[beekeeper]

I'm reading the new Full Tilt book and Howard Lederer's chapter on leverage.

I understand that this strategy will often come into play during your game whether you make employing it as a strategy a goal or not. Am I correct to assume that it's important to employ this strategy early in a game (because your image is part of successfully using the strategy and because the stacks are large relative to the blinds)?

Is there any point in applying this strategy against unobservant players?
Is there any point in applying this strategy against players who like to play any suited cards preflop, and will chase to the river if they flop four to the flush?

[Poboy]

I don't have time for a real reply today, but I'll try tomorrow.

The short answer is a qualified yes.

[jojobinks]

pretty much yes on all counts, but you have to be able to read hands pretty well to do it.

hellmuth is considered the best tournament players in bad fields, and the results at the wsop speak for themselves. and if you've seen him on tv, you'll know he makes almost stupidly tiny bets quite a lot. gavin smith is another example. he opens a lot of pots for small raises, calls raises with all sorts of hands, and plays from there.

but yeah, you'll have to be willing to lay down (again, hellmuth), and also make pretty thin value bets. i've messed around with the style some. it's tough.

[beekeeper]

I tried tonight at my free money (Poker Pages) sit-n-goes (free money, but I played the high stakes games). I went busto pretty quick. Then, in a deep stack tournament, I went back to my tight self. I couldn't bring myself to continue. I'll try again, though. It sounds like a great strategy if I could figure it out. I'm a better post flop player than most in my home game, and a pretty good hand reader there, too.

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by beekeeper

I tried tonight at my free money (Poker Pages) sit-n-goes (free money, but I played the high stakes games). I went busto pretty quick. Then, in a deep stack tournament, I went back to my tight self. I couldn't bring myself to continue. I'll try again, though. It sounds like a great strategy if I could figure it out. I'm a better post flop player than most in my home game, and a pretty good hand reader there, too.

yeah, i wouldn't recommend it for play money. straightforward TAG play is just way too profitable if they're that bad. also, sngs aren't made for loose play early on.

leverage is more about MTTs and cash play for sure.

[beekeeper]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

sngs aren't made for loose play early on.

leverage is more about MTTs and cash play for sure.

Thanks. I figured this, but I like practicing new ideas for play money, even if it doesn't work. I thought about it last night and I learned a little from my own play.

Right now I'm trying to see how leverage will appear to others. It seems, in the absence of other info, that my bets will appear to others as position raises and continuation bets. That makes me vulnerable to reraises and check raises. Lederer says that even if you win only 40% of the time it's still profitable, but I think it will take a lot practice on my part before I know when to use this tactic.

Do you use it much, JoJo?

[Poboy]

When you read the chapter, notice that he doesn't even address the type of opponent for at least half of it. Your opponents will probably never be smart enough to think about like the Lederer v. Ivey example, but they don't have to in order for it to be successful. I think the key to the strategy is flop texture moreso than opponent. Naturally, you need to figure out opponent ranges and tendencies to identify leverage flops. Your chaser for example makes suited flops not great leverage flops. But on non-drawy flops, you should be able to pick up a lot of hands v. him. If you can identify a decent calling range, you can start to find good flops to leverage. The examples of flop textures he gives are a bit no-brainer-y, but if your opponent likes to call with big cards, or raise draws, or play small pairs, etc. you can find good flops for those tendencies.


Alot of times I think things sound alot different when written and lead to misapplication. He sounds as if he's playing every hand, and I really don't think that's necessary or what he means. Every time I read a book, I think that following the recommendations means it always works. That to me is one of the hardest parts about reading strategy. It's hard to understand that hands as they happen are meaningless. You don't have to try it every time you get the chance.
Note that he's mainly leveraging when he opens the pot, which generally means he does after at least half the field is gone. Full Ring, a TAG is someone who's got a VPIP of say, 17. A SLAG is at say, 26. You don't need to loosen up a whole lot to start looking like someone who plays a lot of hands. Being 'vulnerable' to reraises and check raises is not a huge deal. Your opponent makes it easier to play againshim/her, and when you have it, you're much more likely to make money. All you have to be concerned about is an opponent who continuously plays back, which is pretty rare. Against them, you make your bets a little bigger to cost them more to push you out. Just moving from 1/2pot bets to 2/3rds pot bets ends up costing him/her much more money to push you around - and since one plays optimally by making bluffs as small as possible while still succeeding, you've just made them play suboptimally (assuming they were optimal in the first place - highly unlikely). Also, there's nothing wrong with giving up. Like he says, you are usually giving up on the turn if they're still around. All you have to do is sometimes bet the turn when you have it, and only occasionally bet the turn when you don't.


