Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by terp (Micro/Small Stakes)

The first 12 minutes describe me completely when I try and play 6max. I was half-expecting you to say my name, date of birth and favorite food.

I'm very observant and adapt well when I play HU, but my play at 6max depresses me.

Great vid.

One Pump Chump sounds like a guy who suffers from premature ejaculation.

One Pump Chump sounds like a guy who suffers from premature ejaculation.

heh, you will enjoy the next one!

Just to give you some mad props Justin, I have literally written like 20+ pages of notes and reflection from this series. That's computer written btw.

Really good vid. One thing though, after 5-10 minutes of focus, I go back to my default lines.

Best episode in the series. Very, very good. Thanks.

This was soooo helpful. Thanks.

Really good episode again

Also to the producers, or who ever is in charge of the media files, is it possible to put out an mp3file of this series? Because there's a lot of theory in here, I would love to listen to again, when I'm not at my computer. I've tried converting the files myself, but for some reason its not working.

+1 for the mp3 request. Would be very appreciated. I'd even consider sending flowers or cookies.

Really good episode again

Also to the producers, or who ever is in charge of the media files, is it possible to put out an mp3file of this series? Because there's a lot of theory in here, I would love to listen to again, when I'm not at my computer. I've tried converting the files myself, but for some reason its not working.

Try http://www.dvdvideosoft.com/free-dvd-video-software.htm....It is free, and very simple to use.

I tried something else, before I was trying to convert the MP4, but for some reason I would always get errors when I did that. So instead I downloaded the wmv and converting was pretty easy.

Would still be easier, if there already was an mp3 though

Hey terp I have a question or maybe a general statement about what you said during that last slide.

I identified some spots in my game were i operate without information and just fold. This one was the most occuring:

I have few stats on a guy and he 3bets me.

However i'm still not convinced its actually the right play to just start doing something not ABC against such a line when you are basically in the first 25 hands.
I realise he could be bluffing there, so a certain 4bet% against his 3bet there is clearly optimal.

Some thoughts on this?

I really liked this video a lot but the one thing that struck me was that you started the video by being a bit hard on ABC type players who have solid fundamentals but at the end suggested it was a solid foundation which you should add too in small steps.

I understand the whole video series is for players who already play winning poker that are looking to move up where you find fewer bad players and more resonable players.

Although I agree its not optimal to generalize about opponents, it's also not that bad either is it?

Thinking about how you opponent plays and reacts is always a good step.

Of course looking at their individual tendancies on a street by street basis is the optimal way to play any opponent.

As someone who plays an ABC style at NLHE FR, I know I probably don't play optimally in certain spots.

Although I do think I am a bit ABC, I don't make plays rigidly on any street.

My range for calling a bad player OOP is vastly different from a good one.

I think the video would improve with hand examples of each of the concepts.

Maybe take the same hand/flop against two different players, who have different tendencies.

Maybe explain street by street how you would handle various cards and various opponent reactions.

Maybe even show how an ABC player would handle it.... and how he should be thinking.

Hey terp I have a question or maybe a general statement about what you said during that last slide.

I identified some spots in my game were i operate without information and just fold. This one was the most occuring:

I have few stats on a guy and he 3bets me.

However i'm still not convinced its actually the right play to just start doing something not ABC against such a line when you are basically in the first 25 hands.
I realise he could be bluffing there, so a certain 4bet% against his 3bet there is clearly optimal.

Some thoughts on this?

the essence of this video is to stop looking to modify from your framework of ABC but to relearn how to look at spots. in other words, don't approach this as "i should fold until i know he's doing this incredibly often" but rather "how should i look at spots where i face 3bets OOP with varying frequency?"

consider pure game theory/math: "i risk X to 4bet him; he needs to fold this often."

consider generic reads: "experience tells me apparently competent regulars are more likely to be bluffing with earlier 3bets."

consider game flow: "what effect will a fold/call/4bet have here on his future 3bet frequency?"

etc.

co

I really liked this video a lot but the one thing that struck me was that you started the video by being a bit hard on ABC type players who have solid fundamentals but at the end suggested it was a solid foundation which you should add too in small steps.

I understand the whole video series is for players who already play winning poker that are looking to move up where you find fewer bad players and more resonable players.

Although I agree its not optimal to generalize about opponents, it's also not that bad either is it?

Thinking about how you opponent plays and reacts is always a good step.

