[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by TheMightyJim2k

I personally think what we are seeing here is a bunch of really good players trying to quantify and set in theory how to play NL, when really to most important part of NL is hand reading.

While their advice is certainly good, and the theory is correct, you can't turn yourself into a NL bot and just raise a huge amount everytime you have a big hand because you'll get no action and price out everyone except those players who have you beat. Plus you'll turn all of your hands face up, and players will start punishing your limps and small raises.

So I feel like what they are saying is theoretically correct, but if you try to blindly apply it without also understanding how it is impacting your image (and thus how mixing up your play is necessary to change that image) you'll become much to predictable.

This probably isn't too big of a problem if you play a lot online as you can keep your sessions short enough, and will play with enough different opponents that it won't matter too much. But if sit for a long session and play like this I think you are making yourself exploitable.

I agree with this, and my main thought coming away from this section is that they are laying out a way for players to avoid the hard part of no limit (hand reading) by playing preflop in a way that makes it easy to commit. This is fine, and I think a lot of beginning players should do this, but why not just buy in short? Buying in for 100BBs and raising enough to give yourself a small stack-to-pot ratio is a great way to get killed in a no limit game. The people you're playing against might not be good, but they're not complete idiots, and they're not going to just let you raise 10xBB and call with trash.

The other option, as they say, is to keep the pot small. Well, I don't think limping with AK just because you can't get an ideal SPR is a very good decision either. All that leads to is getting bluffed off the best hand when you flop top pair (since you won't be committed).

The more I read the authors' posts on 2+2, the more I think this book is actually for beginners or intermediate players. They are talking about SPR as something that experienced players will read about and say, "oh yeah, I've been doing that for a long time". I find myself saying that (I'm not very experienced, but I've played a lot of hands I guess). So, really, I don't think the book is as advanced as they are marketing it as.

This isn't to say the stuff in here isn't good. If you're a NL beginner, your ass better get to the book store and buy this. But if you've played a lot of NL and win consistently, I doubt there's much in here you don't know (even if it's just described differently). Some are describing it as "ground-breaking", but I only thin it's ground-breaking in that the concepts they're talking about have just never been given a formal name before.

[TheMightyJim2k]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

I agree with this, and my main thought coming away from this section is that they are laying out a way for players to avoid the hard part of no limit (hand reading) by playing preflop in a way that makes it easy to commit. This is fine, and I think a lot of beginning players should do this, but why not just buy in short? Buying in for 100BBs and raising enough to give yourself a small stack-to-pot ratio is a great way to get killed in a no limit game. The people you're playing against might not be good, but they're not complete idiots, and they're not going to just let you raise 10xBB and call with trash.

The other option, as they say, is to keep the pot small. Well, I don't think limping with AK just because you can't get an ideal SPR is a very good decision either. All that leads to is getting bluffed off the best hand when you flop top pair (since you won't be committed).

The more I read the authors' posts on 2+2, the more I think this book is actually for beginners or intermediate players. They are talking about SPR as something that experienced players will read about and say, "oh yeah, I've been doing that for a long time". I find myself saying that (I'm not very experienced, but I've played a lot of hands I guess). So, really, I don't think the book is as advanced as they are marketing it as.

This isn't to say the stuff in here isn't good. If you're a NL beginner, your ass better get to the book store and buy this. But if you've played a lot of NL and win consistently, I doubt there's much in here you don't know (even if it's just described differently). Some are describing it as "ground-breaking", but I only thin it's ground-breaking in that the concepts they're talking about have just never been given a formal name before.

that pretty much sums up exactly what I was thinking. I went back and read my post and realized I didn't explain it very well, but you did. Basically it seems like they are trying to set up a formula that will never be too bad so that they can avoid making big postflop hand reading mistakes. The problem is that by creating a formula for how you play you make developing a counter strategy very easy.

like you said, I'm sure this book will be helpful to a lot of players, but I question whether or not the authors believe that this style could be effective in deep-stacked long sessions against even decent players. Then again they would probably advise that if you found yourself in that spot you should get up and find another game.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by TheMightyJim2k

that pretty much sums up exactly what I was thinking. I went back and read my post and realized I didn't explain it very well, but you did. Basically it seems like they are trying to set up a formula that will never be too bad so that they can avoid making big postflop hand reading mistakes. The problem is that by creating a formula for how you play you make developing a counter strategy very easy.

like you said, I'm sure this book will be helpful to a lot of players, but I question whether or not the authors believe that this style could be effective in deep-stacked long sessions against even decent players. Then again they would probably advise that if you found yourself in that spot you should get up and find another game.

