Jump to content

smash system, q's and comments for people using it.


Recommended Posts

To the OP,My point of this post is to ask what kind of raises are people calling with their pocket pairs. I have usually been calling raises up to $2 total with any pair. I will also call mini raises with AX suited but will fold to a 3X BB raise or more. .10/.25 Partyi am calling raises up to 6x for for PP and Axs. When you hit your set against a raise, you stand a much better chance of getting paid off than against limpers.5000 hands-31 hours-19.18 bb/100deviations: when i miss my set but have top PP, i check call small bets down, unless the board is scary, or an overcards turns, then fold.when i am Axs and an A flops i check call if the board is otherwise harmless and i have no more than 2 others in the hand with me, otherwise fold.i will steal blinds from the button first in.i slow play when i flop quads. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Your system will make much less than I make.Highly unlikely.don't bother to test the theory, though. (and we all know you won't)I hate to see people's egos destroyed.Good luck.I love people who play your system, cuz it makes me money. Nope, you're helpless to do anything against them that ever makes you money.Do you see why? You didn't really think about that at all before you posted it, huh? Just sort of seemed like a good idea at the time?Hahaha.Man, NL players crack me up. I really respect you as a player Smash but these 'NL players suck' generalization you have going is rubbing me and im sure a lot of other ppl the wrong way.*Most* NL players suck.*Most* limit players suck.Here's the thing, though. Most *winning* limit players have a fairly good grasp of the game. Most *winning* NL players have absolutely no idea what they're doing.Playing NL at a high level is just as hard as playing Limit at a high level. NL games are so soft right now, though, that being a winning NL player is completely and utterly meaningless.Good luck.
Why would I test of theory that doesn't get you paid off when I get paid off nicely?I still ask the question, if limit is harder, NL is easy to win at, all the donkeys play NL, why are you playing limit? Wouldn't that make you a little dense?
Link to post
Share on other sites
.10/.25 Partyi am calling raises up to 6x for for PP and Axs. When you hit your set against a raise, you stand a much better chance of getting paid off than against limpers.
Aight I'm a little stoned right now, but I work this out to be$0.10/$0.256xBB=$1.50 * 7.5[:1 set] = $11.25$25*2=$50=(+$25.00)-$11.25=+$13.75I know this doesn't account for the fact that when you double-up you're going to be earning extra from the pot. This is based on a 100% call rate after it's been raised pre-flop.If I've done this right, I'm surprised that calling 6x is actually profitable.
Link to post
Share on other sites
.10/.25 Partyi am calling raises up to 6x for for PP and Axs. When you hit your set against a raise, you stand a much better chance of getting paid off than against limpers.
Aight I'm a little stoned right now, but I work this out to be$0.10/$0.256xBB=$1.50 * 7.5[:1 set] = $11.25$25*2=$50=(+$25.00)-$11.25=+$13.75I know this doesn't account for the fact that when you double-up you're going to be earning extra from the pot. This is based on a 100% call rate after it's been raised pre-flop.If I've done this right, I'm surprised that calling 6x is actually profitable.
your formula is only valid if i am raised 6x every time i have a PP... .10/.25 is pretty passive so for the most part i am limping, if not i am calling a 2x-4x raise...also, as you state, your formula is based on a 100% call rate which we know isn't going to happen.so if i limp 5 times ($1.25) call a 2x raise once, a 4x raise once and a 6x raise once (total=$4.25 for 8 hands). assume i get called 1 out of 4 times i flop a set and we see i pay $17 for every called push with a set.so to break even, assuming the above to be absolute, i need a $17 stack to call every time to break even on sets.also don't forget to factor in the flushes, the AA and KK pushes, and the check downs with over PP.listen this may be a losing strat, but i doubt it at this level. i only have 5,000 hands to go on and that is a very small sample size. i am earning $7.61/hour (woo-hoo [sw]) and 19 bb/100 which i'm sure will probably average downward as i get nearer to 20,000 hands.your mileage may vary.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My point of this post is to ask what kind of raises are people calling with their pocket pairs. I have usually been calling raises up to $2 total with any pair. I will also call mini raises with AX suited but will fold to a 3X BB raise or more.
