page 166, they use this hand to introduce "stack-to-pot concept"

10-handed $2-$5game that is fairly loose,esp. preflop. everyone has $500(100BB). it's folded to you, you raise to $15 with KK, button and big blind call.

pot is $47
flop:T75
you bet $45, button calls, big blind folds

turn:Q
you are not commited and you expect your opponent to have better than kings if he goes all-in so you check.

he bets $125 and you're screwed.

what they suggest (page 168):
you raise preflop to 6BB($30)

same callers again, same flop. pot is $92, you bet $90, same caller.

the pot is $272, you have $380 left.
same turn.
"should you commit? yes. there's too much money in the pot to lay down an overpair against fairly loose opponents.
since your aggressive opponent likes to bet the tirn, you check. he bets $180. you check-raise all-in.
alternatively, you decide he won't bet the turn often enough to justify going for a checkraise. so you lead out with another bet
...
the hand became easier and more profitable to play"



why is it more profitable? because in the first example you put your opponent on a good hand and in the second you put him on a bad hand/bluff?
i don't get it

.

the general idea with a hand like this is that you are getting opponents with loose ranges to put exponentially more money in on early streets when you have a hand that has excellent equity but can suffer from reverse implied odds (and also make for tough decisions on later streets if inexperienced or new to NL).

Sunny

how is v2 coming along?

coming along great. you're gonna love it.

"..if he gets all-in you expect him to have a better hand than kings. so going all-in has a negative expectation, and you don't want to commit"

in both cases we go all-in on turn but somehow in the 2nd case it's "easier and more profitable". definetly easier but why is it profitable? ok maybe we can exclude QT from his range in the 2nd example but isn't it much more likely that he has QQ or AA? and if we expect him to call all-in raise with something better than kings we're not gaining extra money with this move but potentialy can lose all stack. how about good old "don't throw good money after bad money"?

here's the hand i played today:

Poker Stars $0.01/$0.02 No Limit Hold'em - 8 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

CO: $2.64
BTN: $1.95
Hero (SB): $1.98
BB: $1.90
UTG: $1.29
UTG+1: $4.16
MP1: $1.93
MP2: $3.92

Pre Flop: ($0.03) Hero is SB with A A
1 fold, UTG+1 raises to $0.08, 1 fold, MP2 calls $0.08, 2 folds, Hero raises to $0.20, 1 fold, UTG+1 calls $0.12, MP2 calls $0.12

Flop: ($0.62) 8 8 Q (3 players)
Hero bets $0.60, UTG+1 calls $0.60, MP2 folds

Turn: ($1.82) 9 (2 players)
Hero bets $1.18 all in, UTG+1 calls $1.18

River: ($4.18) 5 (2 players - 1 is all in)




obviously this was a very loose table. i re-raised preflop, putting 10% of my stack to the pot(commitment threshold) so definetly i was commited. raised the flop got 1 caller. few days ago i'd have checked turn and river or folded to any raise("don't throw good money after bad money") but since i was commited, i moved in. was it a bad play?

even if you give your opponent the same turn commitment range in both examples, you are much better off long run by getting twice as much money in pf and flop. also, remember that you are simultaneously getting your opponent pot stuck as well.

so for example, if your opponent has a ten, across the range of possible turn cards you greatly prefer to get all the money in on the turn as opposed to having a big barrel left on the river - not just for the sake of your own hand's protection, but also for the sake of increasing the likelihood that your opponent will commit while he still thinks he's in good shape. remember we're talking about loosey goosey passive opponents here.

as for your hand, you don't say much about your opponent's stats or proclivities, but either way your play is fine. heck even if you give your opponent KK, QQ, and AQ and nothing else, you have more than enough equity to get it in postflop. and at microstakes his range is likely much wider than that, and your equity much greater.

Sorry if I'm budding in but isn't the point the book is trying to make (as quoted above) the difference between commitment with a $15 raise vs a $30 pre flop raise?

I don't think the point here is expectancy at all.

The hand in the book where you discuss calling a button steal from the BB and then C/Ring over his Cbet with lots of stuff got me thinking. 50BB does seem like quite an interesting stack size for my games (100NL FR). Over a very big sample, AK/AQ just isn't doing all that much profit like it should be with a full stack. Even with great reads on players from my HUD, it's still messy with TPTK when opponents aren't in fit or fold mode.

Not only that, but the big reason we carry 100BBs to a table is to catch a great implied odds hand (set, turn a straight, etc) and make the full 100BBs in profit. But against decent players, making sets just isn't the money maker it was at lower limits where you could manipulate just about anybody into playing a big pot when they shouldn't.

