Jump to content

some help with smash's theory please!


Recommended Posts

good at poker, bad at spelling. or even consistency.seriously, everyone, stop trying to argue against this strategy. if you were ever good at low limit  NLHE, you did something similar to it, anyway. if you tried something more nuanced or "advanced," you didn't win as much money as you could have. and if you worked on your game and tried to adjust it to the circumstances at low limit NLHE, you found more and more that your game looked EXACTLY like this strategy.if you're arguing otherwise, it's all ego, and most of it unjustified. get over it.
I for one am not arguing against this strategy, as just that a strategy. However, my argument comes into play for those that wish to move up to higher limits. Other than that, IT WORKS...so if your desire is to make some money here and there by all means GO FOR IT! But, if your desire is to start playing higher limits...then study the game, your opponents and your own play. As confuscious say: to know what another man desires , first know what you desire.
i already responded to this.it's also worth noting that this strategy works quite nicely up to 2/4 NL, which is a level most posters here won't reach for a long, long time with proper bankroll management. in fact, i have a 1k hand sample (admittedly small, but it does get quite boring) that says this works at even the 5/10 NL level to the tune of 2.57 bb/100.and smash was right, too. higher level NL cash games are about 75% postflop play, with the other bit preflop deception and folding trash hands. the former you can only learn with experience and playing time with your opponents. there's no other way around it. read all the books you want, but you won't be a good enough postflop player to beat 10/20 NLHE until you see about a million hands of the game played out. but that's the point, too. if you're adapting your game at low limit NLHE, you're finding that your game looks more and more like what smash "invented." whether you think he deserves credit for something that any decent player realizes something very similar to anyway is up to you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've tried searching for Smash's theory but can't seem to find it.  Can anyone point me in the right direction or tell me the theory?  Also, was there ever a consensus on whether it worked or not?Thanks in advance!
How about, fuck you you stupid piece of shit?Yeah, that works.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Smash, you seem to be easily confused. No set No bet is hold'em concept, and I added the all-in in parenthesis to denote the all-in betting structure.Please stop being such an idiot, as it would help in your lacking social skillz. And about the technical part of your post which you so vaguely responded with "Visibilty", what do you mean by that?IMO guys, if you are going to follow this fixed strategy, you will be fine to add K-x suited to your range of hands. You will be playing it the same way as the A-x suited(passively, not getting attached to the top pair, etc). I think one key thing that applies to any holdem game is position. When playing some of the more marginal hands (suited aces, small pairs, etc) try to play them in late position. The advantages are numerous, but the key thing is it leaves your options open postflop, and when you do hit that set, you will have everyone acting in front of you. This makes things VERY easy.GL

Link to post
Share on other sites
And about the technical part of your post which you so vaguely responded with "Visibilty", what do you mean by that?
visibility is key in NL.It's simply knowing where you are in the hand vs potential opponents.A-high flush is the nuts (unles the board pairs) K-high is never the nuts.Given the propencity to play Ax suited, and the fact that you need 3 of the suit to hit the board in order to make a flush...the probability of being up against Ax suited is greater than the probability of being up against a higher set when you have a set. ( although, I haven't worked it out, it sure seems like it). Also, I'd say, if 3-flush on board, you are less likely to get a profitable call with a Kx flush, than you would with a much better hidden set.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sklansky's book Tournament Poker for Advanced Players David proposes the same type of thing. He says he created it to help some casino owner's daughter, who had never played poker before, play in WSOP.There are greater details about it in the book. He has the original basic version which is go all in before the flop on AA, AKs KK, QQ, JJ and TT. Fold everything else. The system isn't to be employed until the middle of the tourny, before that it was go all in on AA, KK, fold all others. Sklansky suggests that going all in before the flop takes away a skilled players ability to out play you later in the hand. There is a more details one later in the book that takes into account pot size, number of callers etc. Although this one requires too much math. If a person was able to go through all the math that is required between the time they look at their cards and its their turn to act then they are smart enough to play real poker.Good read anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is ridiculous. Smash's theory isn't a theory at all, it's a proven strategy. It works at any ring game up to NL $600, not because he is a genius, but because NL games online are bad, very bad, and if you need to follow his strategy to beat online no limit poker, you're probably one of the fish that make a strategy like this work.
I've followed some of the endless debates regarding this braindead strategy and have never seen anything close to PROOF posted. All I've seen is a few hotdogs posting crap like "I made 100$ last night using this!" and "I'm making 17bb/hr over the last 7 hours with this strat!" - this does not constitute proof, f-tards. If anyone tries to argue that this doesn't work then smash and/or mindless disciples come on and just say your ego's too big. Umm, since smash feels the need to repeatedly defend and debate and re-explain such a simple idea suggests he's the one with the ego problem.If anybody has 20k hands or so of pockertracker data using this strategy they'd like to post, I'm sure there'd be a lot of folks interested to see it.BTW, Sklansky's strategy is quite a bit different, and he originally designed it so a casino owners daughter who had no idea how to play poker could play in the WSOP, b/c he knew she'd be helpless after the flop.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've tried searching for Smash's theory but can't seem to find it. Can anyone point me in the right direction or tell me the theory? Also, was there ever a consensus on whether it worked or not?Thanks in advance!
I doubt there'd ever be a concensus on whether or not it worked. A lot of people who use it will probably have better results over x amount of hands than they would've playing their usual style which won't say much obviously. I haven't seen anyone post results for tens of thousands of hands so we don't even have a good indicator; just the I won/lost x bb/100 in x amount of hours posts. It's not a guaranteed winning strategy because you could lose every time for months or longer, unlikely but of course possible, following the strategy to the letter.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've tried searching for Smash's theory but can't seem to find it. Can anyone point me in the right direction or tell me the theory? Also, was there ever a consensus on whether it worked or not?Thanks in advance!
How about, censored you you stupid piece of shit?Yeah, that works.
How about, u go suck a 8====D you homo!Then when you're done, go drink a nice tall glass of shut the f-ck up!Thanks!
Link to post
Share on other sites
And about the technical part of your post which you so vaguely responded with "Visibilty", what do you mean by that?
visibility is key in NL.It's simply knowing where you are in the hand vs potential opponents.A-high flush is the nuts (unles the board pairs) K-high is never the nuts.Given the propencity to play Ax suited, and the fact that you need 3 of the suit to hit the board in order to make a flush...the probability of being up against Ax suited is greater than the probability of being up against a higher set when you have a set. ( although, I haven't worked it out, it sure seems like it). Also, I'd say, if 3-flush on board, you are less likely to get a profitable call with a Kx flush, than you would with a much better hidden set.
gotchathanks for the 411
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering if any one has ever come across another player using smashes theory in a 1/2 NL game. Do alot of players do this or is it rare. My self I dont play alot of NL holdem, I find it boring but im thinking of trying smashes theory just to make a coouple bucks. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a guaranteed winning strategy because you could lose every time for months or longer, unlikely but of course possible, following the strategy to the letter.Unlikely on the order of being hit by a commet.It works. Not close.It works because NL games are so stunningly easy to beat right now, and most NL players suck./shrug.

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
×
×
  • Create New...