|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 6:57:30 PM PACIFIC |
 Valid 1-table NL strategy, or grievous error?, Easy E, 29. Aug 2003 18:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I took this from the Card Player website, Tom M's article. I was wondering what you thought: "Currently, Brad Daugherty and I are finishing our book together on how to win satellites in on-land and online casinos. One of the concepts we're polishing as this column goes to press is the impact of the all-in bet in one-table no-limit hold'em satellites, and how to defend against it. The style of play in no-limit hold'em has changed a lot over the past 10 years, and we are taking certain changes into account in our advice on how to win no-limit satellites. Brad discusses one change and how he is adjusting his play to cope with it. "It seems that players today have a tendency to think that when you bet a certain amount of chips, you'll throw your hand away if someone can come over the top of you," he says. "For this reason, I have changed my play a little bit to adjust to this mentality. For example, there are times when I will move all in simply because I want my opponents to know that I am committed to the pot. In the past when I had $500 or $600 in chips and bet one-half of my chips, anybody who knew me understood that when one-half of my chips already were in the pot, I never threw my hand away. They understood that when I had 40 percent to 50 percent of my chips in the pot, I didn't care if they came over the top of me, because I wasn't going to run away from those chips. But since many players today don't understand this concept, I've changed my play by going all in just so they'll know that I will not lay the hand down. "Another reason I make this play is because in the past when I've bet half of my chips, I've had players come over the top of me with hands like J-7 when I was the clear favorite, and they've drawn out on me. So, I began to think that if I'd just moved in before the flop, they probably would not have been in the pot with me. An all-in bet would have taken all decisions away from my opponent except one: call or fold. (end excerpt) Am I just cranky, or are there two INCREDIBLY STUPID comments in here (one of them unintentionally funny, one more worrisome concerning strategy)? FIRST ONE "..going all in just so they'll know that I will not lay the hand down". I just laughed out loud at this, thinking of a scenario where I go all-in and fold when their all-in is bigger than mine.... or being the person facing such an all-in and thinking "oh, so he's NOT going to fold the hand? Guess I'd better fold now." Am I being really dense and missing something on a more sophisticated level? Am I intentionally using the comment to invalidate something meaningful in this statement? SECOND ONE- The "move in to prevent bad calls" theory, along with the initial "I don't want people coming over the top all-in with worse hands" concept. Isn't the whole POINT of playing, especially tournaments, that you WANT your opponents to make bad calls and raises? You are not just in there to win the blinds every once in a while? Again, am I being so dense as to miss something profound here? Because right now it seemes like an amazingly ludicrous strategy plan. Someone please smack some sense into me if I'm missing something here. I know that, if this is the level of thinking that permeates this upcoming book, I won't be buying it based on my current impression. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Valid 1-table NL strategy, or grievous error?, Swagman, 29. Aug 2003 18:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "..going all in just so they'll know that I will not lay the hand down". I just laughed out loud at this, thinking of a scenario where I go all-in and fold when their all-in is bigger than mine.... or being the person facing such an all-in and thinking "oh, so he's NOT going to fold the hand? Guess I'd better fold now." That's not what he said. He stated that he was never at anytime willing to fold his hand, whether he placed half he's chips in the pot, or he went all-in. I have heard his same philosphy by many a NL tournment player. However, I never like to be put in a place where I am going all-in against a bigger stack, but he never mentioned the advarsaries stack at all. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Valid 1-table NL strategy, or grievous error?, Easy E, 29. Aug 2003 18:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Right- so, he has to go all-in to make it clear to oblivious players, who will come over the top on a power trip with J7off, that their power trip won't force him to fold his hand.... when he's all-in. Maybe it's just me, but that struck me as funny- he can't fold, so he won't be made to fold. You didn't comment on the strategy concept as a whole- any thoughts? