Dn Playing 100/200

[Acid_Knight 2]

1. CTS is a super good player. Open the window for him and he is very capable of throwing you off the roof if you get too frisky.2. We are super deep. Playing 100 BB stacks is very different than almost 300 BB's.3. Check calling flop to make it look like a draw so he double barrels, and maybe fires a 3rd as a bluff.4. 8 on the turn is a bad card. If I check-raise the turn he folds anything but a set or a draw. If we get it all in on turn, I'm usually behind. Either way he will NOT call river.5. If I check-raise the river it's hard for me to realistically rep J-10. Problem is, HE CAN. If I check-raise river, how would you bitches like it when he shoves? Nice spot right? You like that spot do you? Then be my guest. It's a pretty spewtastic river check-raise with a hand like 999. Tough to fold to a shove, the problem is, your opponent IS capable of shoving on you with air. Of all the forum posts I read about this hand only one guy understood my line and thought it was fine. It was a guy who plays in the game. Also had another top online pro comment on my line in the hand and he thought it was excellent. Listen to the pros, or listen to people who think, "You have three of a kind man!!! Raise!!!!!" Whatevs man, I think I'm doing just fine and my improvement in just the last week has been pretty significant. I've worked hard, and it's made me the best I've ever been. Laugh at the 999 hand in a vacuum if you like, it doesn't phase me because I know the play was fine. If I thought I made a mistake on the hand I'd say so.5086 hands+$90,295

I agree with Naismith. If you're so sure that he's going to rep JT on the river regardless of whether or not he has it, then raise/calling would seem to be a pretty profitable play. Also, just because you open yourself up to getting shoved on or raised doesn't mean that raising is a bad play- he can certainly make up his mind about a lot of things and call you pretty lightly. You can raise/fold the hand if that's what you feel is the right move based on timing and sizing of his raise (if he makes one) and it's not like the stacks are such that it'd be a really awkward spot for this. It's also pretty easy for him to make up his mind that you wouldn't play a set like this and you don't often have JT so most of your range includes missed draws or a hand like T8 that you're turning into a bluff and thus enabling him to reason that he can profitably call the river c/r with aces there.I agree that raising the turn here is probably not going to be the best play since he's probably going to fold all of his 1 pair hands since you are going to have hands like sets and straights and two pair hands all day, but raise the flop or the river.Also +1 to Fighter's advice of asking someone who isn't playing in the game with you whether or not this is really good or not. I mean, do you really think CTS or someone's going to tell you that you made a bad play when they thought it was a bad play and you two were going to be sitting in the same game again together tomorrow?

[Acid_Knight 2]

Well you gave away over $100k with J8/middle pair, what's wrong with doing it with a set?

you bitches

[Naismith 0]

Well you gave away over $100k with J8/middle pair, what's wrong with doing it with a set?

I know everyone doesn't like Elezra, but I like his style. I haven't really seen him spew in a lot of spots.

Ouch, rough getting burned by a guy who thinks Elezra plays perfect poker!

[looshle 6]

+1 for being one of DN's "bitches"

[Voldemort 0]

+1 for being one of DN's "bitches"

loooool

[Tehtoe 3]

Very nice analysis DN.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Obviously this would make its way in here.I mean, she's got the 5th nuts and DN had the 4th nuts. CTS was also betting though, so obviously he's gonna have nuts 1, 2 or 3

[steve7stud 0]

Obviously this would make its way in here.I mean, she's got the 5th nuts and DN had the 4th nuts. CTS was also betting though, so obviously he's gonna have nuts 1, 2 or 3

I've seen the clip before. For some reason, watching it now I think it is literally one of the funniest things I have ever seen. The reason that it is so funny is because the looks are all subtle. Nobody says anything, but the thoughts are all just floating in the air..........

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Obviously this would make its way in here.I mean, she's got the 5th nuts and DN had the 4th nuts. CTS was also betting though, so obviously he's gonna have nuts 1, 2 or 3

LOL That's why I posted that pic of ivey, I believe it's from that episode.

[Gallo 1]

Ouch, rough getting burned by a guy who thinks Elezra plays perfect poker!