When I combine those two ideas: AK/AQ struggling due to a big stack and 22-88 struggling to break even... I realize that the benefits of having 100BB just aren't there anymore. With 50BB, I can still 3bet the snot out of everybody who folds to 3bets too often. Sure I'm putting in about 14BB/50BB when I 3bet, but very few people know how to either 4bet or fold. If they call I get a great chance to catch up and I can get all in with any good draw or TP. I can now make very modest preflop raises and force commitment from worse hands when I get there with AK/AQ. Players who call preflop hoping to hit a set/monster are getting awful implied odds to do so. I never have to worry about getting 4bet off the best hand when I have AK (or QQ). And I can play small pairs the way they're supposed to be played: 3bet people who fold to 3bets, raise first in from MP/LP, take it down with a Cbet and/or continue if I hit. And I can still join juicy pots from the blinds and setmine.

I suppose there's a risk that a smart player will turn the tables on me, for instance calling my steal from his BB and then shoving over my Cbet. Clearly he can do this even if he's a 100BB since we're only playing for my stack. But in essence, I'll be forcing him to play my game and his range will be face up since I can safely assume his flop all in raise is very wide. And even if he does get the best of me (long term) in that case, it doesn't change the fact that he was getting the best of me before when we both had 100BB stacks and he raised me normally on the flop and I folded TP when I might have had the best hand.

I'd appreciate any comments and/or poking holes in the idea. Great book and looking forward to volume 2.

Sounds like a cool idea. Keep us posted on how it goes.

It's interesting that you cite "implied odds" as the main reason to have a 100bb stack. I think a lot of players at your level would say the same thing. Volume 2 will convince you otherwise. If I had to cite one main reason to have a big stack, it'd be "steal equity." You might not yet be at a place where you know how to effectively use your stack on the turn and river to gain a huge edge on your opponents. But that's why I like your line of thinking here with your experiment - it's got you thinking in the right direction wrt stealing and understanding how different ranges work. It sounds like a great place to start because you can really master preflop and flop. Eventually you can move on to turn and river.

p42:
"again, having a deep stack doesn't allow you to "bully" players with short stacks, that's just a common myth. top players generally prefer deep stacks because they cav win more from weak players who also have deep stacks. however, if the players are equally skilled and equally bankrolled, a deep stack offers no advantage over a short one"

like in the example above, doubling your initial bet (6BB instead of 3BB) made your stack effectively 2 times shorter. wasn't it the whole point of planning hands around SPR: playing "short stack" with your "deep stack" when you want to kill reverse implied odds and play "deep stack" when you need implied odds yourself?

I'm talking about 100bb effective stack. i.e. - you and your opponent BOTH have 100bb.

If your opponent has a 50bb stack, then you have a 50bb stack against him. That's not what I'm talking about.

"however, if the players are equally skilled and equally bankrolled, a deep stack offers no advantage over a short one"

so there's that "steal equity" which you can use to exploit weaker(ie not equally skilled) opponents on the last two streets..and in the example above you could have used it somehow without raising to 6BB preflop making your stacks effectively short..interesting gotta read vol 2

I'm definitely not at a good place with the turn and river when it comes to stealing pots, and it's certainly not helped by playing a ton of tables. I think a lot of multitablers like myself face an expected value conundrum when we decide whether to play 4 tables at full attention or 16 tables with as many everypot donks as possible, under the threat that a 4-tabler with equal skill will out think us and make the last bet on the turn/river to take us off the best hand.

Sunny can you please give me the cliff notes on the status of volume 2 ?

I'm a little confused if it's even coming and when and where.

thanks

sure. first off, we can stop calling it "Volume Two" because the authors and 2p2 have mutually agreed upon going their separate ways, therefore, the book is no longer PNLV2. it will be a standalone text dealing heavily with postflop, shorthanded, and online NL topics (3-betting, c-betting, bluffing, double barreling, etc). secondly, we haven't completely decided upon a title or an exact publishing route yet. we have a lot of options, so we wanna weigh them properly. however, the book is almost done, so we should have more information very soon. in the meantime, you can always purchase PNLV1 from 2p2.

The 40-60BB buy in is very interesting in practice. I ran through about 10K hands this weekend and it definitely simplifies things. No longer do I have difficult 100BB decisions with made AK or preflop QQ. I'm not ready to say it's more profitable long term than having 100BB against donkeys who can't fold, and there's still plenty of them. But against the regs, it removes much of their advantage.

It's extremely frustrating keeping the stack size where you want it. Win a nice pot or double up and you're way above what you want your stack to be. It's a lot of legwork finding new tables or keeping up with what tables your stack has gotten higher.

Thanks, I've bought it and read it and look forward to the next book you write - whatever the heck it's called and whoever the heck publishes it lol.

Soooooo you wanna be a ratholer.

This is fantastic news!

I don't find it really frustrating. I 24 table and whenever I double up I just leave.. Ive been playing with 60BBs ever since I read PNL. If you're on pokerstars they have an auto-rebuy feature which is amazing.

Wow. Just another reason I play live...

Sunny why are "the authors and 2+2 going there own ways though?" that sounds bad in a way

Probably better not to rehash the whole thing.