Middle Limit Holdem Poll

[gaming_mouse]

The following hands were taken from the Overcards Quiz section of Brier and Ciaffone's Middle Limit Holdem. These are hands whose recommendations I thought were questionable. I want to find out how the posters here see them. I'll post the book answers later.

This post isn't meant as any sort of put down of Middle Limit Holdem, by the way. I like the book alot on the whole -- there are just some points I'm not convinced by. Also, the fact that these are middle limit, rather than small stakes, hands may be what's throwing me off in some cases. Please comment on that distinction as you see fit.

(In some cases I have paraphrased for brevity, but have never left out information).

[cnfuzzd]

#3 is misleading. I wouldnt check through to the button. I accidentally picked raise, before i realized i was checkraising. Boo.

From everything ive heard about this book, its ok if you can ignore the weak-tight advice it gives you.


peace

john nickle

[Shillx]

I don't play any of these limits but they all look like bets to me (and a call in the one)...

I'm guessing that they advocate checking these hands. I hope all my opponents follow that advice.

Brad

[W. Deranged]

I am really glad you posted this poll, because I just got Ciaffone/Brier's book and have been reading it with a somewhat suspicious eye. As a two-plus-two-er, I have found some (not most... the vast majority of what they say is the same thing Sklansky and most thinking players would say) of their advice is on the side of weak-tight. Particularly, I have noted that they very often advocate checking the flop after raising pre-flop, which, while certainly right in some situations (a six-way flop that comes suited with two overcards blah blah blah), I think they advocate it way too much. In general, I think that they underappreciate some of the primary reasons for betting the flop, and only advocate strong play when you either are most likely to be ahead or are likely to win the pot with a bet. They do not appreciate the value of betting in order 1) to clean up outs when on draws (though I have found that I agree with many of their plays for this reason even though they give others); 2) to push small equity advantages; 3) to buy free cards; 4) to exploit the looseness of players who will call with too little on the flop (though this may be where the low-limit v. middle-limit distinction becomes important).

There are, though, some very, very good lessons to be taken from this book. The greatest lesson for my game has been that one needs to be very conscious of flop texture when deciding whether to play weak draws and overcards on the flop, particularly in situation where you are not the pre-flop raiser. I have found that I have become much to loose on the flop, check-calling with almost any piece of the flop (gut shots, bad middle and bottom pairs, etc...). Whereas the odds apparently justified these calls, Ciaffone and Brier point out that certain flop textures greatly decrease the value of weak draws (two-flushes, multiple connecting cards and cards in the playing zone, etc...), and that the effective odds of such weak draws can be much lower than they appear. I tend to neglect the possibility of "hit-and-lose" too often and Ciaffone and Brier really beat it into your head to remember that.

I would be very interested to see what other's experiences have been with this book. I like to feel I'm becoming a more discerning consumer of poker literature, and so I wonder if other people have similar feelings.

Also, has anyone read McEvoy and Cloutier's limit book, "Championship Hold 'em"? I think many of you would find that more loathsome than "Middle Limit Hold 'em," but it also has some important general poker lessons and some good advice (it seems) on limit tournaments.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing that they advocate checking these hands. I hope all my opponents follow that advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guessed right. And it looks like my instincts against this advice are shared by most 2+2ers. The only one where it's even close is the second question in my poll.

gm

[Avatar]

Ya hand 2 is the only one I chose to check, and it is still in the minority on this forum!

[cnfuzzd]

Bet. There is a possibility that you have the best hand. You have some reasonable outs. And getting the button to fold here is awesome.


peace

john nickle

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
Ya hand 2 is the only one I chose to check, and it is still in the minority on this forum!

[/ QUOTE ]

With the possible exception of hand #1, where you have overcards + a gutshot, I think #2 is the clearest bet. You can't risk giving a free card on that board...aside from the obvious flush draw possibility, you want to clear out other aces if possible, on the off chance your backdoor straight comes in. Not to mention making 55-99 fold or call another bet with an overcard on the board.

[AdamL]

I don't think you guys are thinking enough about your opponents likely hands, and are putting a bit too much emphasis on your own.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

a Check.
b Bet.
c Call.
d Bet.

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you guys are thinking enough about your opponents likely hands, and are putting a bit too much emphasis on your own.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

a Check.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any T just flopped an OESD. Any Q just flopped a gutshot to chop with your AQ. Many pocket pairs are now faced with overcards on the board, in addition to the possible QT straight. Anyone suited to anything but spades just flopped a backdoor flush draw. In short, I think the free card is going to hurt you more often than it helps you, and there's a good chance of getting some better hands to fold, besides forcing the strong draws to pay for them.

