Applying Paul Philip's strategy at Vegas 1-2

[DesertCat]

I'm going to be in Vegas tomorrow and thinking of playing some low limit no limit. A few weeks ago someone posted a description of how Paul Philips played in a 5-10 NL game (low limit for him), and I was thinking about applying a similar strategy, because it seemed effective, and fun.

To summarize what I remember Paul doing, was that he played extremely loose and aggressive, looking to double up in any way possible, and rebuying repeatedly as he busted. Finally he got a big stack and basically crushed the table from then on.

My problem is that I'm not sure I understand the value of a big stack in cash game. In a tournament, you want to steal blinds as they get large. But in a cash game they never do, so why bother stealing blinds?

I understand the value that a big stack has in being able to put opponents to the test for all their chips. So in a bigger game you'd use your big stack this way to steal pots when you hold a marginal hand, but in a typical vegas 1-2NL isn't that value negated by opponents who'll often call with slightly better hands?

What am I missing about the value of a big stack in a cash NL game, esp. low limit?

[kongo_totte]

Well, basically, w/ a big stack yo can win more from another big stack in a single hand. At Party's low limits (which I'm not sure how to compare to Vegas live SSNL) a big stack is great advantage vs. most players (read: fish) w/ big stacks since they don't know how to handle them.

[TheCat]

There is a benifit having the largest stack, when you've got a good hand you can cover any player. It's a pity when you hit the nuts and have a small stack. Otherwise there is no particular advantage. It cetainly won't allow you to dominate the play.
You would be much better off not following Paul Philps strategy. Some folk play rebuy tournrments in that manner but it's suicide in a ring game.
Some really great player can play loose aggressive and win but nither you nor I nor Paul Philps is that tallented.

[Publos Nemesis]

The Paul Philip's strategy was to play very laggy with his short stack and rebuy until he had a few buy-ins on the table. Then, he tightened up a bit and used his big stack to bully the small stacks. He forced players to make tough dececisions with one pair hands. The goal is not so much to show down monsters as to force people to fold.

People who see you with a big stack in a ring game acting like you own it will be very afraid. Having the big stack is as important as table image. In other words, this has nothing to do with poker on the internet. When you start running the table in a live game, people won't want to get involved with you. Make sure you show down one or two monsters and people will stop calling your big raises.

However, for this strategy to be successful you need to be able to make great reads and know when not to get involved. Phillips was able to abuse the other people at his table because he could do that.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, basically, w/ a big stack yo can win more from another big stack in a single hand. At Party's low limits (which I'm not sure how to compare to Vegas live SSNL) a big stack is great advantage vs. most players (read: fish) w/ big stacks since they don't know how to handle them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this, but how is it worth burning multiple buyings to get into this position. If I buy in for the max, I can still double up against most of the players. Why not play conservatively to build a big stack?

[TheCat]

It's a hard act to follow.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Then, he tightened up a bit and used his big stack to bully the small stacks. He forced players to make tough dececisions with one pair hands. The goal is not so much to show down monsters as to force people to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, this makes perfect sense.

[Publos Nemesis]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not play conservatively to build a big stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it takes longer. Paul Phillips was playing as if he has an infinite bankroll. For him, he makes a lot more money bullying the table than nut peddling. In other words, nut peddling only takes you so far. I agree that he style adds a lot more variance, but I think it makes more money in the long-run then playing a pure and simple TAG style, at least at Vegas where the players are pretty passive at the low limit games.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

Some really great player can play loose aggressive and win but nither you nor I nor Paul Philps is that tallented.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you and I aren't that talented, but you must be thinking about another Paul Philips than I. Many people (including Sklansky) think he's one of the top NL players.

Whether you agree with that or not, I'm trying to learn from people like Paul and David S., because they have much better insight into NL strategy than I do. In this case Paul stated he pursued this strategy specifically so he could dominate the table and leave a big winner, so I'm trying to understand why.

Clearly I don't have Paul's post flop skills, so perhaps that's another reason not try it. But it just sounds so damn fun...

[TheCat]

If you don't lose your whole bankroll during your Vegas trip I'll be surprised. This strategy is strictly for the best of the best.
It a common ploy to start loose then tighten up, so expect players to be aware.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem is that I'm not sure I understand the value of a big stack in cash game. In a tournament, you want to steal blinds as they get large. But in a cash game they never do, so why bother stealing blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Big stacks are virtually meaningless in a ring game, aside from whatever table image it might convey to whatever players at the table (if any) don't yet realize that big stacks are virtually meaningless in a ring game /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

The reason big stacks are an enormous advantage in tournaments is because at any time you can threaten someone with their tournament mortality and several hours (or days?) of play ending in no money. As you can see that has no real analogue in ring games; what could you threaten them with, the nuisance of making a trip to the ATM?