He does say that it's of limited use in a lot of online tournaments due to Ms being pretty low. Don't forget that when you try this out.







This book is such a great book because of the Bloch/Ferguson/Lederer sections.

[beekeeper]

I tried it again tonight in our home tourney with poor results again.

Poboy, your post is excellent and I'm going to reread it. I know I'm not getting a handle on picking my spots. I tried it twice in late position on unopened pots. Both times the flop came untextured. Both times I was called by two players and got one to fold on the turn. Both times I was reraised on the river and had to fold (in both cases I had nothing, not even Ace high). Then, I had spent so much of my stack I was reduced to short stack poker.

I'll keep practicing this because I've kind of hit a plateau in my game and I want to get better at making my shots instead of waiting for an assist from the dealer.

[Poboy]

Originally Posted by beekeeper

I tried it again tonight in our home tourney with poor results again.

Poboy, your post is excellent and I'm going to reread it. I know I'm not getting a handle on picking my spots. I tried it twice in late position on unopened pots. Both times the flop came untextured. Both times I was called by two players and got one to fold on the turn. Both times I was reraised on the river and had to fold (in both cases I had nothing, not even Ace high). Then, I had spent so much of my stack I was reduced to short stack poker.

It's hard to leverage two people. The pot gets too big with two callers, so your half pot bet is still pretty decent sized, and you build a pot. That's what you want to avoid - building a pot. The only time you want to build a pot is when you have a big hand. Two barreling into two is also pretty dangerous because two people have already said they like the flop (or their cards), and it ends up making the pot big enough that it's hard for them to fold.
I would suggest that if you do try to leverage the flop with two callers (remember, you don't have to cbet 100% of the time), you don't two barrel. This is not really going to give your opponents any information besides the fact that you don't bet into multiple callers - and few people are paying that much attention. If you usually c/f flops with multiple opponents and only once in a while cbet them, you solve that problem too.

I'll keep practicing this because I've kind of hit a plateau in my game and I want to get better at making my shots instead of waiting for an assist from the dealer.

Just remember leverage is a concept, not a complete game. You can semibluff, check raise, other strats you use. Pick your leveraging spots.

[beekeeper]

Thanks.

One more question:

As I understand it, leverage works because you build the expectation in your opponents that you will continue to fire at the pot after the flop. It seems to me that there is a fine line between leverage and continuation bets--i.e., the average nonthinking player will recognize my flop bet as a c-bet. How will I condition him to feel that a turn and river charge is coming? Included in this question is how often to I attempt leverage, how many attempts will it take for the other players to "feel" the effects, and if I back down from an attempt at leverage, will that condition my opponents to believe the opposite about me (that if they weather my flop bet, they can steal the pot from me on the turn)? I'm especially concerned about the times when I abandon a leverage attempt. Based on what I know about our players, I think this will make more of an impression on them then a successful leverage attempt (because they will tend to see this merely as my having the best hand).

[In my home game, the players who fancy themselves table captains will always fire at the turn if a player takes the lead preflop, continuation bets, but fails to bet the turn. I'd say 40% of our players fit this mold. They will call almost any raise preflop with any suited cards and just about any connected or one-gap cards, and call to the river if they flop a 4 flush or gut shot. They are capable of laying bottom pair, and middle pair if there is an Ace, but think any 2 pair is the holy nuts. Moreover, they think any player who doesn't play like them is weak and can be bluffed anytime that player doesn't bet out.

My standard way of playing them is to play tight, charge their draws, and slow play trips or better, mixing in moments of super aggression. I consistently win with this style, but as my hand reading skills are better than most in our game, I feel I ought to be able to take more control of the play, and become more creative. To me, this would indicate that I'm growing as a player, not being stagnant. I'd like to be able to manipulate the "table captains" in my game because, frankly, I just want to dominate our game.]