I'd be interested to read that.

My first draft of it is done and I think we can have it up soon if the mods like it.

Sounds good to me. One of us will see and sticky it at the top.

Unstickied Basic Poker Math and put a link in post one. So what's next? Beuller?

6/7/8 betting and building bluff ranges for them?

I know the c-betting talks a little bit about barreling but maybe a full on one that deals with barreling and floating?

I like it.

I feel like every thread I go into these days is an argument about raise sizing to thin the field, and limping vs. raising if we're worried we won't thin the field.

Maybe we should have a COTM on pot sweetener raises? Raises that aren't designed to thin the field?

there's an epic mpethy thread about this somewhere, basically covers most aspects from what I remember. once you go one layer deeper than that you're raising "for value", it's interesting to think about what you actually want to happen.

but i support your idea for a pot sweetener discussion

I would really love to see a new one on bet sizing. I feel like it’s probably the biggest leak in my game right now and I think it’s a pretty common one.

I'm fine with a good "bet sizing" COTM, but I'd want to read it first before publishing. It is an advanced subject that really isn't in the LLSNL wheelhouse. I remember seeing an article 7 years ago or so where Phil Ivey thought bet sizing was an area of his game he needed to work on.

To do it well, you need to have good reads on your villains. Most LLSNL threads' issue is that the Hero doesn't have a good read at all. CMAR wrote a good COTW years ago on the subject, which is where I would start in writing a new one.

Finally, while I'm not opposed to a discussion on "pot sweetening," I've never heard a good argument for doing so. If the argument is crappy, I plan to tear it apart in the thread.

I will have to search for the 'older' stuff for sure. It's been an interesting last few months with my live play. I've almost 'regressed' to opening based on my holding strength with no real noticeable recognition by my opponents. I think this would have to be one of the aspects of a discussion like this.

When choosing to open 'bad' hands (35s to 78s range) once I'm a couple hours into my session I just drop back down to $6-7 range as a 'sweetener' to create my own implied odds. Depending on who sees the Flop and stack sizes I can then determine if stealing (bluffing) a K/Q high dry Board is even possible or if I 'have' to hit the Flop to c-bet. (We are not here to discuss the merits of opening that range, only the idea of sweetening the pot .. But one topic can't go too far without the other IMO.)

If we limp with these holdings I think it's a bit more transparent that we might actually have these holdings when we take an interest in a pot. If we open (sweeten) then we can use some of our 'credibility' at the table to go after a wider variety of Boards.

The math might be the same ... if 4-5 opponents are in the hand, then we need to take these pots down every 4-5 times we do this (with these holdings) to break even. But I think the ability to win a large pot increases when we are the opener/sweetener and mix in a few KK/JJ type of holdings as well to keep the table honest .. if the deck blesses us with them.

I play in reg filled live rooms and I'm offering position for all takers, so rather than take the tighter is righter approach I will drop down my opener, widen my range and invite some playing of poker.

I think another key to the discussion is that I'm rarely facing a 3-bet at these tables so I'm not being taken off my hand before the Flop very often. This is due to both the passiveness of the tables and the fact that 'they know' that I will do this with the top of my range as well.

Bet sizing is an awesome part of the game!! Last night I c/r 2x pot in a spot where it was supposed to be me drawing to a flush with that sizing. I got both of the callers that I though might 'fall' for it and the Board blanked out for me and my top two pair. We are obviously thrilled when this works out .. not so thrilled when someone shows up with a set or actually hits the draw we were supposed to have. GL

ya this would be a loooong COTM post if done properly. could bring up some very interesting topics though, my favs being very small bets (think $10 into $250) and small bets (like quarter pot)

Two ideas to revive this:

First, my idea about pot sweetener raises was never taken up. I guess no one wants to see that?

Second, I was reminded by the discussion over in WBF that another good topic could be one that has never been mentioned on this thread before: controlling your buy-in. Everyone always says "buy in full" and leaves it at that with no real reasoning. That could also be a good topic if we were interested in bringing back the COTM.

I'd definitely be interested in seeing this return. It might be time to consider updating some of the old COTMs too. Not sure how well they've aged as the game evolves.

Have you seen an increase/decrease in the number of ... or quality of ... threads (and posts) per forum that would somewhat minimize interest in a 'dragged' out discussion. (You know, a month is a long time these days.) GL

PS ... How many new members are showing up and how long do they stick around?

Not that worried about other forums in this forum, tbqh. Last I checked, we're the busiest strat forum, in terms of both posts and threads. The reason COTM died out was that it takes a lot of work to organize and write the OPs, and concepts in demand were dropping as more of them got written.

If there are interested authors and interesting topics, this gonna be good. If not, too much work to force it.

This sub has gone downhill. There was a lot of good players and discussion around 2013-2015 but the overall strat quality seems to be at an all time low.

It seems that people decided (correctly) to stop making other players better.

Game has evolved. More than a few COTM are outdated.

Games in general are.
-more aggro
-play shorter (smaller SPR)
-play looser

Updated threads on betsizing would be fantastic. Along with a separate thread for opening ranges and sizes.

But sad to say it has been awhile since guys could even debate in this forum. Trolling has gotten out of hand and many posters are just close minded.

Definitely some of this. What they are missing out on is their own improvement. A lot can be learned in good debate.

If there is trolling going on and you're not hitting the report button, you are part of the problem.

I agree that some posters are close-minded, but I think y'all are remembering a "golden age" when you learned a lot from the forums not because the forums have gotten lots worse, but because you learned all that stuff long ago and it is now basic and uninteresting to you.

I agree that we have less players with an online background now, so we have less good math-based discussions, but otherwise i think this forum is about the same. It is still an entry-level forum with a few very experienced posters who explain things well, and a lot of less experienced and/or not good at explaining/debating posters.

So when I troll am I supposed to report myself?

Edit: tapatalk doesn't let me report my own posts.

I take issue with the implication that someone's familiarity with math is correlated to their online background.

So in terms of bringing this back, better to try to find some old ones to update or do you think one of my ideas is good?

It is definitely correlated, though causation is hard to prove. Obviously, there are some statistical outliers.

CMV, I'd be happy to have any of the subjects updated, or the ones you have proposed. If none of those are particularly jumping out at you, the pluses and minus of various buy-in amounts seems the most topical.

Thank you for volunteering to get this going again.