Not that this should be surprising, but some of the defense to these criticisms on 2+2 is a little condescending. A lot of their responses are "well, this is only the basics, we'll get into more complex things in volume 2", or "you are misreading if you think that's what we're saying". I understand it's not the easiest thing in the world to explain, but come on. When you write this stuff in a book with a "Professional" label on it, you have to expect people to assume that you mean what you write. The double-talk is getting annoying, too:

"Raise more preflop if you don't think SPR 4.4 is low enough."

"I can't raise more preflop no one will call."

"Well, sometimes you can't get the SPR you want."

What this really means is that, unless you short-stack, or get involved in a weird hand, you'll very rarely get the SPR you want with a top pair-type hand. I think the problem is that SPR is really just a concept... a way to think about how a hand will play out and how easy it will be to commit later in the hand, but they are putting it forth as a strategy you can follow. I think that is confusing a lot of people. They think that they need to try to get an SPR of X on every hand, when actually they just need to keep in mind that having an SPR of X means the hand will play out this way, and an SPR of Y means the hand will play out that way.

This is what I mean about people misapplying this, though... you are going to see people a low stakes NL making goofy raises to try and get a certain SPR, and people will exploit them.

a) Volume One is geared for entry level players, not high level professionals.
b) We needed to explain the crux of the concepts first before getting too far into more advanced adjustments - particularly given that there's only so much one can fit into a 300-page book covering as wide a range of topics as we did (note the "Volume One" on the cover).
c) Volume Two baby! Now that we've laid out our concepts, much can and will be discussed about adjustments, nuances, etc in future volumes.

Thanks for the comments,

Sunny

[hachkc]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

What this really means is that, unless you short-stack, or get involved in a weird hand, you'll very rarely get the SPR you want with a top pair-type hand. I think the problem is that SPR is really just a concept... a way to think about how a hand will play out and how easy it will be to commit later in the hand, but they are putting it forth as a strategy you can follow. I think that is confusing a lot of people. They think that they need to try to get an SPR of X on every hand, when actually they just need to keep in mind that having an SPR of X means the hand will play out this way, and an SPR of Y means the hand will play out that way.

This is what I mean about people misapplying this, though... you are going to see people a low stakes NL making goofy raises to try and get a certain SPR, and people will exploit them.

What also interesting is Mr. Flynn's quotes on short stacking. This seems somewhat counter to the other arguments.

Here is my position:

1. Shortstacking is a good strategy against loose players playing larger stacks. It's also relatively easy.

2. Shortstacking takes a lot of the skill and fun out of the game. So I would like it banned.

3. Until shortstacking is banned, you should shortstack if that's your best way to profit.


PNL gives techniques to adapt to any stack size. It happens that short stacks take away a lot of the pain of playing top pair hands and is a viable way to avoid some common nl problems. And it works until the larger stacks adjust appropriately. Use it as you will.

- Matt

Apparently the technique is simply to raise more or simply fold things like AQ/AK when deep stacks are around. Obviously, this is an oversimplification. Guess we'll just have to wait till Rel 2.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by hachkc

What also interesting is Mr. Flynn's quotes on short stacking. This seems somewhat counter to the other arguments.

Apparently the technique is simply to raise more or simply fold things like AQ/AK when deep stacks are around. Obviously, this is an oversimplification. Guess we'll just have to wait till Rel 2.

LOL that's pretty funny, because what they advocate in the SPR section is essentially raising with top pair-type hands in such a way that you turn the hand into a short-stack hand. Maybe I just have to read this section more times, but I just can't see this working in practice. I understand the use of SPR if you end up in a certain situation... like, if you end up with an SPR of 4 with AK, you're not going anywhere when you flop top pair, but I don't understand it in terms of a pot-manipulation strategy.

[hachkc]

On the surface, SPR simply sounds like the inverse of implied odds. Where as implied odds is concerned about your opponent(s) stack and how much you think you can get, SPR is concerned about pricing out your opponent from chasing drawing hands. The problem is, with deep stacks, that can be nearly hard to do short of raising just a stupid amount with a hand like AA or something. Then again, I haven't read the book but just the posts here and on 2+2 and I'm definitely not a great player so I could be missing something to.

Ultimately it boils down to reading your opponent and what hands he might have, as Jim mentioned. I don't care how good your are, raising with AA in EP/MP, getting a caller, a clean flop (J73r), betting and getting raised all-in is not a fun or easy situation unless you have a great read on your opponent.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by hachkc

On the surface, SPR simply sounds like the inverse of implied odds. Where as implied odds is concerned about your opponent(s) stack and how much you think you can get, SPR is concerned about pricing out your opponent from chasing drawing hands. The problem is, with deep stacks, that can be nearly hard to do short of raising just a stupid amount with a hand like AA or something. Then again, I haven't read the book but just the posts here and on 2+2 and I'm definitely not a great player so I could be missing something to.

