Well, I’m not surprised to hear you feel that way, but fortunately I feel ~zero emotional response when other people disagree with me on poker strategy. Happy to have the discussion if it comes up again, but I don’t think now is an appropriate time.

I feel like I’ve gone into a time machine and come out in 2005, because it seems like strategic discussion lately is “wait until you have a monster and then start putting money in because we have postflop skills”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I first started playing online in 2005/2006 I had an epiphany, a solution to the game of poker. Just wait wait wait until you have the nuts and then go all in. EZ game!

Kinda the point though, no? Just imagine where we'd all be if we stopped discussing poker in 2005 thanks to already having it all figured out.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I’m also amazed at how people want to confuse newbie players even more than they likely already are by adding so much complexity to the game, versus teaching structured thinking. When I first started playing limit hold em, I was taught a bunch of hard programmed rules like “don’t limp, don’t cold call”, etc. through further study, I learned why they told me this (like with open limping, a hand profitable to play is almost certainly more profitable to raise, and with cold calling, it invites the big blind in with a wide range that hurts your equity and adds complexity to postflop). How am I supposed to learn how to exploit people, when I don’t even understand the base strategy to begin with?

Lately in this forum, it’s been nonstop discussions of how to craft these amazingly exploitative strategies that deviate further and further from what a solver would give in a situation. Don’t get me wrong, we should absolutely be doing things differently than a solver in live poker, because opponent ranges are much wider and they’re going to play much worse in all situations. But maximal exploitation is trivial for opponents to pick up on (just like if we see a dude limp J9o from UTG, we can immediately pencil them in as a fish). So what if they respond to our ingenious exploits? What if they know we limp to reraise KK+ from EP and begin overbetting any time they have an overpair beat postflop and balance it well with bluffs? What if they know we never 3 bet preflop and can open wider ranges, knowing they’ll realize more equity?

I’ve seen many players with bad fundamentals start off great, but eventually everyone figures out what they’re doing and they begin to stop winning. And because they don’t have a simple, robust thought process with a simple game tree to implement it, they have no response. It’s why many LAGs tend to do well in mid stakes poker games; all the TAGfish have stylized their game to beat up on loose passives and have no idea what to do when someone actually responds to their play style.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am in a game right now,but yes you are correct. Limp reraise is a huge moneymaker on many live stakes tables.

Sent fra min SM-G981B via Tapatalk

This is basic Pareto principle stuff. A newer player is going to benefit a lot more by learning about preflop ranges, flop textures, heads up versus multi-way strategy, etc, then they are from esoteric discussions that don’t really drive home any lessons.

I’m a data scientist by trade, and a lot of these discussions are like talking about all the advanced, sophisticated models we’re going to build without having the data actually in an accessible place. It’s putting the carriage in front of the horse. I’d much rather hear a poker student explain in a logical way why they came to what was ultimately a bad decision, than explain in an illogical way why they ultimately came to a good decision


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that illustrates my point. There's a part of your method that a few in this thread will think is absolutely horrible and we shouldn't even bother wasting time discussing (my guess is that most in this thread will actually be surprised that you, like myself, are a big fan of the limp/reraise method). So then why the hate / forum-has-gone-downhill / why-are-we-wasting-time-on-this / etc. when someone else simply attempts to address something that may be just as contentious?

I mean, of course you are free to disagree with that something and state your reasons why. And it also may be completely obvious to you as to why that something is a bad idea... just as "obvious" as it is to others as to why your limp/reraise method is so horrible.

Gfreeexchangeofideas,imoG

It actually is a very legitimate strategy in many live games, despite how much grief we give GG for always talking about it. Live games are kind of perfect for it: people open too wide, raise limps too wide, don’t 3 bet often enough. Perfect setup for LRR strategies. My problem is that it’s generally terrible to advocate for big exploitative moves to players who have no idea what the difference between textbook and exploitative strategies look like. Then they’ll start having open limping strats from EP in like Texas 2/5 deep stack games and get tortured by LAGs and gamboolers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because we limp/reraise for completely different reasons. As another poster already mentioned.

I do it on some tables as an exploit, you do it as a default because you refuse to have a proper open raising range.

