What's the average stack size?

I mean, if everyone is $150, yeah, this is a gross idea as it leaves you in a SPR 3 pot. But if like everyone is $600, it leaves you in a much more manageable SPR 12 pot, and the benefit of a getting someone to 3bet is huge.

This is kinda why I like the absolute minimum raise of $0 (i.e. limp) with smaller stacks as it's the same general idea (and yet if it limps 7ways you're still in a manageable SPR pot).

I think the idea of a smallish raise when playing with bigger stacks is an interesting concept, although I haven't implemented it in my game yet. Still a little unsure about it.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Here is Polk talking GTO v. Exploitive. It's around the 5 minute mark that he starts talking about the need to be learning/understanding your V's play so that you can exploit it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diNJ2gY2n7Q

This is what the guy who I've seen opening small has been doing. He studies/understands his Vs & then exploits that when he hits the flop in some way, having made a small investment preflop.

And so the pot boils....

We've got 5 limpers [including SB who is 1 of the worst players I've ever seen with ~$145] & I'm in the BB [ES-$350 vs. 2 players behind me] with AK

Based on this guy's smallball technique, my raise should be $16, but I make it $18 & get 3 callers.

Flop: $51 raked KT7

The SB [fish] bets $20.

The following is concerning the 2 players behind me, not the fish in the SB.

Now the guy on my immediate left is sitting on $700+ & would never, ever limp UTG with 77+, suited broadway cards, AJo+. Even T9s gets a small raise to juice up the pot. He is, however, limping with those hands unsuited.

The 3rd caller [last to act & sitting on $600] is tight & would limp with suited broadway cards like QJs & even KQs if he thinks multiple players will call. His theory is that if no ace flops & he pairs or catches a draw, he'll be good to go post-flop.

So look at the drawing hands. Guy on my left could have QJo, 98o, J9s, which is one he would play but not raise with.

The 2nd guy could have all those draws & a set of 7s.

So, if I raise to $50, am I pricing in the two behind me & looking at any 6,8,9,J,Q,A completing a draw of some kind, with me being OOP to them?

Notice that the K otf blocks those flush draws, and I have the A

Forget the fish in the SB, he is clueless & doesn't have enough money for me to be worried about.

@ Z

I'm fairly certain the guy's smallball technique would categorize a raise to $16 vs $18 as the pretty much the exact same raise size. I'm guessing (???) he'd more advocate something no more than $10 and hope someone goes after this "juicer" looking raise so we can reraise. I suck at deepstack tables, but with these guys behind me and this many limpers, this is where I would often overlimp to reraise - again, sorta similar to the idea of raising really small except I'm raising the absolute minimum of $0. This is actually a good spot to do it with the active guy to our immediate left.

The raise size you took is the worst route. We only get in 5% of stacks, created an SPR < 5 pot where we'll run into commitment issues right away, and yet gave 3 opponents 22+ IO to stack us (BTW, pretty sure your pot size on the flop is incorrect unless you are playing in a massively raked game). Again, for me you are much better of either overlimping (or perhaps this idea of ~minraising) or going like stupid big like $60 - $100 or whatever (FWIW, taking down 6bbs unraked here especially OOP is totally fine); the inbetween route (all in the name of "table standard") is by far the worse route, imo.

ETA: I misread the action a bit, thought we were in LP, so might not all totally apply to in the BB, but still.

GcluelesspreflopraisingnoobG

G, This guy's philosophy is $6 + 1BB for each limper. Period. Every time. Absolutely no deviation. EVER. I quizzed him after a hand where he raised 2 limpers [1/2NL] to $10 & it went 3 way to the flop & he took it down OTT.

I asked him: Do you realize that if you had made it $12 instead of $10, that the pot would have been $39 & when you take it down OTF, you beat the rake? His response in that he doesn't care. He is in the HJ seat & with players left to act behind him he may get a caller that he is OOP with. His key concepts: Don't inflate pre & KNOW your Vs.

Well to me it sounds like he's totally ignoring stack size, which pretty much every preflop concept involving sizing should revolve around, imo.