In ring games, tight, aggressive play gets the money. always has, always will.

Or if you don't want to take my word for it, here's what Ed Miller has to say on the subject:

[ QUOTE ]
As you play no-limit, some well-intentioned people will probably eventually tell you that playing a small stack is a liability. They might say something like "You don't want to play a small stack because then the big stacks can bully you." Don't believe them! This is a tournament concept that does not apply to cash games. [emphasis his]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you meet someone in Vegas who sits down at a NL table and follows this "build up a huge stack and bully the table" strategy, buy in to the table for the minimum and you'll have taken away his power; a person who takes disproportionate risks to build up a huge stack in a cash game is relying on the "push you off of a hand" move to win - he's a one-trick pony. With a short stack, he can't push you off a hand, and the pseudo-power he's spent so much time and money trying to acquire will become completely impotent.

Although I must say you're definitely headed in the right direction by asking questions about things that are stated as gospel or Conventional Wisdom. If something some poker pundit says, whether it be Paul Phillips or David Sklansky or "420PokaThugg" on the internet, doesn't make sense, think about it and work it out on your own to see if it's true or not. Just because a poker celebrity says having a huge stack in a no limit cash game is a huge advantage doesn't necessarily make it so.

[TheWorstPlayer]

I believe the idea was that there were several people with stacks over the max buy-in. So PP played very aggressively until he doubled up his stack and then he doubled through some of those other big stacks to make big scores (which was not possible until he had built up a large stack himself). He ended the night very up, if IIRC. Having the table covered by a little or by a lot does not matter. But if there are fish with ten buy-ins then it definitely makes a difference if you have 2 buy-ins or 5 buy-ins or 10 buy-ins.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the idea was that there were several people with stacks over the max buy-in. So PP played very aggressively until he doubled up his stack and then he doubled through some of those other big stacks to make big scores (which was not possible until he had built up a large stack himself). He ended the night very up, if IIRC. Having the table covered by a little or by a lot does not matter. But if there are fish with ten buy-ins then it definitely makes a difference if you have 2 buy-ins or 5 buy-ins or 10 buy-ins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand what that has to do with sitting down at a cash game thinking "i intend to build up a big stack"; rather, it seems to me like this is just an instance where someone plays correctly (i.e. they sit down at a cash game thinking "i intend to make correct decisions"), and the game in which they are making good plays just so happens to be one in which the players have stacks well over the maximum initial buy-in amount.

In a tournament, having lots of chips is like having the only machine gun on an island where you're stranded with two dozen other people - you rule the roost. Alternatively, having lots of chips in a ring game is like having a machine gun in the army - big whoop.

[TheWorstPlayer]

The point you are missing is that PP plays excellent deep stack poker. His advantage in deep stack poker is FAR greater than his advantage in short stack poker. So, if he sits down at the table with the max buy-in and there are other people with ten buy-ins, it could easily be VERY +EV for him to make a move which, in isolation, is -EV if it gives him the chance of gaining a big stack. This is because ONCE HE HAS A BIG STACK, he is in a VERY +EV situation. Enough +EV to overcome any amount of -EV he had to sustain to build up that stack.

[JaBlue]

I believe Paul Phillips was able to pull this off only because he is a very good player.

For the vast majority of people, playing like this is going to be WAY -EV.

[phil_ivey_fan]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Paul Phillips was able to pull this off only because he is a very good player.

For the vast majority of people, playing like this is going to be WAY -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Def. agree. Is this going to be your first time in Vegas? You'll be surprised at the difference in games out there and games online. It was pretty eye opening. The SSNL they play at the bellagio was wild. I faired pretty good for the weekend, but my buddy was down $1400 in one night from bad beats...and he's A LOT better than me. All I'm saying is you are not going to have to pull a "paul philips", there will be ppl there playing that way already and they are crappy players so they're going to get burned post-flop. Stick to a tight-aggy game till you get some reads, then you can open up a little bit once you accumulate some chips. Good luck

[youngin20]

The size of your stack in relation to the blinds varies how the game is played. A person is NOT going to stack off with one pair if they have 500bb in their stack, however, with 40bb, they will. As stacks get larger and larger, big pairs lose value, and small pairs are played for set value much more often. Decpetion is much more important. Tommy Angelo wrote a good article a while back about how when a table is tough (lots of good players) he will buy in small, and try to double up quick. But when a table is easy, he will buy in for the full amount. Because bets in no limit are based on blind size, pot size, etc, so the game changes. Pot odds is a huge factor in big bet games, so it easier to put your whole stack in when the stacks are small.