From a real rough back of the envelope calculation, it looks to me like under Smash's system you play roughly 1 hand in 10 and out of those win around 1 hand in 8, for an overall move-in rate of 1 hand in 80 or so. Given that kind of tight hand selection and the possibility that nobody calls your all-in, I don't think you can call very much in the way of raises unless most of the stacks are pretty deep. Maybe 2xBB would be OK.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I love people who play your system, cuz it makes me money. Nope, you're helpless to do anything against them that ever makes you money.Do you see why? You didn't really think about that at all before you posted it, huh? Just sort of seemed like a good idea at the time?Hahaha.Man, NL players crack me up.
Alright, I'm going to take the Sklansky bait and say that, no, I don't see why. Please tell me why, or at least "let others elaborate."I do believe that smash's system works (which speaks to the extremely poor decision-making of many low stakes NL players), but I think the system is exploitable. Much of the exploitation is predicated on first correctly identifying that a player is using smash's system, but that's not very hard to do, given the all-in betting patterns (all-in preflop on an unraised pot? always limping in otherwise? no intermediate bets on any street? move-in artists are pretty rare at this level, except for the minimum buyin types). If I know a player's using the system, then I have a huge advantage:1) A smash player is not going to make any money off of me. The smash system is based on players making stupid all-in calls. I won't. The only times that I'll call a smash all-in will be if I have AA preflop, or if I have top set on the flop, meaning he has a lower set. Otherwise, I quickly fold and watch in amusement as either some fool calls or everyone else folds and gives the smasher a piddling pot. The smash system makes it very easy to know where you are in a hand. There's no bluff, semi-bluff, slow-play, or value betting in the repetoir. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the system seems to be nut peddling to the extreme, and you should be able to protect yourself from that. 2) Now, the smash system is so conservative that it's basically impossible to annihilate someone playing that style. They play so few hands, and never venture very far with a hand unless they have something powerful. However, I think there are ways to take advantage of them, especially if you have position. Let's say I make a small raise and the smash player is the only caller. The flop comes rainbow and smash checks to me. Hypothetically, I should be able to bet at this pot, whether I caught a piece of the flop or not, without fear of being called, since according to strict smash guidelines, the player would have pushed if they hit set, and the rainbow flop negates any flush draw. Obviously, I gave a very specific example, but there are other situations where I'd loosen up my play (playing semi-strong hands a little more aggressively, trying to steal a little more often). Certainly, you don't want to do this too much, b/c you'll make yourself vulnerable to other players who aren't playing smash style. But really, that shouldn't be too much of a problem b/c smash players play so few hands to begin with. The idea isn't to run over a smash player, but to extract a couple extra bets based on what you know. For the most part, you can basically pay no mind to a smash player.So, when the quoted person says "I love people who play your system, cuz it makes me money," it's unlikely that a player would make a killing off of a smash player. However, I can see how a person would welcome the presence of a smash player at the table, andhow in a sense "it makes me money." If you can identify a smash player, that's one less person you have to worry about, one person that you know you will not lose any sizeable amount to. Money saved is money earned.Again, I think the smash sytem works, and it has some decided advantages (no thinking required!). Indeed, the system is fool-proof. It is not, however, decent player-proof. Fortunately, at the low levels, fool-proof is all you need.[/i]
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your system will make much less than I make.Highly unlikely.don't bother to test the theory, though. (and we all know you won't)I hate to see people's egos destroyed.Good luck.I love people who play your system, cuz it makes me money. Nope, you're helpless to do anything against them that ever makes you money.Do you see why? You didn't really think about that at all before you posted it, huh? Just sort of seemed like a good idea at the time?Hahaha.Man, NL players crack me up. I really respect you as a player Smash but these 'NL players suck' generalization you have going is rubbing me and im sure a lot of other ppl the wrong way.*Most* NL players suck.*Most* limit players suck.Here's the thing, though. Most *winning* limit players have a fairly good grasp of the game. Most *winning* NL players have absolutely no idea what they're doing.Playing NL at a high level is just as hard as playing Limit at a high level. NL games are so soft right now, though, that being a winning NL player is completely and utterly meaningless.Good luck.