I never said he was perfect!! Just that I liked his style, I like his jacket!!

[NoSup4U 0]

From aejones in the 2p2 thread regarding Daniel's K9 hand:**********since most people know they can get whatever info they need on training sites nowadays anyways and no one reads HSNL and no one will probably read this post except DN, i might as well say what needs to be said.the flop is an 'okay' lead only if we know that it is a proper bet-fold or bet to induce against these players. multi-way i would choose not to lead it with less information because we do have some showdown value and i would rank our hand strong enough to check-call instead of turning it into a bluff.the turn is okay to bet or check-call. you are certainly not perceived to have many or any bluffs in your range after you bet the flop and the turn on this board texture and the board pairs. assuming we bet, which may very well be best, there is basically no benefit to 3-betting. before you make an aggressive play in poker where you put more money into the pot, you just have to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish. in this case i promise you (as many have probably said) that you cannot define your 3-bet on the turn as either value or a bluff, so again, you are confusing yourself when in fact it would be a trivial call. if we are behind, we have 'nut' outs. if we know our opponent, we can call the turn because we know we "will" or "won't" get bluffed by this player once we call the turn.if he is a good high stakes player, then we will more than likely have to "check-decide" on the river after we call the turn. although it is not a favorable spot, it is infinitely better than 3-betting and opening ourselves up to further aggression with what is a medium strength hand on this board texture (possibly even a weak hand if we're talking about playing for stacks). essentially, when we get raised on the turn, we wanna get to ****en showdown ASAP! **********Didn't want to post this on 2p2 Daniel, but just fyi this is something every solid winning 2/4nl and above player online could easily articulate. Maybe not the flop lead theory, that might be a little above 2/4nl. But everything else for sure, and if we're talking 5/10nl, these concepts are pretty basic to them, just so you have some reference on skill level.Mark

[grocery_mony 8]

From aejones in the 2p2 thread regarding Daniel's K9 hand:**********since most people know they can get whatever info they need on training sites nowadays anyways and no one reads HSNL and no one will probably read this post except DN, i might as well say what needs to be said.the flop is an 'okay' lead only if we know that it is a proper bet-fold or bet to induce against these players. multi-way i would choose not to lead it with less information because we do have some showdown value and i would rank our hand strong enough to check-call instead of turning it into a bluff.the turn is okay to bet or check-call. you are certainly not perceived to have many or any bluffs in your range after you bet the flop and the turn on this board texture and the board pairs. assuming we bet, which may very well be best, there is basically no benefit to 3-betting. before you make an aggressive play in poker where you put more money into the pot, you just have to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish. in this case i promise you (as many have probably said) that you cannot define your 3-bet on the turn as either value or a bluff, so again, you are confusing yourself when in fact it would be a trivial call. if we are behind, we have 'nut' outs. if we know our opponent, we can call the turn because we know we "will" or "won't" get bluffed by this player once we call the turn.if he is a good high stakes player, then we will more than likely have to "check-decide" on the river after we call the turn. although it is not a favorable spot, it is infinitely better than 3-betting and opening ourselves up to further aggression with what is a medium strength hand on this board texture (possibly even a weak hand if we're talking about playing for stacks). essentially, when we get raised on the turn, we wanna get to ****en showdown ASAP! **********Didn't want to post this on 2p2 Daniel, but just fyi this is something every solid winning 2/4nl and above player online could easily articulate. Maybe not the flop lead theory, that might be a little above 2/4nl. But everything else for sure, and if we're talking 5/10nl, these concepts are pretty basic to them, just so you have some reference on skill level.Mark

Is there a HH for that hand somewhere in this thread? Would like to see exactly what he is talking about.

