I’m sick. One of my favorite things to do is torture 4/8 players while I’m waiting for a seat in what I actually want to play.

That book was meant for circus 9-10 handed small stakes games where every flop is 5-6 handed. So blind defense wasn't very important.

But as an online player, the book really hindered my development since 6-max was where the money was. You obviously need to play well around the blinds to succeed at 6-max.

The Stox book went a long way towards fixing my play around the blinds. And then Deathdonkey and Oink's videos got me playing a very modern 6-max pre-flop style. Excellent pre-flop play around the blinds is crucial.

35 standard deviation ?
Isn’t that incredibly high or maybe I confuse it with another stats ?

This is great to do if you can
a) take it seriously
b) adjust your game properly (higher rake or even just a rake period if 20/40 is time game)
which is appears you are

So many pros will just sit on their phones and wait or chat with others for hour+ waiting for a seat. If you can sit and earn a bit in 4/8 or 8/16 while waiting for your main game, that will hurt your butt in seat hourly, but improve your body in casino hourly.

I will play 8/16 while I am waiting for a bigger game, but I'm not convinced that anything lower than that is beatable for an amount that is worth the mental energy from playing and the emotional energy of sitting with those players.

Can you please clarify what you mean by "around the blinds?"

I play looser and more aggro than usual preflop for the lolz but I def still play to win. I’m not trying to give those people my money. A lot of people at the 4/8 level play with so much emotion and I love getting them riled up.

"Around the blinds" means cold 4-betting your UTG straddle.

Who is responsible for brainwashing limit holdem players at every limit I’ve ever played into thinking that they always have to check to the last preflop raiser?

God bless that beautiful soul.

Funny, it's such a prolific piece of poker wisdom that I couldn't tell you where I first learned it. I would assume it is mentioned in some of the classic books (HPFAP or SSHE maybe?) It's not a terrible rule of thumb, even in terms of modern poker theory. The last preflop raiser generally will have the strongest range. Obviously having leads is important, especially multiway, but as far as old school heuristics go, I don't think this one gets people into all that much trouble, especially given that the alternative for many players is a super transparent and imbalanced leading range.

I've seen plenty of donks donk bet the flop. I've also seen good players do it in spots where they expect me to have a check-back range, although such opponents have been much less common in my experience which has primarily been low-mid stakes.

I think it’s god awful advice - as a general rule - especially for loose mid-stakes games. Maybe not at higher stakes where pots are usually heads up but when you’re constantly going multi-way to the flop, the PFR should be checking the flop A LOT. And if the PFR actually does check a good amount of the time then they need to be countered by donking into them. Same goes for LP steals vs the blinds. I just think it’s hilarious that I can raise pre and check back flop for the 30th time in a session and almost no one adjusts their strategy.

In heads up pots it’s not terrible as a general rule except around the blinds where a late position raiser can check back low flops. Multi-way especially 4 plus is a different story. That said, there are players in my pool who are habitual donkers and it lol since I know their exact hands and can fold hands I would have bet

What precisely do you mean by "around the blinds"? Please elaborate in a 5 paragraph essay with a strong thesis stating your 3 major points, 3 paragraphs supporting these 3 major points, and a conclusion where you restate your thesis.

In your experience, does the player pool check the flop a lot when checked to as the preflop raiser? That is certainly not my experience. Even at, say, 20/40, I think most players c-bet too much, both heads up and multiway. And that makes reflexively checking to the last preflop raiser a lot less bad, or sometimes even good, especially as compared to however the player in question might deploy a leading strategy.

That takes me to your point about how you check back 30 times and they still keep checking to you. Yeah, that means their strategy is not ideal. But how much EV are they losing from that strategy compared to whatever ridiculous and imbalance leading strategy they might try to deploy instead? They might be, intentionally or not, choosing the lesser of two bad strategies. Here's a thought experiment: if you took someone who never played poker before and they could either play only AA or they could play a totally GTO preflop range, what's going to be less -EV for them? I think its fairly obvious they're better off playing only AA because they're going to butcher all the other hands so badly that they're better off (from an immediate EV standpoint, not a long-term learning standpoint) choosing a worse preflop strategy. Same thing goes here, with less hyperbole. "Bad" players are sometimes better off following suboptimal heuristics.