Here's where your system fails Smash. If someone recognizes a player using the system, it's over. Your system will cause a player to be blinded out. I will agree that your system is profitable at 0.10/0.25, and *maybe* at 0.25/0.50. It could be profitable at higher stakes NL tables with proper table selection.I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.It's a good system, but it's not infallible. For every player at a table that recognizes someone using the system (which is not hard), you are losing profits. It would be interesting to see where the cut off is... as in, how many players have to recognize and react to a player using the system in order to render the system a loser.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's where your system fails Smash. If someone recognizes a player using the system, it's over. Your system will cause a player to be blinded out. I will agree that your system is profitable at 0.10/0.25, and *maybe* at 0.25/0.50. It could be profitable at higher stakes NL tables with proper table selection.I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.It's a good system, but it's not infallible. For every player at a table that recognizes someone using the system (which is not hard), you are losing profits. It would be interesting to see where the cut off is... as in, how many players have to recognize and react to a player using the system in order to render the system a loser.
Just to save Smash the time, even if you see someone using this strategy, YOU WILL NOT TAKE THEIR MONEY. The only time a person who is using this system has their money in the pot is when they are limping, or have a huge edge. Unless you're going to call them when you're way behind and draw out, you will not beat them. Even if you don't call their big bets, some donk will, and they'll get paid off.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's where your system fails Smash. If someone recognizes a player using the system, it's over. Your system will cause a player to be blinded out. I will agree that your system is profitable at 0.10/0.25, and *maybe* at 0.25/0.50. It could be profitable at higher stakes NL tables with proper table selection.I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.It's a good system, but it's not infallible. For every player at a table that recognizes someone using the system (which is not hard), you are losing profits. It would be interesting to see where the cut off is... as in, how many players have to recognize and react to a player using the system in order to render the system a loser.
Just to save Smash the time, even if you see someone using this strategy, YOU WILL NOT TAKE THEIR MONEY. The only time a person who is using this system has their money in the pot is when they are limping, or have a huge edge. Unless you're going to call them when you're way behind and draw out, you will not beat them. Even if you don't call their big bets, some donk will, and they'll get paid off.
You can make money off someone using the system. You have to flop top set and hope they push, but it still can be done. Also, you should never lose money to someone you know is playing this strategy, I hope i don't have to explain why.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's where your system fails Smash. If someone recognizes a player using the system, it's over. Your system will cause a player to be blinded out. I will agree that your system is profitable at 0.10/0.25, and *maybe* at 0.25/0.50. It could be profitable at higher stakes NL tables with proper table selection.I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.It's a good system, but it's not infallible. For every player at a table that recognizes someone using the system (which is not hard), you are losing profits. It would be interesting to see where the cut off is... as in, how many players have to recognize and react to a player using the system in order to render the system a loser.
You greatly overestimate the skill of most NL players
Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple truth about this system is that it works at the lowest limits.HOwever this is not the optimal way to make money playing Small Stakes No Limit Hold Em.Playing slightly more flexible starting hands as well as knowing when and when not to push will get you far more money in the end.If you want a good demonstration of this then come watch Binbs play No Limit HE at .5/1 on Prima Poker/Royal Vegas. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's where your system fails Smash. If someone recognizes a player using the system, it's over. Your system will cause a player to be blinded out. I will agree that your system is profitable at 0.10/0.25, and *maybe* at 0.25/0.50. It could be profitable at higher stakes NL tables with proper table selection.I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.It's a good system, but it's not infallible. For every player at a table that recognizes someone using the system (which is not hard), you are losing profits. It would be interesting to see where the cut off is... as in, how many players have to recognize and react to a player using the system in order to render the system a loser.
