Secret HQ Poker Forums

Welcome aboard!

So what's the game plan?

I know some wanted to wait a little to read it through once first. Some wanted to start right away. I'm probably more in the read it through first category, but it reads so easy I think by the time we get going I and most will have it completed.

Since this week is about done how about we start with part 1 for next week?

Also should we do something like a separate thread for each week? I don't want to clutter it with lots of threads, but I also don't want to have discussion from the previous week spill into the next week and then cause confusion about which topic people are talking about.

Lol @ anyone who hasn't read this at least twice yet. A real page turner for sure. Great plot, great character development, but an anti-anti-climatic ending because hero never loses a pot in this book

Lol @ anyone who hasn't read this at least twice yet. A real page turner for sure. Great plot, great character development, but an anti-anti-climatic ending because hero never loses a pot in this book

What you haven't heard enough bad beat stories? :-)

So what's the game plan?

I know some wanted to wait a little to read it through once first. Some wanted to start right away. I'm probably more in the read it through first category, but it reads so easy I think by the time we get going I and most will have it completed.

Since this week is about done how about we start with part 1 for next week?

Also should we do something like a separate thread for each week? I don't want to clutter it with lots of threads, but I also don't want to have discussion from the previous week spill into the next week and then cause confusion about which topic people are talking about.

I made a post a bit back with the start of a schedule. No one has objected or suggested alternatives, so I guess it's the tenative gameplan. Here's what I wrote:

For this week, I propose we tackle Part 1, starting now going through Sunday. It's only about 15 pages of material, and likely to be some of the easiest in the book.

(EDITED) Next week, my suggestion would be to tackle pages 32 - 48, which covers the introduction to beating 1/2, the entire blind stealing section, and some other misc things. I'd like to hear opinions on whether this is too much or too little to cover this week. Remember though, the goal is to really understand the material and work in some time to apply it before going forward. Rushing though for the sake of finishing faster does not a better poker player make.

I was just going to make schedule suggestions each week and always plan one week ahead.

As far as keeping it all in one thread or splitting it up, I'm open for suggestions. Given the way the forum is setup, a great option doesn't immediately occur to me. I'll default to keeping it in one thread and making prolific use of the quote function unless someone has a better idea.

Lol @ anyone who hasn't read this at least twice yet. A real page turner for sure. Great plot, great character development, but an anti-anti-climatic ending because hero never loses a pot in this book

: P

Some of us have very limited free time. I've only made it through about 1/3 of the book so far.

Back the the hand being discussed.

Great posts, everyone. Here is what I've taken away. This assumes we are the PFR, in position, in a heads-up pot, on a rainbow board.

When we bet:
We fold out hands that have equity against us, and we rate to get sucked out on a whole lot if they don't fold now.
We make the hand very easy to play with no tough decisions.
Opponents are almost never going to get out of line on this A high flop when we are the PFR.
We can get value from T9 and hope they don't bluff later.
Sometimes villain will fold a J because they put us on an A.

When we check to induce:
Against just the right type of opponent, they'll fire the turn with almost any two and then shut down on the river, and we make a little money this way because they wouldn't have put any more money in with these hands if we had bet ourselves, and making a bet costs about the same as calling one.
We represent exactly what we have, which is a hand with weak showdown value that probably isn't an ace. This gives our opponent the green light to bet a weak A, KK, QQ, probably some jacks, and maybe even TT and 99 for 1-2 streets of value. Maybe he'll even run a multi-street bluff and put us in a tough spot. This is awfully bad.

Additional important points:
Potential overcards to your weak pair that are likely to be in villain's range make checking behind and bluff catching with a weak pair very unappealing.
Villains at 1/2 are not as aggro and bluff happy as I assumed they would be.

Summary of the best play:
Bet the flop. It makes your life so much easier. Maybe very infrequently if you find just the right type of opponent to check and call a bet with, but it is an infrequent possible exception and not the norm.


This was very useful for me. Thanks to everyone for contributing.

Next question.

Quote from the book:

Avoid playing speculative hands unless you
expect to have significant steal equity.

Solid advice, but it got me thinking.

Let's say we have 67s on the button.
100bb stacks for the entire table.
A tight UTG player makes his standard 3.5x raise.
We expect him to c-bet most flops in a HU pot whether he hits or not. We're not sure what he'll do in multi-way pots.
The blinds are unknown to us.

Let's say, hypothetically, that we are going to make absolutely no attempt to steal in this hand. We are playing strictly make a hand poker. This setup is just so I can ask a theoretical question. I understand it's not a realistic strategy.

With these strict parameters, if MP and the CO (assume typical 1/2 TAGs) both call, and we assume that the blinds will call some portion of the time, would calling here be profitable in the long run? if so, by a wide margin or a small one?

What about if just one player called? Just slightly unprofitable or profitable, or very?

Next question.

Quote from the book:



Solid advice, but it got me thinking.

Let's say we have 67s on the button.
100bb stacks for the entire table.
A tight UTG player makes his standard 3.5x raise.
We expect him to c-bet most flops in a HU pot whether he hits or not. We're not sure what he'll do in multi-way pots.
The blinds are unknown to us.