[greg nice]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Paul Phillips was able to pull this off only because he is a very good player.

For the vast majority of people, playing like this is going to be WAY -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo.

original poster will try this 'fun' style for about 10 minutes and then realize he hasnt a clue what he is doing.

[MLerra]

I'll be honest, I think this is a bad idea for two reasons.

#1) the bad players will call you with their one-pair hands, because they don't know better or don't give a crap, and then you will be playing a crapshoot with them. Maybe you have the best hand, maybe you dont, etc. I would not want my money in the pot against a bad player in a crapshoot situation; I think I can find better

#2) For all the tight players out there... what do we do? We wait for a bad player to over bet his pair, and then we take a lot of his money with our two pair or set. Guess what? You just became that bad player. You're not going to "give me a tough decision" when I have a pair - I will fold, I could give two shits if I had you beat or not. And you're not going to "give me a tough decision" when I have two pair or a set - I will call you down, and take as much money as your loose aggressive style will give me.

[PinkSteel]

That was a great thread; thanks again to whoever cross-posted it. I think Paul said he won about $3k.

The particular remarks that stuck with me most were about his loose preflop play, his excellent postflop play, and his astounding reads on people.

Play your strengths. There is no way I would ever try Paul's strategy; I'm a beginner at postflop play and only mediocre at reads. If I sat down at that table at all, it would be with a short stack and an eye to see a good starting hand that I could push on.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]
The point you are missing is that PP plays excellent deep stack poker. His advantage in deep stack poker is FAR greater than his advantage in short stack poker. So, if he sits down at the table with the max buy-in and there are other people with ten buy-ins, it could easily be VERY +EV for him to make a move which, in isolation, is -EV if it gives him the chance of gaining a big stack. This is because ONCE HE HAS A BIG STACK, he is in a VERY +EV situation. Enough +EV to overcome any amount of -EV he had to sustain to build up that stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly explained. TWP is wise. You can't just decide to play the Paul Phillips style and play it. You have to have the right personality and a lot of skill to pull it off. An infinite bankroll doesn't hurt either /images/graemlins/grin.gif His bank account earned more in interest while he was pulling his chair out than was in play on that table.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
The size of your stack in relation to the blinds varies how the game is played. A person is NOT going to stack off with one pair if they have 500bb in their stack, however, with 40bb, they will. As stacks get larger and larger, big pairs lose value, and small pairs are played for set value much more often. Decpetion is much more important. Tommy Angelo wrote a good article a while back about how when a table is tough (lots of good players) he will buy in small, and try to double up quick. But when a table is easy, he will buy in for the full amount. Because bets in no limit are based on blind size, pot size, etc, so the game changes. Pot odds is a huge factor in big bet games, so it easier to put your whole stack in when the stacks are small.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying it's easier to plop your short stack in without the correct pot odds? Please clarify.

It seems to me that with a big stack you can better manipulate pot odds and also give others (hopefully) fatal implied odds to bet against you when you have a great hand. With (relatively) short stacks you are just paying blinds and hoping not to get pushed out every time preflop. Essentially a short stack is in the same position he would be in a tourney--pick a spot and double or bust.

[Publos Nemesis]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not going to "give me a tough decision" when I have a pair - I will fold, I could give two shits if I had you beat or not. And you're not going to "give me a tough decision" when I have two pair or a set - I will call you down, and take as much money as your loose aggressive style will give me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see why PP would crush you?

If not, let me explain. First, he will win a lot of small pots against you when you are folding your one pair hands. Second, because you are afraid of him and only calling down with your two pair hands and above, he will shut down unless he has a monster. Thus, he will never lose a big pot to you. If you are going to play that passively (like most people in small stakes NL live games) then you will only be able to make money before PP doubles up a couple of times.

[MLerra]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you see why PP would crush you?

