DcifrThs
03-29-2004, 10:50 AM
I was taking a break from 15/30 to play some 200nl at party poker this weekend when i saw a good 2+2 poster play in a normal manner without adjusting (imo, and i may be wrong here) to the stack sizes and the sizes of bets the villian in this hand was calling.
As i sat and folded mostly, seeing who the fish were, showing down no hands but winning about $80 in the slow process, this good 2+2 player started with about $500 (when i entered) and built it up nicely to $1000 by playing in the following manner against his victims: all bets were pot sized. i mean literally, i did not see a single non-pot sized bet (other than preflop) out of him for the time he was there. some he took down, others he won against people who assumed he was stealing all the time and calling with poor hands or dominated hands.
the affect of this play is people have no idea what you have. he bet the pot one time (i think it was around $50) and was raised. he then reraised the pot (which put the victim all in) and took it down with tptk on ace ragged non two suited flop. this 2+2 player also folded a few times correctly when shown undue aggression. thats good since if you're always being the aggressor, when a straightforward playing person moves you in its highly likely you're DOA.
BUT the one thing i noticed is that he did not adjust to whether people were adjusting to him. As his stack size was at $900-1100, he came in for the standard raise and was called in maybe 3-5 places (dont remember exactly). but the only other threat to him was one or two seats to his left, that person had maybe 300-600 in his stack. flop comes something like Q94 rb. there was about 15*3 to 15*5 bets in the pot...i'll take 15*4 for $60 in the pot ($15 was his standard bring in). hero bets $60 and was smooth called by the threat with 300-600 in his stack. turn blanks off no suited threat other than backdoor but nobody's calling $60 in a $60 pot with nothing other than the bd here. so now there's $180 in the pot. hero again bets the pot and is called. so that's $180*3 now in the pot at the river=$540. hero moves the guy in for the rest and is shown 99 to his KK. so in one hand, as is the nature of no limit, hero goes from 900-1100 down to about 500 in chips.
Keep in mind that the good 2+2 player has been winning both with hands and, presumably, without by playing in this manner. i just think at some point a hand like this comes up where some adjustment is needed. I have fallen victim to it as well since it works with shorter stacks but against larger stacks its a bit expensive and doesn't work as well. that is certainly why I only play deep NL in florida against gambling boat fish (min buy=$500 for 5/10 blinds 11 handed most have over $1500). I usually buy for the min and double up and call it a night.
what Im talking about here is the ability for people to adjust, UNKNOWINGLY TO US, and only play monsters against us making those huge potsized bets all the time. eventually, one player is going to say, "hey, this guy can be relied upon almost 100% to bet the pot so all i have to do is get in there with a hand and i've made all the money i need to for the night."
the problem is, we don't know who or when thats gunna happen at these 200 tables.
Soooooooooooooo...my question is, maybe its better to adopt a practice of betting different sizes when stacks are deep and the caller has shown a serious interest in the hand. personally after he smooth called $60 on the flop I don't think i'd bet the $180. i think i might check here for the following reasons: 1) if i'm beat its already occured, this person is not calling with an ace and a free card won't hurt. 2) his stack isn't going anywhere on the turn and i can try to read his hand by the size of his bet and how quick he makes it in addition tot he given manner in which he's played. 3) i can get away from my one pair, a hand that usually ends up costing me a good deal of $$$.
it takes talent and ability to get away from a hand like this. Maybe it shouldnt' be gotten away from. i don't know as im nowhere near an expert nor even a great NL player.
money changes quickly in that game and after that hand the 2+2'er i think came a bit unglued and played a combo of good/sub-par until he had about $200 and then left the room with just over his, presumably, original buy in. I continued to play utnil i got board watching and quit with around $350, not really showing any hands, but not winning much either. it is clear that my idea of NL (the way i play) is pretty close to limit poker other than the fact that i can change up my play freely and raise $20 after a few limpers with 6s5s (on button or CO) knowing a pot sized bet on an Axx flop will take it down more than 50% of the time. plus i can flop two pair or a monster and win a huge pot. can't do that so much in limit. i wasn't up anywhere near the $1000 mark that session and played it to get my mind off of limit and am currently taking a break from 15/30 to move to 50/100/200NL for a bit.
POINT OF THE POST: how in the world do we, as pot bettors, adjust to the fact that when we play big hands in early position people may be allowing us to just bet their hands since they have position and on any given raggedy flop, our big ones can be beated by any old card that gives a player a set. but since we play the same way most of the time, these players have no fear about not building a pot since they know if we have KK, AA or a good hand we'll bet it the whole way and move whomever is in our way to the felt.
As our stacks grow, more and more is put at risk and as the pot grows and grows, pot sized bets are more and more risky. they risk the same relative % of our stacks most of the time but it is now significantly more $$$$. some will say thats the point. that we keep the % the same. BUT for OTHER players in there with us, these values have more meaning to them and its similar to them calling with fewer chips in a tourney to our more chips. their chips mean more to them even though its still the same relative % of our stacks.
the chips mean more b/c they're risking more to win what we're putting out there.
I hope to hear from Limon, Zee, and the rest of that BIG BET NL crew but ALL comments are VERY appreciated. Thanks.
