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

[jack24bauer24 0]

there's no doubt in my mind that this system makes more, consistently, at the .5/1 and lower limits, than anything that the common poster on here is doing.anyone that says that they can make reads on someone at .10/.25 or .25/.50 is a fool, and is just blindly guessing, and only remembering the times he's right.and lois, we know that this system won't work for you, because you fold the nuts if you're worried about draws. that's okay though, we need the fish in our games.i guarantee smash is laughing at everyone disputing this theory, because every person that doubts him means that it's another person that will pay him off when he decides to play brainless NL.

I play 1000 hands a day and I wouldn't ever pay off this strategy, and as far as NL goes i'm not the common poster. To use this formula at .50-1 would end up either a small profit, staying neutral, or a small loss.

[Binbs 0]

Yea. I can definately see this working most of the time at the micro limits.lol. Funny we are argueing back and forth.

if you would have said that you play shorthanded, then it wouldn't have been argued whatsoever. i still don't see why you'd want to play low limit shorthanded though, when there's a lot more $ to be made with the strategy in full ring games, but if that's what you prefer, that's fine. just don't use this strategy in shorthanded games

Well right now I play .5/1. Maybe i could have tried this strategy at .25/.5. I love playing shorthanded, since you get to see more hands.

[Pupsta 0]

there's no doubt in my mind that this system makes more, consistently, at the .5/1 and lower limits, than anything that the common poster on here is doing.anyone that says that they can make reads on someone at .10/.25 or .25/.50 is a fool, and is just blindly guessing, and only remembering the times he's right.and lois, we know that this system won't work for you, because you fold the nuts if you're worried about draws. that's okay though, we need the fish in our games.i guarantee smash is laughing at everyone disputing this theory, because every person that doubts him means that it's another person that will pay him off when he decides to play brainless NL.

I play 1000 hands a day and I wouldn't ever pay off this strategy, and as far as NL goes i'm not the common poster. To use this formula at .50-1 would end up either a small profit, staying neutral, or a small loss.

you're not paying off the nut flush with KQs? or a higher set with bottom set?

[jack24bauer24 0]

You think that set over set happens every time? And you are assuming that the only time you are going all in with the top set. The amount of times you'll run into set over set is remote.I play KQ passively and only really play it if its suited. Your post makes little to no sense as you are taking the nuts and putting it up against the 2nd to nuts like it happens routinely.

[MLMarkland 0]

Indeed. Set over set is like 1/167, now compound that with the odds of this occuring between exactly two players, one using the system and one, the above poster, and it really isn't a big concern. Same goes for nut flush vs. second nut flush.

[Pupsta 0]

You think that set over set happens every time? And you are assuming that the only time you are going all in with the top set. The amount of times you'll run into set over set is remote.I play KQ passively and only really play it if its suited. Your post makes little to no sense as you are taking the nuts and putting it up against the 2nd to nuts like it happens routinely.

no, i'm just asking of you'd pay these off because they're pretty much the situations smash's theory thrives on

[jack24bauer24 0]

If a system relies on hitting a set over a set...well...there's not much point discussing the system.Would I pay it off in the KQ suited...ya, but not for all my chips...I don't make my money off of flushes.

[kerplunk 0]

there's no doubt in my mind that this system makes more, consistently, at the .5/1 and lower limits, than anything that the common poster on here is doing.anyone that says that they can make reads on someone at .10/.25 or .25/.50 is a fool, and is just blindly guessing, and only remembering the times he's right.and lois, we know that this system won't work for you, because you fold the nuts if you're worried about draws.  that's okay though, we need the fish in our games.i guarantee smash is laughing at everyone disputing this theory, because every person that doubts him means that it's another person that will pay him off when he decides to play brainless NL.

I play 1000 hands a day and I wouldn't ever pay off this strategy, and as far as NL goes i'm not the common poster. To use this formula at .50-1 would end up either a small profit, staying neutral, or a small loss.

you're not paying off the nut flush with KQs? or a higher set with bottom set?

It's funny that you bring up paying off a higher set to bottom set, because this is an exact situation that the system fails; it dictates that you get stacked for all your chips without even thinking. So you can't really use it as a selling point for the system. A person using the system loses as much as someone not using the system when facing oversets, and possibly more. It's unlikely that a person not using the system will slow down with lower set, but not impossible.This situation highlights the problem that many people have with the system, and that's the utter, stubborn mindlessness of it. If you look through the posts, few people dispute that it makes money. However, many feel that more could be made with a little bit of prudent thought. And even those who use the system have noted places where they deviate from it because they can't stand folding highly +EV situations (must i really fold on the button with AKo when it's been folded around to me?)The basic principles behind the system are solid, and should be pretty much indisputable. In low stakes NL, there is almost no reason to get fancy with your moves. Most of it will be over your opponents' heads anyway. Don't waste your time and money trying to extract small edges, but really hammer on the big edges, cuz donks will pay you off anyway. And don't waste time trying to make magical reads. just play solid. At this level, it's much more about their stupidity than your brilliance.

[lew189 0]

While I think NL is a better (more interesting) game than Limit, I will agree that more poker knowledge/skill may be required to win at limit. I consider myself an average player at best. My pre-flop skills are good, but I don't know much (or at least I don't generally feel comfortable) about post-flop play.Having made these concessions about my own game (or lack thereof,) however, I can say that I'm cleaning up at the PP NL $25Max game to the tune of 20BB/100 over 5,000+ hands.I think I've trashed my own game enough so that this won't come off as a brag post (I really do suck) but I'm sure you'll all let me know if I'm wrong about that.

[DK 0]

As of right now I'm down about 30 bucks or so. I've been playing on Party Poker at .25/.50 tables.  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.  So what is everyone else doing?  I know implied odds play a huge part in the system because the times you do get action when you flop a set, it will usually be to an overpair.  

I have been playing it safe, only calling 1 bb raises... I am ahead (I only have 1000 hands in right now) on Party, but I am not ahead enough to matter maybee I will start calling bigger raises... it makes sense that that is when you will get paid off on your all-inscurrently I am being called on my all ins about 1 out of 10 times, and when I am called it is only short stacks calling, I havent been called by a full buy-in yet

[jack24bauer24 0]

As of right now I'm down about 30 bucks or so. I've been playing on Party Poker at .25/.50 tables. 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. So what is everyone else doing? I know implied odds play a huge part in the system because the times you do get action when you flop a set, it will usually be to an overpair.

I have been playing it safe, only calling 1 bb raises... I am ahead (I only have 1000 hands in right now) on Party, but I am not ahead enough to matter maybee I will start calling bigger raises... it makes sense that that is when you will get paid off on your all-inscurrently I am being called on my all ins about 1 out of 10 times, and when I am called it is only short stacks calling, I havent been called by a full buy-in yet

Thats because using the system will hardly ever get a large stack to call your all in, as they would have to be absolutely horrible to do so.