[fighter 4]

Is there a HH for that hand somewhere in this thread? Would like to see exactly what he is talking about.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19/high-...nl/help-744691/

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I agree with Naismith. If you're so sure that he's going to rep JT on the river regardless of whether or not he has it, then raise/calling would seem to be a pretty profitable play. Also, just because you open yourself up to getting shoved on or raised doesn't mean that raising is a bad play- he can certainly make up his mind about a lot of things and call you pretty lightly. You can raise/fold the hand if that's what you feel is the right move based on timing and sizing of his raise (if he makes one) and it's not like the stacks are such that it'd be a really awkward spot for this. It's also pretty easy for him to make up his mind that you wouldn't play a set like this and you don't often have JT so most of your range includes missed draws or a hand like T8 that you're turning into a bluff and thus enabling him to reason that he can profitably call the river c/r with aces there.I agree that raising the turn here is probably not going to be the best play since he's probably going to fold all of his 1 pair hands since you are going to have hands like sets and straights and two pair hands all day, but raise the flop or the river.Also +1 to Fighter's advice of asking someone who isn't playing in the game with you whether or not this is really good or not. I mean, do you really think CTS or someone's going to tell you that you made a bad play when they thought it was a bad play and you two were going to be sitting in the same game again together tomorrow?

I haven't discussed poker strategy with ANY of the players in the game. The people I talk to don't play in it. They were watching the hand and as soon as it ended we discussed and he agreed that considering the game dynamic and flow, that a river check-raise would have been burning money, and check-raising the turn gets him off all the hands I want him to continue with. In a vacuum I can understand the logic behind check-raising river, but based on his perception of me and our history, check-raising the river wouldn't be +EV I don't think. He said something like, " You rep more than you have which is never good when you want to be called." Suppose I did have Qh 10h, considering our history I think a check-raise on the river might be +EV, but not with the hand that I did have. Against a guy like cts out of position I think it's really important not to put myself into too many tough spots by ballooning the pot in marginal situations. My range with a check-raise there needs to be clearly polarized as bluffs or the nuts, but nothing in between.P.S. Sorry if my post came off a bit pissy, but I do get pretty annoyed by a lot of posts that make wild assumptions about game play. Thinking about a hand like that in a vacuum just isn't a good idea, especially since I have loads of history with him that highly affects the optimal approach. On another note, I think some of you may feel I don't respect your opinion, and I'd like you to know that's not the case. I think everyone got the completely wrong idea about the whole "5-10" debacle. I think I can learn a ton from 5-10 regulars when DISCUSSING strategy, but my original point is the same: in terms of game play, my time is better served actually playing in the game that I want to beat. In fact, the guy I talk to most is a multi-tabler who plays between 2-4 and 5-10, but has also played high limits as well so he knows the players. Game play is different at 5-10 to 100-200. When I played 5-10 that day I saw things I'd never see in the 100-200 game. I think I 5-bet a guy pre-flop and he shoved Ac 10c when I was committed, and I raised UTG and he re-raised from the SB. That just never ever happens at 100-200.

[Mr. Sparco 2]

^^ I like this post. One point, though:

Suppose I did have Qh 10h, considering our history I think a check-raise on the river might be +EV, but not with the hand that I did have.

Unless I'm missing something, you probably want to rephrase that. As it stands, this seems incorrect: making the exact same river play with a better hand should always give you a higher EV.(I'm guessing you mean something like "whereas I can fold QT to a shove, I cannot fold 99, and calling the shove would be -EV", but that just means you would be choosing the wrong option. If check-raise-folding QT is +EV, then check-raise-folding 99 should be more +EV, regardless of the EV of check-raise-calling 99.)

[DanielNegreanu 141]

^^ I like this post. One point, though:Unless I'm missing something, you probably want to rephrase that. As it stands, this seems incorrect: making the exact same river play with a better hand should always give you a higher EV.(I'm guessing you mean something like "whereas I can fold QT to a shove, I cannot fold 99, and calling the shove would be -EV", but that just means you would be choosing the wrong option. If check-raise-folding QT is +EV, then check-raise-folding 99 should be more +EV, regardless of the EV of check-raise-calling 99.)

