Can we have an article on pot control (if we havent already)?

If not, can anybody recommend a thread or post which goes into the nuances of the tactic?

Pot control is for nits!!! *sarcasm* But yea easily found the article your looking for using search "pot control" with title only. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...inally-361988/

Here is more homework if you really want a solid understanding.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...eation-843218/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...bluffs-747500/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...etting-454494/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...ns-bet-645508/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...reling-651776/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...-river-487743/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...etting-447771/

Nice one my son.

Yeah, I think the next step will be to really get into the nitty gritty of flop play. This itself would probably require a dozen COTWs.

We also could just call it a year, and have a massive brainstorm session or something.

This +1000000 and also (I know this has been sorta done already) but thinking like a winning player - like planning lines vs various villains with different reads, stats etc.

Is this *really* *really* necessary though at uNL?

yes

Yes - believe it or not, uNLers even the good regs have HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE holes in their overall play in small pots (ironically, the small pots are the ones that effect our win rate - i.e. finding the good flops to c-bet when your AQ misses, which flops to c/f) - playing the flop is seriously very important, you should only really see a turn card (after a preflop raise and a flop c-bet no more than say 1 in 30 hands (depends on how loose you are obv), but most hands end on or before the flop.) Once you are down to the turn, at uNL anyway, your opponent's range should be narrowed down enormously. If you play good preflop (which is relatively easy when compared to postflop play), your winrate will improve enormously - the difference between a win rate of +6ptbb/100 and -6ptbb/100 is how top pair hands and draws (and other common scenarios) are played, NOT how you play when you flop a set or quads. This is ironic when almost all of the hands posted on these forums are big pots (because when you make a bad flop c-bet, you either win the pot (results based thinking) or you give up ott usually. Net loss is a c-bet say 5bb or so. You do this a few times, it adds up really quickly. This is a summary as to why flop play is super duper duper important.

I can't agree more with udbrky and Lx12. Game Theory states, "The longer a games goes on, the more decisions are to be made, and thus the more likely the better player will win."

Most regs here and regs at the tables play uNL to move up, where post flop play is the bread and butter of winning players.

We've had COTWs on Value Betting, bluffing (in the form of c-betting, 3-betting, floating, etc), but why none on Betting to Capitalize on Dead Money? You know, those spots where you can't bet to get called by worse, are always called by better, but would not extract any more money from worse on later streets anyways.

you mean bluffing? (or turning your hand into a bluff?)

I wouldn't say bluffing. the classic example I think of when I read coinflip's post is I raise in EP with a premium PP and the SB, a notorious nit and setminer, calls. A dry flop comes and I cbet, not because villain will call with worse but because I don't want to let him bink his set on the turn or river.

If he has hit, he sticks around and I shutdown.

I think if a COTW like this were done on this it would basically be a synthesis of many previous COTWs, depending on how its written of course. FWIW I don't think a few COTWs with this sort of synthesis mind frame would be bad, but it would make lazy people happier(something I'm not a complete fan of lol)

P.S.: I would like to reserve a week in Jan of 2011 for setting goals/staying motivated.

Baluga Whale's book says there are 3 reasons to bet- for value, as a bluff, and to collect dead money. That's all I'm saying. Maybe the example I gave was a bad one, but that shows that maybe we do need to discuss it.

done

the way i use "betting to collect dead money" is in CB spots and on wet turns. most every other bet falls into either bluff or value. imo

TANGENT: This is one of the things that I found maddening when I was just getting started -- the way folks use poker terminology varies widely. Like any complex subject, it benefits us greatly to have a precise, well defined nomenclature.

One of the great things about DBs like PT3 and HEM, is that we can rely on many of their stat definitions as definitions of terms.

E.g. if it is folded around to us OTB and we have aces and raise, this is an "attempt to steal" in DB stat terms, despite the fact that we have greater than 50% equity (HU) vs SB/BB ranges (or > 33% equity in a 3 way pot). If not for the DB definition, people might quibble over "is it really stealing if I have more equity than anyone else". Since the DB defines the stat and we want to talk about the stat, there is no argument over what is an ATS. Hooray!

Sadly, "betting to collect dead money" does not fall into the class of terms that the PT3 DB can define for us.

PT3 doesn't define "bluffing", either.

IMO there's only "betting to increase our expected result".

Just because the concept isn't clearly defined quantitatively, doesn't mean there's no distinction between "bluffing" and "value betting".

Do you know what I've just noticed? That there has yet to be cotws on the following:

Multiway play (otf, ott and otr)
Restealing
Overbetting

I would be willing to do multiway play as a 3 part series (or someone could share it with me i.e. I do one street as a cotw and then others do the streets as cotws)
I would also be able to do restealing (even though this has been pretty much covered to death in different forms)
Overbetting is something I could also do, but I'm certain that someone else would be more qualified to do it.

There we have it, 5 cotws for the new year!

I more than willing to do all, some or none of them.

How about betting AK vs a pure set miner on A72r? Is that for value or as a bluff?

It's a CB spot. However since you're either way ahead or way behind betting may actually not be such a great idea.

It's a CB spot for sure but "CB spot" is not a reason to bet. Checking is bad if he never puts in more money unless he spikes a set. So again I ask....if you're going to agree that "for value" and "as a bluff" are the only two reasons to bet, is this CB for value or as a bluff?

I don't agree, and that's not what Split said. I'd say the purpose of this bet is to charge a draw (to a two-outer). But maybe this discussion deserves its own thread (doesn't have to be a COTW).

a 2 out draw that's never calling?

what cang said...but

Does my bet get called by worse hands?
>If no, then my hand probably isn't value

Is my hand not value?
>If yes, can I bet and get enough folds?

Can I get enough folds to show profit?
>If yes, turning my hand into a bluff is outright profitable

Could I show profit with any other line?
>If no, bluff.

(ps, im loving turning all my decisions into if;then statements =) )