If we do one on deep stack play people might read it and I'd never make money again.



CMV and I were discussing this concept the other day, and basically agreed that many decent preflop and flop players hit a wall at the turn. This is a good idea for a concept article although the subject is more advanced. That's why it would be valuable. Tougher to do well, but better if it were somehow pulled off.



And no I don't want to do it.

Lets try to get something in line for January of 2016.
Any suggestions or requests?

I'm thinking about writing one entitled, "For a Few Dollars More" about calling and completing in the SB. I'm seeing lots of people bungle the implied odds involved in HHs.

I've started putting together an outline for, "continuing vs. cbet". But its a huge story, and I doubt I'll ever finish it.

(IOW, if someone else wants to do this -- have at it.)

(ETA, I'll probably f-it all up anyway. )

(ETA2, if Venice writes his, "for a few dollars more", I'll probably just point to that and call it a day. )

So it got put off for the Christmas season, but I've got bip! lined up for a "Moving Up in Stakes" COTM. That said, let's definitely keep these other projects going, as when the COTM series loses momentum, it's really hard to get it back again.

Would be interested in both a "Moving up in Stakes" and a "For a Few Dollars More" COTM.

But I hope they don't lose momentum! I really enjoy the posts and discussions.

I think that a 4-6 part series in 2016, on "How to Win at Poker My Way" by Garick would be nice.
Seriously. No shytt. Maybe it could revolve around your 3 major +Ev strengths & 3 -Ev weaknesses & how you're working to overcome them?

Looking for someone to write a COTM primer on deep-stacked play at LLSNL. Particularly hoping it's someone who has experience with games that keep the average LLSNL dynamic of most players being loose-passive, which is what we see when "normal" games end up getting deep, as well as more aggressive play, which is what I at least have seen in games where people buy in 200BBs+ deep.

Please, please, please!

I am new to live play (and a few years removed from being an online rackback pro) so I have very little to bring to this series. However, I encourage anyone with skillz to step up and write a COTM article. If done properly, the writer gains more from the thread than the readers. Thinking in depth about one subject is a humbling experience....at least it was for me when I wrote (and ghost read a few prior to publication).

If you're willing to have one where the original post doesn't get too detailed into my own personal opinions and just speaks in generalities, I might be willing to do something like that. (Might.)

I believe I suggested this one a while back so glad to see it's up.

Might reach into chat for this one?

I've played enough deep to have as many questions as answers and would participate in discussion with a hand history or two but def not comfortable as an author for sure.

What level of generalities are we talking about here? If it's "as stacks get deeper, starting hands converge in value and position gets more and more important," I think we can do better. If you just mean "all the hand histories and Vs will be made up instead of things from my actual experience," I'll snap accept if your might becomes actual willingness.

If it is somewhere in between, could you please 'splain what you have in mind?

It would be the exact opposite. I'd be more specific than just general platitudes, but I probably would use very little from my actual experience. Like I'd talk about how different aspects of strategy and tactics are more important deep vs. short, etc., try to give my opinion on what's more or less important, but probably not use actual hands. (I might make up some examples to illustrate things, but they'd be made up.)

Actually, that reminds me of another idea I had a little while back for a COTM: the difference between "strategy" (meaning an overarching plan for how to beat the players at the table) and "tactics" (meaning a plan for playing a specific hand).

please do. I think I've become somewhat infamous for my dogmatic stance on folding the SB.

Was mulling this over in my head today and I realized that's not quite true--I probably would use some real examples, but I'd probably take care to avoid using examples from the games and/or regs I currently play.

Why don't you just wear a CMV name tag out?

If you're willing, CMV, I would love to see you write this. You always do well by COTMs.

Hey guys, i made a word with all the concept of the months taht are in the first post of this thread ! there might be some interested here so i post it in pdf !

I have it in word if someone would like to do some editing to it !

I didnt pass that much time working on it !

So yeah Can i join a document to a post or send it to a moderator you could put it on the first post !

I'm thinking of writing a somewhat short COTM on thin value betting on the river.
Mostly just the math behind it, not really the 'when / when not'. But if someone else wants to add that part, cool.
Any objections?

This was really prompted by a conversation that cammando and I had in a thread, and my response started getting longer and longer.

Seemed like it might be something good to throw up there since we don't have a COTM for May yet.

Glad your follow up will be thorough.

It wasn't really meant to be.
But then I got farther into it, and realized that if we want to fully explain when it's good vs bad there's a bunch of factors that lead into it.

Isn't it simply, "yes when you beat 50% of their calling range?" Maybe I'm wrong. The tough thing about thin value betting is that you have to be able to come up with an accurate range on the river which probably eliminates most of your readers. Most people I've seen talking about it seem to think it just means, "instead of checking just bet your mediocre hands."

But if you get bluffed off the best hand when you bet some of the time, you lose value that you could have otherwise captured by checking.

Think of the break even situation there you are good 50% of the time when called.
Now of that 50% you are bluffed even 1% of the time, obviously it's a losing play but how much? What if you would be good 60% of the time against their calling range, but they get froggy and bluff you 5% of the time? Is it a +EV play now?

This and more exciting ideas.

I see what you're getting at. I guess in my games with the exception of a very obvious handful of players the chances of getting bluff raised on the river is closer to 0% than 1% but I concede that this is not universally true for all sites and stakes.

I haven't crunched any numbers, but there's a section on this in NLHT&P. Basically there's a huge multiplier effect if you could ever get bluffed. It's similar to RIO in terms of how much of a drag on your EV it can be. Even a small bluffing percentage affects not only whether you should bet but also how much you should bet.

Anyway I agree this could be a good COTM.