2019 Poker Discussion Thread

[barn32]

Originally Posted by Tor Ekman

I'll add two more observations:

I don't understand how some players come to the table apparently having only $100 or even less at their disposal. I noted one sharp guy paying quite obvious attention to this factor and making quick work of some of them.

Maybe they are limiting their losses to ~$100. I frequently buy in for the minimum and leave if I go bust. Big stacks can't push around small stacks--it's the other way around.

Originally Posted by Tor Ekman

I don't get why the "Dunning-Kruger guys" feel compelled to explain to the table the whys and wherefores of both their winning and losing plays . . . well, I guess I get it in that that's what makes them D-K guys and betrays their lack of self-awareness and over-estimation of their expertise.

I've never played with Dunning or Kruger, but in Vegas you rarely hear discussion of the play. The discussion you normally hear might be something along the lines of, "Wow, he had a big draw." Or, "He picked up a lot of outs on the turn,", or, "He made a pretty good call," which is just normal post hand chit-chat.

In-depth hand analysis just doesn't happen that much, in fact, it's pretty rare, but when you do get a quasi-expert extolling his brilliance, I just pop in my ear-buds and zone it out.

[Tor Ekman]

Originally Posted by proximity

awesome report tor!!!!

when do you think your next game is?!?!

Thanks. I'd like to get there for a game once a month, my wife's group of friends does a Sunday brunch thing for their birthdays which is about 6-8 times a year depending on whether they do any joint celebrations, so that gets me halfway there and I'll just need to find a few other occasions to sneak away. In the meantime, I need to do some serious reading/studying and work on my poker math skills. It was good to get my feet wet on the live-game experience, but I won't lie, I was flying by the seat of my pants quite a bit, relying on old-school intuitive play. Staying very tight kept me out of trouble but also made me overly risk-averse in certain instances when probabilities were in my favor. If I just keep playing like I did on Saturday it will be a losing proposition. This is definitely a work-in-progress.

[Tor Ekman]

Originally Posted by barn32

Big stacks can't push around small stacks--it's the other way around.

Could you elaborate on this, please? Because with my table stakes fluctuating between $150-$250 and looking across the table at a guy who had amassed a multitude of tall stacks, I sure didn't feel like I was in any position to push him around.

[barn32]

Originally Posted by Tor Ekman

Could you elaborate on this, please? Because with my table stakes fluctuating between $150-$250 and looking across the table at a guy who had amassed a multitude of tall stacks, I sure didn't feel like I was in any position to push him around.

If you have $100 and he has $500 how is he going to push you around? It's much easier for you to go all-in than him. Now you're pushing him around.

I don't know what you're playing, but let's say it's $1-2. He opens for $12 and you push with QQ (or KK, or AA or AKs, etc.) Or you open for $7 and he makes it $23 and you push with the same hands. What's he going to do? He can't push back. It's call or fold. If he makes a move, and puts you all-in, again, your loss is limited if you decide to call.

Short stacks are really at no disadvantage to large stacks. It might be cheaper for them to call in their opinion, but if they're taking the worst of it they're taking the worst of it. (And vice-versa.) It doesn't matter for how much.

If you double twice now you're a big stack.

As your stack grows larger, or if you buy-in for a big stack different considerations apply. It's much harder (and more dangerous) to play for stacks so you're generally playing for less money (vis-a-vis your stack size) and being more prudent. Things like pot control, free cards, isolation and other types of strategies come into play.

Personally, I prefer starting with a short stack and like to try turning into a large stack. It helps me manage better as well.

[how cliche]

here's an 'in a vacuum' cash game spot that comes up with some frequency.

suppose you're playing 1/2 and for ease of scene we'll say five people are stacked btw 300 and 600 and five are stacked under 150.

ok pre. deeper stack opens utg+1 to 15. there's folds, calls and no three bets, as is typical in these games. three callers, only one from a shortish(170)stack. it gets to you in the sb holding jj. you start the hand w 370. what do you do?

remember there are no right or wrong answers.

gotta go. ttyl. look fwd to responses.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by barn32

If you have $100 and he has $500 how is he going to push you around? It's much easier for you to go all-in than him. Now you're pushing him around.