Of course looking at their individual tendancies on a street by street basis is the optimal way to play any opponent.

As someone who plays an ABC style at NLHE FR, I know I probably don't play optimally in certain spots.

Although I do think I am a bit ABC, I don't make plays rigidly on any street.

My range for calling a bad player OOP is vastly different from a good one.

I think the video would improve with hand examples of each of the concepts.

Maybe take the same hand/flop against two different players, who have different tendencies.

Maybe explain street by street how you would handle various cards and various opponent reactions.

Maybe even show how an ABC player would handle it.... and how he should be thinking.

the whole point of this video is to make you all question what really are fundamentals. to be completely honest, forums and peers have lied to you about what is fundamental! 'fundamental' does not mean the most basic skill set to win at poker, it means the most basic theory that will allow you to figure out how to win at poker.

the skills you call fundamentals are the easiest and most basic tools, but labeling them this way skews your perception and is a large cause of the 'isn't necessary' fallacy.

re: generalizing about opponents - no, it's not without use, but i just encourage you guys to do this in extreme moderation: when you lack any info, etc. begin formulating specific reads as soon as possible.

let me also take this opportunity to define optimal, which i imagine you are misunderstanding-

optimal means 'game theory optimal.' this means you are indifferent with your range to your opponent's response. it means you are perfectly balanced. optimal, as i believe you understand and use it, means to convey "most +ev," which should be your goal.

if you play GTO, you neither win nor lose. if this concept confuses you, i encourage you to read up on this.

re: hand examples - i think this is a good idea. it might be difficult for me to speculate on how people might exactly analyze a hand poorly, so a good idea might be to look at a thread where i thought the advice was poor. i will keep this in mind for the last few videos!

the whole point of this video is to make you all question what really are fundamentals. to be completely honest, forums and peers have lied to you about what is fundamental! 'fundamental' does not mean the most basic skill set to win at poker, it means the most basic theory that will allow you to figure out how to win at poker.

the skills you call fundamentals are the easiest and most basic tools, but labeling them this way skews your perception and is a large cause of the 'isn't necessary' fallacy.

re: generalizing about opponents - no, it's not without use, but i just encourage you guys to do this in extreme moderation: when you lack any info, etc. begin formulating specific reads as soon as possible.

let me also take this opportunity to define optimal, which i imagine you are misunderstanding-

optimal means 'game theory optimal.' this means you are indifferent with your range to your opponent's response. it means you are perfectly balanced. optimal, as i believe you understand and use it, means to convey "most +ev," which should be your goal.

if you play GTO, you neither win nor lose. if this concept confuses you, i encourage you to read up on this.

re: hand examples - i think this is a good idea. it might be difficult for me to speculate on how people might exactly analyze a hand poorly, so a good idea might be to look at a thread where i thought the advice was poor. i will keep this in mind for the last few videos!

When you assume ABC type player are you assuming a winning player?

Maybe I misunderstanding and you are talking about breakeven/slightly losing type players?

My winrate is around 3.3 bb/100 over the last 500K hands playing 16-24 tables.(OK, but not great)

Could I have a higher (optimal) winrate playing less tables, almost certainly.

The abilty to avoid marginally EV spots means I can play longer and more tables.

My overall hourly winrate is higher when bonuses/rakeback are factored in.

It's no surprise that those guys with the highest hourly winrate at the limits 25-100NL FR play a very solid tight style mixed with great table selection and hand reading skills.

At the same time I fully understand that it's hard to get better at poker if you avoid marginal/tricky spots.

At the lower limits you can win by playing an unbalanced/exploitable style because the vast majority of opponents won't exploit you.
Which turns out to be reasonbly optimal. (wins money at a decent clip)

As an example if a player folds to C bets 70% you can C bet virtually every flop regardless of board texture and percieved range.

Obviously there are some huge holes in the above strategy but it still wins at a decent clip overall.

I am constantly learning, I wouldn't pay to be a member of this site if I thought I knew everything.