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Valid 1-table NL strategy, or grievous error?, Swagman, 29. Aug 2003 19:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Example early in tournament I choice not to go all-in with AA (more because I wanted to sit and enjoy the game a little while, than a specific strategy) and moved in with half my chips. A person with J,9 went over the top of me and I called his all-in. He caught a straight, and I was left with nothing to do but watch re-runs on TV.Its a situational strategy, that I would really need to consider the other stack sizes at the table and who I was playing and this was never mentioned in his post. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| I think you're veering too far off here, too results-oriented, Easy E, 29. Aug 2003 19:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Maybe it's just me, but I will go all-in EVERY time and not worry about losing EVERY time in your scenario. I may not like it, but I'll take that kind of double-up chance EVERY time. If you are telling me that, in your extreme example, that you wouldn't BEG to have weak hands even better than J7 call you here.... then we are never going to see eye-to-eye on this tournament strategy discussion. If you want to sit there and wait out the beginning of the tournament, you could pull a smart-man's Phil Hellmuth- sit in your chair and fold every hand, including AA, while you just watch (as opposed to Phil's stupid "skip the first 2 hours" strategy) Let's switch this up a little bit- take your scenario out of the picture. Can you give me some thoughts on when you think that driving players out, who will commit their whole stack preflop (or at least double you up), via all-in openings is a preferred strategy? And, how strong would your hand have to be in order to change this strategy? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: I think you're veering too far off here, too results-oriented, Eihli, 29. Aug 2003 20:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm so afraid of getting outdrawn that I always go all in pre-flop with hands like that. I think I'm losing a lot of money since I'll usually only get the blinds. It's especially painful early on when the blinds are still small. On the other hand I rarely lose a pots to someone that has called my all in, and when I do lose a pot I know that it wasn't because I slow-played, so I don't think I can complain. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Valid 1-table NL strategy, or grievous error?, Tim C, 29. Aug 2003 20:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I stopped paying attention to any thing Mcevoy writes, Don't know yet if it will have a negative effect on my game. Sooner or later you have to develop your own strategy. I like Phils new book, it makes sense. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Valid 1-table NL strategy, or grievous error?, Guru, 29. Aug 2003 21:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I believe what he is trying to say is that he used to be able to play a style where he could risk less chips and have the same effect when players wouldn't try to strongarm him. Now many players are opblivious to nuance and will try to scare someone off a pot by overbetting a marginal hand with an all-in move. Yes, you want players to pay you off with those marginal showings, but you generally would prefer not to risk your whole tournament on a coin flip. These days, players seem to think risking only 1/4 of your stack is a sign of weakness and will go all in to scare you off the pot, you have to call with the better hand and risk being outdrawn. IMO, his point was to say that it's better to scare the other guy off first and take the blinds without risking a showdown. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Agree with your point, up TO a point.., Easy E, 30. Aug 2003 04:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "Yes, you want players to pay you off with those marginal showings, but you generally would prefer not to risk your whole tournament on a coin flip. These days, players seem to think risking only 1/4 of your stack is a sign of weakness and will go all in to scare you off the pot, you have to call with the better hand and risk being outdrawn. IMO, his point was to say that it's better to scare the other guy off first and take the blinds without risking a showdown." I would say this is true for hands that can be a coinflip- you want less callers (or none) and quick resolution. But my argument is that, if you have player(s) that will do the above, you adjust the hands that you bet partial stacks with to take ADVANTAGE of their foolishness. Yes, they will suck out and drop you sometimes, but the equity gain in other touraments should more than make up for this. That is why I thought the "strategy" change didn't make sense. Comments? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Agree with your point, up TO a point.., Swagman, 30. Aug 2003 05:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Recently read Sklansky Book on tournaments. In it was his system and super sytem non-sense. Have you read this? Theres all kinds of advice out there like you mention Helmuth not doing anything for the first 2 hours. However I don't entirely disagree with Helmuth on this. It all just fun and games when taking advice for so called experts. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|