The version I have shows the Q, and that is what it should be. Are you sure it shows the Q in your book.

I'm working from home and not from our office, but I'm not sure how you got a Q. I'll look at our current stock when I get to the office later today to try to figure out what happen.

Best wishes,
Mason

Yes I’m sure. I had to double check a few times so I didn’t post a dumb question.

HI Aku:

You're right. In the previous printing of the book the card picture was correct, but somehow it got changed for the fifth and current printing printing. We're now trying to figure out how this happened.

Best wishes,
Mason

can't believe this is a real thread in 2017 for more than one reason

David Sklansky weighed in, how about hearing from Ray Zee and Ed Miller?

Is it actually possible that you should raise at a table of reasonable players who know you well, while checking vs. a table of drooling buffoons??

In a table of limpers, you already have an indication as to the skill level. Players in this game cannot be expected to fold any pair, and perhaps not even many backdoor draws, so the thin the field to secure a smaller pot bravado is liable to backfire. It's worth thinking about but it seems impractical. It would take a unique group of players who play suited trash but are not willing to go to the river to make this practical. (or there happens to be a valid extra multiway pot somehow with reasoned limpable starters, which is quite a parlay).

I must assume though that you still intend to raise AJs and other value hands where it doesn't pay to try to secure the pot. even w/o KK/QQ for value, and not have AA be the only raising hand.

Lol, funny you should mention that exsmole. The first argument I remember having with Mason is when he insisted you should check AJ in the bb when the button open limps. Also he's still wrong about that

To prove your point, don't make up stuff.

I'm sure what I said was that if the button raised, no one else is in, and you're in the big blind, then to only call. It's an interesting way to play based on Game Theory ideas, and for an explanation as to why this can make sense see the "Rules for Preflop Hold 'em" chapter in the book The Intelligent Poker Player by Philip Newall.

MM

Mason, that has been accepted theory on these boards long before Phil published his book (the best book ever written on limit hold em theory! Congratulations on publishing it!) But I also believe it is over applied by 2p2 posters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Newall is what I've been reading lately. In today's 20/40 where the raiser c-bets too often Newall recommends calling a raise pre-flop as a slowplay (as well as your entire range), because you can check-raise the flop, and hide your pre-flop range.

Hi leaves:

Your point is valid, and again, I recommend to read the "Playing in Loose Games" section in HPFAP. You'll see that our advice changes whether your opponents are loose weak or terrible.

Best wishes,
Mason

No, I agree with that. You specifsclly said when button open limps we should check AJ to conceal strength of our hand. I'll look for the thread later

Is that because against a lot of people, the cost of giving up immediate value for the sake of deception isn't worth it, ie flat-calling in the BB should be reserved for use against strong players? Or because many of us don't really know what to do postflop after just calling a strong hand in the BB?

I think it’s sorta the opposite, especially in short handed spots. You should 3b the big blind vs stronger players who chk back postflop appropriately. The fact is, though, when that advice came to be widely accepted a far larger percentage of the players c-bet 100% in position. Now many players chk back flops in a manner that is problematic for flatting the big blind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a very good memory: On page 117, you recommend that if you have a certain image, you should check AJo from the button after someone open limps the button.

This is wrong.
Jon

Something in that quote doesn't make sense though, because it gives "call" as one of the options from the BB after a button "limp".

Either the button "limp" should be corrected to "raise", or the suggestions to "call" should be changed to "check".

Agree Rob, but the context of the discussion made it rather clear that call means/implies check

This is an aside to this discussion, but we almost didn't publish Philip Newall. I originally told him that due to other projects I couldn't even look at his manuscript. But then a project fell through and I re-contacted him and had him send me his book, and of course, once I started reading it, it was quickly clear that this was an exceptional work.

Best wishes,
Mason

This is exactly what Newall says.

Mason

Since it's out of my psychology book I don't have an issue with posting the whole chapter.