I don't mind being told I am an idiot as long as you can explain to me why I am an idiot.

let me say first i have no idea what limits you play but that is a fine winrate playing any number of tables and certainly playing that many

you still do not understand what optimal means. it is frequently misused, so i imagine this is fairly common. optimal DOES NOT mean most profitable. it means game theory optimal. it does not mean "win money at a decent clip." i would really encourage you to read up on this as there is plenty of good primer material available.

in my video, i try to destroy the myth of the abc player as being solid, etc. the most important skill in poker is the ability to adapt. developing a generally rote strategy that wins in one environment is fine in that particular environment, but it does not make one much of a poker player.

let me say first i have no idea what limits you play but that is a fine winrate playing any number of tables and certainly playing that many

I play at mainly 50NL FR and some 100NL FR at Stars and FTP

you still do not understand what optimal means. it is frequently misused, so i imagine this is fairly common. optimal DOES NOT mean most profitable. it means game theory optimal. it does not mean "win money at a decent clip." i would really encourage you to read up on this as there is plenty of good primer material available.

Any chance you can either point me to the primer material or explain where I am going wrong.

Again, I am more than willing to be wrong if you can explain exactly why I am wrong.

In my mind optimal means playing a hand in the most optimal EV way to either win the most or lose the least.
Forcing opponents to make more/bigger mistakes than I make.

in my video, i try to destroy the myth of the abc player as being solid, etc. the most important skill in poker is the ability to adapt. developing a generally rote strategy that wins in one environment is fine in that particular environment, but it does not make one much of a poker player.

Agreed, and that is exactly what I said above but you still did not define an ABC player as I asked in my last post.

Again, if he is a marginal winning player such as myself then it's a bit unfair.

Anybody who wins over a decent sample at the bigger sites has a decent understanding of the different aspects of the game that is needed to win at that level.

It may be that their strengths are table selection over technical ability or fantastic hand reading ability.

That player has some decent skills to overcome the rake and the other players.

The vast vast majority of players lose or barely breakeven at poker.

It seems a bit unfair to suggest that a winning player is not a solid player.

I think I am a solid player......... but not a great player.

I am trying to learn the skills that will take me to the next level.

As far as good game theory material, one of the theory episodes of DOGISHEADSUP here on DC (I believe it's episode 5 or 6) deals specifically with game theory, and it's a very good series in general.



Here's my notes on the ABC player thing, maybe it clears up something for you. Justin = terp.

ABC play really prone to being misunderstood. ABC play is commonly understood as basic winning poker. Justin gives a more specific definition because he views the current definition as lacking. ABC play, as defined by Justin, is taking profitable spots and working down a line of profitability until you reach a point of that is slightly above 0EV, not getting in spots where you are slightly uncomfortable and the EV is thinner. ABC play will usually focus around the fundamentals we learned as beginning players. Because we learned these things when we started playing, they seem fundamental to winning, but they creates a misguided view of poker theory.

Poker theory says we need to value bet in order to bluff, and vice versa. We need some sense of balance. Some people’s leaks are so glaringly obvious that we go ahead and exploit players without understanding the underlying theory. The underlying theory should be fundamental, if you’re going to value bet in a spot, you need to bluff. When we deviate from balanced play, it’s not fundamental, but a corollary [an inference that follows directly from the proof of another proposition]. We’re only doing it because someone else’s poor fundamentals, that someone else is unbalanced. This is important to understand. If the profitability of playing hands went from a scale of 0 to 100 (anything below 0 would be unprofitable), an ABC player would probably choose everything from say 15 to 100, but ignore the hands from 14 to 0 because of discomfort.

I´m not entitled to put words into terp´s mouth, but I´ll try - @terp, please correct me if I´m wrong!!

It seems a bit unfair to suggest that a winning player is not a solid player.

I´m quite sure, terp never mentioned or even intended anything like that. His "motives" are more complex.

Anybody who wins over a decent sample at the bigger sites has a decent understanding of the different aspects of the game that is needed to win at that level.

That´s correct - and imho you pinpoint the basic idea of terp with the last part of your sentence: "... that is needed to win AT THAT LEVEL.".

The idea of terp was to show why solid, winning (even real good) players fail to move up. It´s because they lack an understanding of the game that is robust enough to survive outside their "known" box.

It might be a stretch, but just consider a great winning player ten years ago. He prints money just by playing his tight-nitty ABC-style and valuetowns all the clueless players tumbling around. This player never evolved his game but kept his style over the years. Today he is a big loser - and he can´t do anything against. You see, what I mean? To be a solid player with a decent "understanding of the different aspects of the game that is needed to win at that level" is not only not enough to step up - it´s probably not even enough to win in a couple of years from today.