Correct, if you are actually planning on check-raise folding with 999 there. If you call the shove it changes. Also one very key difference between the two hands: with Q-10 CALLING is definitely -EV whereas calling with the 99 as compared to just check folding is obv +EV.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

$100-$200 vs $5-$1 a Comparison Let me start by saying, yes, I realize that my sample size at either limit it meaningless, but I couldn't help but notice the difference between the two games, despite 4-tabling at $5-$10 again today. The obvious difference is the lack of providers. Every single player in the $100-$200 game can be deemed a winning poker player. We don't have any random drop ins EVER. A solid and simple fundamental game is enough to win in the $5-$10 game, I believe, because you still do have guys in the game having no clue. Had a guy 3 bet me from the small blind, I made it $30 he made it $60 then bet $30 $30 $30 on all three streets. I've seen loads of weird, bad plays that are just never going to happen in the $100-$200 game. So, and this is just a theory, I believe that "some" of the better $5-$10 grinders who focus on capitalizing on their opponents weak play, while maybe being one of the best at that specific limit, could struggle in the higher limits. The skill set is slightly different. It feels like, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm 4-tabling $5-$10 I just need to focus on being technically sound and not worrying too much about high level thinking. Compare that, now, to the $100-$200 game 200 bbs deep and I think a basic, fundamentally sound game might be exploitable by the regs in that game. Overall it feels to me like it's slightly less important to balance your ranges at $5-$10 then it is at $100-$200 because the players, on average, aren't quite as perceptive. Understand here, I'm not knocking the knowledge base of the $5-$10 regs and grinders, but I'm suggesting that the most important skill set to do well at that limit is discipline, whereas you obviously need discipline in any poker game, but to beat a $100-$200 game you have to think on a deeper level about hands and how to balance your ranges.

[QED 4]

I guess you also have to allow for the fact that 5-10 is low enough that you can still attract a fair number of people that want to put their whole roll at the table just to play a team poker stars player and win a big pot.

[Naismith 0]

I haven't discussed poker strategy with ANY of the players in the game. The people I talk to don't play in it. They were watching the hand and as soon as it ended we discussed and he agreed that considering the game dynamic and flow, that a river check-raise would have been burning money, and check-raising the turn gets him off all the hands I want him to continue with. In a vacuum I can understand the logic behind check-raising river, but based on his perception of me and our history, check-raising the river wouldn't be +EV I don't think. He said something like, " You rep more than you have which is never good when you want to be called."

Accepting all this, why would you not raise the flop? If you can't raise without the nuts, any 5, 6, 8, T, J completes a straight and any heart completes the flush. On the flop, you can rep a whole bunch of draws and it seems like that would play into your image extremely well (slowplays big hands, raises draws/air). It seems like that would be the best way to get a check-raise in plus three streets of value.

Game play is different at 5-10 to 100-200. When I played 5-10 that day I saw things I'd never see in the 100-200 game. I think I 5-bet a guy pre-flop and he shoved Ac 10c when I was committed, and I raised UTG and he re-raised from the SB. That just never ever happens at 100-200.

The obvious difference is the lack of providers. Every single player in the $100-$200 game can be deemed a winning poker player. We don't have any random drop ins EVER. A solid and simple fundamental game is enough to win in the $5-$10 game, I believe, because you still do have guys in the game having no clue. Had a guy 3 bet me from the small blind, I made it $30 he made it $60 then bet $30 $30 $30 on all three streets. I've seen loads of weird, bad plays that are just never going to happen in the $100-$200 game.

I'm sure to some degree, the desire to play Daniel Negreanu effects the quality of your opponent at 5-10 more than it does at 100-200. You're certainly almost never going to have a recreational player sit with 40k just to tell his friends he played with you, whereas I'm sure that will happen frequently at 5-10. I'd imagine the 5-10 grinders would appreciate your contribution in that regard.

