Hi Everyone:

Here's part of the Introduction to or upcoming book Small Stakes No-Limit Hold ’em: Help Them Give You Their Money. We expect to have the printed book up on Amazon in less than a month:

Introduction

Let’s start this book off with a few examples. These are just a few of the many types of hands which for the live small stakes games, usually $2-$5 or less, that we play differently from the way almost all other players in these games will play them, and is also different from much of the standard advice that is out there. So why do we do this?

The answer is simple. Against poor playing opponents, the best strategy for maximizing your win rate is to exploit these players as much as possible, sometimes with plays that look extreme. Especially to an “expert” player who often relies on Game Theory Optimal (GTO) to model his strategy.

Now, we understand that those who usually play GTO will, when appropriate, exploit their opponents. They do so when they see an opponent playing very badly which will make them make changes to their standard strategy. But they usually do this only in very obvious cases.

But that’s not the way we play these small stakes games. In these games, assuming the game is eight or nine-handed, it’s common to be against four ot more terrible players, and even most of the remaining players, who are usually semi-competent, will still make some significant errors, especially late in the hand when the big bets are in play.

If you were to go into a higher stakes (live) game, usually $5-$10 and up, where there are many strong players, and do many of the things that we’ll be recommending, your results will probably be disappointing. But if you stick to a game like $1-$3 no-limit hold ’em where the maximum buy-in is usually 100 to 200 big blinds, and follow the advice that is contained in this book, we suspect that you’ll be quite surprised and pleased with your results.

Our approach is not looking to make lots of great plays where you may steal a pot or knock a player out who, if he had stayed in, might have beaten you on a later street. We’re also not interested in constantly balancing our strategy and putting our opponent(s) at an “indifference point.” The experts can worry about that stuff, and if that’s your approach, play the higher stakes or perhaps limit hold ’em where recognizing small edges is highly important. But if you simply want to let your opponents give you their money, we’ll show you how to do it.

A Few Examples

(Again, these examples show you only a small number of the many ideas we will soon tell you about.) To see what we’re talking about, here are five examples. Notice that in every one of these hands, we’re playing differently, and sometimes very differently, from the way most poker instructors, coaches, book authors, poker video content producers, etc., will tell you how to play. It's true that, in general, their advice may be reasonably good, especially against tougher players than those we’ll be addressing. But it won’t be well targeted for these small stakes games. And if you’re playing live, these are the vast majority of games that are spread in our public cardrooms.

Example No. 1: Here’s a hand that David played in a Las Vegas $1-$3 game. It’s an extreme example, but we want to start with it to show how different many of the strategies in this book are and to give you an idea of how different, in some situations, our approach to maximizing your expectation is from the typical player, and this includes most of those who are currently having some success in live $1-$2, $1-$3, $2-$5, and similar no-limit hold ’em games.

In a $1-$3 no-limit game, David was dealt the

K K

two positions to the right of the button. The first four players limped in and David only called. The next two players folded, the small blind called, and the big blind checked.

The flop came the

J 9 7

The under-the-gun player bet, two players called, and then David threw his pair of kings in the muck.

Virtually no one else, at the time of this writing, would play a pair of kings in late position in a multiway pot this way. They would have made a substantial raise before the flop, and on the flop they would have certainly played their hand.

But let’s notice something obvious. If one of the last two positions or one of the blinds would have raised, when the action got back to David, he would have the option to make a big reraise, and if there were also a couple of callers, he would almost always be a large favorite to win a big pot assuming he got at least one caller.

As for his fold on the flop, given the way the hand was played, the reason for David’s fold is a little more complex, and that will be explained in detail later in this book. He would not have folded if the flop would have come something like the

J 7 2:

So, this example should give you an idea of what this book is about. To be specific, it’s playing your hands in the way that will exploit the weak players to the maximum. And as you can see from this example, some of the ways to do this aren't the ways that are generally advocated by the current crop of poker instructors and poker coaches as well as some of whom have been around. But there are ways, which will allow you to win the maximum at a reasonable risk that these small live stakes games have to offer.

