|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 8/21/2008 9:46:35 PM PACIFIC |
 Learning Brunson in NL, Aisthesis, 14. Nov 2003 12:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, after Roy's remarks several days ago about winning in NL, I was overjoyed to finally find a copy of SuperSystem at the bookstore last night and am now trying to figure out how to work my way into this style of play without losing too terribly much before getting it figured out. As background info: First, while I've really just started playing the last few months, at the $25 NL tables on pokerstars I've reached the point where I essentially always win (getting up close to an average of 20 BB/ 100 hands with over 2,000 hands played) with what I like to think of as tight-aggressive play with periodic pot-buys at the right time. I think my success here has to be because most of my opponents are either loose-passive or weak-tight (if loose-aggressive, as Brunson recommends, I very rarely run into anyone who actually knows what they're doing in playing this way--less rare are pretty readable loose-aggressive players whom one can call down for good profits). But at the $50 tables I usually do pretty poorly. Sometimes I'll win a little with tight-aggressive play, but it's noticeably more tedious. After several hours with just minimal wins, I'm often also tempted to try out more aggressive moves, with which I'll then up with some bad losses. This, in my own judgment, has to be because there are quite a few loose-aggressive players there, some of whom actually know what they're doing, and so many raises that I just don't get enough opportunities to play a sufficient number of potentially winning hands. So, I made the obvious provisional conclusion: Keep building a bankroll at the $25 tables and stay away from $50 until I've learned to play better poker. And my criterion for "playing better poker" was basically getting an acceptable handle at least on Brunson's basics, which I'd really like to work on at the $25 tables first before putting more of my bankroll at stake. This brings me to my first question: What does Brunson really mean when he says, "Against a low-grade player... you simply make the obvious play"? That's probably pretty much what I'm currently doing, and it's working as long as I'm playing mainly against low-grade players. But just how "low-grade" is he really talking about here? I do run into a lot of players even at $25 tables who know about checkraises, making people pay to draw, being selective in which pockets to play and stuff like that. There are usually a couple of them at a full table, sometimes more, sometimes none at all. Is that sufficient to try some of these "back to the wall" Brunson moves such as moving all-in with an open straight draw against someone holding a good high pair? Maybe I should start by looking for particularly strong $25 tables for a while to try some of this stuff out. Then if I lose, I can always recoup my losses by playing a few hours at one of the weaker tables. Comments from any Brunson fans out there (particularly those who can still remember getting started with this style of play) would be most appreciated! I really do feel like mastering this style of play is going to be the key to success at higher stakes (which in theory should mean higher winnings), but how to take the plunge ... ?? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, Schuster, 14. Nov 2003 13:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| A lot of my no limit cash game experience has come from playing with friends 3 to 5 handed. When the game is that short, you have to play, and I think it helped me a lot when concerning touchy situations in full games. I'd definately give it a shot if you can get a few buddies together. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, Aisthesis, 14. Nov 2003 13:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| That sounds like a good idea. We did one tournament about a month ago with some friends and were planning on making it a bi-weekly thing, but it's kind of fizzled despite interest from several of the participants. After Thanksgiving, I'll have to push this a little harder even if it looks like we're going to be shorthanded. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, noiseboy, 14. Nov 2003 13:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| One central idea to Brunson's style is that he often bets big in situations where there is a good chance the opponent will fold and the also a some outs to win some of the times you get called. You can't really do this with even one calling station in the pot. When he talks about "bad" players, this is what he means. The type player you want in a pot with you is what he calls a "weak" player, the type who lays down all the time to big bets without the nuts. Using aggression to dominate the tight tight players is key to Brunson's style. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, Aisthesis, 14. Nov 2003 13:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| That makes a lot of sense. The calling machines actually aren't even that frequent at the $25 tables, and you obviously just HAVE to have your hand to bet into them. With the more typical scenario, I think my problem is that I really could buy more pots against semi-strong hands (top flopped pair is pretty typical) but am usually (contrary to Brunson) unwilling to risk the amounts necessary to do this (so I generally just fold unless I either have something better already or the pot odds to stay in). But I think the idea of forcing the decision already just with a good draw sounds like a good start--that's indeed pretty much the moral of the story in what I've read so far (in addition to the REALLY important idea of frequently and radically shifting gears). Also another reason to maybe raise suited connectors more often pre-flop. I found it particularly interesting after the discussion here on suited connectors, in which the AA and KK issue came up, that Brunson actually WANTS the big pair out there in playing those hands! Some VERY interesting concepts here... the swings are also obviously going to be huge, and the trick looks to me like it's going to be staying in control of these swings while playing pretty outlandishly at the right times. Thanks very much for your advice! Makes me feel a lot more comfortable trying some of the stuff out at my typical tables and gives me a much better idea of when to do so. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, noiseboy, 14. Nov 2003 14:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Another thing you can do if you just want experience playing at a higher level, you could try buying in for a lower amount into the higher game. If you get a few good hands and double up a few times, you are playing higher risking mostly their money instead of yours. Anyway, just be aware that you can't really try those Brunson moves with a small stack because you won't have enough at first to push people around. The upside is that if you get a big hand, people will call you. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, PairTheBoard, 14. Nov 2003 15:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You might try playing some NL SNG's. I think you can get a lot of NL and tourny experience pretty cheap that way. I've put in quite a few hours playing NL ring and NL SNG's both online and live - atually pot limit live - and stil feel like something off a novice. Knowing Brunson's methods is one thing. Knowing when and how to apply them is another. I suspect Brunson's style worked best in a certain kind of game which he probably had a lot of access to at one time. The kind of game I'm thinking of would be with Brunson sitting on about a $50,000 stack with the other players on $5,000 stacks, with relatively small blinds or antes, and where loosing $5,000 was much more scary to the small players than loosing $50,000 was to Brunson. Brunson would steal these players blind until he put them on tilt - at which point he would take ALL their money with his Big hands. I don't know this, but I suspect it's close to the truth. I'm afraid the $25 and $50 games simply don't fall in this category. There are many players in such games for whom $25 or $50 is just an evening's entertainment. They will call you in a heartbeat and they love to catch you bluffing or semibluffing. Tight straightforward play - bet it if you've got it - takes their money the best. Playing a lot of suited connectors doesn't work too well because most of the time what you've "got" is a draw, and betting your draw is only good if there's a good chance it will get them to fold. The value there is reduced. You can't work a guy by pounding him all night until he tilts and gives up his whole stack. He's usually gone and replaced by another player before you know it - his money sitting on the stack of a player who actually got a hand and bet it. You might try some $30 or $50 SNG's. You can get a lot of experience there fast. There will be some players who bust out fast, losing their money to people with real hands. With those who remain there is some real play left. Just be very selective with your moves. jmo | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, Aisthesis, 14. Nov 2003 21:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| That's a good point. The later stages of SnG's are very Brunson-esque, and generally I feel pretty good about playing very aggressively there, albeit still plagued by some clear judgment errors on some big pots. Well, having laid off last night to read as much of this as possible, I think I'm going to go ahead and try taking the plunge tonight and see what happens. Gotta start sometime with this! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, Schuster, 15. Nov 2003 17:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Playing the SNG's has it's ups and downs... I play very loose aggressive in no limit cash games, but very very much different in a tournament situation. In a cash game, if someone puts all the chips in the center and I think I'm a 50.1% favorite against the range of hands they could have, I'm going in there with them, whereas I'd obviously never do that in a tournament. If I think I can move my chips in on a bluff and have it work often enough to be profitable, I'm going to do it, even if it's just barely profitable. I really push the envelope in terms of EV in cash games because I have as much to play with as I need to. If I bust out, then I buy in again. I think that a lot of my success in these really marginal situations is due to being able to do the odds pretty well in my head, which not everyone can do, but still... If you think you are a 60% favorite, that's usually not enough for all the chips in a tournament, and that's usually pretty easy to estimate. In a cash game, that's a nice edge for a lot of chips. Casinos make millions on much much less. So, SNG's will give you some good experience playing shorthanded and more aggressive, but you really can't milk every cent of EV that you can, which I believe is a very important part to playing loose aggressive. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, LKP, 14. Nov 2003 22:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It's funny that you should post this, because I've been toying around with some Brunson-esque techniques lately myself. I've fiddled around on the 25 NL games on PartyPoker, experimenting with some super aggressive plays. I've won and lost a few hundred, and am actually slightly up - which is surprising considering my strategy has been really unorthodox. I have really learned some lessons, and perhaps I can share them here to shed some more light on uncovering the truths behind Brunson's Bible. It's also helped me with other aspects of my game. My strategy was more of an experiment than anything. I would go to a $25 NL table, and immediately start betting. 