-Barron
PS- I apologize for the length of the post and the "all over the place" nature of it but it got me thinking about how maybe i should put less out there in a huge pot even with a hand i'm willing to call that big bet with so i have the option to NOT call the big bet.
As i sat and folded mostly, seeing who the fish were, showing down no hands but winning about $80 in the slow process, this good 2+2 player started with about $500 (when i entered) and built it up nicely to $1000 by playing in the following manner against his victims: all bets were pot sized. i mean literally, i did not see a single non-pot sized bet (other than preflop) out of him for the time he was there. some he took down, others he won against people who assumed he was stealing all the time and calling with poor hands or dominated hands.
the affect of this play is people have no idea what you have. he bet the pot one time (i think it was around $50) and was raised. he then reraised the pot (which put the victim all in) and took it down with tptk on ace ragged non two suited flop. this 2+2 player also folded a few times correctly when shown undue aggression. thats good since if you're always being the aggressor, when a straightforward playing person moves you in its highly likely you're DOA.
BUT the one thing i noticed is that he did not adjust to whether people were adjusting to him. As his stack size was at $900-1100, he came in for the standard raise and was called in maybe 3-5 places (dont remember exactly). but the only other threat to him was one or two seats to his left, that person had maybe 300-600 in his stack. flop comes something like Q94 rb. there was about 15*3 to 15*5 bets in the pot...i'll take 15*4 for $60 in the pot ($15 was his standard bring in). hero bets $60 and was smooth called by the threat with 300-600 in his stack. turn blanks off no suited threat other than backdoor but nobody's calling $60 in a $60 pot with nothing other than the bd here. so now there's $180 in the pot. hero again bets the pot and is called. so that's $180*3 now in the pot at the river=$540. hero moves the guy in for the rest and is shown 99 to his KK. so in one hand, as is the nature of no limit, hero goes from 900-1100 down to about 500 in chips.
Keep in mind that the good 2+2 player has been winning both with hands and, presumably, without by playing in this manner. i just think at some point a hand like this comes up where some adjustment is needed. I have fallen victim to it as well since it works with shorter stacks but against larger stacks its a bit expensive and doesn't work as well. that is certainly why I only play deep NL in florida against gambling boat fish (min buy=$500 for 5/10 blinds 11 handed most have over $1500). I usually buy for the min and double up and call it a night.
what Im talking about here is the ability for people to adjust, UNKNOWINGLY TO US, and only play monsters against us making those huge potsized bets all the time. eventually, one player is going to say, "hey, this guy can be relied upon almost 100% to bet the pot so all i have to do is get in there with a hand and i've made all the money i need to for the night."
the problem is, we don't know who or when thats gunna happen at these 200 tables.
Soooooooooooooo...my question is, maybe its better to adopt a practice of betting different sizes when stacks are deep and the caller has shown a serious interest in the hand. personally after he smooth called $60 on the flop I don't think i'd bet the $180. i think i might check here for the following reasons: 1) if i'm beat its already occured, this person is not calling with an ace and a free card won't hurt. 2) his stack isn't going anywhere on the turn and i can try to read his hand by the size of his bet and how quick he makes it in addition tot he given manner in which he's played. 3) i can get away from my one pair, a hand that usually ends up costing me a good deal of $$$.
it takes talent and ability to get away from a hand like this. Maybe it shouldnt' be gotten away from. i don't know as im nowhere near an expert nor even a great NL player.
money changes quickly in that game and after that hand the 2+2'er i think came a bit unglued and played a combo of good/sub-par until he had about $200 and then left the room with just over his, presumably, original buy in. I continued to play utnil i got board watching and quit with around $350, not really showing any hands, but not winning much either. it is clear that my idea of NL (the way i play) is pretty close to limit poker other than the fact that i can change up my play freely and raise $20 after a few limpers with 6s5s (on button or CO) knowing a pot sized bet on an Axx flop will take it down more than 50% of the time. plus i can flop two pair or a monster and win a huge pot. can't do that so much in limit. i wasn't up anywhere near the $1000 mark that session and played it to get my mind off of limit and am currently taking a break from 15/30 to move to 50/100/200NL for a bit.
POINT OF THE POST: how in the world do we, as pot bettors, adjust to the fact that when we play big hands in early position people may be allowing us to just bet their hands since they have position and on any given raggedy flop, our big ones can be beated by any old card that gives a player a set. but since we play the same way most of the time, these players have no fear about not building a pot since they know if we have KK, AA or a good hand we'll bet it the whole way and move whomever is in our way to the felt.
As our stacks grow, more and more is put at risk and as the pot grows and grows, pot sized bets are more and more risky. they risk the same relative % of our stacks most of the time but it is now significantly more $$$$. some will say thats the point. that we keep the % the same. BUT for OTHER players in there with us, these values have more meaning to them and its similar to them calling with fewer chips in a tourney to our more chips. their chips mean more to them even though its still the same relative % of our stacks.
the chips mean more b/c they're risking more to win what we're putting out there.
I hope to hear from Limon, Zee, and the rest of that BIG BET NL crew but ALL comments are VERY appreciated. Thanks.
-Barron
PS- I apologize for the length of the post and the "all over the place" nature of it but it got me thinking about how maybe i should put less out there in a huge pot even with a hand i'm willing to call that big bet with so i have the option to NOT call the big bet.