Maybe it's because you're on that sick heater you posted about, and I don't mean to use this term in a way that is an attack on you, but your posts sound really judgmental. I think I really improved a lot as a poker player when I stopped labeling players or plays as "bad" and instead tried to focus on figuring out the reasoning behind the play and figuring out how my opponents thought about the game. Hell, a lot of what would have once been thought of as "god awful advice" on this forum has been vindicated by solvers, etc. And yeah, I know that the difference between "bad" and "suboptimal" or the like is mostly semantic, but, at least for me, that internal narrative/characterization really matters.

I think that TheDarkKnight should be locked in a steel cage with DonJuan and 3 regs from butfukistan until he starts acting more humble.

Ugh. Poker has humbled me plenty. I’m pretty much at my bottom as a pro. 2023 was my worst year ever. I’m basically living a miserable existence. That being said, I think if you always check to someone that has a large check back range, you are not playing all that great. You can balance your donking range by betting your best hands, your best draws, and your top pairs.

I think most players cbet the flop far too often but there are some sharper players out there that check back at a chunky frequency and if you check to them 100% of the time you are making a mistake imo. I’m fine with it. I don’t want them to start betting into me. I don’t want them to start playing better. I didn’t post that on here wondering how we can get them to play better. I was just making an amusing anecdote and maybe if someone here never donks as a rule they could think about why doing starting to do so actually makes a lot of sense.

(Sorry didn’t read the AA hypothetical - my girl is annoyed that I’m on my phone).

The challenge arises not just from balancing your donking range but from balancing your checking range. Will you still have check raises and check calls? Or will you allow the preflop aggressor to bet without the threat of a check-raise? Trifurcating a range creates challenges and the narrower the ranges, the greater the challenge.

DK - I think we're kind of talking past one another. I don't disagree with you that people should c-bet less and, assuming they are checking back appropriately, we need to lead more. I'm commenting more on pool tendencies and whether, in practice, players who check to the raiser too much are making that big of a mistake.

I know you were just trying to relay an anecdote and make a joke. I was responding more to your follow-up post about it being "god awful" advice and trying to provide some genuinely helpful commentary on what I read into your post. Not trying to be adversarial at all. Sorry if it comes off that way.

Edit: I'm also really sad to hear you're living a miserable existence. Hang in there, buddy.

Well you still have to balance your check/calling range against your check/raising range. And this is already in a node when you are making a deviation by not having any leads, where the pfr gets to exploit you if they want to and all you get in return is perceived simplicity.

I think it was stox who observed that if a player bets 100%, then we should check 100% in order to exploit their imbalance. However if they start checking appropriately then we are incentivized to develop a leading range. Well what if they start checking far too much? Then we would be crazy to keep following the mantra of “always check to the pfr” just to simplify the game tree

I'm not saying never donk in any situation, I'm saying doing so creates challenges beyond having a balanced donking range.

Although in some spots, I would agree with never donk and cbet 100 percent range.

God awful might have been extreme. I used to do it all the time myself until someone started donking into me on a regular basis. At first I thought it was bad for him to do it but then I realized how much it annoyed me and have since incorporated it into my own game. I mostly just think it’s a very underused weapon in the games i frequent.

My existence isn’t that bad lol. But I’ve reached a point where I really struggle to find the motivation to play the hours I need to play to make the money I need to make. I got divorced last year and it absolutely cratered me financially. I should probably explore other options but I have no idea what I could tolerate and make good money. I don’t want to get back into the business side of poker. Winning a bracelet would help lol.

I certainly don't think you should concentrate on winning bracelet.

Didn't you say you lost a ton at the WSOP and had a huge winning streak at LHE cash games? It's likely not just the way your luck ran, those two things take far different skill sets, and it's pretty obvious which one you have. I don't know why you would ever play a tournament unless it's super fun for you and you have money to burn (neither of which seem to be true).

Not focused on it lol. Just saying it would help. Last year was a disaster and I put more of myself at risk than I should have. I can sell huge pieces of myself if I want to for the whole series. I’ve done well in tournaments for my career considering the level of volume I’ve put in - and yes, I’m aware I’ve run well above expectation.

But yes, my focus is on playing cash for now. I don’t plan to stay for the whole wsop again this year but I certainly won’t be skipping it entirely.