I don't know what you're playing, but let's say it's $1-2. He opens for $12 and you push with QQ (or KK, or AA or AKs, etc.) Or you open for $7 and he makes it $23 and you push with the same hands. What's he going to do? He can't push back. It's call or fold. If he makes a move, and puts you all-in, again, your loss is limited if you decide to call.

Short stacks are really at no disadvantage to large stacks. It might be cheaper for them to call in their opinion, but if they're taking the worst of it they're taking the worst of it. (And vice-versa.) It doesn't matter for how much.

If you double twice now you're a big stack.

As your stack grows larger, or if you buy-in for a big stack different considerations apply. It's much harder (and more dangerous) to play for stacks so you're generally playing for less money (vis-a-vis your stack size) and being more prudent. Things like pot control, free cards, isolation and other types of strategies come into play.

Personally, I prefer starting with a short stack and like to try turning into a large stack. It helps me manage better as well.

It all depends on how the short stack looks at his $100 initial buy-in. I play against some short stacks who treat their money as if it's all the money that they have in the world. They start off with $100, lose $50 of it...and sit there with the remaining $50 waiting for aces and kings. How is that "pushing around" the bigger stacks?

It's beneficial to start with a smaller stack, especially if one is a less confident, less experienced player...because the playing decisions get easier to make than if one is managing a big stack. But it all has to be part of a well-thought-out and well-executed plan. You don't just put a short stack in front of you, and then wait for AA, KK or QQ...so you can shove. The short stack also has to have an adjustment strategy for when his stack gets big...unless he plans to change tables and start with a short stack all over again.

To summarize, the player shouldn't play a short stack because he is scared of losing money...because his fear will then put him at an automatic disadvantage relative to the rest of the group. He should play a short stack only as part of a well-though-out plan...backed up by an adequate bankroll for the endeavor. The short stack can indeed be an advantage...but only if the player knows what that advantage is...and how to properly utilize it. The short stacks that I see are reluctant to add to their stacks once they take a minor hit...and they sit there with only a few chips waiting to double or triple up to the point where they started from. Sad...

[proximity]

Originally Posted by how cliche

here's an 'in a vacuum' cash game spot that comes up with some frequency.

suppose you're playing 1/2 and for ease of scene we'll say five people are stacked btw 300 and 600 and five are stacked under 150.

ok pre. deeper stack opens utg+1 to 15. there's folds, calls and no three bets, as is typical in these games. three callers, only one from a shortish(170)stack. it gets to you in the sb holding jj. you start the hand w 370. what do you do?

remember there are no right or wrong answers.

gotta go. ttyl. look fwd to responses.

i primarily use the recommendations from ed scimia's catching fish which is a call here although I would frequently 3 bet a little more than the pot to cut down the sprs and force a clear error from a lot of calling hands. of course I am also looking at who the raiser is in these situations.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by Tor Ekman

Could you elaborate on this, please? Because with my table stakes fluctuating between $150-$250 and looking across the table at a guy who had amassed a multitude of tall stacks, I sure didn't feel like I was in any position to push him around.

in a lot of 1-2 games bigger stacks can make mistakes against smaller stacks that usually wouldn't be a mistake. the smaller stack can raise amounts that because of the stack to pot ratio should be a fold but are usually a call for the bigger stack player.

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by how cliche

here's an 'in a vacuum' cash game spot that comes up with some frequency.

suppose you're playing 1/2 and for ease of scene we'll say five people are stacked btw 300 and 600 and five are stacked under 150.

ok pre. deeper stack opens utg+1 to 15. there's folds, calls and no three bets, as is typical in these games. three callers, only one from a shortish(170)stack. it gets to you in the sb holding jj. you start the hand w 370. what do you do?

remember there are no right or wrong answers.

gotta go. ttyl. look fwd to responses.

Of course it depends what type of players are involved, but for me this is almost always a call. A good player opening from UTG+1 is usually going to be doing so with a hand that tends to be on the stronger side. With JJ you are crushed if the opener has QQ+, and you are only a slight favorite against AK (and AQ if one chooses to open that). And, when you do call, you will have the additional liability of being out of position against all the remaining players for the balance of the hand. It stinks if the flop has an overcard, but with multiple pre-flop callers followed by a flop bet, it is safe to go ahead and fold. Unless in late position and with perhaps just a few limpers, pocket Jacks IMO are most of the time just another pair looking to set mine, albeit very strong if they do hit.

