I'm a home game player (social, no rake), and have been for over 35 years. I've played in tournaments on occasion (WSOP and here in LA), as well as the occasional casino cash game. Played limit and NL/PL, mixed games etc. I've played with some household names in casinos and homes.

One common thread between every winning big bet poker player I've ever played with is aggression.

However, watching the ME and the One Drop, I was amazed how passive the play was...in particular a few hands:

1. Einhorn's bust out hand...he played it like the worst player in my home game. I realize he's not a pro but that was embarrassing. No wonder his hedge fund is in the tank!

2. Dan Smith not shoving with AJ, and then calling off half his stack. And then snap calling with Q10?

3. Bonomo/Cynn both calling rather than raising when they had flush draws (Cynn also had a pair and gutshot).

If you knew nothing about these players, and thought they were novices, you would label all of them "calling stations"...because that's how they played these hands. I don't recall seeing a checkraise semibluff all month by anyone...does that not work anymore in tournaments?

I never thought I'd miss Vanessa Selbst!

While you were playing your homegames, professionals got better at poker, and realised that aggression alone doesn't maximise EV. If it did, Vanessa might still be a pro.

Solvers such as PIO and PokerSnowie have changed the way people play. They've shown it's correct to call in certain spots rather than raise, or check in certain spots rather than bet.

It’s one of the things that bad players had right all along, same as not folding to every continuation bet.

That doesn’t mean being super aggressive is bad against the right kind of opponent, just not against very good players.

I agree...I play with some uber aggressive players and letting them hang themselves is a great strategy against those players.

However, playing AQ and AJ were autoshoves being short stacked AND short handed...(one might also argue Kaverman's fold with 88, but that probably had something to do with the bubble?).

yup -- one poker hand negates years of HF experience.

Poker is a highly nuanced game.

Who knew?

Sometimes I wish the lower buyins played more like high rollers. Spaz players do put you in some tough spots, I will say that.

Obviously they are the best in the world. I would think though we would see more raises now and then for equity denial and deter from being value bet so thin all of the time. Not Selbst type spew just pressure just a little bit more.

If you disagree with how some of the best tournament players play, that should tell you more about you.

Don’t be a snot, purposely stated they were the best. Thought that comment would head off dumbazzes. I was wrong.

What makes you think I'm responding to your post (that I hadn't even read)?

Because it’s right underneath mine and I was wondering why there is so little raising.

But if you are not a dumbazz carry on!

If you don't understand why they play like this then you clearly don't understand the game well.Obv they have different approach to the game than being an aggro spewtard unbalanced and of course ICM is huge factor on these MTTs.

People are telling me that I don't understand the game, or perhaps the way the game is played today. I've been a winning player in every home game I've ever played in...which has less to do with my skill than the truly terrible play of my opposition! Picking the right game trumps everything.

Could someone explain to me why not shoving with AQ or AJ (Einhorn and Smith) is ever a good move in their situation? Aren't you trying to pick up pots uncontested, especially when it can add 10%+ to your stack?

And someone tell me why check raising with flush draws is a bad thing? Isn't giving yourself two ways to win, rather than just one, one of the reasons for betting and being aggressive?

If all you want to do is check call, you may as well play limit!

Because it isn’t always optimal because no two situations are ever the same, unless they are identical (and that’s rare). Adding 10%+ to your stack is desirable but it’s equally desirable to everybody else and therefore not as desirable as it first appears.

There are many ways to give yourself two ways to win. Giving yourself three ways to win sounds like an even better idea but then maybe four ways is better....

On a side note, for every player that has played “theoretically sound” poker over a large sample size of hands and won a lot there is also a player that has played equally theoretically sound poker over same said sample size of hands and lost a lot. Well pretty much. I reckon you are just better than the players you play and if you taught them your tricks you’d all break even.

Can you be more specific by posting this hand or video so we can see why this happened? Maybe was ICM suicide to shove there and blah blah. Nobody told you c/r is a bad thing too but every hand is unique and you clearly have very bad aproach on poker. I can't say whenever you have a draw c/r is good thing because every hand is unique and the max EV depends on so many factors. Also to win a no-raked home game in most cases a ABC tight approach can work fine.That does not mean a lot.

sometimes in poker, as in life, we must merge our ranges

How do I get a seat at your home game?

Just responding to the person who created this thread. Else I would have quoted you.

Because the EV of trapping with a big ace might be higher than taking a pot right away.

Also raising flush draws weakens you calling range on turns/rivers when the flush hits. It is to strengthen the calling range on a lot of turns/rivers.

This imo is why Rick Saloman has had some success in the high rollers (over an absolute tiny sample size). It seems that most of the businessmen try to simply emulate the pros style, and are just always going to be worse at that style. I think from a rec perspective, they are much better off trying to employ an extremely aggro high variance approach

yeah billionaire Einhorns hedge fund is in the tank... sure

also he actually played very well against some of the toughest competition possible. he got 3rd in the oringinal one drop and 18th in the largest wsop main event field ever.

fedor had raised like 80% of dan smiths limps. i liked his plan to limp shove. fedor was raising with absolute garbage hands therefore fedor likely raises 75% of the time.

#3 is just laughable. you gotta have some flush draws in your calling range so you can have a flush when it hits

however i do agree with the ending part about how no one check raise bluffs anymore. they basically only have two pair+ nowadays.
problem is you never need to balance since youll never be in these situations likely ever again. so i feel like the players just wanted to play standard and wait for monsters

Isn’t GTO basically a defensive strategy controlling loses until a good spot comes around.

I agree. Most of these so called 'top players' are just mediocre regs at best, with no balls who just xc their life away. Stop trying to excuse it as playing advanced or 'gto' its just no balls. Guys like Martin Jacobson, who is supposed to be some Boss, yet when push came to shove he got totally owned by Polks bluff in the One drop a few years ago, when he folded a monster to the only guy at the table capable of pulling a big move like that. Not impressive at all. I barely saw anyone actually trying to play poker.

Yes GTO doesn't do betting or raising

poker players arent passive
There have been numerous people for many years now walking around with their arms and legs not in casts(when they should be) from brutal beatings they deserve for robbing 10s and 100s of thousands in some cases.