.

There have been numerous people, with a minimal # of posts who have made excellent contributions. I questioned the validity of a poster's position in this thread, who I surmised had much more experience than me. I wasn't saying he was wrong. I was saying I don't understand where he was coming from, concerning one belief he had.

So, when I questioned your position, I merely wanted to know if you had put the range to the test & proven it to be successful. You haven't & I have my answer. That's all I wanted to know. <Reference to insult scrubbed>

Now, if I was going to write a book for the average 1/2NL & 1/3NL player looking to improve their win rate, my recommendation would be:

Forget about playing close the same amount of hands OOP that you do IP. It's not the player who is IP that wins the most money. It's the player who is IP most often.

I would tighten up their ranges so much in EP that they would not be coming in very often at all. Not until they have acquired the skill to accurately gauge the dynamic of the table. They would know they have achieved that skill, when, while continuing to remain tight in EP, when the come to the conclusion that the table dynamic is such that they can open wider in EP, pretend they did a dozen times & note what they would won/loss.

Meanwhile, they would open/raising in the 1st 3 seats past the big blind with:
88+ [there is ~23% chance 1 of the remaining 9 players has a higher PP]
If they have a BBJ with quad 7s as the qualifying hand - go ahead & play bingo. Once they are able to identify those tables that is possible to get away with opening with 22+, they'll open with those.
AJs+ [there is ~18% chance 1 of the remaining 9 players has an ace with a bigger kicker]
AKo - they muck AQo.
JTs+ - 12 combos that they use in an attempt to catch their Vs off guard. Since they are only opening with

That's 5.88% of all starting hands, until they start playing 22+ 98s+ AQo. Then it's 10%. That's for the 1st 3 seats past the BB.

It's not until you get into the Steal Seat [3 from the Button] that you open up to 14.3% 22+ 65s+ ATs+ AJo+ J9s+ any 2 suited broadway cards.

In the Hijack it's 17%. In the Cutoff it's 23.7%, & the Button 35%.

That's when you are 1st in the pot.

There is no reason to chase to $3 or $4 in blinds with a 10% rake & $1 going out for the BBJ @ $10 & another @ $20.

The average player needs to be able to accurately size up their Vs & be able to put them on accurate ranges before they open up & play poker. Until then, they are students of the game, looking to NOT lose their freakin' money!

So, to recommend to an average player, IMHO, that they play
22+
A2s+ KTs+ QTs+ 76s+
AQo+

From any position, is a quick way to die. Much faster than any opening range I've ever run across. It will always be hogwash in my mind, until I run across someone [an average player] who says they've played close to 1k hours using the range & winning 10+BBs per hour.

Now several very good players in this thread have qualified that range, noting that isn't what Miller is saying. That it has to be adjusted due to various dynamics of the game.

In any event, Hold Em poker is a helluva' lot more about people than it is opening ranges. Maybe, if I ever master putting people on ranges & reading their soul like Helmuth [LMMFAO] I'll be playing a helluva' lot more when 1st in the pot. Until then, if UTG+2 opens for $12 in a 1/3 & I'm next to act with A3s, it gets mucked. Every time. Because I am not seeing me win enough pots, from the rail, to warrant playing it.

You are right: $$ does tend to flow clockwise, unless there's a player in the circle who is much better than the other 9. It tends to flow clockwise, because: Those who play IP most often win the most money.

Not sure why you feel the need to take a dig at Phil Hellmuth who has 14 bracelets (4 more than anyone else on the planet) while you have difficulty opening 76s from UTG in a low stakes game and think this is brilliant poker:

Average players win 10+BBs an hour!???

What exactly did you find wrong with his example?

What point in the example did you think he made a mistake?

Have you even read this book? First of all the title is "The Course: Serious Hold 'Em Strategy for Smart Players." Not average players.

Miller also makes a number of qualifying statements about this range.

It should also be worth noting this is the range recommended for the entire book, at 1/2, 2/5, and 5/t. Miller is not trying to develop the ultimate strategy to crush 1/2, but rather to develop playstyles and ideas that allow a skilled player to quickly move up in stakes.

I think you're confused about what Miller actually recommends in this spot. Facing a raise with a suspected strong range, from this position Miller recommends reraising {KK+, A5s} (A5s as a bluff), flat-calling {QQ-22, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs-76s, AKo}. If the raise is from a particularly loose player, Miller recommends reraising {QQ+, AKs, A5s-A2s, T9s, 87s, AKo} (A5s-A2s, T9s, and 87s are bluffs) and flat-calling {JJ-22, AQs-A6s, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, 98s, 76s, AQo}.

You would only raise A3s as a bluff against a known loose raiser, and otherwise would fold it.

When you are in the CO and BU is a bad player - defined as: this player's big mistake is folding too frequently, you should be isolating and raise wider to push the BU out and gain BU position for both your CO and BU.

However if BU is competent, will flat/3bet/fold to your attempts to open wider, you cannot. This is live so at most 1/2 and 1/3 games and dare I say 2/5 games (tho far less in the card rooms ive played in), you get to be the BU twice as most of the time the player on my left is bad.

Also - adding to the idea of seat selection or game selection when possible, you never want a good player on your immediate left. You want a nitty player who is only going to tip their hand strength with their actions - so more reason for being able to be BU twice.

Clearly every player we add to our left compounds the difficulty of this and I'd probably say simply being 2 off the BU in most games will make this too hard.

Players you want to avoid are ones who never fold, even if passive, and competent players who will make your pre and post flop life hard. This middling group represents a large portion of live 1/2 and 1/3 regs: tight, not passive but not entirely aggressive with semi bluffs and bluffs.