Just to save Smash the time, even if you see someone using this strategy, YOU WILL NOT TAKE THEIR MONEY. The only time a person who is using this system has their money in the pot is when they are limping, or have a huge edge. Unless you're going to call them when you're way behind and draw out, you will not beat them. Even if you don't call their big bets, some donk will, and they'll get paid off.
You can make money off someone using the system. You have to flop top set and hope they push, but it still can be done. Also, you should never lose money to someone you know is playing this strategy, I hope i don't have to explain why.
I agree that you won't lose money to the smash strategy player but you aren't going to make any either. The only way the smash player pushes and loses against you is if you have a higher set or you suck out. However the set over set (with you on top) is almost never going to happen. By my calculations, the odds of you hitting a higher set than the smash player on the flop is 1 in 54,376 hands or about once every 1,000 hours of play online. Needless to say, this isn't going to happen often enough to matter much. The blinds the smash player "gives up" is going to outweigh this by far.Edit: This only takes into account you having a higher set, not the added restriction of you having to have TOP set.ZaraP.S. If you'd like to see the calculation, send me a PM and I"ll post it here
Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said you'd make money off a Smash player, I just said they'd be blinded out.As for over-estimating the average low limit NL cash game player, I did agree that the system is profitable at $25 and $50 dollar buy in. People just need to understand that there is a cut off that's not really dependant on the stakes, where there will be enough players at the table (whether that's 1 or 5, I think it would be interesting to find out) that will be able to spot Smash's system, and not play into it, to make it where the Smash System player will get blinded out.EDIT: Btw, the odds of someone having an overset to yours is 1 in 64 times you hit a set. Dunno if you knew that, and I'm too lazy to reverse your calculation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said you'd make money off a Smash player, I just said they'd be blinded out.As for over-estimating the average low limit NL cash game player, I did agree that the system is profitable at $25 and $50 dollar buy in. People just need to understand that there is a cut off that's not really dependant on the stakes, where there will be enough players at the table (whether that's 1 or 5, I think it would be interesting to find out) that will be able to spot Smash's system, and not play into it, to make it where the Smash System player will get blinded out.EDIT: Btw, the odds of someone having an overset to yours is 1 in 64 times you hit a set. Dunno if you knew that, and I'm too lazy to reverse your calculation.
The 1 in 64 may be true but that's not what I calculated. It's not that someone will have an overset, but that exactly the one person (the "you" in my post) flops the overset. As for your other point, I'm not sure how many people are required to catch on before the table becomes unprofitable, my guess is around 5 since you don't have to get paid off very often to make money with the system (which is the point)Zara
Link to post
Share on other sites
Meaningless?If you're a winning NL player, then you're making money. That's the entire point of poker.
meaningless in regards to whether you know what you are doing.The assertion is that so many NL players suck..that you can be clueless and still make $$$.I don't really have an opinin on it. Just interpreting.
And if you adopt his system you prove his point- any fool could do this.
i don't play NL cash games enuf to matter.Smash is not saying this system is the best.Just that it makes more $$ than 99% of those posting. And its easy.I'm in the 99%.edit: u seem to imply I'm a fool..why?
No, I am saying he thinks that your a fool- or anyone who plays NL is, and then he comes up with a system where you only make money off of bigger fools than you- he believes that it is impossible to get reads on people in no limit and this is how you negate that, which I think is total crap- I have not been playing this game for so long to totally ignore what I know. I CAN put people on hands, not always but with decent consistency. I don't need nuts at all times to win, I can use table image in my favor and I know how to fold when I think I am beat. The point is I can play pre and postflop and win with consistency, and in a way that keeps the game interesting to me- not just all in every 20 minutesto a half hour on avereage per table. What he has managed to do is prove that a great many NL players are nothing more than monkeys throwing poo- I can accept that, I agree with him, BUT I refuse to join up and do the same thing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.does anyone else see whats wrong with this statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.does anyone else see whats wrong with this statement?