If not, let me explain. First, he will win a lot of small pots against you when you are folding your one pair hands. Second, because you are afraid of him and only calling down with your two pair hands and above, he will shut down unless he has a monster. Thus, he will never lose a big pot to you. If you are going to play that passively (like most people in small stakes NL live games) then you will only be able to make money before PP doubles up a couple of times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who the F is Paul Phillips? I've honestly never heard of this guy. When did he become the god of poker? And if "low stakes" to him is $5/$10 blinds, WHY SHOULD I CARE IF HE WOULD CRUSH ME? I'm never going to be at a table with this guy. Lots of people would crush me at poker; I've been playing less than a year and I suck. I can also see why Brunson would crush me, why the sun is very big, and why girls with nice bodies look good in small clothes. All of that has absolutely no relevance to the discussion though.

Sorry about the rant, yes I understand why "PP" would crush me (you explained it well though anyways). But that's not relevant to the situation being discussed by the original poster; nor is it relevant to the stakes he is talking about. It also doesn't matter what strategy "PP" uses against me, since he's going to beat me no matter what reasonable strategy he uses since he's presumably just plain better than me.

I was never saying PP's strategy was a bad one, or that it wouldn't work against me. I just think it wouldn't work at your standard $1-2/$100 NL table in Vegas.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I was never saying PP's strategy was a bad one, or that it wouldn't work against me. I just think it wouldn't work at your standard $1-2/$100 NL table in Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't really matter what stakes you try; the question of "whether Paul Phillips's strategy will work" is moot, since it has the prerequisite of being an expert player to work. You might as well just say "I'm going to Vegas next weekend - will becoming a great poker player work at the $1/$2 in the Bellagio?"

[Publos Nemesis]

Rather than shut down and say we are bad poker players, or, at least, not experts like Paul Phillips, it would be much more productive to try and learn how to play better.

Accordingly, the next time you sit down at a SSNL game in Vegas, AC, or some other tourist trap, remember that most of the players there are passive nits. If you can create a solid table image as a very good if somewhat reckless player then you will be able steal a lot of small pots from the passive nits. That is the key lesson here.

If you want to make $300 at some $1-2 NL game over 4-5 hours playing a basic TAG style that is fine. But if you want to move up other games or make more money at the SSNL games then you will have to add more spice to your game. PP's strategy is, IMO, a very good way to earn more $/hr at SSNL games because people are so passive. Just try and pratice. If you drop a few stacks it's no big deal, because if you are reading 2+2 and trying to improve your game you should be able to manage your bankroll and take the hits.

Remember, playing live you get a lot fewer hands per hour, and if you are running cold and not seeing many flops, then a TAG style will not prove very profitable over that period. PP's strategy, on the other hand, will b/c you see more flops.

[sirtimo]

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying it's easier to plop your short stack in without the correct pot odds? Please clarify.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think it dosn't have anything to do with the pot odds but with getting your money in with the best of it. With a short stack (40BB or so) the decision making process is much more limited. You raise preflop with a good hand, on the flop you go or no-go for your stack. Simple. No real decisions to be made.

regards,
Tim

[tek]

Not as much money to be made either.

[tek]

In some parts of the country (aside from vacations to Vegas, AC, Foxwoods, etc) if there is a casino nearby that has NL games, there might only be 4 tables and you go where there is an open spot. No table selection or seat selection possibilities. No tables to move up to, except one 2/5 NL on Saturday night.

In such cases survival and patience are paramount. I will call the BB or small PF raises to see a cheap flop. If I coonect, I will let the LAGs raise it up and then I will go over the top on them. If I don't connect, I will fold as many hands as I have to until the next time I connect.

What defense do the LAGs have against me? If I don't connect, I fold on the flop. If I connect, they bet for me and I hammer them. They call my over the top raise or all-in, or they fold. Either way, I make money off them. It beats working...

LAGs won't make money off me, but they will make money off guys who want to actually gamble with them on a battle of marginal hands or get pot odds from Lags to draw.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
This strategy is strictly for the best of the best.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just plain wrong.

You should go find the thread were this stuff came from. It seemed painfully standard to me.

[snappo]

[ QUOTE ]
To summarize what I remember Paul doing, was that he played extremely loose and aggressive, looking to double up in any way possible, and rebuying repeatedly as he busted. Finally he got a big stack and basically crushed the table from then on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think, since you admit that you are not familiar with his strategy, that you should not play so loose and aggressive from the start looking to double up as an underdog. You should play the style you're most comfortable with...

THEN, once you DO get a big stack the "normal" way, you should start experimenting with that kind of loose/aggressive play. That way you can afford to make mistakes and learn the strategy without losing 5 buyins and going on tilt without having learned anything :P .