Let's say, hypothetically, that we are going to make absolutely no attempt to steal in this hand. We are playing strictly make a hand poker. This setup is just so I can ask a theoretical question. I understand it's not a realistic strategy.

With these strict parameters, if MP and the CO (assume typical 1/2 TAGs) both call, and we assume that the blinds will call some portion of the time, would calling here be profitable in the long run? if so, by a wide margin or a small one?

What about if just one player called? Just slightly unprofitable or profitable, or very?

I'm much happier calling with suited connectors when I'm on the button rather than the co or hijack, and much happier if someone else has also called or is going to call. The thing to watch out for though is squeeze happy blinds. If one or even both of them is 3bet happy (8%+) I'm much less likely to call.

If we're not going to steal we need to be up against a tight UTG range which will pay us off if we hit, multiple hands that could be second best and preferably one or two spewboxes.

In the scenario you posted I think a call is profitable long term as you have enough implied odds. Don't forget though, that the more players in the pot, the more chance any flush you hit will be dominated.

FishT - There are a couple of caveats IMO.

1.) I want to be pretty damn sure the blinds are passive enough not to squeeze here, because when we overcall we are creating a tasty squeeze spot.

2.) I would want to know SOMETHING about how UTG plays post-flop. The more passive he is the more willing I am to make this call.

If you stove it, (which you should) it will tell you that you have around 25% equity in the pot if we give the UTG a 12% range and MP/CO a 15% range with the standard 3b hands removed. This is misleading though, because stove always deals out 5 cards. So there will be a ton of flops where you would have won the hand but it would be insane to put more money in (think AK7r). That being said you probably have around 10% 'real equity' in the pot - i.e. flopping a hand where you can either take or apply pressure with.

So if we have around 10% equity we need 9:1, but we are only getting like 3.5:1 direct odds on our call, we need to be able to make it up post-flop when we hit a monster. In a 6 max game though this is probably about as good as it gets for 67s.

At the end of the day though, fit or fold poker isn't profitable. Period.

Matt and the boys do a good job of talking about one of AE Jones' favorite topics, which is 'randomization by equity' even though they don't call it out by name, which is just a fancy way of saying that he hates money and will apply an insane amount of pressure when he has position and flops something that stands a good chance to improve, like backdoor draws, especially if the board looks to have missed UTG's range, and hit ours hard.

What you haven't heard enough bad beat stories? :-)

Lol - I have a couple hundred of them if anyone gets bored.

Seriously though, Matt - you guys did a great job on this book.

So I have my copy of the book (Thanks, Matt) and am reading it. Not a dry read at all so far but still packed with info.

How should I contribute to this discussion group? Ruminate on concepts I find interesting/have questions about, or will there be something more structured?

So I have my copy of the book (Thanks, Matt) and am reading it. Not a dry read at all so far but still packed with info.

How should I contribute to this discussion group? Ruminate on concepts I find interesting/have questions about, or will there be something more structured?

Absolutely! And sorry I have been a little inactive -- life's a bitch sometimes. Ill be around tomorrow.

First week: Showdown Equity And Steal Equity

Every hand has both showdown equity and steal equity.

This assertion made me thinking. While I understand that some hands (namely the top of your preflop raising range) have very high showdown equity, why do some hands have more steal equity than others? Is it not your tight opponent, your betsize or the scary board texture that gives you steal (or folding) equity?

In the example with the two black aces, when the forth flush cards hits on the river, does it really matter what type of holding we have? We could as well bluff villain off his hand with 72o.

When I was mulling over this topic the last days, I came up with the fact that some hands (like suited connectors e.g.) make very strong draws that give you the opportunity to semibluff and steal the pot this way.

Just some food for discussion, feel free to add your opinions.

When I was mulling over this topic the last days, I came up with the fact that some hands (like suited connectors e.g.) make very strong draws that give you the opportunity to semibluff and steal the pot this way.

Just some food for discussion, feel free to add your opinions.

That is probably some of it, but I think really most hands have the same steal equity. (If you covered up you cards on the screen and never looked at them and just stole based on situation every hand would be equal in terms of steal equity.) The ratio of showdown equity to steal equity does change and as showdown value goes up steal equity effectively goes down.

I think what that means in a hand is because a hand has showdown value you are more likely to play a value or pot control line with it and therefore not steal with it. You probably could still steal with it, but the other line has more value and so it effectively loses steal equity. (I'd come up with an example, but going to be late for work).

So my main comment on Part 1 is that I've taken a different mindset during hands. Previously I didn't start thinking about steal equity from the start of a hand. Because of that I think I missed a ton of steal opportunities. My showdown winnings chart would certainly indicate this. I can even remember spots where I'd click check or fold and almost instantly think "dang I bet I could have taken that pot away there."

My biggest takeaway from Part 1 is definitely thinking from the outset about not only how I can get value from my hand, but also the right lines to steal with it.

One side benefit I have noticed is over the last couple months I've been struggling with playing on autopilot a lot and not focusing. Trying to concentrate on spots to steal has improved my overall focus.