Definition of "ABC" poker?

[beaster]

I see this fairly frequently around here but I don't know what it means. Couldn't find a definition via a search. I thought I saw something like "Always Be Calling" before? That doesn't make sense to me, as that implies passivity.

ABC poker means basically playing "by the book" - it means you make the standard plays every time and do not deviate from that approach. You still play aggressively, but you do so in a somewhat conservative way. You do not go out to try and steal pots or make fancy plays. If you are drawing to a flush and you don't have the odds, you fold. If you have AQo and there is a preflop raise and re-raise in front of you, you fold.

One way to look at it is that you are playing the cards more than the players. So you wouldn't say "I have middle pair but the guy who raised is a LAG who will raise with anything, so I am gonna re-raise him to try and steal the pot" No. Playing ABC poker, with middle pair, you would likely fold to a raise.

btw - I may be way off since I don't really know what I'm talking about.

[KenProspero]

to me -- ABC Poker = Just play the cards, don't do anything fancy.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
btw - I may be way off since I don't really know what I'm talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is more right than wrong so I'll allow it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

ABC -- Sound fundamental poker. Play your cards based upon your position and your calculation of the odds. It is a necessary step in the evolution of a poker player.

If you can't win playing ABC in the low limits then you aren't playing ABC.

As you move up in limits, you must be able to modify your game based upon the circumstances. Sometimes that requires playing ABC, sometimes not. For instance, people who are set miners would not technically be playing ABC poker because they will call a bet/raise up to a certain amount with any pocket pair as long as the villain has a large enough stack.

Sorry to be so long-winded.

[beaster]

Ah, that all makes sense. Certainly more so than the "Always Be Calling" schlock I saw somewhere's else.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't win playing ABC in the low limits then you aren't playing ABC.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so right, it bears repeating.

Very often players complain about all the suckouts and bad beats that terrible opponents put on them. The opponent calls a preflop raise with ofsuit junk, rivers trips and takes the pot away from Hero's AA. The Hero whines that he just can't beat the ultra-loose micro limits becasue everyone plays everything. No Foldem Holdem. That kind of thing. They (or someone) suggest that moving up limits where people will "respect my raises" is the solution.

Whenever I hear someone say this it makes me cringe. If you can't beat the extremely bad opponents at, say .5/1 LHE, you won't be able to beat the much better opponents at a higher level, either. The reason you lost at the low level wasn't becasue the opponents were bad. It's becasuse you were bad. Play ABC poker, and the money will come.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't win playing ABC in the low limits then you aren't playing ABC.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so right, it bears repeating.

Very often players complain about all the suckouts and bad beats that terrible opponents put on them. The opponent calls a preflop raise with ofsuit junk, rivers trips and takes the pot away from Hero's AA. The Hero whines that he just can't beat the ultra-loose micro limits becasue everyone plays everything. No Foldem Holdem. That kind of thing. They (or someone) suggest that moving up limits where people will "respect my raises" is the solution.

Whenever I hear someone say this it makes me cringe. If you can't beat the extremely bad opponents at, say .5/1 LHE, you won't be able to beat the much better opponents at a higher level, either. The reason you lost at the low level wasn't becasue the opponents were bad. It's becasuse you were bad. Play ABC poker, and the money will come.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel exactly the same way. As soon as I read a post where someone talks about moving up because low limits is just a crap shoot, I know right there that the person in question should probably only be playing the play money tables and study poker a bit before he takes another shot at real money. Moving up will only get him to lose money faster.

Edit: Corrected some grammar.

Heh, yes. The lowest level tables are insanely profitable, in terms of BB/hour. They're the most profitable tables possible, relatively speaking. The reason people have to move up is that no matter how many BB you're making per 100 hands, you're not making much money if those are 50 cent or one dollar big bets.

