18 The Newbie Chronicles: JTG51 vs. Jones

[JTG51]

I was pretty surprised to see my name in the subject line of someone else's post. I was even more surprised to see I wasn't being called a fool. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

I think you did a great job of showing why the advice is poor. I also think you chose just about the most favorable case for Jones. Remember, he suggests raising after any number of limpers. Raising from LP after 1 or 2 limpers with A9 may be a reasonable play. In some cases it would be the best play. Raising after 4 or 5 limpers, which he also seems to advise, would be terrible. Same for AT and KQ, in my opinion.

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Pudley 4: Interesting! Carson in his book appears to believe that the games Jones describes are loose-passive, rather than weak-tight

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the games he describes are loose-passive, but his strategy is weak-tight. So when I read your question - "How do you beat Lee Jones" - I took it to mean "How would you beat him if you were in a hand against him and he were playing the strategy he lays out in his book?"

If you mean "How would you devise a better strategy?" (e.g. "How would you make more money than him in a LL game?"), then I'd say you should probably play fewer unsuited high cards, and you should stay in longer with hands like middle-pair-with-backdoor-draws.

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
now don't rush me, the difference between loose passive and weak tight is, er... um

[/ QUOTE ]

Loose-passive is: lots of limping (with weak hands) preflop; little betting postflop; lots of calling to the river, even with very little (i.e. a calling station)

Weak-tight is: playing fewer hands preflop; frequent folding when under pressure postflop ("under pressure" = being bet into or raised) (i.e. a TOM or rock)

[metaname]

Metaname provided a very interesting strategy for playing PokerPages tournaments. I tried it once and I finished #10 out of 109.

Made the final table, eh? Maybe I really should write a book/

I spent a lot of time thinking about metaname’s strategy and have quite a few questions.

Well I am hesitant about addressing these questions as I am not crazy about encouraging you to continue towards your 85% goal when it actually be hindering your progress, but actually I find it kind of fun to think about these kinds of concepts. We may not be talking about “real poker”, but maybe considering an unusual situation such as yours is enlightening in the context of a more typical tournament strategy (that is my rationalization anyway). Anyway I hope you didn’t spend too much time thinking about this stuff as I pretty much made it up on the spot.

Metaname writes: “Don’t play any hands at all while the blinds are small (first 40-60 minutes) – muck AA preflop.” In a follow up post metaname says that he tried the system and folded everything for the first 50 minutes so he split the 40-60 range right down the middle. Note that there are only blinds for the first 40 minutes and then after that there are antes as well as blinds. The antes typically add up to 1-2 times the big blind. Metaname, would you suggest playing after 40 minutes?

Actually I did not play a hand for 70 minutes, I was not even watching the tournament for the first 50 minutes. The Nlhe PokerPages tournaments that I have played (mostly the $10,000 warm ups) use the 10,000 starting chip structure, which is apparently modeled exactly after the WSOP main event only with 10 minute rounds. The structures start with very deep money (200BB) stacks, so correct play should roughly approximate typical cash game play. Note that you seem to be studying primarily limit play, if you are using adjusted limit strategies for deep money NL play you are likely to be playing much to loose and passive (especially for a beginner). NL is all about “picking your spots”, and making an occasional big pot instead of trying to “grind” out a long tem profit. Position is much more important. Being the aggressor is much more important. You need to be much tighter up front. As I said before, for your percentage based consideration your number one goal should be to not get busted early. As I said before, for your percentage based consideration your number one goal should be to avoid getting busted early. The play in these funnymoney tournaments is extremely loose so your chances of getting busted earlier is much greater. Thus, you definitely should be folding every hand early (note that if you were trying to win outright it would be advisable to open up a bit to try to take advantage of all the dead money). You are correct in your perception that the texture of the game changes notably as the antes start after 40min. The interesting thing at this point is that although the money is still reasonably deep, the blinds are now well worth stealing. In a deep money cash game, stealing the blinds is generally not any kind of goal, but in shallow money tournament situations it is an essential skill, and is one of the primary reasons you should almost never limp in shallow money situations. I would say that after the antes kick in (for your purposes) it might be Ok to try to play, but only to try to steal the blinds if you are almost sure it would work (note that if you are almost sure it would work you can try with any cards since you will be folding if played back at). However, I doubt you will find too many of these spots as most players will over protect the blinds and EP limpers are almost sure to call.