[pindawg]

1) bet
2) bet
3) fold
4) bet

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
3) fold


[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't fold your backdoor nut flush + backdoor straight + 2 overcards when you're closing the action and getting 13-1 on your call...

[Derek in NYC]

Gaming mouse,

Interesting that all of your problems selected involved situations where you raised preflop with overcards, then the flop largely missed you. Are you just reading this chapter of the book, or is there another reason for singling out this paradigm? If you didnt like C&B's advice on playing overcards, you are going to HATE it when they talk about what to do when you're raised on 4th street holding top pair.

[droolie]

I chose check for question 1 intending on waiting for a safe card to hit the turn before betting. I didn't think betting would protect my overcard outs and half the deck destroys my hand on the turn.

[Bob T.]

If I was limited to four poker books, MLH would be one of them. (HPFAP, TOP, and SSH would be the others.)

The basic assumption of this book, and it is one that I am not sure is still valid, is that at the Middle Limits, most of your opponents are playing a rational game of holdem. As time passes, and more and more of your opponents from the new poker boom become a little more sophisticated, this assumption will probably become more valid, and this book will probably have more application, again, just as it did when it came out.

[amulet]

i think the book is terrific, and while i consider myself an aggressive player, i think in general the players here have taken bet, bet, bet, way to far. you miss with AK 2/3 of the time. and depending on the # of opponents, the flop, the pot size, i think often you are done on the flop. yes, a raised pot can give you the right pot odds to take off a card - IF your one pairs looks like it will win. but if the flop has several cards in the playing zone, you can be reverse dominated, vs 2 pair, vs redraws to a str8 or flush, so much depends on the texture of the flop, what cards your oppenents normally play, again the # of opponents etc. i often take another card off with AK in a raised pot. however, if everytime it missed players folded, MOST players would save themselves $. playing overcards is one of the most difficult parts of poker.

again, i think the book is terrific, the writers know their game, and HAVE MADE THEIR LIVING PLAYING POKER. instead of second guessing the book, learn from winning players - there are very few winning players, and even fewer who share their information by writing.

[amulet]

terrific post bob.

[Bob T.]

again, i think the book is terrific, the writers know their game, and HAVE MADE THEIR LIVING PLAYING POKER. instead of second guessing the book, learn from winning players - there are very few winning players, and even fewer who share their information by writing.

The other thing that a lot of people here don't know, is that Jim Brier was a frequent poster in the small stakes forum about 3-4 years ago, and a lot of the knowledge that is passed around here, is based on things that he contributed.

To say that he is a non 2+2er, is really ignoring what has passed on before. I think the game has changed alot since his book came out, and I would guess that he would probably change some of his conclusions and plays if he wrote the book today.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) fold


[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't fold your backdoor nut flush + backdoor straight + 2 overcards when you're closing the action and getting 13-1 on your call...

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the book explain why you check through the first time on this hand?

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was limited to four poker books, MLH would be one of them. (HPFAP, TOP, and SSH would be the others.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Those would be mine as well.

[ QUOTE ]
The basic assumption of this book, and it is one that I am not sure is still valid, is that at the Middle Limits, most of your opponents are playing a rational game of holdem. As time passes, and more and more of your opponents from the new poker boom become a little more sophisticated, this assumption will probably become more valid, and this book will probably have more application, again, just as it did when it came out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play those limits but it sounds as if, from those that do, that those assumptions are not as valid. However, they are certainly not valid at the small stakes online tables and, from hat I read on these boards, the higher stakes online games like Party $15/30. As a mostly online poker player I learned a lot from the bok but it is important to focus on the thinking behind each explanation and not just the recommended play since Bob's and Jim's assumptions are often very far from the ones I would make in the games in which I play. That is not a critique of the book (and it certainly never claimed to be addressingonline $3/6 and $5/10) but something that needs to be kept in mind while reading it. Given their assumptions about the games being described their answers usually make perfect sense. You just need to reconcile those assumptions with what you see in your own games.

[charlie_t_jr]

It's been a while since I've read the overcard chapter, but probably because they're not wanting to get raised by the button.

It may not directly apply to this hand, but in the overcard chapter, they feel most players over value their overcards. They tried to show that you have to take into account the texture of the flop, especially when one of your over cards could complete a hand for your opponent.