What Your Opponent Thinks

Suppose you are playing hold ’em, limit or no-limit, are in the big blind, everyone passes to the player on the button who only calls, the little blind folds, and you are in the big blind and hold the AJ Do you raise or just call?

Most of you will give one of two answers. The majority will say you should raise because it’s likely you have the best hand. A few will say you should not raise since you are out of position and not raising is the mathematical equivalent of getting infinite odds since it’s costing you zero to call.

Both of these ideas have merit. But they are not what you should be concerned with when you are in this situation. A top player will think about three things and assuming that you are trying to become a top player, you should be thinking about them too. They are:

1. How well does your opponent play?

2. How well do you play in relation to your opponent?

3. How well does your opponent think you play?

In fact, the third idea, “How well does your opponent think you play,” is something that is extremely important. Here’s some examples.

Example No. 1: You opponent thinks you play tight. You should now be inclined to just call. The reason for this is that if small cards hit and you raised, your opponent may be encouraged to try to steal from you when he does not make a hand. He might bet if you check, he might raise if you bet, and in no-limit he might float your continuation bet. Ironically, if you do just call, win the pot, and show your hand, you will confirm to your opponent that you are a tight, unimaginative player.

Example No. 2: Your opponent thinks you play loose. This is actually a very tough situation to be in. The reason for this is that hold ’em is a game where you often prefer a tight image, and a loose image will not allow you to maneuver your opponent when you are out of position. Specifically, if you check on a later street your opponent won’t be afraid that you might be trying for a check-raise since you usually have a weak holding. This means that calling is probably the best strategy against most but not all your opponents.

Example No. 3: Your opponent thinks you play passively. Now you should raise. This will increase your chances of stealing if you don’t flop a hand since your raise indicates that you already have a made hand. And if you do flop a strong hand, you can check and your check will tend to be believable allowing you to get a check-raise in on either the flop or a later street.

Example No. 4: Your opponent thinks you play too aggressively. Not raising is now the correct strategy. You need to understand that all your raise will now accomplish is to get more money into the pot and it won’t have any of the other good psychological effects. Your opponent won’t fear your holding, and if a big card flops that does not hit your hand and he makes a small pair, he will stay with you. And if he makes a hand of moderate strength, he should be quick to raise you on a later street.

Example No. 5: Your opponent thinks you play very well. When this is the case, your opponent will tend to play passively since he will be concerned about losing bets to you that he feels he should not. This means you should be inclined to raise.

When you have the best hand or make the best hand, you will now often be able to win the maximum, but your opponent will frequently only win the minimum. Furthermore, your raise may confirm to him that you have a good hand as usual and allow you to steal on a later street. For example, if a king hits on the river, your bet here may make him throw a small pair away.

Final Note: As you can see, there is much more to playing poker, and hold ’em in particular, than just the strength of your hand. Of course, the ideas here should not be set in concrete. They are just one small facet of the game, and many other factors should come into play. In fact, I can envision many situations where the correct play will be just the opposite from those given above. Still, understanding what your opponent thinks is extremely important if you wish to excel at these games.

I'll re-read your material. I'm open to the tactic, and I can think of some cursory examples where it may be worthwhile. You'd have to know your opponents fairly well, and the conditions be right. Thanks MM.

I read the book many many years ago.

I still think most of this is wrong. yes you should pay attention to your image and stuff, but I think you often make faulty inferences to support your argument often at the expense of the maths

When playing poker, and this applies to virtually all gambling, even though my degrees are in math; I try to think statistically and not mathematically (perhaps because when I had a real job many years ago I worked much more as a statistician than mathematician). There are differences (and I explore this idea some in my Gambling Theory book under the topic of "Non-Self Weighting Strategies") and thinking this way can bring you to some unusual conclusions.

Specifically, this essay is less about image than you might think but more about how certain decisions can impact and warp statistical distributions at a later time. If you were just thinking mathematically, you would view these decisions as being more independent from each other than I do.

Best wishes,
Mason

You’re not trolling right? I thought this book was excellent too.