What are the main reasons to check behind second and third pairs on the flop? Against what type of opponents would it be best to bet second pairs and ace high etc?

I'm a low-mid stakes 6max player looking to get into HU. Would jumping into the 50NL HU zoom games be a good way to learn? Or would it be better to play reg tables? I've not tried, but I hear that it's difficult to actually get people to play a decent number of hands against you on reg tables if they see you're not totally incompetent.

^^At NL50 you can always find action from regs. You would have to jump around tables randomly, because some of them will quit you early, some of them will HNR, but overall you can expect keep logging in hands against reg's field at NL50 without a problem.
HU ZOOM is very boring. I guess it's okayish, most of the field though is filled with not willing to gamble regs, avoiding playing other regs, bunch of nits and random fish, mainly shortstacking - you would spot them very fast.

Such wisdom from PD

What are the best vids for someone willing to build a solid foundation in heads up? Is there still value in the old DC vids of Krantz, Wiltontilt and others? What has changed since that time?

for those of you that have read will tiptons books is there a review thread where he discusses topics?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33...ipton-1281938/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33...ipton-1433323/

He participates in both threads.

Ranges have changed a lot since the early videos. More recent stuff will be better but the fundamental concepts from the early videos will generally apply. Just realize that the assumptions made about what someone's range looks like will change significantly every 6-12 months as people get more concerned with how each hand fits in their overall gameplan.

What is the stat for delay Cbet in PT4?

The % when villian bets turn when he has checked back flop in SRP?

ty

you asked what the stat was then proceeded to define it. great work

It's a custom stat. You can download it from the pokertracker website
https://www.pokertracker.com/custom/stats

Thinking about switching to heads up. I trired google'ing, but couldn't find a great answer, though I'm sure this has been asked a million times.


What stakes does heads up start becoming profitable, and how would you approach entering into heads up? I hear the rake is a problem. Does anybody have a database that showed how many bb/100 they were paying in rake at various stakes?

I've played maybe a million hands of 6 max, mostly nl50-nl100, and after coming back to poker 2 months ago have gone nl10->nl50. So, I don't really have the bankroll atm to be playing nl100-nl200 HU. Is it worth playing nl25-nl50 heads up to learn the game, or is that a losing proposition for even an experience player with rake?

Last night for example I was playing nl10 to try and familiarize myself with the game, and I swear a full BI had been raked off the table within like 100 hands or something. Which is kind of sick, in that if half of that rake was mine, I'm paying 50bb/100 in rake, and don't see how one could have that much of an edge to overcome that kind of rake. I the first 5 sessions I've managed to profit in 4 of them with this insane rake, because 4 of the players were terrible, and 1 competent opponent pretty much guaranteed we'd both lose that session.

Also, is it necessary to get a membership somewhere or can I just teach myself for the most part? Like maybe 5+ years ago I had memberships to Cardrunners and DC, and watched Prynyraiding and what not, but don't really remember any of it.

Thanks for any help

Also, is it normal to have a hard time playing multiple tables? I playe 750-1200 hands per hour of 6 max with no problem, but heads up I start having trouble anything more than 1 table of 1 opponent, lol. Maybe 2 of the same is ok.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+there+money+HU%3F

In all seriousness, most of your Qs have been answered on the first page (even if it was 2010) or the last couple.

I would imagine that 10nl on most sites will be so highly raked that a new-to-HU player will struggle to beat the rake vs a lot of opponents.

TY. I've been reading the thread since I made that, and got a few answers. I googled those questions before I posted, and couldn't find any decent answers tbh. Like to the question of "what stakes is HU beatablea fter rake?", I'd find answers like "at any stake where profit>rake". Which is super unhelpful, lol.


Anyways. I have kind of a specific question about playing vs. a certain play style.

I was playing vs. a guy, and he seemed fairly reggish to start. Then a hand came up where I 3bet KQ. Flop comes T73. I cbet, he calls. turn comes Q. I figured I'd be bluffing this card with a lot of my range, and bet it. He tank, calls. River I jam, he calls with a pair of 3's.

After this hand he completely changed his style and seemed to be tilting. And, honestly I had a tough time playing against his maniac tilt style. All of a sudden he was 3 betting to redic amounts, every other hand. I adjusted to min raising btn's to $0.50. He would still 3-bet huge to $3.00. He also started opening up 5x otb every hand, and started raising all my c-bets.


On one hand, if he was rational I would be 4 bet bluffing a certain % because his frequencies, and sizing is out of whack. But, on the other hand he was tilting so I figured I'd be getting shoved over a decent amount, so kind of wanted a hand I could call a jam with. Also, it was starting to get costly to keep opening 2x, have him 3 bet huge and have to fold. So, I started opening a lot less hands.

In the end, he ended up stealing from me every time. re-stealing half the time. I rarely got to steal from him. And, he ended up winning like 2/3 of a BI back just from this alone. My plan was to wait for a good hand, and use his aggression against him, but I'm wondering If that is a decent plan vs. this play style? Didn't really seem like it, because I couldn't pick up a hand, or flop a hand, and he won so much back so quick.

Thanks for any tips.

his castle is made of sand, just wait for the winds of variance to blow

@Hendrix
I got told that 100nl is the minimum stake where you can start to play vs regs.

Cool,


TY Sir,

So, basically bumhunt until at a stake where rake isn't killing your WR against someone remotely decent?

TBH, even for someone like me that doesn't know what they are doing, it seems fairly easy to find really bad HU players in the micro's. Though could be some run good making me think they are worse than they are or something.

I don't challenge people from the lobby but playing almost everyone who sit me.

This is from the Pokerstars.FR so the rake is much bigger than other sites.

All you need is hope!

I don't understand why would you want to play regs NL50-NL100. No matter what time Im playing I will get enough / too much action from recs.

What time span is this over?

No offense, bro, but quitting fish if you lost couple buy-ins to him is ridiculous! Yes, he will play better, but he is not suddenly going to become Jungleman. You are a professional player and your skills are much higher than fish's A+ game (if it's not, then lol). Keep playing and brake his A game and win back by getting stacks deeper and thus increasing your edge even more.

@deathorglory0

11 months. But heads up isn't my main game so I only open heads up tables occassionally. And that's only 1 from 8 networks I play.

Is it bad, or a normal adjustment to have a low AF, when playing against really aggro players?

Like the last few sessions I noticed I had AF around ~1.3. Which when reading earlier in the thread, seems low, as someone said <1.5 is a calling station, and most regs are 2-3 range.

However the players I played in those games had AF's of 15, 6, and 7. Normally at 6 max I just make the plays that I think are right, and let the stats fall where they may, but a little curious here since it seems to be far from normal reg stats.

1,3 agg vs a maniac is pretty standard (can even be lower), don't worry about it

Umm... Kinda a noob question.

What's best to open to when facing a brand new, unknown opponent, 2x or 3x at very small stakes?

I've been starting with 2x, and then shifting to 3x if I find they aren't 3 betting much, or if they are short-stacked I just stick with 2x. But, wondering if maybe I should be starting with 3x right off the bat?

Problem I'm having is rake has been brutal at nl50, and 2x seems like it sets up longer matches with a ton of small pots, and by the time you do stack them, half of the proceeds are gone in rake. Like, I just played a guy that bought in 3 times for 50bb's each time (150bbs total), and after stacking him 3 times over an extended period of time, I was only actually up 50bbs.

Basically my question is: Should stacking people quickly before rake eats everything up, be a consideration at low stakes? And, would 3x help that?