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, yes. The lowest level tables are insanely profitable, in terms of BB/hour. They're the most profitable tables possible, relatively speaking. The reason people have to move up is that no matter how many BB you're making per 100 hands, you're not making much money if those are 50 cent or one dollar big bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see the logic in this post.

When playing limit, you measure your wins in terms of BB/100 - it does not matter whether those BB are 5 cents or $5000.

The level you should be playing at should be determined by only two factors

1) your skill level
2) your bankroll

Of course, if you are playing too high for 1, chances are that 2 will take care of itself.

I began about 2 months ago with an online deposit of $150. Based on that amount, I am playing .25/.5. I have now gotten that up to $225. I have not installed my poker tracker for a variety of reasons, but I am pretty sure that my BB/100 is over 4 - which I think is high enough to allow me to move up to the .5/1 tables - but I won't do that until my bankroll reaches $300 - and then I will drop down if it falls back to $250.

If there is one thing that I have learned on these forums that I would say is the most important lesson, it is that bankroll management is absolutely the most critical aspect to playing successful poker over the long-term - and it is easily the most overlooked.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is one thing that I have learned on these forums that I would say is the most important lesson, it is that bankroll management is absolutely the most critical aspect to playing successful poker over the long-term - and it is easily the most overlooked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I don't think so. The most important part (in holdem, anyway) is skillful postfloop play. That's not to say that BR management isn't important. It is. But it's not what decides whether you live or die. Whether or not you suck at the pokar is what decides your fate.

You're also disregarding the viability of taking shots at games theoretically too big for your roll. People do it all the time. Iv'e done it myself. Done right, it can slingshot you upwards. Done wrong, it can break you. Don't do it wrong.

The logic behind the post you responded to is simple: the purpose of poker isn't to win BBs. It's to win money. I'd rather have a 1.0 BB/100 at 5/10 than a 8 BB/100 at 0.5/1, becasue I'd be winning more money.

Don't be so restrictive. In poker you have to be flexible. There's more to choosing a level than just skill and bankroll. There are also psychological issues and game quality, and the chance to take a shot. Maybe other reasons. Show me a poker player who is rigid in thier poker beliefs, and I'll show you a losing player.

I have a specific reason for my opinion on bankrolls - and I have explained it here:

THE BRAIN AND POKER (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3480308&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1)

Basically, it boils down to the fact that if you are playing at limits higher than what your bankroll can manage, it is extremely likely to affect your play because you will be overly attached to your immediate financial gains and losses.

You say "Show me a poker player who is rigid in their poker beliefs, and I'll show you a losing player." I say show me an undisciplined poker player and I will show you someone who will never be a winning poker player in the long term."

[GrunchCan]

I read your linked post.

[ QUOTE ]
it boils down to the fact that if you are playing at limits higher than what your bankroll can manage, it is extremely likely to affect your play

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the person. Each person will react differently. Moreover, I've known many players who had way more than the theoretically required roll to play a higher level, but they weren't ready to psychologically.

I just think you are trying to reduce poker down to too few variables, and to isolate those variables from each other. Poker isn't that simple. There are many variables, and they all effect each other in ways that are subtle or gross.

But what I am saying is not about the variables at play at the poker table - it is all about where your attachment lies - and if your bankroll is too small for your level, then I believe it is extremely likely that you will become overly attached to short-term financial outcomes.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
But what I am saying is not about the variables at play at the poker table - it is all about where your attachment lies - and if your bankroll is too small for your level, then I believe it is extremely likely that you will become overly attached to short-term financial outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly agree.

[mason55]

Always Be CLOSING

[OrianasDaad]

Both poor bankroll management and poor postflop play stem from the same root problem.

-----------

"No bankroll is large enough for a losing player."

A bad (losing) player can benefit from learning bankroll management, as it will force them to move down in limits while they are learning to play better.

Knowledgable players who don't understand the importance of bankroll management are bound to lose thiers.

Winning players both play well and manage their roll properly.

-------------

Both player faults stem from a tendancy to deceive oneself.