Example No. 2: This hand was played by David. Under-the-Gun in a $1-$3 game at a full table, David held the

A K

Instead of raising first in as most poker instructors would recommend, he limped in for $3 and got three callers behind him plus the big blind. So, after the rake, there was $15 in the pot.

The flop came the

K 9 4

and with top pair, top kicker, David bet $15 and got one caller. The pot (after the rake) is now $42.

David saw that his lone opponent only had $80 left. And when a T came on the turn, David bet $80 and was called by his opponent who was now all-in. Unfortunately, a club came on the river and this player showed the

6 2

for a flush which won the pot.

Now some of you might say that if David had raised before the flop, as most players would, he would have won the pot. But notice that he got his opponent to call a large bet (for this game) getting 1.5-to-1 odds when he needed to make a 4-to-1 shot. So, theoretically, David won much more playing the hand this way than he would have won playing the hand in a conventional manner. And over time, these theoretical wins do turn into real money.

Example No. 3: Here’s a hand that Mason played. A timid early position player limped in, and Mason had concluded that this player absolutely never bluffed. Everyone folded to Mason who called with the 77 on the button. The small blind folded and the big blind checked.

Three random cards, including one overcard to the sevens, flopped. The big blind checked, the timid player bet a modest amount, and Mason folded.

Example No. 4: Here’s another hand that Mason played. In a $1-$3 game, an overly loose-aggressive player, two positions to the right of the button, raised to $10. The button called and Mason, who held the

A K

in the big blind called. Notice that the standard play would be to make a big reraise.

The flop came the

J 6 3

Mason checked, the loose-aggressive player bet $15, the button folded, and Mason called with his ace-king and three-flush. The turn was the 6 giving Mason a four-flush. Mason checked, the loose aggressive player bet $25, and Mason called.

The river was the A. Mason checked, the loose-aggressive player bet $50 and Mason called with his (now) aces-up and king kicker. The loose aggressive player then turned over the

A 2

Notice that he had bet a total of $100 on all four streets and never had the best hand.

Example No. 5: And for our final example, here’s a hand that David played. Before the flop in a $1-$2 game that had a maximum $300 buy-in, David called a limp with the

8 7

Five players, not including the small blind, saw the flop, and after the rake there was $10 in the pot. The flop was the

A 9 4

which gave David a flush draw. An early position player bet $8, and David called. Now there was $25 (after the rake) in the pot and both players had plenty of chips. The turn was a blank and David’s opponent bet $15 into the $25 pot bringing it to $38 (after the rake). This meant that David would be receiving immediate odds of $38-to-$15, or 2.53-to-1, to call. And since making a flush on the river is approximately 4-to-1, even if David can collect an additional bet when his flush comes in, this does not seem like enough to warrant a call. But David went ahead and called, bringing the pot to $52 (after the rake).

The flush card came on the river. The early position player checked, and David bet $70, $18 more than the size of the pot. And after thinking for a while, the early position player called and his top pair lost to the flush and David made $108 on his $15 call, which is approximately 7.2-to-1 on a 4-to-1 shot.

This is all fine and well when playing 200 BB deep. Many of the games these days are $500/table max and play 600+ BB deep, with half the table, or more former 2/5/10 players. While there is still a good amount of easy money in the games, it's not the soft field you seem to imply.

It says above "where the maximum buy-in is usually 100 to 200 big blinds." You're obviously addressing a game that we're not.

Mason

In example #4, as written, $10 + $15 + $15 + $50 = $100.

I suspect you meant to say he bet $25 on the turn, in which case the total would be correct. But you really need a better copyeditor. Glaring mistakes like this undermine your credibility.

I assume he means there is a $500 max buyin for 1/3 NL and people will pick up chips and have like $1800. I don't think that is typical. However, the games are playing deeper. It used to be a maximum buyin of $300 or less and $500 for 2/5 was standard. It does seem like there are not so many higher stakes NL games now, but they are playing deeper. They also will play 2/5 or 5/10 with a straddle, so effectively twice the stakes.

It is helpful to give examples, which give you ideas, even if you don't play exactly as the authors advise.