Ultimately it boils down to reading your opponent and what hands he might have, as Jim mentioned. I don't care how good your are, raising with AA in EP/MP, getting a caller, a clean flop (J73r), betting and getting raised all-in is not a fun or easy situation unless you have a great read on your opponent.

Well, in general, that type of hand isn't so bad. You're going to get your money in, and you're going to get stacked occasionally. Most of the time, though, you'll have the best hand, and you definitely have the equity to call. The SPR section is trying to get you to avoid these situations:

You have AK and raise preflop. You get called. Flop is K 8 3. You bet the pot and get called. Turn is J. You bet the pot and get called. River is 9. You check because you don't know if your hand is good any more, and they bet the pot, which puts you all in. The goal is to make your SPR so small that they can't bluff you on the river. That is, you've already committed on the turn. The problem is, unless you play a short stack, there is just isn't any way to avoid this situation without making goofy raises preflop.

[Savior17]

I am up to the Target SPR section and most of what was said in the past few post I agree with. Isn't this basically what you already do, but without real quantification?? I mean I keep the pots small when I am not committed and I grow the pot with hands I will go to war with. My only problem is that in my cash game the max buy in is 100BB so applying SPR as in the book is a bit difficult - at least in the first 2 hours of play since no one really has a deep stack. The typical PFR is $3-4. If you get 2 callers, the pot is now at about $10 to $12. You will even be at the commitment threshold if the pot is re-raised PF. You are definitely at the threshold at the flop if you c-bet. The way my game is played, I just don't see these guys laying down a hand they are unsure of on the turn. They are a bit more aggressive than that.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by Savior17

I am up to the Target SPR section and most of what was said in the past few post I agree with. Isn't this basically what you already do, but without real quantification?? I mean I keep the pots small when I am not committed and I grow the pot with hands I will go to war with. My only problem is that in my cash game the max buy in is 100BB so applying SPR as in the book is a bit difficult - at least in the first 2 hours of play since no one really has a deep stack. The typical PFR is $3-4. If you get 2 callers, the pot is now at about $10 to $12. You will even be at the commitment threshold if the pot is re-raised PF. You are definitely at the threshold at the flop if you c-bet. The way my game is played, I just don't see these guys laying down a hand they are unsure of on the turn. They are a bit more aggressive than that.

Exactly... hachkc posted that quote from Matt earlier that said he wishes short stacks could be banned. Well, in that case, you pretty much have to buy-in for 100BBs, which puts you in the worst situation possible when you make a standard raise to 3 or 4 BBs. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

The SPR theory is solid and interesting, I just don't think you should be changing your preflop raise strategy based on it.

[hachkc]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

Well, in general, that type of hand isn't so bad. You're going to get your money in, and you're going to get stacked occasionally. Most of the time, though, you'll have the best hand, and you definitely have the equity to call.

Against a LAG (40/20), I can see calling. Against a nit (14/7), I have trouble calling him with just 1pr even an overpair.

The SPR section is trying to get you to avoid these situations:

You have AK and raise preflop. You get called. Flop is K 8 3. You bet the pot and get called. Turn is J. You bet the pot and get called. River is 9. You check because you don't know if your hand is good any more, and they bet the pot, which puts you all in. The goal is to make your SPR so small that they can't bluff you on the river. That is, you've already committed on the turn. The problem is, unless you play a short stack, there is just isn't any way to avoid this situation without making goofy raises preflop.

So basically, you shouldn't play short stack, you need to have a low SPR to play a hand like this and are basically going to spew chips to a guy slowplaying a set or similar hand. It sounds like the goal is to make a big pot early with a small pot hand (big pairs and the like) so the opponent doesn't have odds to call on the later streets assuming they were dumb enough to call your pfr when you made a big bet there.

I can see SOME merits to this in a loose casino game (1/2NL with opening raises of $10-$25) but in most tighter online games, I have trouble seeing this work. In general, the biggest issue I have with small stack poker is the fact that its not a strategy but simply a stage in your play. The whole point of poker is to increase your stack. If you start with a small stack and are successful, you are hoping to turn it into a big stack which is going to bring about all those issues. At that point, do you simply leave the table even if it appears to be a soft table? Online, you can get away with this as you can easily bounce between tables but you may have to start all over with regards to knowing the players. Live, you can't get away with this unless they'll let you go south as you switch tables (very unlikely) or live in vegas and don't mind walking down the street to the next casino.