9 out of ten times, I would plunk down a 3 buck preflop bet. The only time I wouldn't was when I had like a 93 offsuit, and then I'd just fold. I never called the BB. I won a few hands right there when people folded. Then, no matter what the flop was, I'd bet out the pot, which was 6 or 9 dollars depending on how many people called me. I won even more pots right there. Occasionally, some brave soul would actually call this bet. Sometimes I'd make a pot sized bet here as well (prolly around 20 bucks). Very rarely would someone ever call this bet. Sometimes I'd move them all-in after the river. That was the procedure, and here is the thought behind everything. It is very important here to speak of your table image, and what people know about your betting patterns. They know you're aggressive. They know you bluff. They know you can be holding any two hole cards. This is important : they also know that there's a very good chance (almost a guarantee) that if they call your preflop bet, they're going to have to call your big postflop bet, they're going to have to call your big turn bet, and they're going to have to call your big river bet. Unless they have 100 bucks in front of them, that's going to be all their chips. That's a big decision. ESPECIALLY since they know you can be holding any two hole cards. When they have QK, and the flop is 3 Q 3, they have to wonder if you have a 3. A usual tight player you wouldn't think would have a 3, but they don't know with you. They wouldn't really fear the three from a tight player, but they're not sure if you have a 3 or not. And they know they're going to have to put in all their chips to see if you ARE holding a 3. If the turn is an A, then they have to wonder if you have a 3 or an A. There's a very good chance that your typical tight player would be holding an A since he made such a large preflop bet, and thus the QK player may believe he is beat. But with you, they don't know. You play any two hole cards, so they're not so sure that you are holding an A. They're put at that difficult decision, and once again, they know it will ultimately be a decision for all their chips. Some players won't be able to make that decision, and will fold time after time. Other players will just KNOW you are bluffing, will call you down to the river with their pocket 9's and then you turn over A 3 for the full boat. That leads to another important point Brunson makes - you will get action. When you are holding a good hand, it is much more likely that you will get paid off. Here are some important lessons I have learned to help this strategy. #1. Table selection. I always sought out $25 NL tables with as few people as possible, and as little a pot as possible. The small pot usually indicates a weak tight game. The easiest game out there for this aggressive strategy is a weak tight short-handed game. Secondly, I'd look to see the stacks of everyone involved. I don't want to play with anyone who has 50 bucks or more and definitely no one with over 80 or 90 bucks. I want to be the chip bully, and not the other way around. I would also get a quick feel of the players and only play in the type of game I wanted to. An important lesson to learn here for this strategy is that you should not be afraid to leave a table if it's not your type of table. I don't want people reacting to my strategy and beating it. I want to be the bully, and I want to be in the lead. I want them to fear me. #2. Reading players. Some people remain tight and will fold a lot. They will complain about how you are bluffing, and will type obscenities to you in the chat. But the important part is, they still fold. Other players will respond to your aggression by putting on their sheriff badge and becoming a calling station. These types of players will usually fold on 4th street or the river if the board doens't make them a decent hand. They want to call you so badly, but when you're putting them on a decision for their chips, they most often will buckle. There are some obvious counters to this super aggressive style of play, and you have to watch out for those. I don't like playing with people who try to take the lead from me. Some people are even more Brunson-esque than I am, and I don't like that. After I bet, they will raise me, putting all their chips in. Now I'M the one with the big decision. I usually will just get up and leave when people do this. I know that's not very Brunsonesque, and it certainly is not superior play , but I'm still learning myself. I do think however that it IS very important to not be afraid to leave a table when you've lost a little money. I used to always want to at least get my money back - I'd stay in and stay in. But move on. Just move on. Some other people will do what I think is the correct play if they actually land a hand - they just call. They just call as I eventually move them all-in. Then they turn over a hand that beats me. I guess that's just the hazards of the business, but as Brunson said, when that happens I've really only lost the money that I won from everyone by constantly stealing small pot after small pot. And when I DO beat their hand, ouch - whole lot of their chips come sliding my way. #3. Reading the board. When I put out a 3 dollar preflop, I want to see a board like 2 5 9 rainbow. That's the type of weak board that I seriously doubt has made anybody's hand, and they aren't going to call me without a part of it. I might bet out with a flop like K 9 7. But I'll be wary of doing much with a flop like A 4 8 when I am holding pocket 10's, especially when I got a preflop raise. (I realize I should have moved all-in there). Very rarely is there going to be a board that really telegraphs to someone that they have a made hand. But occasionally it happens, and you need to try to pick up on that telegraph, especially if you're holding nothing. And be the disciplined one. Get under other people's skins and not the other way around. After you raise to 3 preflop, your opponent raises to 5.50, and then the flop is A 4 8, don't be afraid to lay down pocket tens. Play smart and let your opponents be the ones on tilt. #4. Buying back in. An important part of Brunson's strategy is the fact that he buys back in a lot. He mentions how he will lose money, buy back in, lose money, buy back in, and then go on a rush and win back all the money he put on the table and more. His strategy is not one that is conducive to tournament play, so I would not recommend a SnG as a place to learn these strategies. From my experience, I went up to 50, lost it all, bought back in, lost that 25 bough back in, and then went on a rush soaring up to over 100 bucks. You really start to get some action, so all it takes is one or two decent hands - and people will call you with nothing. I had an A9 spades, flop was K 9 3, two spades. The guy before me bet (which was unusual). I called (which was also unusual). Turn is an A, he goes all-in. I didn't feel he had AK due to the desperation I felt in his all-in, so I called. He had Kx. Another hand: I had 10 Q. Flop was 5 3 10. I bet the pot, two callers. Turn is a blank. I bet the pot. Two callers (one all-in at this point). River is a blank, leaving the 10 top pair. I put the other guy all-in. First guy had 56. Second guy had 10 9. I won. Another hand: A8 clubs. Flop is 886. Someone bets the pot, I raise him all-in, he calls immediately. Turn is a blank. River is an 8. Big stack of chips go my way. Another hand: I had Q9 spades. Flop is 9 Q 5 rainbow. I bet, the other guy raises me, I raise him all in. He has AJ. Turn and river are blanks, and a big stack of chips fly over to me. Sometimes aggression breeds aggression, and you can win some big pots. You can also lose some big pots, but you'll make up for that with the small pots. One hand: I had AA. Player A calls BB, player B calls BB, I raise to $3, player A calls, Player B raises all-in, I call (hoping for some action from player A), Player A raises all-in, I call. The board was no help to anyone. A huge stack of chips quickly slides my way as my pocket rockets flash much to the horror of the two people who went all-in with K7 and A8. Anyway, sorry for the novel. I think this is a great way to learn some interersting strategy and pick up on some potentially useful skills in the future. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, Aisthesis, 15. Nov 2003 10:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hmmmm... sounds like your technique is working well. I'll have to think about some of these moves. My own initial experiments were less encouraging. For one thing, since my goal is to get my game down where I can successfully play at higher stakes, I picked a table last night that looked fairly strong for my first attempt. The way in which I tried to establish my (new) loose-aggressive image, as expected, cost me quite a bit, and unfortunately I didn't feel like my image really paid me off later on. Once I tightened up, I started winning again, but, as a good example, the best player at the table, who took a lot of my money in the crazy phase, didn't pay off my wild bet when I did end up making my flush with a pocket A8s against what I figure were his 2 pair or trips. And by the time I really had opportunities for some aggressive plays with suited connectors, most of the people whom I'd paid off to establish my loose-aggressive image had left the table. Where I did make money with some Brunson moves was later on when the table got shorthanded. I'll have to look through some of the stuff you suggested again, but I'm thinking at the moment, I'm going to be more selective, even at the outset, in choosing the right opportunites for the aggressive plays--maybe just overbet a little on the first truly playable hand that comes, and if the cards are cold, attempt some pot-buys from LP, and just leave it at that. I notice that in the sections on playing various types of hands, Brunson comes off much more cautious than he does in the long introductory part. Also, he likes to only make the more risky plays when the pot is already large (AND he has good outs). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, ncrducati, 15. Nov 2003 11:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| playing as brunson suggests is more a live strategy than online. You really need to be able to get a read on an opponent to justify alot of the plays he recomends | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, Aisthesis, 15. Nov 2003 13:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| also makes a lot of sense, but don't you think that's more a reason just to be SOMEWHAT more cautious online, particularly in the moves that pre-suppose a very accurate read. I'm sure you're right that a lot of his success with it was due to excellent intuitions regarding other players' hands, based both on identifiable and even barely identifiable physical tells. But I do think that online you can get a pretty good handle on betting habits and even players' mood swings in the course of a game--and that gives you a fair amount, although clearly not nearly as much as an observant player can surmise when the others are physically present. Also, with the rapid fluctuation of players at a table online (as I experienced last night), I've concluded that creating that initial first impression of being an aggressive gambler-type is probably also less important online than it would be live. Online the players who don't feel comfortabel with that can just leave a lot more easily. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, PairTheBoard, 15. Nov 2003 14:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that's a good point. I believe Brunson claimed he could get such a good read of players at weak tables that he could beat them without ever looking at his cards - as long as they didn't know he wasn't looking. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Learning Brunson in NL, Aisthesis, 15. Nov 2003 21:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks very much to all who have replied for the very helpful remarks. The further I've gotten into the book (basically, I tried to kind of skim through the whole NL section first; now I'm trying to digest the details one section at a time), the more his "standard" play style (abstracting for the moment from idea of frequently switching gears and significant deviations based on the character of the table) really seems to deviate from what I would view as "the norm" in just one main point: Frequent play of low suited connectors (including one- and two-gappers, more on this in the odds section) with very aggressive semi-bluffing when they hit right. In the AA/KK section, he comes off very cautious to my taste, and he's clearly also very wary of the "trouble hands," in which he even includes AQo in addition to the old KJo, etc. He's definitely got a lot of refinements in other areas, but really the super-aggressive style is starting to seem to me like it's largely restricted to low suited straight possibilities with an appropriate flop. Is this starting to sound right? | ||
| 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 |
|