Two of the hands involve attempted limp/reraises with unconventional hands or positions. That is sort of an old trick and can be face up if unbalanced. Of course, it could work against fish.

Is this a troll or is this actually in the book?

I like the idea of the book, and I think it could be an eye opener for most of the people who can't maximize EV against bad players cause they play too much like all the other players nowdays. Looking forward for a copy to read. When is the book ready? I'm interested for a kindle premiere or something like that.

Gesendet von meinem Pixel 6a mit Tapatalk

lol, exactly this.
helping them giving you their money isnt limping aks to get a 5way pot

I assume he was playing for a limp reraise. I am not sure why, as you are probably too deep to leave like a psb left. I can see it with AA/KK or shallow in a tournament with AK.

David/Mason, part of my issue with your books is that you make unsubstantiated claims. How do you know that the EV of villain calling with 1.5-1 odds (when 4-1 was b/e) is greater than raising preflop and playing traditionally?

Unless you did the calculations, you dont know this. Did you do the calculations? If you did, why didnt you show them? If you didnt, then how can you honestly say you know one is more profitable than the other?

Do you see the issue here?

Also your poker advice is very very very very very bad, but that can be debated. stating made up facts without comparing results cannot be debated however

I also doubt the ev of limpreraising KK is greater than isoraising(solver agrees obv, but even making assumptions this doesnt look like its the case ever)

Yeah, definitely need rationale for open limping AKs UTG. For a 3!? to disguise your hand when limp/calling? This is generally considered donk play. The Introduction doesn't explain why this is good when almost everyone on this board thinks it is bad. Do you just limp in with everything?

You should show portions of the manuscript to more people before posting them publicly.

As the other poster indicated that AKs limp looks really bad. It may be a good play, but the book needs to explain why. The fact that a donk made a mistake later in the hand is irrelevant. Donks will chase draws with incorrect odds. You want to build a bigger pot to get value against a worse top pair when an ace or king hits. I have no idea to purpose of the limp. To build a bigger pot with more players limp/calling a bigger raise and your hand is disguised?

The KK limp, I can see you might get action if you 3! as the 5th limper, because it doesn't look like you would try that from that position and there might be a raise and several callers to 3! at. However, what percent of the time does it get raised. Also, some people may have an idea what you are doing and only call with pps and know they can stack you if they make a set. It may be a good play, but it needs to be explained and analyzed more.

The flat call from the BB with AKo to a loose players HJ raise and a BTN call of 10 at 1/3 is the way many donks play at 1/3, but is totally nonstandard. It needs to be explained. That you got a good result or villain made a mistake later is irrelevant.

As someone that grew up reading all of your books, it really pains me to read these hand examples. The non GTO argument doesn't work anymore because of something called MDA (Mass Data Analysis).

The KK hand of over limping in late position when there are 4 players already limping and hoping an unknown will raise so that you can back-raise is just FPS. Low stakes players are NOTORIOUSLY passive preflop. Their RFI percentages and 3bet percentages are so far below GTO that you need to put money in when you have a good hand (possible exception is UTG but NEVER in late position with multiple limpers) to maximize your EV.

The AKss example is fine because Fish are less elastic than regulars so overbetting is good, MDA show's us this. NH

But you need data behind your reasoning. Fish strategies have already been tuned and fine tuned with laser like precision because of software like HAND2Note. We don't need to guess anymore, when you have 100's of millions of hands you develop strategies based on how people actually play. The differences between a live fish and online fish are not that much. You can extrapolate a lot of online fish strategies and take them into the live arena and do very well.

I wish you the best of luck with your book but your thought process leaves a lot to be desired.

"Omc's reveal their thought process at poker in 2023"

I suggest this as a new book title after seeing those examples.