Sent fra min SM-G981B via Tapatalk

Again, my point isn't whether limp/reraising is good or bad or whatever. It's that we should feel free to discuss it as well as any other issue. If you want to discuss the issue at hand, fine; and if you don't, that's fine too. But I don't see the point of simply coming into a thread to lolcrap on it.

GcluelessNLnoobG

This is a strawman point. No one is arguing that topics should be off limits. The gripe a guy like myself or Petrucci or others have is that this forum is being hyper focused on esoteric scenarios and not some rock solid strategy.

Look at the infrequent poster threads in here; will they benefit more from hand waiving about whether LRR is a better strategy for their game than open raising, or will they benefit more from “you’re c-betting air in multi-way pots too often” or “your 3 bet sizing is too small”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly.

Sent fra min SM-G981B via Tapatalk

You haven't met a strawman you didn't enjoy slapping with stick, have you?

Funny enough, from what I saw, not a single one of us came to **** on the thread. We might be irritated ( I will let those two speak for themselves), but advise was given: Taking 3 betting out of your tool box is not a winning strategy in the long run. That's not to say it might be beneficial in certain games, but broad generally, and especially in the OP's described table, it would be terrible.

I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone with a foolish question.

I'm not a pro nor am I trying to become one. I'm just here to improve my game.

As many people suggested, I do lack the skill and experience in 3! pots which is probably the reason I feel my opponents are able to play so well postflop.

Most of my strategy comes from experience and reading posts here.

With that being said, I'd rather get as much knowledge under my belt before I start 3 betting more. Does anyone have resources/articles specifically aimed at how to play hands as the 3 bettor?

No one is actually offended, but if the assumption is you want to get better, your goal should be adding tools to your kit. Not removing them.

Basic bones: https://upswingpoker.com/how-to-3-be...s-up-no-limit/

I am sure there are tons on the subject matter. I know the charts on this one will not please people because it has some suited connectors as 3 bets, but it does say how you should shift based on people over folding or stationing 3 bets.

If you really want to get better at 3-bet pots, go to online microstakes and play a pure 3-bet or fold preflop strategy, except from the BB.

The Theory of Poker Applied to No-Limit $22 here, $26.99 on Amazon.

Most of us read the original, which had a focus on limit games. However, this is a little better. In fact, I think it's time for me to pull my copy out and read it again (for the bazillionith time).

Truly understanding and internalizing the content of this book is fundamental to grasping the concepts being presented here.

I wonder how many +1's I can get?

If Vs ranges are too wide then the correct adjustment would be to 3! more. Every hand realizes more equity heads up than against multiple opponents. In my experience the problem people have when 3 betting is more related to sizing. The sizing is generally way too small.
In a game where people play way too wide and practically never 4 bet light, the appropriate response is to 3 bet MORE.

You’re basically right w/r/t me. I’ve said it already in here, but I’ve seen a worrying trend in a lot of content of minimizing our investment until we have our hammer lock on the hand (or at least favorable situation), and then start piling in money. The problem is, this is what our opponents often do. How do you expect to beat them when you’re playing the same way that they do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I get the concern, and I've wondered aloud in some previous threads what we can do differently from our opponents that actually wins money when the average SPR is ~3 (i.e. in a very loose-passive-large-open-multiway game).

I think the main asymmetry is that our opponents in these games will still pay us off when we do pile in money with our strong hands, while we will be able to more easily get away from our second-best hands (or not have them in the first place because we're playing tighter pre). It's not a pretty strategy or balanced and wouldn't work well in deeper games with better players, but I don't think "minimize our investment until we hit" is a bad strategy in this particular game type. If we're forced to play bingo, we're at least able to play it better than our opponents.

The first and biggest reason is preflop selection with regards to card strength and position. Of course preflop play includes 3 betting so we should be looking to dial that right in as well.

Something I haven't seen discussed in this extended thread is are there reasons to 3Bet less now when alert players are starting to call 3 bets more?

Specifically, Bart Hanson in the Crush Live Poker series, (actually Ki in the Fast Track module therein), is advocating being more conservative with 3 betting now than a few years ago. Simply, as more players 3-Bet light, more are calling the 3 bet, which minimizes some of the advantage. They still advocate 3-betting far more than the average live player, but the ranges as well as frequency of 3 bets have lessened, except for the premium hands.