Hit and Run vs. Taking Command vs. Trapping

[Shaman]

Thanks for the detailed advice. Would I make more implementing your advice staying at the same table OR would I make more if I continued playing my style in an entirely new table?

[Shaman]

I'm transfering cero_z's post into my private blog so that I can easily access it over the next few weeks until I've solved my leak.

As to your advice, can I still continue to make 2 to 6 dollar raises almost every other hand pre-flop BUT be more vigilant in completely shutting down once I've seen the flop? In other words, would playing tight-aggressive flop and beyond while continuing to play loose-aggressive preflop be profitable once I've got a bigger stack than most? I'm really happy about how I'm able to control the table preflop with my tiny raises. Now I just need to know how I should proceed from the flop onwards if I hit the nuts, flop nothing, or flop a draw.

[Rocaix]

In addition, I think another problem you may have is changing gears. Playing a strong controlled LAG style is a nice way to build a stack, but eventually your opponents catch on to what your doing and start playing back at you.

I think you need to be constantly changing gears so that your opponents at the table can never really get a line on you. Start off building a LAG image, once you've stolen enough pots switch to a Rock image to trap the other players who still think you're constantly stealing from them. Then alternate between the two every dozen orbits or so to continously confuse the other players. Additionally, even if your in Rock mode, you can still pounce on new players who have no knowledge yet of your style.

[NiceCatch]

You could try a pretty universal tactic: raise an exact amount before the flop (in relation to the pot) preflop, such as 3xBB+pot or 2xBB+pot, then 90% of the time on the flop bet 2/3rds or 3/4ths the pot, regardless of what comes. From that point on, play it depending on your cards; i.e. play correct poker. If you hit, play your hand, and if you don't, drop your hand to a bet or raise.

I would also recommend that you slow down a tad with the preflop raises, be a little more patient, and start picking your spots. Your earlier play (while you were doubling or tripling up) should be enough to get your good hands action. Once you have established a decent stack, it's a good idea to start playing more from position, and raising more preflop from position (well, it always is a good idea to do this).

[NiceCatch]

[ QUOTE ]
How about if I just stayed and bullied the table Paul Philips (at the Mirage 2-5)- style? BTW, this last option was what I have been attempting to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't tried this tactic much myself, but I've heard that it works much better when you actually are Paul Phillips.

But seriously, the point is that PP can play that way because he is very good at making reads, putting people on hands, and is just good at post-flop play in general. It's very tricky, and you need to be on top of your game to be attempting this.

[Alexthegreat]

The idea of switching gears is very important....you always want to be a few steps ahead of your opponents...Play loose then play tight....make a few crazy calls when you can afford to gamble, then check-raise the nuts on the turn....etc...etc...

Also the point about post-flop play should not be forgotten....just raising preflop and potting the flop does not make you good post-flop....Put people on hands, try to always make the correct play, incorporate blocking bets and semi-bluffs into your game...

Most importantly, tame your aggression....know when you are beat....

Ideally, when you are a big stack at the table, you should be able to make more and more money, not lose it fast....you have a huge advantage and if you pick the right situations to use your stack, you will be dominating these games

[cero_z]

Hi Shaman,

You played both hands reasonably, but I would've taken a different route on hand #1, and I think it illustrates where you can take your style.

You're really asking for it by making that raise pre-flop into all those limpers. The table must've been tremendously passive to make that a good play (I don't play in these games, so I don't know). I think you have a better chance of stealing on the flop if you don't tickle it with that raise. It's already a big pot before you raise, and your strategy should be to steal the small pots, and have the goods in the big pots .

When everyone called, and then checked to you, I would've definitely checked. Again, though, it could be that the table was so weak, there was a decent chance for you to win right there. If I did that in the 1K, I would always get raised on that semi-coordinated, no-high-card board. The beauty of taking the free card is that if they're trapping you with a set, and you make the straight on the turn, you'll stack them in any size game, because they want to get you so bad, they've finally got a good hand, and they won't have the discipline to get away from it.

