An Alternative Strategy?

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Everyone,
Below I've listed a couple of web pages that seemed to be aimed as replacing or countering the 2+2 strategies for HE.

They seem to be based on the findings of that report,"New Guide to starting hands".

Can anyone answer the following questions?

1. Is this author's summary of 2+2 strategy correct?
2. It this author's strategy effective and profitable?

http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/players/betem-callem-raisem01.htm
http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/players/betem-callem-raisem02.htm

Thanks,
AA

[bernie]

wow....he can read a tight/solid players likely hands when theyre in EP.....

notice he doesnt give a dissertation about MP and later..and his starting hands in that position are pretty much the same. not really groundbreaking to counter it with good starters yourself...

his strategy has alot of holes in it. 1 is that since he's greatly reduced his starting hands, 'from any position' he would be that much easier to read. i would like this player on my table if he played exactly like this...

especially his fold your (his) group2 hand if someone raises behind you is a good way to get run over in a game...put him on my right please.

his preflop play seems very weak tight. this strategy may work much better against less observant opponents, but he failed to read in S&M about adjusting play to certain players. or just plain adjustments. S&M was never meant (i dont think anyways) as a cookbook, ABC way of playing that this guy suggests. its only a guide. i think with all the 2+2 books, there is advocation that you should know a couple different styles of play and be able to pick your spots against certain opponents. making adjustments where necesary. why are people who take S&M so literally, never straying far called ABC players? they can be just as predictable....this guy's website makes no mention of this. S&M, i dont believe, takes the text that literal. they alter their play too....duh..

this preflop strategy would fail longrunwise-in a tight but tricky game, IMO....and in a loose typical game. he may not be in as many pots as he should be......say it was a loose passive, but with 2 somewhat loose aggressive guys....even just 1. he mentions no deviations from his play, hence no adjustment strategy for ANY pertinent factors that may be available...

i didnt read his post flop stuff...

interesting article though...

b

[Ed Miller]

So many comments in these pages are so flawed that I don't know where to begin. For example,

"AK should be folded if your raise is reraised and two or more players called your raise."

"Even though AKs is ranked in the top five hands, it is not a candidate for raising because it is a drawing hand and must have help from the flop to improve."

They advocate playing J2s but folding 66. It's nonsense. Read and post more on this forum and you will learn enough to understand why it is nonsense.

[Ed Miller]

Sorry... I just read this part and thought it was too good not to include...

"If the recommended strategy is followed, you will always have the best hand or you will fold. Accordingly, the other strategies frequently associated with Texas Hold'em are irrelevant to successful profitable play. All of the acknowledged 'expert poker authors' including Sklansky, Jones, Krieger, Warren and others devote many pages to subjects such as semi-bluffing, check-raising, free cards, reading players, reading hands, poker lessons that apply to everyday life (my personal favorite), slowplay, using tells, poker stories, tipping advice, stealing blinds, faking a rush and many other areas which upon serious intelligent consideration have absolutely nothing to do with properly playing Hold'em.

"These irrelevant discussions are merely 'page fillers' and no doubt were insisted upon by their publishers to achieve the required number of pages. Although these subjects are entertaining, they are not worth your time to study if you hope to become a 'profitable' player - after all, that is the goal to be achieved."

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Bernie,
Well... I'm too new to HE to judge his strategy. But the report it's based on seems well done.

Here's the link for that:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/

Once you've read the above... you'll see where his "Sklansky made mondo errors" attitude is coming from.

I'd be curious as to everyones views on this document as well.

Some of his points about hand "power" didn't hold with me either.

But, the fact that he did cover flop and post flop hand types seems useful.

I was browsing through some 2+2 books the other night at the book store "Theory of Poker", HPFAP, Holdem Poker, and "Gambling for a Living".

In none of those did I see flop and post flop hands covered in an organized way. (I.e. Flopping Top Pair, Flopping a Flush Draw...etc.) I did see mention of these "midway-through" hands in some spots... but not rounded up together in the way, say, Lee Jones did.

So I was curious about what other, more experienced players thought of this guys ideas.

Thanks for the response.

AA

[Ed Miller]

This CMU report gets posted every month or so. S&M have refuted it... you should search the archives for the refutation.

[AmericanAirlines]

Yup I found that an interesting counter-point to 2+2 materials.

I thought it a bit extreme... but it does make me wonder if HE strategy *could* be condensed a bit.

OK, maybe it wouldn't be "optimum". But a concise +EV method with perhaps a side goal of minimum drawdown would be an interesting train of thought to pursue.

I suppose that's what Petriv was trying to achieve when he writes about wanting to play HE in a way that works like the edge attributed to a slot machine.

Don't know if he ever achieved that!

AA

[Ed Miller]

As bernie implied... any of these "condensed" strategies will have a huge flaw. A major flaw in the preflop section of this report is its weak-tightness... it recommends calling one bet and folding to a raise often... or even worse.. raising, and then folding to a reraise. If people see you doing that, then they will simply be able to raise you off your hands and destroy you. Same thing goes for the postflop section... it generally advocates folding if you get raised and don't have the nuts. You can't win playing that way... observant opponents will show a profit by raising you every time... occasionally you will have the nuts and raise back and win an extra two bets (or maybe only one... as you would only raise back with the nuts), but much more often you will fold, and your opponent will run off with the cookies.

Blackjack is a game played against cards... one can develop a robotic strategy and win. Poker is a game played against people, using cards as tools. You have to observe and react... the same hand and the same board with the same action could mean a fold against some opponents and a raise against others. The "useless" sections of the poker books are the ones that detail tools you can use to observe, react to, and exploit your opponents' play. They are by far the most important sections. Your friend here who wrote that article missed the boat entirely.

[Adnirol]

You are kidding right? Surely you recognized this is but a poker story intended for amusement only.

Adnirol

[Billy LTL]

I read through the boring tale of raisem's upbringing, skipped the terminology and started on the "probability" section.

There are so many errors (it starts with the "Improving Hand Odds) and so much just plain bad advice I gave up on my plan of pointing out the biggest boners.

Billy

[2ndGoat]

What is this fellow thinking? Position is not important? Actually reading on, I guess, nothing is important but waiting for a monster. I welcome anyone at my table to play this way.
Author clearly has only a cursory understanding both both probability and poker. In TOP, Sklansky gives the analogy that disallowing check-raising is like banning the hit-and-run or option pass. This guy is pretty much saying you ought to never move past the base you've been forced to reach unless you hit a home run. No stolen bases, no room even for leading off the bag. no pinch hitters, no switch hitters, no lefties. absurd.

The author suggests "disciples" like me take a lot for granted. In Theory of Poker and Hold'em for Advanced Players, Sklansky and Malmuth back most of their statements by calculating expected values, and most all of the rest with logic. I have misgivings about some minor things, precisely because I *have* thought about it. Furthermore, these misgivings come because I play in different games than they do, not because of any particular view of poker theory.

2ndGoat

[rigoletto]

Well AA, maybe you noticed how he begins by saying that 'the Sklansky method' is predictable, and then ended up with a very predictable strategi himself. He deemed Skalansky predictable because he condensed Sklansky into something predictable and this says a lot about the value of 'shake and bake' poker strategies: any condensed strategi becomes predictable!!!