fimbulwinter
11-07-2004, 07:59 PM
Over the last 5K hands or so at 100NL, my style has changed, and, I believe, matured a bit. The difference here is due to the fact that some (usually one per table) players at this level think not only about their own cards, but also about what you might hold. they're also (as has been discussed in other threads) much, much more aggro at this level, compared to the lush green loose/weak fish pastures of 25NL and 50NL.
I feel this aspect of my play had been lacking before recently, especially because i felt that i needed an advertising budget (ciaffone finally convinced me otherwise) and because the overlay preflop is so much less than on later streets (even the worst hands crack aces, but river bets have no semibluffing equity).
Lately I've been running very very well in these games, and i think a bit of this is due to my abandonment of a "might is right" stance with respect to preflop play (which used to be a huge part of my personal table image). Many people here have asked "should you play this from this position?" etc. and, unless the situation is clearly cut and dried, most often the answer is, as always, "it depends."
The real meat of this post begins here: The following has been my thought process as to my preflop play at 100NL, where I can't just beat the table into submission.
I'll raise a hand preflop for the following reasons:
1. to add money to the pot. Preflop I want to play a huge pot with AA/KK, so these are no-brainers.
2. to attack the blinds. If i know there are two weakies in the blinds, I'll raise until i get called when it's folded to me.
3. to play a larger pot when you have a very well defined hand which figures to bust someone. I see a lot of the better 100NL players minraising small PP when they have family pots so that people feel more tied to a pot should they hit their set.
4. To isolate. often i find myself re-raising preflop with questionable holdings if i feel the preflop raiser is a LAG and that i can outplay him postflop. If i feel his average hand for a certain raise is KJo, i'll re-raise preflop with AJs, a move i wouldn't ever make against a rock (i'd probably just fold).
5. to purchase position. If i know those to my left are weak, i'll raise many hands 3xBB to buy the button in a family pot.
6. to disguise my hand. This is a questionable reason, but when the money really gets deep, i have raised suited connectors etc. for the chance to stack another big stack.
7. to ruin implied odds. If you're holding a hand with which you'd like to get all in on the flop, raise so that anyone playing an implied odds hand is losing in calling your raise. if they fold, so be it.
8. to fold out better hands. this is basically when you're totally stealing. normally you want to fold when they have a better hand, but sometimes (like attacking the blinds with 89s etc.) you hand has implied odds merits to make the steal and the folds of people with better hands +ev for you.
The nexus of the post is this: When considering a preflop raise, i think of its value (or deficit) in terms of the above, specifically in terms of whether or not the move is +ev.
for example(s):
you are on button and raised into on the CO by a normal player. with AKs, the standard move would be a re-raise. this pits the desire to isolate and the desire to get more money in the pot when you have (probably) the best hand against the desire to disguise your hand and the desire to improve your implied odds if you are getting bet into by a worse ace. what decides the move is how you want to play the hand (are you ok folding a K if he looks like he has AA?) and what determines that is how deep the money is and your opponents collective actions until now (i think it's called "shania"). If the money's short and he's loose, I repop. if the money's deep and he's aggro, I call.
improving this one, so seemingly easy part of NL has improved my winrate immensely, but i feel i am still very far from preflop raising nirvana.
hop in here if you disagree/agree/have more input.
fim
I feel this aspect of my play had been lacking before recently, especially because i felt that i needed an advertising budget (ciaffone finally convinced me otherwise) and because the overlay preflop is so much less than on later streets (even the worst hands crack aces, but river bets have no semibluffing equity).
Lately I've been running very very well in these games, and i think a bit of this is due to my abandonment of a "might is right" stance with respect to preflop play (which used to be a huge part of my personal table image). Many people here have asked "should you play this from this position?" etc. and, unless the situation is clearly cut and dried, most often the answer is, as always, "it depends."
The real meat of this post begins here: The following has been my thought process as to my preflop play at 100NL, where I can't just beat the table into submission.
I'll raise a hand preflop for the following reasons:
1. to add money to the pot. Preflop I want to play a huge pot with AA/KK, so these are no-brainers.
2. to attack the blinds. If i know there are two weakies in the blinds, I'll raise until i get called when it's folded to me.
3. to play a larger pot when you have a very well defined hand which figures to bust someone. I see a lot of the better 100NL players minraising small PP when they have family pots so that people feel more tied to a pot should they hit their set.
4. To isolate. often i find myself re-raising preflop with questionable holdings if i feel the preflop raiser is a LAG and that i can outplay him postflop. If i feel his average hand for a certain raise is KJo, i'll re-raise preflop with AJs, a move i wouldn't ever make against a rock (i'd probably just fold).
5. to purchase position. If i know those to my left are weak, i'll raise many hands 3xBB to buy the button in a family pot.
6. to disguise my hand. This is a questionable reason, but when the money really gets deep, i have raised suited connectors etc. for the chance to stack another big stack.
7. to ruin implied odds. If you're holding a hand with which you'd like to get all in on the flop, raise so that anyone playing an implied odds hand is losing in calling your raise. if they fold, so be it.
8. to fold out better hands. this is basically when you're totally stealing. normally you want to fold when they have a better hand, but sometimes (like attacking the blinds with 89s etc.) you hand has implied odds merits to make the steal and the folds of people with better hands +ev for you.
The nexus of the post is this: When considering a preflop raise, i think of its value (or deficit) in terms of the above, specifically in terms of whether or not the move is +ev.
for example(s):
you are on button and raised into on the CO by a normal player. with AKs, the standard move would be a re-raise. this pits the desire to isolate and the desire to get more money in the pot when you have (probably) the best hand against the desire to disguise your hand and the desire to improve your implied odds if you are getting bet into by a worse ace. what decides the move is how you want to play the hand (are you ok folding a K if he looks like he has AA?) and what determines that is how deep the money is and your opponents collective actions until now (i think it's called "shania"). If the money's short and he's loose, I repop. if the money's deep and he's aggro, I call.
improving this one, so seemingly easy part of NL has improved my winrate immensely, but i feel i am still very far from preflop raising nirvana.
hop in here if you disagree/agree/have more input.
fim