[Acid_Knight 2]

$100-$200 vs $5-$1 a Comparison Let me start by saying, yes, I realize that my sample size at either limit it meaningless, but I couldn't help but notice the difference between the two games, despite 4-tabling at $5-$10 again today. The obvious difference is the lack of providers. Every single player in the $100-$200 game can be deemed a winning poker player. We don't have any random drop ins EVER. A solid and simple fundamental game is enough to win in the $5-$10 game, I believe, because you still do have guys in the game having no clue. Had a guy 3 bet me from the small blind, I made it $30 he made it $60 then bet $30 $30 $30 on all three streets. I've seen loads of weird, bad plays that are just never going to happen in the $100-$200 game. So, and this is just a theory, I believe that "some" of the better $5-$10 grinders who focus on capitalizing on their opponents weak play, while maybe being one of the best at that specific limit, could struggle in the higher limits. The skill set is slightly different. It feels like, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm 4-tabling $5-$10 I just need to focus on being technically sound and not worrying too much about high level thinking. Compare that, now, to the $100-$200 game 200 bbs deep and I think a basic, fundamentally sound game might be exploitable by the regs in that game. Overall it feels to me like it's slightly less important to balance your ranges at $5-$10 then it is at $100-$200 because the players, on average, aren't quite as perceptive. Understand here, I'm not knocking the knowledge base of the $5-$10 regs and grinders, but I'm suggesting that the most important skill set to do well at that limit is discipline, whereas you obviously need discipline in any poker game, but to beat a $100-$200 game you have to think on a deeper level about hands and how to balance your ranges.

I think this and your last post make you come off as infinitely better than calling us all a bunch of bitches :)With regards to the differences in play. I think the main thing that occurs at 5/10 that you basically cannot see at 100/200 is the presence of players who specialize against the donators. There are the weaker regs (or just players who are taking their shots trying to move up from 2/4 or 3/6) who will not play in the game unless there is a clueless player or two sitting there. Those people can be winning players long term and will often have a very technically sound game, but even at 5/10 they are going to come up way way short when it comes to playing with the other people who sit in the games regardless of their player composition. I would think that those weaker regs are going to do all of the things that you mentioned (higher level thinking, balancing ranges, etc) much worse than the really good players at those stakes. The really good players at those stakes though are going to be approaching the 100/200 guys in terms of mechanics and thinking. On average you're right, they won't be as perceptive and they're certain to misread situations more frequently than the guys who frequent 100/200, but the point that myself and other players have been trying to make is that I think the gap is a lot closer than you probably realize and it's because everyone does have the same mechanics.

I'm sure to some degree, the desire to play Daniel Negreanu effects the quality of your opponent at 5-10 more than it does at 100-200. You're certainly almost never going to have a recreational player sit with 40k just to tell his friends he played with you, whereas I'm sure that will happen frequently at 5-10. I'd imagine the 5-10 grinders would appreciate your contribution in that regard.

I would guess this is a huge influence on some things that happen at 5/10 when you're in a game.

Accepting all this, why would you not raise the flop? If you can't raise without the nuts, any 5, 6, 8, T, J completes a straight and any heart completes the flush. On the flop, you can rep a whole bunch of draws and it seems like that would play into your image extremely well (slowplays big hands, raises draws/air). It seems like that would be the best way to get a check-raise in plus three streets of value.

Yeah, I think this is where most players are ragging on you. Occasionally you get a good turn card, but like half of the deck is a bad card for you and if you c/r him on a turn board pairing, it's pretty easy for him to put you on trips. I don't pretend to understand the history between you and any of the players in the game, but the fact is that some plays look fine in a vaccuum and some plays look like they can be explained after you look at history. Having a hand as big as you had and playing it to where you got no money in the pot seems to be a pretty big mistake, especially given your absolute hand strength on the river.I am just saying, if you're playing the hand so passively when the turn and river are fairly harmless (yes, I know that there are 3 hands which make straights, but considering board texture, that's pretty harmless) then how are you ever going to play a big pot here when so many turn and/or river cards produce a similarly textured board?

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Thanks for your posts today Daniel, they seem much more reasoned out and much more reasonable. That said, can you expand on this?

Against a guy like cts out of position I think it's really important not to put myself into too many tough spots by ballooning the pot in marginal situations. My range with a check-raise there needs to be clearly polarized as bluffs or the nuts, but nothing in between.