But if this guy is successful (and who really knows if he really is or for how much exactly), it does illustrate that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and to play to your strengths, etc.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Why are you talking strategy @ the table? Why are you trying to educate your opponents?

Put me in the raise larger camp.

You should stop assuming. We text or chat over a drink

I would guess that smaller PFR camp is nearly never going to be crushers. Primarily because you simply arent scooping enough money into the pot to win as high of an hourly rate.

Bigger PFR = bigger flop bet = bigger turn bet = easier to get it all in. Youre effectively raising the stakes. At 2/5 Im not even playing much higher stakes (maybe raise to 25 instead of 20 at 1/3, because the players are better), im just deeper.

Also, I think this general concept is one that is entirely missed in poker books and whatnot. People who havent played lowstakes with regularity any time soon really cant be trusted on this topic irrespective of their skill, because 1/2 and 1/3 play SO MUCH worse than even 2/5 does. Go play a few hundred hours down at 1/2 and see if you really come to a different conclusion.

By that logic if you just shove your stack in the middle you will win the most money.

The goal is to have the most EV, not to win the biggest pots.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I pointed to one factor which encourages larger bets. Being disengenuous and patronizing instead of having a critical discussion is conterproductive and a bad look.

Have you played even 100 hours of 1/2 or 1/3 in the past 3 years? I entirely agree with betting smaller pre at 2/5 (and presumably higher), even that much of a stake change entirely changes the forumla, most notably because 1/2 and 1/3 players almost never 3 bet (again, another FACTOR, not interested in the slippery slope conclusion youre gonna try and draw from this)

There was nothing disingenuous about my post.

You are making the assumption that you can magically "raise the stakes" while keeping everyone's ranges constant. It does not work like that.

I have only been trying this a short time, so I'm still on the fence. Here's the thing, when I opened for $6 UTG with KK & got 6 callers, I could easily fold my hand OTF [if the blind had not 3!] on a 775 board & only be out $6.00. The guy 4 seats to my left told me he called $6 pre with 78. The turn was a 5.

Also, my $6 o/r in EP got more respect after that. Now I could o/r in EP with T9s as recommended by Miller & others.

If I had made it $15, the guy with 78s probably would have called, as 2 had already called. I have played with him a ton & he's is a LAG player.

If I had made it $20+, I probably get all folds except the blind with AJs, because I have a tight image.

What I don't like at all about this: I'm turning KK into a set-mining hand.

Who was it that said "If more than 3 players pay to see the flop, at least one of the players played their hand wrong."

I remember the last time I played 2/5NL. There is a great game going & a long list, so they started a 2nd game of 9 players & made it a must move game. Within a few orbits it's obvious everyone is just limping in to see a flop & play poker post while waiting to get in the main game.

I'm in the CO or on the Button, when several players limp & I had AK or AQs & raised $20 + $5 for every limper. The majority of them called.

Some of the best advice I've received from a pro, whether it was in a book, video or article: "Don't take advice from a regular low-stakes player."

However, that leads one to question why we go to a low stakes forum where it is a group of low-stakes players sharing their views on how to play a hand.

There is a COTM titled "The Price of Elasticity" discussing raising preflop & our goal[s].

Regarding Z's comments on preflop raise sizing, I've always been of the opinion that so long as the raise size is "reasonable" then it'll make no difference as to peoples calling ranges. For example, a $6 raise at 1/3 NL (a minraise) is unreasonably small, so yeah, expect almost ATC to call, while a $50 raise would be unreasonably large, so unless at maniac tables, expect almost every hand to fold. But thinking there is a difference in peoples calling ranges from $15 versus $20 (both well within what would be considered "reasonable" at almost any table 1/3 NL table I've played at) is pretty misguided thinking, imo.

GcluelessraisesizingnoobG

I was never arguing semanthics on what constitutes a "small raise." A "small raise" is something that allows you to have some fold-equity vs the blinds and profitably see the flop with enough of your range that you can have playability and board coverage on most run outs. At $10/20 a 3bb raise is enough to have fold-equity pre-flop, at $1/2 it may be 5bb, it doesn't matter.

