He's saying that is one way of approaching the game.. its certainly a lower variance approach.

excactly, its a very good post for people starting out at the micro's/struggling to beat it.

think you have to be aware that it is exploitable, but again, this is the micro's and there are few regs able to exploit this and those that could are probably playing a bazillion tables anyway, so exploitability is not something people have to worry about.

I will say, and it is just my opinion, if people want to adapt and grow as poker players then taking this approach will slow down/hinder your growth, but if your aim is merely to beat the micro's, very nice job.

nice post, I somehow read the exact same post on somewhere in cardschat b4. dunno if its u tho.

very nice thanks for this.

thank you - good post - concepts and examples are great

I don't think I say anywhere that you can never bluff, or that you should instafold every time you get raised. I'm not advocating a robotic play like - "I have SD value, I check".

I was trying to tie three important concepts (valuebetting, bluffing, SD value) together in a coherent manner. How one relates to the other and why. So that you can think about these things while playing and while reviewing hands. The decision tree I give is meant for when you want to "play your hand". There's lots of situations when playing your hand isn't ideal. But as a starting point, the "playing your hand" strategy is a good touchstone for your decision.

Incidentally, I do think most of the losing/break even micro players lose money not because they don't bet enough, but because the invest too much with marginal hands when they can't get value and they can't push people off a hand. This is what's hindering your growth.

Thanks MonkE, great post.

thanks for this post, really helps clearly define my correct thinking structure! Helps to learn which bets u do because of value/bluff, instead of it "feeling" right or wrong to do.

you got me too. I was trying to read example 1 and thinking "wtf is he talking about?" I am just going to cut and paste it. Will read this weekend.

how can i get the corrected version of this ??

forget it, i figured it out.

Well done, coulda been from AMA0330

Great post!

I'd like to add something though. Let's say that you're grinding the micros with the intent to move up quickly, and to learn how to play good poker. In this case, you're not multitabling or using a HUD; you're playing one or two tables and trying to pay attention to how the villains play and think.

Now you want to revise the "maybe, maybe, maybe bluff" idea to:

BLUFF weak-tights more often than you think you probably should, but still not too frequently

BLUFF calling stations less often than you think you probably should, and if you think you have a good spot to bluff, you don't

The thing is that if you just bluff infrequently against everyone, you lose value both against the stations (who you will be bluffing too much) and the weak-tights (who you will be bluffing too little).

Here's an example hand (yes, I know that this is risky):

I open in MP with AQo, weak-tight in SB calls. Flop comes 55xr. I bet the pot, weak-tight raises me about half the pot, I think for a minute, re-raise the pot, he folds. This was extremely read-dependent, and against a calling station it would have been enormously -EV. But against this particular player, I had several things going for me:

- I have been playing tight, but more aggressively than he has, and I have been caught c-betting with Ax while he raises and calls raises with only quality hands

- I have been playing aggressively, but I have not yet 3-bet on a flop like this

The thing is that I had been C-betting a lot but then shutting down (against a particular calling station, mostly), and I knew that he was a decent, observant player. However, he picked a poor spot to play back at me, because he was basically saying that he had a strong overpair or a 5. But if he had a strong overpair, he would have re-raised me preflop, and we both knew that. And he just didn't have a five in his hand, but I could have had a five in my hand. Besides, if he held a five, then given my aggressive image he would probably smooth-call. There was just no reason for him to raise with any possible holding given his style and my image.

After this hand he sat out for a hand and then came back, obviously steaming.

The point is that this bluff worked because the villain himself was bluffing, but we both knew that a 5 was more likely to be in my range than his. Which brings up the key point: if you don't like to bluff, save your bluffs for when you have a chance to play back at a transparent bluff. This is very useful not only against the third main type of player at the micros, the maniac, but against what I call "tagtards", players who try to play TAG but act aggressively in the wrong spots. Don't get me wrong: on almost any other flop facing that kind of action, I was insta-folding. But because he made a play that just didn't make sense given the flop and his preflop action, I was probably 75% sure he was bluffing.

If you can learn to spot nonsensical bluffs, you can add a fourth weapon to your arsenal (Vbet, SD value, Fold Equity, "Bluffspotting").

Just don't do this unless you're at least 70% sure the bet is a bluff because it doesn't make sense. Don't go playing policeman and assume that everyone is bluffing all the time! Oh, and just don't do this against passive villains who call loose but bet/raise tight, no matter how unlikely their hand seems. Just don't.

*** hand reading,
*** "open 22+ utg"
*** 3betting AQ+
*** implied odds


u want to make money in uNL?



Just play as many pots with fish as possible. Identify the fish, isolate, and let them make all the mistakes, and just don't stop until they've tilted off everything. I guarantee u everything else will come along.

That works against uberfish who will either call 3 pot-sized bets with bottom pair, or will get all-in with TPTK, or who will fold if they have <TPTK, but it doesn't work against run-of-the-mill fish who suck but don't suck that bad. If you are playing every hand just because someone who you thinks is a fish is involved, then you're a fish.

Edit:

By the way, you say "*** implied odds", but your strategy is based on the implied odds that you think "fish" give you.