But as you played it, I say he has a nice big hand, and you have zero fold equity. But, you're getting 4 to 1 immediate odds, with 30 bucks left. You have to call on the turn if a blank hits, but not if the board pairs, so I wouldn't push. I'd call, and fold if the board paired on the turn; otherwise call. It's not a huge mistake if you wrongly fold getting 7 to 1 on the turn as a 5 to 1 dog.

Shaun's point about pushing for metagame purposes is a good one (and it can't be very wrong if it's wrong at all), but bankroll preservation may be a more important issue for you; remember that Paul Phillips has a pretty nice roll.

Hand #2 sucks, but you must call. He probably hit K9, but maybe he's countering your semi-bluff-looking bet by pushing a blank turn with just a King. Do people think that much at this level? Because his bet doesn't make much sense, and he doesn't give you credit for much, call.

You seem like you're doing OK. Good luck.

[Shaman]

Thanks to you. And thanks to the other posters as well. I'll keep on learning. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Shoog]

Hi,
Reading the description of your play and the couple of hands you've posted, I can't help but to think about "giving up the lead", which is a bridge concept I first learned from my father.

I'm not a great bridge player or as good a hold'm player as many posters here, but I am well read and have logged a good amount of hours at the tables and in front of the screens. You might benefit from giving up the lead or downshifting 20 pct or 30 pct of the time and let someone else lead, especially if you have the nuts or a strong hand. Doyle's style is a good tool but a carpenter doesn't just need a hammer he needs a saw, a chisel and many other instruments, if you'll forgive the crude analogy.

You are my bread and butter, at least the way you describe yourself. You are in lots of pots and raising with less than optimum hands. You called a tight BB raise with a K8 with at least two other people in the pot. Sure you hit a near perfect flop for your hole cards, but this should send up a red flag in your mind. A tight player raises in early position, knowing that a madman sits on the button and other callers. I'm planning to put my unborn child through college on players just like you.

You probably don't have to play as aggressive as much as you think to preserve you strong table image and still make money.
As you paint your play, I and probably many other players on the table would key off you. We sit back and wait for strong starters. Eventually we hit and you don't and you bet it up for us when we play weak. We call until we feel the pot is big enough to force you to call the hammer that we drop on the river. Players like that are some of the most profitable situations I have found.

You want to earn respect from your opponents not have them think of you as their next meal by over bullying, Doyle makes this point. It's not hard to tell when someone is just aggressive and when someone is in too many pots and aggressive.

Superaggressive styles by players without the experience and skills to pull them off are sitting ducks for traps.
Playing aggressive is a lot harder than people think -- you must be flawless in knowing when to give it up if you suspect you're beat. And as you say you are coming out busted.

You should also consider that after sitting for a couple of hours, your play and judgment are probably deteriorating from fatigue, making you vulnerable.
hope it helps. chrs
[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
I made the following post in the small stakes nolimit HE forum:

"Almost every single session of 1-2 (100 or 200 max) I double/triple up very easily using loose aggressive play with small pre-flop raises that build pots which I then steal on the flop. Sometimes I would hit too and get paid off. It takes me less than two hours to double or triple up.

The problem is that almost every time this happens ( which is almost literally every time!) I end up giving back everything that I have accumulated. It works like clock work. I accumulate Doyle Brunson-style then it all disappears. Should I do a hit and run each time I've accumulated? Or should I just tighten up after I'm up?"

The responses I got for this post was that I should either set a stop-win in which I would quit the table and move to another table (and do the Doyle Brunson thing all over again) OR that once I have accumulated I should then tighten up to take advantage of my loose image for trapping purposes.

Question: Which of these two actions would create more money for me? Remember, I made twice the buy-in in less than two hours at this point. Can I make more if I stayed at the same table but tightened up?

How about if I just stayed and bullied the table Paul Philips (at the Mirage 2-5)- style? BTW, this last option was what I have been attempting to do.

So, which of the three options is best? Is there a fourth or fifth option that I may be blind to?

[/ QUOTE ]

in an old thread you said phds in thailand make <100/month. this isnt correct, and not even close.