My whole point is that you shouldn't raise so big that you handicap your own range.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I am (intentionally) narrowing peoples ranges enough so that I can play HU poker IP against weak passive players. C bets are unbelievably EV+ with something like a 70% fold rate, and a 25% call rate (with the 5% raise rate being only monsters), and the nice thing about 1/3 is that you get that basically every single hand. Lack of aggression leads to an entirely different game. Passive face up poker play is far less poor of a strategy in multiway pots, so you cant abuse it as easily.

My preflop raise is not a value raise, in fact my range from CO/BTN is so wide its likely wider than their (very wide) calling range, but it doesnt really matter, since I make up for that in dead money from limpers, position, and extreme post flop advantage.

This is true, and I think is great advice for everything except for preflop. I can say with near certainty that there are individuals posting here who should be trusted over me on near every other facet of poker except for this one. Why? Well, if you raised preflop, and got called by a passive fish OOP, this situation comes up from 1/2 all the way up to 100/200. Lowstakes and pros alike have played it many times, and i would bet the pro will have a better suggestion as to how to proceed with the flop situation. Pre? no, they havent played it at all.

For those of you (SABR) playing exclusively 2/5+, how many times, in the past year, have you played at a table with all the following qualities: that has 0 players besides yourself who 3 bet with less than KK? Played at a table with 9 players who limp 40%+ of their range? who call after a limp with 100% of their limping range up to 5 or 6 BBs? Because thats damn near EVERY table at 1/2 and 1/3, and i havent seen it once at 2/5+.

SABR, you cant be reasonably trusted on this topic because its an aspect of the game you likely havent seen in a long time (im being forced to assume since you wont answer my question on how much youve played 1/2 or 1/3.) Its like im advocating swinging at every pitch in a machine pitch baseball league and you come in as a pro baseball player saying to lay off some pitches, look for a curve ball when youre behind in the count, whatever.


lol, gotta cover those boards at 1/2. Your head is in the clouds, get a grip on what lowstakes players are like. This comment is just such a quintessentially “right about poker wrong about 1/2” opinion.

1) they dont have any clue what your range is, preflop, postflop, any of it.

2) they cant read boards beyond the must rudimentary. The concept of a board missing their opponets raising range is about 6 concepts beyond their comprehension.

3) They dont 3 bet pre, they dont semibluff, they dont c/r flop without a massive monster, when they do finally bet its far too small, like their 3 bets are min 3 bets, their bets are the same size on every street. The amount of “playabililty” as compared to SPR is way higher at low stakes simply because there is only one person driving the action, and its you. Lets say youre 200 deep at 1/2, so not very deep. You make it 15, they have QQ, for 1 call (30 pot, 185 behind). Flop comes T92, they check, you bet 25, they call (80 pot, 160 behind), turn blanks, he checks, you bet 50 (180 pot, 110 behind). youve nearly got a PSB left behind OTR, and its a totally common situation, and for that matter, if you have something like air or a fd or 87, youd just check back the turn, and bet river if you hit a draw, he will just check call. Even with raises as big as im advocating, its not exactly easy to get it ALL in at llsnl. Beyond that, if you hit a pair of 2s on that T92 flop, you can check flop, turn, river, QQ may bet it once, or twice for 1/4th pot. Of course typically youd be 300 deep as well.

This is from Live @ The Bike: A 25/50 game with ES-~100 Big blinds, which is a common stack size in 1/2NL. Yes, I know, this isn't a pot raked game.

Barry is UTG with QQ & opens 3x BB = $150 [$6 in a 1/2NL game]

Armenian Mike calls with AJ in the HJ & Bart Hansen calls in the SB with A2; the BB folds.

So Barry got it 3 way to the flop with a 3x raise pre. That would happen much less often in a 1/2NL game.

Flop $500 8A9

Barry checks his QQ & Mike [AJo] bets $300. Hansen says he is going to continue on, as Mike may be betting a draw. He's not thrilled, but he's not folding. The fact that Barry didn't c-bet the flop is indicative of him not having an ace. This is all Hansen's thoughts.

Barry folds.

Turn: $1100 8A96

Now we have FDFD & DBFD in &

Hansen checks & Mike bets the same ott that he bet otf - $300 & Hansen says he can't fold for that price. If Mike had bet $500-$600, Hansen says he'd have to consider folding.