Metaname also says: “Once the blinds get big and the antes kick in, only play hands in mid-late position.” Are you saying that I should muck AA UTG? And: “only bet if you are the first to enter the pot”. Again, you would muck AA in LP after a few callers?


OK you should realize that AA is in a class by itself in NLHE. I would still reccomend folding it preflop early from any position for your needs, but in the middle/late periods of the tournament you might want to get all your money in preflop (KK too), but only if you can get it heads up or maybe three handed to the flop. Any more then that and you risk an early exit. Frankly, I don’t think you can comfortably manage this from UTG in the funnymoney tournaments, so you should still muck in the middle stages (probably). Note that once the blinds get prohibitively large (10-15BB with the antes) your money pretty much has to move irregardless and the structure dictates that it is all-in or fold preflop. In these situations go ahead and push in with the bigger pairs, you may also try it with 88-jj and AK if you think you might not get called, if you are almost sure that you wont get called, you may try with some smaller pairs and aces. And hell, if you get to about to the 85% mark go ahead and try to win

Most critically, metaname says “Raise the pot, fold if reraised”. When you say “raise the pot” does that mean put in a pot-sized raise?

A pot sized opening raise is almost always about right, many players suggest you always make the same sized (relative to the blinds) opening raise preflop to avoid giving away to much of your hand. This is not bad advice, but I think it can be a better strategy to vary your opening raises somewhat (say between 2-xBB) in a random fashion (perhaps devise a system based on card colors/suits etc.). This way you may create “false tells” to some opponents when you showdown some hands, and it allows you a little flexibility in those circumstances when a pot sized raise is just a little troublesome.

If you had AA would you fold if re-raised?

If there is going to be multi-way action fold, if you can get heads-up or three way, push in.

My original thought in having this goal was to find the best play money human opposition and beat it soundly. If IRC Poker had been up, I would’ve used it instead. I am open to suggestions.

I understand this, and I understand how your goal made sense just as you were starting out. However, the weaknesses of the 85% goal suggest you move on. Look at it this way, by looking at your results from PokerPages tournaments from this month, I can see three results that would likely make the money if they were “real””); a 4th place finish out of 133, a 10th place out of 109, and one where you won outright in a field of 107. If we imagine these as real money events and assume that they all had the same buy in and calculate your winnings using a typical pay out structure (I will use the PokerSchoolOnline structure) you would have won the equivalent of about 53 buyins, even assuming that there was a 10% cut for the casino, you would have more then tripled your money. If you are going to accept short term tournament results as an evaluation of your progress, then these are excellent resulats. I think you could say that you have “beat” this game (again, accepting short tem results). Mdlm, I have never seen you play, but you seem to be a pretty smart guy, and you are obviously thinking about the game a lot; so I practically can guarantee you that you can beat these players.

Maybe enrolling in the PokerPages school and playing ring limit games would be a better goal?

I play on occasion on PokerSchoolOnline (good practice as there is no legal poker near where I live) and there are no limit games at the moment, it is all tournament style. If you are interested in tournament play, I would definitely recommend joining as the players are vastly better then the freeroll players (however, if you continue to use the “system” you just might win a free membership!).

[Mike Gallo]

and 3.75 hours playing ring games.

No offense, but where do you plan on going with this? Play more ring games. I would consider experience in real ring games to be most beneficial.

[Loren]

I would really like to know just where Mason refers to WLLH as a "marginal work". Anxiously awaiting your response.