The general idea is that bad players make big mistakes on the later streets which they won't make if they if they are out of the hand. Mason chose to highlight extreme examples to generate discussion about plays that are not normally even contemplated. The examples in the book are generally not that extreme. And we explain them in more detail in the text. Furthermore, there is much more information in the book than outlier plays. We will soon be publishing the list of chapters that will become the table of contents once we decide on their proper order. To give some examples now:


The $5 + $2 Rake

Acknowledge Your Shortcomings

Quitting A Good Game

When There Are Limpers in Front of You

When Someone Is Likely to Raise a Limp

When They Don't Bluff

Set Mining

Preflop Percentages and Matchups

Disobey Other's Loose Big Blind Calling Advice

Their Extra Large Preflop Openings

The Power of Aces

Sweetening The Pot

The Min Reraise

Stealing And Squeeze Plays

Dispensing With GTO

Benefitting From Their Mistakes

Overcharging Drawing Hands

When Your Opponent Bets into Your Flush Draw

Raising To "Find Out"

The Three Important Folds You Should Usually Make

Top Pair Bad Kicker

Bet Sizing When First on the River

A Little River Bluff

The Future Bet Power of the GTO Player


That's about a third of the chapters. Plus, there are two chapters with about 20 "Short Thoughts"

Finally, I should note that most of our readers will not be as sophisticated as the readers of this forum and we write accordingly.

As one who hasn't raised a single hand preflop in the LJ- (and needing very specific requirements to raise the HJ) in 6+ years since implementing my own Super Nit (trademark pending) strategy in my 10 handed 1/3 NL game (where I've done ~ok), you've peaked my interest in this book, lol.

GcluelessoverlimpingnoobG

You are talking about the generic game against unknown amateurs. I knew that the players behind me were not generic. Also if you are using MDA you are not using GTO.

That doesn't help the reader though, you need heuristics against unknowns. Most people that read your book will be sitting down and playing against 8/9 complete strangers or they might know 1 player.

You use GTO/MDA together. For example I am coached by Saulo Costa and on flops we use GTO in most nodes in order to maximally exploit with MDA on later streets. They are used in unison not opposition.

How much will gobbledygeek get in royalties from this book?

wait, people are playing No-Limit Holdem for small stakes? That seems (at best) aspirational.
Budget Boujee lol.

Most of our stuff is heuristics against unknowns (other than the known fact that they are playing small stakes and perhaps a few other clues).

Although we explain the play in more detail in the main text, we are glad you wrote this because we see that we should put that play in the introduction as well. And it is not jus that in the game I was playing, players were raising limps more than the average amateur. It was also that generic amateurs are more likely to call the possible raiser to my left (as I'm sure MDA would verify) and also more likely to call my rather large reraise. Did youm take that into account?

Meanwhile I assume you disagree with the assessment of some coaches, such as that Bart mentioned earlier, that 1-3 is not profitable because of the rake and the wide range of the players. Anyone who agrees with that has little right to criticize as we know for a fact that they are seriously incorrect.

In any case even if some of the chapters have debatable advice in your eyes there is no doubt that at least some of them talk about stuff that you and your coach have not thought about but would agree with.,

The problem with analysis based on particular table dynamics is you can justify almost any play. But when relaying information to the masses you need to base this information on fundamentals, not just GTO fundamentals but also MDA fundamentals.

Yes fish (or amateurs as is the more correct euphemism) do call much more than they should preflop. But you need to put that in your analysis. "The reason I am over limping KK is because the amateurs to my left are raising much more than they should." But it would have to be so much more than what is correct in theory that in only the most extreme cases could your preflop play be correct. Like I said, ANY play can be justified based on table dynamics. But getting good at poker is based on fundamentals, not these extreme deviations or fancy plays.

And yes obviously 1-3 is profitable, that is common knowledge.

It's not really possible to get the sample size you need when playing live to understand all the nuances of the game. That's why the best live players will be players that have studied databases in depth and then extrapolated that knowledge to the live arena. Then you can be very confident in your strategy.

Feedback loops in poker are very slow, even slower when playing live. That's why, in my opinion, the best book on live play would be a book that marries the software of online with the tendencies of live. If you haven't done the necessary work to make that happen, I don't know how you can be positive that you are maximally exploiting the field.

It seems to me that this book is based off experience and small sample sizes (relatively). Not a great combination when trying to formulate a winning strategy in poker.

Thanks for the catch. The turn bet was $25 and it's been fixed.

Mason