The "fold or raise" mantra... at PP that advice seems poor

[eastbay]

I have been playing quite profitably on a strategy of (almost) never revealing the strength of my hand. That means (almost) no pre-flop raising. That means no raising unless bluffing or on a check-raise on the river.

Now this may be a very poor strategy against "good" opponents but it seems a far superior strategy against PP opponents. When I show strength, people fold. When I wait and hide, people will put themselves in deep against my hand.

I see people here talking all the time about the importance of "protecting" their hand. That calling in general is a sucker's play. Well, my experience is just the opposite. For PL in particular, it's about never giving information about where you are, and pouncing after someone's in too deep not to call.

Works for me.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

If you really think that not protecting vulnerable hands by playing passively is somehow a good strategy, you obviously need to reread your theory of poker. Or perhaps you need to read it for the first time.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
If you really think that not protecting vulnerable hands by playing passively is somehow a good strategy, you obviously need to reread your theory of poker. Or perhaps you need to read it for the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

As if the "theory of poker" has all the answers against all opponents. Look, this whole idea of "correct" strategy is founded on a strange idea of "correct." We do not play cards-up, heads-up poker. Everyone knows that being deceptive is valuable, and to be deceptive, you have to make the "wrong" play. Right? Even "Mr. Correct Play" Sklansky says so in his books.

All I'm saying is that empirically, this particular type of deception via the "wrong" play seems to have particular value against PP-type players. In fact, it seems to have so much value that it becomes the correct play, in terms of profit per hand.

I'd also add that you will lose more hands this way. And some would cringe at laying down KK or AA after slowplaying them and letting them get away from you. But I find that the value in this pays back more than the investment when people find it impossible to put you on a hand.

[hazeelnut]

Just because you win money doesnt mean its a good strategy. I think you could win much more by raising. My guess is that your winnings come more from hand selection skills and knowing when to call and knowing when to fold than from your opponents being fooled by your sneakyness. I mean, i could have a strategy where i always fold aces preflop and still win money, but clearly i would win more by not folding them.

Besides, at low limts people dont generally notice your deceptive plays which makes them even more costly. If this strategy is ever to be used, which i strongly doubt, it would be at the higher limits.

Just curious, what is your win rate and what limits do you play?

Best wishes

Hazeel

[Acesover8s]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing quite profitably on a strategy of (almost) never revealing the strength of my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
That means (almost) no pre-flop raising. That means no raising unless bluffing or on a check-raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad execution. Why not raise with your AA one hand and then raise with your 78s the next? That will put them much more off balance. Just play the proper hands under the proper circumstances and you'll be better off.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
As if the "theory of poker" has all the answers against all opponents. Look, this whole idea of "correct" strategy is founded on a strange idea of "correct." We do not play cards-up, heads-up poker. Everyone knows that being deceptive is valuable, and to be deceptive, you have to make the "wrong" play. Right? Even "Mr. Correct Play" Sklansky says so in his books.


[/ QUOTE ]

You OCCASIONALLY make the "wrong" play against very good, very observant players. As someone who has had a lot of success playing in party no limit and pot limit games, I can tell you I don't make my money against those idiots by making lots of deceptive plays and checking when I have a good hand. These are not good or observant players we are talking about, 80% of party's clietelle are pure idiots. When you have a hand, you BET it, the idiots will call you anyway. Being occasionally deceptive with very strong hands that are very unlikely to be drawn out on is fine, but what you suggest is simply ludicrous, that adopting a general strategy of checking/calling instead of betting/raising is the way to go.

Of course it seems you are teaching here, not asking for comments. But since you have eleven posts and I have over 1300, I will certainly consider changing my otherwise effective and successful strategy to coincide with your advice.

al

[Fistdantilus]

1. Weak players don't care what you have. They don't think about it.

2. If these people are folding to your raises, then wouldn't it make sense to raise MORE and take the pot MORE?

3. If they don't fold, great. Weak players love to call you when you have the better hand, and you should have all the reason in the world to make them pay.

