[mac40k]

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! The book just arrived yesterday from Amazon and I haven't had a chance to read the assignment yet. I have a professional association meeting tonight and won't get home until 10, so I won't even be able to start the book until tomorrow. Waaaa. Waaaaaa.

So do I skip this section and just move straight on to the next reading assignment or do I have to cram to catch up if I want to participate in the discussions.

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by mac40k

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! The book just arrived yesterday from Amazon and I haven't had a chance to read the assignment yet. I have a professional association meeting tonight and won't get home until 10, so I won't even be able to start the book until tomorrow. Waaaa. Waaaaaa.

So do I skip this section and just move straight on to the next reading assignment or do I have to cram to catch up if I want to participate in the discussions.

do what you can.

what i recommend if you need to skip around:
pages 21-44

if you haven't read much sklansky, though, i think you should read the whole thing.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by mac40k

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! The book just arrived yesterday from Amazon and I haven't had a chance to read the assignment yet. I have a professional association meeting tonight and won't get home until 10, so I won't even be able to start the book until tomorrow. Waaaa. Waaaaaa.

So do I skip this section and just move straight on to the next reading assignment or do I have to cram to catch up if I want to participate in the discussions.

It's not like the discussion on this section ends at midnight tonight... it's going to continue, but the next section will start being discussed tomorrow as well. I have no life, so I'll be participating in both. Make sure you read the first section, though. It's kind of important.

[yeltzen]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any questions about the last section of this reading ("Don't Justify Their Loose Calls" I think was the name of it). I thought that was by far the most difficult section to wrap my head around. Maybe the Implied Odds stuff that came first was an overload?

[smoore]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

I'm surprised there hasn't been any questions about the last section of this reading ("Don't Justify Their Loose Calls" I think was the name of it). I thought that was by far the most difficult section to wrap my head around. Maybe the Implied Odds stuff that came first was an overload?

Justifying a loose call is simply going ahead and paying off if they do hit the longshot...

If you have TPTK and less than 10:1::stack:pot a gutshot cannot call profitably, you can try to put it all in there.

If you have 50:1::stack:pot then you obv. don't want to go broke if they hit the longshot draw.

You need to "cut yourself off" when determining if you have been outdrawn. For me, this section was just a reminder that you have to plan ahead for the entire hand... "what am I going to do if I get raised here? called? check-raised?" "what am I going to do on the next street if this draw comes in? that draw? an overcard? pairing the board?"

When I actually think like this I can get away from my TPTK and 2P hands quickly and easily. As S&M say, your plan will often change on the later streets; I add that not having a plan is suicide, because you're not really thinking about the hand, you're thinking about THIS street.

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

I'm surprised there hasn't been any questions about the last section of this reading ("Don't Justify Their Loose Calls" I think was the name of it). I thought that was by far the most difficult section to wrap my head around.

i think it's deceptively tricky, b/c it feels like standard rule of thumb type stuff, (but it's not). in the first example (with relatively shallow stacks), they do calculations to decide that a pot-sized bet is best. well, i'm sorry to say it, but duh. pot-sized bets with what rate to be the best hand on the flop are standard, yes?

with the deeper stack, well that concept is a little trickier, b/c folk like us are often used to playing shallow stacks. but they cut that discussion short, and recommend betting a bit more than if you were shallow.

so it's an interesting idea, but one that could lead to weak/tightness. for instance. let's use the second example. you have $5k, and the pot is $100 the board reads


and you hold


you bet $100 with TPTK, wanting to offer low implied odds, and are called by a player you know to chase.

turn:

now, b/c we know not to justify their optimistic plays, are supposed to wilt, assuming the guy was holding ? the thing is, these optimistic catches are often well-hidden. when the gutshot, turned set, or runner runner flush hits, we are trained to NOT see them, b/c they're so damn unlikely.

with obvious draws, oesds or flush draws, it seems easier, of course. but it's not. do you fold everytime the most likely draw gets there?

[smoore]

Well that's the point of making a plan. If the draw you think he has comes in and you lose more than his optimistic call gave him odds, you just made a mistake.

If you continue through to showdown and manage to lose less than the odds you were giving him then you have profited.

"Am I willing to stack off with these two cards on this board?" is a crucial question.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

now, b/c we know not to justify their optimistic plays, are supposed to wilt, assuming the guy was holding ? the thing is, these optimistic catches are often well-hidden. when the gutshot, turned set, or runner runner flush hits, we are trained to NOT see them, b/c they're so damn unlikely.

with obvious draws, oesds or flush draws, it seems easier, of course. but it's not. do you fold everytime the most likely draw gets there?

Yeah, I think it's another one of those topics where there theory can only carry you so far. You have to have a good read on whoever you're in the hand against. I think it goes back to the "Big pot, big hand" thing more than anything. You have a good but not great hand, so you're basically saying, "if there's a huge bet or raise on a later street, am I going to pay it off?" If not, bet more now. If so, bet less now. I think that's the way it went. I'll have to re-read it.

In any event, I think it can be taken as a "monsters under the bed" kind of thing until you really break it down.

[smoore]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

"if there's a huge bet or raise on a later street, am I going to pay it off?" If not, bet more now. If so, bet less now.

exactly.

[littlebu]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

When you have the deck stripped, I think you have to let someone bluff at it. If you flop a set on a board of A 9 3 rainbow (like a set of 3s or 9s), that's one thing. You can bet at that because someone might have hit an ace or whatever, but when you have the stone cold nuts, and there's hardly anything left that anyone could have to stay in the hand, you have to let them take the lead.

This is the problem with theory books like this. The theory is good an all, but sometimes the situation or the players in the hand matter more than the theory. In this hand, the situation matters more. You have a big hand, yes... and theory says you want a big pot for a big hand... but, unfortunately, you have the ONLY hand.

I understand what your saying but if you check call that flop it should be setting off all sorts of bells to the button even if he knows almost nothing about poker. Your pratically telling your hand to him. I think by leading out with a little feeler type of bet would confuse him more. Maybe an AQ is out there. You can set him up to bluff at it later and if you can get even an extra $10 from him in on the flop, then his bluff will be that much bigger. Also I've played 1/2 live and it plays like .01/.02nl on P*'s. You would be suprised how much people will call with A high.

I think another thing that is important is our image. Have we been involved in a lot of pots? Have we been caught bluffing? All this has a bearing on how the hand plays out.