BTW thanks for your report!

[barn32]

Who could this possibly be?

[how cliche]

so thank you guys for the replies. i asked cuz this spot happened twice in a 9 hr session. got the urge to do it so i went to a local room. these were the key hands, no doubt. first one i disliked then and dislike now too. second one i liked then and like now too. i wrote it in my journal and can post it, but tbh it's tldr. if no, in general, but yes individually i can pm.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by barn32

Who could this possibly be?

Leave the humor to the experts...

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tor Ekman

I'll add two more observations:

I don't understand how some players come to the table apparently having only $100 or even less at their disposal. I noted one sharp guy paying quite obvious attention to this factor and making quick work of some of them.

I don't get why the "Dunning-Kruger guys" feel compelled to explain to the table the whys and wherefores of both their winning and losing plays . . . well, I guess I get it in that that's what makes them D-K guys and betrays their lack of self-awareness and over-estimation of their expertise.

I'm something of a dissenter from the poker community on strat talk at the table.

Poker is a social game, and you need things in common to discuss with other people at the table. Well, one common interest you actually have is... poker!

That doesn't mean discuss in detail how your hand is good 32 percent of the time against his range and therefore you can call a 1/4 pot bet on the river, or something similar. But it does mean there's nothing wrong with complimenting an opponent on a good play, or saying in general terms why you did something, e.g., "I had a big draw" or whatever, or agreeing with obvious statements, e.g., "I folded 72" (said after the flop comes 522), reply "good fold, it's still a terrible hand".

This stuff isn't nearly the big deal that some self-styled "pros" make it into.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It all depends on how the short stack looks at his $100 initial buy-in. I play against some short stacks who treat their money as if it's all the money that they have in the world. They start off with $100, lose $50 of it...and sit there with the remaining $50 waiting for aces and kings. How is that "pushing around" the bigger stacks?

It's beneficial to start with a smaller stack, especially if one is a less confident, less experienced player...because the playing decisions get easier to make than if one is managing a big stack. But it all has to be part of a well-thought-out and well-executed plan. You don't just put a short stack in front of you, and then wait for AA, KK or QQ...so you can shove. The short stack also has to have an adjustment strategy for when his stack gets big...unless he plans to change tables and start with a short stack all over again.

To summarize, the player shouldn't play a short stack because he is scared of losing money...because his fear will then put him at an automatic disadvantage relative to the rest of the group. He should play a short stack only as part of a well-though-out plan...backed up by an adequate bankroll for the endeavor. The short stack can indeed be an advantage...but only if the player knows what that advantage is...and how to properly utilize it. The short stacks that I see are reluctant to add to their stacks once they take a minor hit...and they sit there with only a few chips waiting to double or triple up to the point where they started from. Sad...

This is entirely correct.

By the way, don't play a short stack at all in limit. Have enough to cover any reasonable number of bets on a hand (at least 15BB). Follow thas' advice on no limit.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Track Collector

Of course it depends what type of players are involved, but for me this is almost always a call. A good player opening from UTG+1 is usually going to be doing so with a hand that tends to be on the stronger side. With JJ you are crushed if the opener has QQ+, and you are only a slight favorite against AK (and AQ if one chooses to open that). And, when you do call, you will have the additional liability of being out of position against all the remaining players for the balance of the hand. It stinks if the flop has an overcard, but with multiple pre-flop callers followed by a flop bet, it is safe to go ahead and fold. Unless in late position and with perhaps just a few limpers, pocket Jacks IMO are most of the time just another pair looking to set mine, albeit very strong if they do hit.

BTW thanks for your report!

The problem with calling out of position is now what are you going to do on a low card flop? Go all in? Fold?

The reality is your decision point in this hand is pre-flop. You either commit to yourself to the pot, raise an amount that allows you to raise-fold, or you say that the raiser has a stronger range and call with the intention of x/folding any flop that doesn't have a J in it (set mining).