Why would you WANT your range to be polarized? You want to be balanced here (always, i think pretty much) and be able to show up with anything. The only reason I can see wanting to be polarized is to make your decision easier if CTS shoves on you, which is lazy. This goes hand in hand with wanting to avoid tough spots - ignoring the obvious (which is to play in easier games), again it's lazy to try and avoid tough spots in favour of simpler decisions. Its not a bad way to make money, but if your goal (as you've stated) is to challenge yourself and not focus on the bankroll ramifications, I think it's counterproductive.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Against a guy like cts out of position I think it's really important not to put myself into too many tough spots by ballooning the pot in marginal situations. My range with a check-raise there needs to be clearly polarized as bluffs or the nuts, but nothing in between.

Why would you WANT your range to be polarized? You want to be balanced here (always, i think pretty much) and be able to show up with anything. The only reason I can see wanting to be polarized is to make your decision easier if CTS shoves on you, which is lazy. This goes hand in hand with wanting to avoid tough spots - ignoring the obvious (which is to play in easier games), again it's lazy to try and avoid tough spots in favour of simpler decisions. Its not a bad way to make money, but if your goal (as you've stated) is to challenge yourself and not focus on the bankroll ramifications, I think it's counterproductive.

I agree here. When I'm trying to suggest lines to people who are just learning the game, I often suggest lines that are "easy" and that will simplify their decision making because they do not have the hand reading skills or the overall understanding of the game to be necessarily making profitable decisions in spots where they also have the opportunity to make a mistake. Once you get better at poker, you often pass up the "easy" spots and lines in favor of playing more balanced and putting yourself in a position to make mistakes, but also to win more money by making more correct decisions than your opponents. The "easy" spots can and will be profitable but dealing with a few swings (for when you're wrong and/or get unlucky) in favor of an overall more +EV strategy is obviously the goal.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

yeah, what he said.

[DinkDonk 1]

Thanks for your posts today Daniel, they seem much more reasoned out and much more reasonable. That said, can you expand on this?Why would you WANT your range to be polarized? You want to be balanced here (always, i think pretty much) and be able to show up with anything. The only reason I can see wanting to be polarized is to make your decision easier if CTS shoves on you, which is lazy. This goes hand in hand with wanting to avoid tough spots - ignoring the obvious (which is to play in easier games), again it's lazy to try and avoid tough spots in favour of simpler decisions. Its not a bad way to make money, but if your goal (as you've stated) is to challenge yourself and not focus on the bankroll ramifications, I think it's counterproductive.

Just FTR, being balanced and polarized are not always mutually exclusive. In some spots where I only have very big hands, I'll balance by taking the same action with some parts of the very bottom of my range. It's not terribly relevant to the current discussion, but whatevs. The reason polarization and imbalance are usually connected is that people will often bluff with too wide of a range for their value-betting range if they don't include any of the less-than-nut hands. But really it's just a matter of adjusting frequencies; c/r'ing 99 here allows and necessitates more c/r bluffs and c/c'ing 99 obviously means using less hands to bluff with. Now obviously one approach (c/c'ing or c/r'ing) can be better than the other, but the point is just that you need to adjust the rest of your ranges based on which action you take with such an important hand in your range. Also FTR, I have no idea if DN is balanced here or not.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Just FTR, being balanced and polarized are not always mutually exclusive. In some spots where I only have very big hands, I'll balance by taking the same action with some parts of the very bottom of my range. It's not terribly relevant to the current discussion, but whatevs. The reason polarization and imbalance are usually connected is that people will often bluff with too wide of a range for their value-betting range if they don't include any of the less-than-nut hands. But really it's just a matter of adjusting frequencies; c/r'ing 99 here allows and necessitates more c/r bluffs and c/c'ing 99 obviously means using less hands to bluff with. Now obviously one approach (c/c'ing or c/r'ing) can be better than the other, but the point is just that you need to adjust the rest of your ranges based on which action you take with such an important hand in your range. Also FTR, I have no idea if DN is balanced here or not.

This is a really good post. I assume we're talking about c/ring the river? Either way, we have pretty close to the nuts. If we're talking about not c/ring here because we're going to fold to a shove because he can rep JT and we cannot, does that mean that we're not c/ring T6 or 56 as well because we don't want to be shoved on because his shove is going to represent exactly JT? Seems pretty sketchy to me.