River: $1700 8A965

Hansen says we get a very interesting river for all the obvious reasons.

Hansen says his plan on earlier streets was not to bluff if came but due to Mike's small bet size OTT, he doesn't believe Mike was on a draw.

Yeah, ok Bart - Seems to me that Mike's small bet OTT is indicative a blocking bet with a draw, but I'm not a pro & definitely don't have my own training site.

Bart says Mike would want to protect his 2pair or str8 OTT against a flush draw & would bet more. Sure he would, but IMHO, he would bet $300 with KQ, or QJ suited in but what do I know.

Hansen says Mike's small bet OTT is indicative of a medium strength hand, but mentions nothing about a flush draw possibility.

Hansen says this is just too good a spot for a bluff & bets $1050 into the $1700. Hansen says this is something that you don't see at the lower limits.

Yeah Bart, well you could have seen it go down at my table last night in a similar situation. I bet $65 OTR HU into a guy, which was about 65-70% of the pot and after much deliberation he calls with 88 when there are 2 overs on board.

Now I've been sitting in seat 2 & he's in 4 & he's loose/bad & he has called bad before & I've chatted it up with him. About an hr previous he had made a loose call & just barely lost & I told him how it would be hard for me to fold that [when it wouldn't] & that after seeing him call that I think I'll avoid trying to bluff him. A str8, a flush & the 2nd overcard to his 88 came OTR & he calls.

There is a HUGE difference between a $65 bet & $1050 bet, even though both are ~65% of the pot.

NOTE: Hansen says OTF that Mike might be betting a draw. Well the draws are str8s & flushes, but when Mike bets the same amount on the turn that he did on the flop, indicative of a blocking bet with a flush draw & maybe a pair, and then the flush comes OTR, along with a 4 card str8 [that Mike didn't protect OTT, so he doesn't have] Mr. Hansen thinks it is a perfect time for him to bluff.

IMHO: Hansen needs to stop comparing 25/50NL to low stakes NL. I'll keep bluffin' in those spots, but Hansen has a much, much, better chance of getting a fold than I do. So bite my butt Hansen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkkqKsRIe1o

Lol crush live poker

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

SABR- i remember we touched on this briefly in the chat thread a year or 2 back.

Do you mind eleborating little bit why you think crush live poker and Bart Hansen is so bad? I am genuinely curious of your opinions and your take on it, thats why i am asking.

Petrucci, Maybe you could watch this video & explain why you think Hansen is so brilliant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkkqKsRIe1o Or am I wrong in assuming you respect the guy?

Maybe you could start off without putting words in my mouth? That would be a great start.

I dont think he is brilliant. I do think he comes off as a solid grinder, and some of the stuff he have done i think its good, but not near everything. His cashplay podcast several years back i learned alot from,thats probably the best content he have produced from my point of view. That was like 5-6 years back when he was grinding 5-10 heavily at the Commerce primarly.

Bart is excellent at knowing and exploiting the tendencies of the weaker players at 5/10 and below, but he lacks game theory knowledge which is important for reg vs reg spots at 10/20 and higher. However, he's starting to learn more about game theory but is still currently behind the curve compared to higher stakes regs.

/derail

I never was sold on his stuff enough to sign up, but as a player moving up to 5/10 where else would I even go?

After posting, I thought to myself, "self, are you sure he thinks Bart is brilliant?" And I realized that you did not specifically state that. That I only lead myself to take it as your position, because your thought of the guy was in question.

So I assumed that I concluded that you thought he was good by the way you asked for an explanation as to why SABR thought that Bart wasn't all that some think he is, and posted my last sentence after the link I gave in that part of my text you linked in your reply.

Notice that you highlighted the part where I asked why you thought Bart was so brilliant, but I guess you glossed over the fact that I asked, as quoted in my previous post: " Or am I wrong in assuming you respect the guy?"

I thought to myself when I put that in there, "self, you should go back up & put it in as the next sentence when you ask the guy why he thought Bart was so brilliant." However, I was too lazy & now here we are......