Case in point: a player that plays $25 NL on Party only goes All-in preflop, and only does this with AA-QQ/AKs-QJs. He gets called ALL THE TIME, and takes home big pots. They call with utter garbage, and you don't want to take advantage of that? More money for us then.

Fistdantilus

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Weak players don't care what you have. They don't think about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think these players are quite THAT weak, generally.

[ QUOTE ]

2. If these people are folding to your raises, then wouldn't it make sense to raise MORE and take the pot MORE?


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not, if the pots you are taking are sufficiently small on the one hand, and sufficiently large on the other. Super-simple example: if I get AA four times and bet it "correctly" and strongly each time, and win $10 each time, is that better than folding it three times and taking someone's entire $50 stack on the fourth go? Of course not. $50 is more than $40 for the same number of hands. That's the basic idea of the strategy. I would certainly never play this way in a limit game.

[ QUOTE ]

3. If they don't fold, great. Weak players love to call you when you have the better hand, and you should have all the reason in the world to make them pay.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well these aren't your typical "weak" players then. They're more of the "you check? ok, I bet" variety. "you call, ok I raise."

Case in point: a player that plays $25 NL on Party only goes All-in preflop, and only does this with AA-QQ/AKs-QJs. He gets called ALL THE TIME, and takes home big pots. They call with utter garbage, and you don't want to take advantage of that? More money for us then.

Fistdantilus

[/ QUOTE ]

NL is a little different. I'm talking more PL.

Bob

[Fistdantilus]

[ QUOTE ]
$50 is more than $40 for the same number of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about not winning big pots? Being aggressive means you mask your hand (which you say you want to do), gets people to fold (increasing your win %), AND building large pots (especially in PL). I'm just saying that if they are folding to you all the time, fantastic. You win the big AND little pots.

[ QUOTE ]
Well these aren't your typical "weak" players then.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? You mean these people can't recognize the fact that you are check-calling and they just keep betting into you? That's pretty weak if they can't figure that out.

Fistdantilus

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As if the "theory of poker" has all the answers against all opponents. Look, this whole idea of "correct" strategy is founded on a strange idea of "correct." We do not play cards-up, heads-up poker. Everyone knows that being deceptive is valuable, and to be deceptive, you have to make the "wrong" play. Right? Even "Mr. Correct Play" Sklansky says so in his books.


[/ QUOTE ]

You OCCASIONALLY make the "wrong" play against very good, very observant players. As someone who has had a lot of success playing in party no limit and pot limit games, I can tell you I don't make my money against those idiots by making lots of deceptive plays and checking when I have a good hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, ok, there's more than one winning strategy. I'm just explaining one which seems to get less press than the aggressive "don't call, raise" style.

[ QUOTE ]

These are not good or observant players we are talking about, 80% of party's clietelle are pure idiots.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think even a "pure idiot" has a sense of "oh, he's raising that much? Crap, I might be beat, I won't risk any more money." That same "idiot" might also think "oh, he's only calling? He must have a weak hand. I'll bet harder on the river."

[ QUOTE ]

When you have a hand, you BET it, the idiots will call you anyway. Being occasionally deceptive with very strong hands that are very unlikely to be drawn out on is fine, but what you suggest is simply ludicrous, that adopting a general strategy of checking/calling instead of betting/raising is the way to go.


[/ QUOTE ]

I oversimplified my strategy somewhat. There are definitely times when you have a read on someone to put the pot odds against them with a strong bet or raise. I do that sometimes in specific scenarios, like a suspected 4-flush against my trips. On the other hand, sometimes I will LET people draw out on me, because I expect that inducing a bluff is profitable enough to cover the loss of my laydown if they hit. That in particular can be a very profitable technique.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course it seems you are teaching here, not asking for comments. But since you have eleven posts and I have over 1300, I will certainly consider changing my otherwise effective and successful strategy to coincide with your advice.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, I want comments and discussion. Just something a little meatier than "that's not what TOP says".