One of the main ideas of that chapter was to instill the idea that drawing to one pair was bad poker, and aggression(bluffing) into more than 2 opponents was just spewing chips....they purposely tried to de-value overcards.

EDIT: I'm currently on the Turn chapter and they surprisingly(maybe to some posters) give more aggressive advice.

[gaming_mouse]

Bob,

Do you agree with the book choices then? They are check or fold in every case, but you probably know that....

gm

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
instead of second guessing the book, learn from winning players - there are very few winning players, and even fewer who share their information by writing.


[/ QUOTE ]

amulet,

If you read my post, you'll see that I preface this poll by saying that I like the book alot, but found some of its advice questionable. I was looking for thoughts from the posters here too, many of whom also make their living playing poker and many of whom disagree with C&B's advice.

I am trying to learn more, not "second guessing" anyone. In poker, and in all areas of life, I will question anyone's advice until I understand it completely. Taking advice blindly, even from experts, is a bad policy in my opinion. Not to mention that this is exactly the kind of thing that this forum is for....

gm

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Does the book explain why you check through the first time on this hand?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't, nor is the book necessarily advocating that course of action. The hands are taken from real life (often hands played by their students), so a play that the authors don't agree with may create the situation they are analyzing. I'm not saying they don't agree with this check for sure, only that they make no comment about it.

But, as I said, they do explicitly say in the preface to their example hands that they don't agree in all cases with all decisions leading up to the decision being discussed.

gm

[holdemfan]

Wow, so many have sterotyped Cioffone/Brier as weak tight. Their point in this chapter is that to many players do not take into account that their outs may not get them the pot. With out reading the chapter these come form it would seem tight but for those who have read it he we remember they have discussed NOT BEING WIMPY and BEING THE AGGRESSOR on different situations. They are pointing out 1. You may get your hand while giving someone else the better hand. 2. Leading the flop when you didn't hit + the board is coordinated + too many in the hand is not good play. Very good to bet if 1 or 2 opponents. 3. You may get the nuts on the turn only to get beat on the River. Most players never look at it this way and pump up the pot only to feed someone else's hand.
I see value in their thoughts and as I do with all proven poker winners. I use their play and thoughts as PART of my guidelines. Part of building our win rate is as much not losing $ on hands as well as winning the big pots.

[Bob T.]

I have to go to work now, so this has to be brief, but for the most part I agree with the SS 2+2 choices. But I think that if you have stronger players making the coldcall behind you, or the limps in front of you, that the book choices are a lot better. In any case, I do believe that all of the decisions are at least moderately close, and neither making the play that the bias is for here, or making the book play, is going to be a serious mistake.

[amulet]

gaming, my post you are referring too was not directed at you. and my inital reply was not harsh.

however, after reading others responses, i posted again. i am tired of people slamming a terrifc book, and thinking they know more then these two authors. ssh is terrific, but is has created a bet, bet, bet, culture here.


i agree with you on the reason for this form. i just wish the advice was often correct, or that ds and mm responded more often to the questions.

[amulet]

holdenfan, well said!

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to go to work now, so this has to be brief, but for the most part I agree with the SS 2+2 choices. But I think that if you have stronger players making the coldcall behind you, or the limps in front of you, that the book choices are a lot better. In any case, I do believe that all of the decisions are at least moderately close, and neither making the play that the bias is for here, or making the book play, is going to be a serious mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob,

Thanks for that. This is what my own suspicion was even when making the post. The advice seems too tight to me because I am thinking about small stakes games -- and this difference is crucial.

gm

[cnfuzzd]

i tend to trust this guy's (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=450677&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1) opinion. I hear he is some good. and echoes everything that has been said about this book in this thread. Great, but caveat emptor. Or something.

peace

john nickle

[BottlesOf]

1, 2, and 4 are easy bets. I refused to pick a choice for number 3 for the same reason.

[holdemfan]

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to learn more, not "second guessing" anyone. In poker, and in all areas of life, I will question anyone's advice until I understand it completely. Taking advice blindly, even from experts, is a bad policy in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an attitude I appreciate. Kudo's Mouse

[ QUOTE ]

Does the book explain why you check through the first time on this hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Here is the authors main points on all of the hands used in the survey. I did them in the order of the book which is reverse to the survey.