I do- the system did not lose, but it did fail in the sense that it did not maximize profits in this situation. The system does not allow for adjustment, such as I have identified that this guy has identified that I am nut peddling, it's him and I heads up in this hand and I have top set- what do I do? Well, in Smasharoos system I go all in- but this guy knows I am nutpeddling, everytime, so I should just check and hope he reads me as weak, but the system does not allow for that. If anything the system probably would be better off finding another table because somebody caught on. I don't agree with it because it does not allow for any adjustment, it is literally just monkeys throwing poo and smash is laughing his a ss off.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.does anyone else see whats wrong with this statement?
I do- the system did not lose, but it did fail in the sense that it did not maximize profits in this situation. The system does not allow for adjustment, such as I have identified that this guy has identified that I am nut peddling, it's him and I heads up in this hand and I have top set- what do I do? Well, in Smasharoos system I go all in- but this guy knows I am nutpeddling, everytime, so I should just check and hope he reads me as weak, but the system does not allow for that. If anything the system probably would be better off finding another table because somebody caught on. I don't agree with it because it does not allow for any adjustment, it is literally just monkeys throwing poo and smash is laughing his a ss off.
No, you don't, lol.You cannot have TPTK preflop. Thank you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.does anyone else see whats wrong with this statement?
I do- the system did not lose, but it did fail in the sense that it did not maximize profits in this situation. The system does not allow for adjustment, such as I have identified that this guy has identified that I am nut peddling, it's him and I heads up in this hand and I have top set- what do I do? Well, in Smasharoos system I go all in- but this guy knows I am nutpeddling, everytime, so I should just check and hope he reads me as weak, but the system does not allow for that. If anything the system probably would be better off finding another table because somebody caught on. I don't agree with it because it does not allow for any adjustment, it is literally just monkeys throwing poo and smash is laughing his a ss off.
im looking for answers from people who can read. thanks, though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.does anyone else see whats wrong with this statement?
I do- the system did not lose, but it did fail in the sense that it did not maximize profits in this situation. The system does not allow for adjustment, such as I have identified that this guy has identified that I am nut peddling, it's him and I heads up in this hand and I have top set- what do I do? Well, in Smasharoos system I go all in- but this guy knows I am nutpeddling, everytime, so I should just check and hope he reads me as weak, but the system does not allow for that. If anything the system probably would be better off finding another table because somebody caught on. I don't agree with it because it does not allow for any adjustment, it is literally just monkeys throwing poo and smash is laughing his a ss off.
No, you don't, lol.You cannot have TPTK preflop. Thank you.
Yeah, I focused on the wrong sentence. I can't say I feel as bad as the guy that wrote it initially, though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep track of rocks at the table. If the rock budges I'd better be holding an extremely strong hand. An all-in pre flop from a rock will get me to promptly fold tptk, leaving the Smash-system as a big loser. They will win the bets on the table pre flop (which won't be many by definition of the system) when they hit their set, and that's it.does anyone else see whats wrong with this statement?
I do- the system did not lose, but it did fail in the sense that it did not maximize profits in this situation. The system does not allow for adjustment, such as I have identified that this guy has identified that I am nut peddling, it's him and I heads up in this hand and I have top set- what do I do? Well, in Smasharoos system I go all in- but this guy knows I am nutpeddling, everytime, so I should just check and hope he reads me as weak, but the system does not allow for that. If anything the system probably would be better off finding another table because somebody caught on. I don't agree with it because it does not allow for any adjustment, it is literally just monkeys throwing poo and smash is laughing his a ss off.
No, you don't, lol.You cannot have TPTK preflop. Thank you.
Yeah, I focused on the wrong sentence. I can't say I feel as bad as the guy that wrote it initially, though.
good point. :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...