Playing for a Specific Outcome Article (Question for Ed)

Hey Ed I know that you and David is writing a book about NL theory. I just read your article for this month and remember you saying that you will be giving a small preview of what the new NL theory book will be like. So is the book going to cover things like the specific outcome theory that you mentioned in your article for this month?

[Ed Miller]

The main idea behind the article is that it's sometimes better to go for a small chance at a lot of money than a large chance at a little money (an obvious concept when put that way, but one that people get wrong anyway all the time). Yes, the NL book will cover that concept and many others.

Thanks for the finding the time for the respond Ed. I think the Specific Outcome Article will be very informative and eduational for the ones who read the article. I cant wait till the NL Theory book come out. I'm sure it will be very rewarding to read. Thanks

[Matt Flynn]

Ed,

I would've overbet the pot on the flop and turn. $125, then $450 up to all-in against one caller if I thought he would call. In general you want to hammer hard in low limit when there are multiple draws out but not just for the usual reason: you also want to hammer because THEY WILL CALL. In the long run that will get more money in against the chronic drawers. And no excuses on the flush draw: you have to make that read if you want to play deep stacks.

Matt

[Piers]

I think this is the most important part of the article

[ QUOTE ]
… It's an easy trap to fall into. The endorphins kick in when you win medium pots too. Inducing a bluff may even give you an extra kick above and beyond what you'd get just by being called by a worse hand. Your body wants to pat your brain on the back for being so clever and, most of all, for winning. But maximizing self-satisfaction is not maximizing expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It indicates why most people suck at poker and are unlikely ever to improve.

[Ed Miller]

I wish I'd written the article a little differently. Particularly, I wish I'd made up a clean example hand instead of using a real hand that I played (or misplayed, as it may be). I have a rule when I write that I try never to use an example hand that might have been misplayed, and I broke that rule with this article.

The point I wanted to get across was, "When you have the nuts, don't immediately think, 'How much can I bet and still be relatively sure I'll get called?'" Sometimes you should bet a lot because that huge bet will occasionally get called.

This hand is one where big bets are the way to go, so it does represent my point, but the particular way I played the hand really muddles things.

[Matt Flynn]

Hey Ed no worries about that. The point was a good one.

The problem with writing about no limit is the correct answer is always "it depends." Either you put so many restrictions in place that the hand becomes useless or you make yourself vulnerable to the "but what if" caveat cases.

Have fun playing with Sunny.

Matt

[Mackerel]

[ QUOTE ]
The point I wanted to get across was, "When you have the nuts, don't immediately think, 'How much can I bet and still be relatively sure I'll get called?'" Sometimes you should bet a lot because that huge bet will occasionally get called.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just read this article, and the thought is right on it. I just did this last night:

Full-Tilt $100 NL 6-max. I have just over $100, villian has me covered.

Villian, Loose Passive Calling Station (LPCS) opens for 3x BB. Fold to me on the button and I call w/QTo (debatable call, but the blinds were passive, and I like my chances of getting the money in if I flop big and I'm not losing much if I don't), blinds fold.

Flop: AKx rainbow.

LPCS checks, I check.

Turn: x completing rainbow.

LPCS checks, I check.

River: J

LPCS leads for $5. I think for about 2 seconds and push. LPCS thinks until his timer is almost up, and then calls w/AJo.

Gotta like it when it works. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I don't do this very often, but I think I need to consider it more.

[Ulysses]

Ed,

I'd win $60 to $80 extra if I checked. If he had exactly an ace, I stood to make possibly $820 to $840 extra by betting.

You are talking about a $250ish pot here, right? And you're saying a $900 bet into that pot is significantly more likely to be called than a checkraise all-in. I don't really understand what type of hand ranges you're talking about here. You mention a flush draw as one hand that might call the $900 bet. So, you're saying that a guy is maybe gonna call a $900 bet into a $250 pot w/ a flush draw (or just an Ace as you mention above), but he is going to fold if you checkraise? This doesn't make sense to me. I suspect I might be overlooking something simple here, because the premise as described doesn't make logical sense to me. I'm also not clear if you think he's going to bet $60 to $80 with all his hands or just with his bluffs. That's another part of your plan for the hand that doesn't seem to make sense.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
Ed,

I'd win $60 to $80 extra if I checked. If he had exactly an ace, I stood to make possibly $820 to $840 extra by betting.

You are talking about a $250ish pot here, right? And you're saying a $900 bet into that pot is significantly more likely to be called than a checkraise all-in. I don't really understand what type of hand ranges you're talking about here. You mention a flush draw as one hand that might call the $900 bet. So, you're saying that a guy is maybe gonna call a $900 bet into a $250 pot w/ a flush draw (or just an Ace as you mention above), but he is going to fold if you checkraise? This doesn't make sense to me. I suspect I might be overlooking something simple here, because the premise as described doesn't make logical sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forced the example a bit. I wish I'd used a different example to make the point.