#3. Your in a $30-$60 game and thinking the player will call 3 bets cold with out a big pair like a fish in a $1-$2 game would be naïve. As the book states it’s likely they have KK, QQ, JJ, AKs to make this call. Against KK you have 3 outs a 15-1 shot. QQ you have 6 outs a 7-1 shot. Against JJ you have no outs other than the backdoor diamond and that is if the board doesn’t pair. AKs leads to a tie unless you get your backdoor flush. Remember the player before you raised and it’s likely some of those outs you need are in their hands. The flop didn’t hit you and someone else said by calling 3 bets I’ve got a hand to contend with. Remember most of your outs are to top pair and as this chapter is designed to point out you can hit top pair and still get out drawn on the river.

#6. It states to bet this flop with 2 opponents or heads up but in a 5 way pot you will not get them all to fold and you take a big risk of getting raised. Check and call,the point is to see the turn cheaply and make a decision there. Maybe you will get to see the turn for free. It’s very possible you’re not ahead at this point.

#8. Check. The A/images/graemlins/heart.gifK/images/graemlins/heart.gif might make you top pair but someone else the flush. Many will raise you if you bet if they have the flush draw costing you 2SB to see if you can get a hand. If you do get an A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif,A/images/graemlins/spade.gif,K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif,K/images/graemlins/spade.gif on the turn there are still 9/images/graemlins/heart.gifs to take your win from you . The nut flush draw sounds good but the point is why start betting to it until the turn when you can see if it’s possible.

#10. The board is too coordinated. Someone could already be sitting on a straight or 2 pair. They also point out that the J,9,8 are all in the playing zone of pocket pairs or AJ. If you get your T will it really help? That T will give you a split with anyone who has a Q. What if they have KQ? Okay you hit the straight on the turn with the T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. You bet and get called by the A/images/graemlins/diamond.gifx/images/graemlins/diamond.gif and get beat by the /images/graemlins/diamond.gif on the river. Any K,Q,J,9,8,or a 7 could be very bad for you.

Again the point of the chapter is not all outs are good. Some will improve your hand but not win the pot. Some will end up causing you to increase the winnings of your opponent significantly.

[helpmeout]

I dont think many people understand the reasoning here.

Hand 1 You are unlikely to have the best hand and a checkraise or raise is a likely possibility. These arent your typical Party fish you are playing against.

Hand 2 Again you arent going to win the pot here so what good is betting? A ten is going to checkraise you, there is a 2 flush on the board so your outs are discounted.

Hand 4 I think this one is the closest, betting may clean up some outs and you do have a backdoor nut flush which may save you if things go wrong. There is still a good chance you might be checkraised though so calling isnt too bad.

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]
[1, 2, and 4 are easy bets. I refused to pick a choice for number 3 for the same reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. These are not "easy" bets.

The fact that this poll is so biased towards the agressive action leads me to believe that most of you are playing "too" agressive.

Take a look at Clark's recent A9o thread in Mid/High. He checked that flop and although it's different than this poll, it's not entirely different and shows that at least in some situations taking a passive action can be the correct action.

10) This may be a bet but this is the exact board texture that is most likely to hit a button and BB cold callers. Even in the party 15 game a bet will almost NEVER win this pot on the flop. I would think 1% may be a high estimate and you are going to get raised a lot since players today are quick to put you on AK when you raise and they will act accordingly. I think checking is a very viable option for this hand, although betting is not entirely horrible.

8) Why would you bet here? There is no way that you make 4 players fold this flop and your outs are tenuous at best. Again, I don't think betting is horrible but it is not "clearly" the best play. I would be checking a lot here. Change the 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif to the 4/images/graemlins/club.gif and now I think this is a clear bet, as it is I think this is a check but betting is "ok".

3) I may be tempted to bet initially on the flop but checking is often right. This isn't your typical 2/4 party moron cold calling 3 bets. This guy has SOME sort of hand and if he didn't already have you beat pre-flop it is likely that this flop did help him. Your overcards outs have to be severely devalued on a board like this. I might give you 1-2 outs total for your overcards and another 1 out for your backdoor flush plus another 0.25-0.5 outs for your backdoor straight which puts you at about 2.5-3 outs where you are getting 12-1. This is NOT a rosy situation for AK. Check/folding is not horrible here but I may take a chance and bet out on the flop.

6) This is a bet since you have the A/images/graemlins/club.gif. If you don't, if it's the A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif or something else then you should probably be checking here.

Now, after saying all that I agree with Bob T that most of these situations are close. The general thought on this board with these hands seems to be that they are all easy and clear and that the most agressive action is the correct action. I think that mentality is dangerous.