I have a suggestion for your no-limit play in general...
In my opinion, the math is important but simple in no-limit, but the dominating factor is how to play the opponent and how to pick situations/opportunities.
From your blog, I've noticed that you (and Nick too) do exhaustive mathematical analysis of situations in no-limit play, but don't discuss the psychological angles of a hand very often. Unlike the mechanical, odds-based nature of limit play (this is not a diss to limit!), no-limit is about power, deception, preying on your opponents weaknesses, and sensing when to duck out of potentially dangerous situations.
Off the cuff: Knowing and understanding your opposition's psychology is very important: who will draw against pot odds, who will lay down to strong bets, who will gamble, who bluffs when they missed their draw, who is tilting, etc. etc. Try to look for areas where you could steal pots from weak players, out wit the tricky players, or confuse the straight-up players. Winning pots by sheer strength where you don't have odds is something possible in no-limit, but is difficult to do in limit, and those pots add up in the long run. Trapping players (one of my favorite techniques) can be suicide in limit poker, but is effective in no-limit where you generally have fewer players seeing the board (ex. slow playing a set vs. someone’s two pair or flush draw, getting them to commit a lot of their chips before you spring on them).
In addition to strength, I think that having the ability to lay down a big hand for a really big pile of chips when confronted with a situation where you're not entirely sure what is going on is important. Making a mistake costs you one more bet in limit, and an entire stack in no-limit. When faced with an all-in from Adam with three sevens on the board, and me not having the case 7, I would lay down the 3rd nut hand *if I can lose a deep stack*. With a short stack, it’s an easy call for me because it doesn’t cost me much if I’m wrong. Adam plays any two cards all the time hoping to bust players unable to make lay-downs of over pairs when he’s hit two pair or hit a weird set. I’d dump the hand when he moves all in, lick my wounds and look for a situation in a later hand where I can trap him for all his chips (or for at least as many as I have). If it turns out that he in fact had a weak ace, and we would have chopped in the end, so be it.
Look at it another way: On the river when he pushes in, if he had a weak ace as you postulated he might have had, the best you’ll get is a chop, you won’t even win a dime of his money. If he has the seven, you’ve lost everything. That kind of risk:reward ratio sucks. (Incidentally, making risk:reward ratio work for you against other players is a massive strength in no-limit) If that’s me, he can have the (small amount of) money I committed before his push, because I’m patient enough save my big stack as ammo and to wait to get my chips back later with interest when he makes a mistake and I know I’m golden.
Be more selective about situations where you put the entire stack at risk. This does NOT mean I advocate playing weak to big bets, I’m just saying that in no-limit don’t let yourself get drawn into tenuous situations, instead wait for better opportunities.
Now, some of my strategy may seem weak to the Bruson fans, but playing this way, I’m a consistent winner at Riverstreet (and all other places I play), so it can’t be entirely wrong.
The lousy bad beats you took in the other hands just happen from time to time. Can’t remember the particulars of those hands, but you can’t let somebody hitting a two or three outer affect your game.
Anyways, a rambling post at best. My point was: look for non-mathematical angles to improve your no-limit game.
In my defense (I'll let Bradley speak for himself), I'm glad to discuss my own psychology because it's a moving target and I am not giving up too much information by discussing interesting things that I have learned at RS and elsewhere. By the time the next session rolls around, I am usually playing differently anyway. However, if I have a particular psychological angle that explains my play against another player, I sometimes gloss over that detail in explaining a hand, because *so many* RS players read this blog.
In other words, it's not that I don't understand these psychological aspects of poker that you mention, it's just that I am not really interested in discussing the hands where I won through psychology rather than solid math. (For example, I raised preflop and then bet from first position into a A75 board with 32o against Matt last night and therefore I am sure he laid down a better hand. But I wouldn't have mentioned except in response to this comment.)
Understood. My post above definitely wasn't a criticism of either of your play, just an observation on the blog contents, and a friendly suggestion to Bradley where he find might angles to strengthen his no-limit game and break out of the bankroll stagnation he described.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: It's the bad play, not the money
Date: 2005-02-28 21:06 (UTC)In my opinion, the math is important but simple in no-limit, but the dominating factor is how to play the opponent and how to pick situations/opportunities.
From your blog, I've noticed that you (and Nick too) do exhaustive mathematical analysis of situations in no-limit play, but don't discuss the psychological angles of a hand very often. Unlike the mechanical, odds-based nature of limit play (this is not a diss to limit!), no-limit is about power, deception, preying on your opponents weaknesses, and sensing when to duck out of potentially dangerous situations.
Off the cuff:
Knowing and understanding your opposition's psychology is very important: who will draw against pot odds, who will lay down to strong bets, who will gamble, who bluffs when they missed their draw, who is tilting, etc. etc. Try to look for areas where you could steal pots from weak players, out wit the tricky players, or confuse the straight-up players. Winning pots by sheer strength where you don't have odds is something possible in no-limit, but is difficult to do in limit, and those pots add up in the long run. Trapping players (one of my favorite techniques) can be suicide in limit poker, but is effective in no-limit where you generally have fewer players seeing the board (ex. slow playing a set vs. someone’s two pair or flush draw, getting them to commit a lot of their chips before you spring on them).
In addition to strength, I think that having the ability to lay down a big hand for a really big pile of chips when confronted with a situation where you're not entirely sure what is going on is important. Making a mistake costs you one more bet in limit, and an entire stack in no-limit. When faced with an all-in from Adam with three sevens on the board, and me not having the case 7, I would lay down the 3rd nut hand *if I can lose a deep stack*. With a short stack, it’s an easy call for me because it doesn’t cost me much if I’m wrong. Adam plays any two cards all the time hoping to bust players unable to make lay-downs of over pairs when he’s hit two pair or hit a weird set. I’d dump the hand when he moves all in, lick my wounds and look for a situation in a later hand where I can trap him for all his chips (or for at least as many as I have). If it turns out that he in fact had a weak ace, and we would have chopped in the end, so be it.
Look at it another way: On the river when he pushes in, if he had a weak ace as you postulated he might have had, the best you’ll get is a chop, you won’t even win a dime of his money. If he has the seven, you’ve lost everything. That kind of risk:reward ratio sucks. (Incidentally, making risk:reward ratio work for you against other players is a massive strength in no-limit) If that’s me, he can have the (small amount of) money I committed before his push, because I’m patient enough save my big stack as ammo and to wait to get my chips back later with interest when he makes a mistake and I know I’m golden.
Be more selective about situations where you put the entire stack at risk. This does NOT mean I advocate playing weak to big bets, I’m just saying that in no-limit don’t let yourself get drawn into tenuous situations, instead wait for better opportunities.
Now, some of my strategy may seem weak to the Bruson fans, but playing this way, I’m a consistent winner at Riverstreet (and all other places I play), so it can’t be entirely wrong.
The lousy bad beats you took in the other hands just happen from time to time. Can’t remember the particulars of those hands, but you can’t let somebody hitting a two or three outer affect your game.
Anyways, a rambling post at best. My point was: look for non-mathematical angles to improve your no-limit game.
Re: It's the bad play, not the money
Date: 2005-03-02 17:52 (UTC)In other words, it's not that I don't understand these psychological aspects of poker that you mention, it's just that I am not really interested in discussing the hands where I won through psychology rather than solid math. (For example, I raised preflop and then bet from first position into a A75 board with 32o against Matt last night and therefore I am sure he laid down a better hand. But I wouldn't have mentioned except in response to this comment.)
Re: It's the bad play, not the money
Date: 2005-03-02 18:27 (UTC)