It´s like many other things in life. In my "youth" I was able to change the spark plugs of my VW Beetle - or even dismantle the carburator. This was way (!!) more than most other were able to do and some watched me as a guru. Were I a good mechanic? God beware - if you had shown me a Ford I would´ve looked like a pig at a clockwork - b/c I didn´t understand WHAT I did or how things were constructed. I had just learned the basic steps to get my job done - but not more.

I have a question. At the end of the video you say that every move you make should be either EV neutral or +EV in a vaccuum. Which is agree with, but lets say you make a slightly -EV move on one street, that will create a +EV situation on the next one. Would the move on the previous street still be alright to make?

The reason I'm asking is, I read this hand history where the hero made possibly -EV double barrel, the villain called, but because of his call it turned his hand really face up, which in turned created a really profitable 3barrel situation for the hero.

I have a question. At the end of the video you say that every move you make should be either EV neutral or +EV in a vaccuum. Which is agree with, but lets say you make a slightly -EV move on one street, that will create a +EV situation on the next one. Would the move on the previous street still be alright to make?

The reason I'm asking is, I read this hand history where the hero made possibly -EV double barrel, the villain called, but because of his call it turned his hand really face up, which in turned created a really profitable 3barrel situation for the hero.

I don´t think that a move can be -EV or +EV on one single street. It can only has an EV over the whole hand (it gets more complicated if you look on a whole session or whatever but that´s not the topic).

But to answer directly to your specific question: the "slightly -EV" of the double barrel results from a couple of different scenarios that range from big losses to big profits. Overall they sum up to a slight loss (hence the -EV).

Just the fact that the hand in this special situation turned out positive for Hero doesn´t change the negative expectation on the previous street, the possibility that Villain calls and lets us profitably 3-barrel should be already calculated in the -EV of the previous street.

In fact - if we didn´t 3-barrel when offered the chance, the 2nd-barrel would not be slightly -EV but hugely -EV. Does that make sense for you?

I think so, but just to be sure, so when in this example the turnbet would always create a profitable riverbet situation, which will be your plan once you decide the bet the turn. The plan as a whole, to barrel both turn and river, would be +EV, which automatically makes your turnbet +EV.

But when your plan wasnt to barrel the river, but coincidentally it created a +EV situation on the river, it would still make the turnbet -EV, eventhough in this particular case it turned out to be the right decision.

Correct?

The plan as a whole, to barrel both turn and river, would be +EV, which automatically makes your turnbet +EV.

No.

Let me take an extreme example (extreme to clearly demonstrate the idea):

- The pot is $100 on the turn.
- You barrel $50 with the plan to 3-barrel the river 100% when called.
- Villain will shove the turn in 90% and call in 10%, but always folds to a riverbarrel when he called.

EV (turn) = (0.9 x -$50) + (0.1 x $100) = -$45 + $10 = -$35.

You see, having a profitable river plan (which is profitable just for the situation you face specifically on the river, ignoring previous streets) doesn´t "automatically" make it profitable on the previous streets. It just means that your EV is even more negative in case you don´t barrel the river (b/c Villain probably wins sometimes or even most often).

Got clear?

I think what you mean is that a turn-barrel can be -EV in itself but gets +EV when we take further streets into account. What I want to say is that you simply never can / or should think this way - because the hand doesn´t end on the turn. How can a turnbet be -EV in itself? You don´t lose money unless Villain ships and you fold - so you´re missing a part of your EV-equation if you don´t take the river into account.

ah ok thanks for clearing this up, so when calculating the ev I should always consider the possible action on the later streets.

re: hand examples - i think this is a good idea. it might be difficult for me to speculate on how people might exactly analyze a hand poorly, so a good idea might be to look at a thread where i thought the advice was poor. i will keep this in mind for the last few videos!

I would like to see this

I´m not entitled to put words into terp´s mouth, but I´ll try - @terp, please correct me if I´m wrong!!


I´m quite sure, terp never mentioned or even intended anything like that. His "motives" are more complex.


That´s correct - and imho you pinpoint the basic idea of terp with the last part of your sentence: "... that is needed to win AT THAT LEVEL.".

The idea of terp was to show why solid, winning (even real good) players fail to move up. It´s because they lack an understanding of the game that is robust enough to survive outside their "known" box.

It might be a stretch, but just consider a great winning player ten years ago. He prints money just by playing his tight-nitty ABC-style and valuetowns all the clueless players tumbling around. This player never evolved his game but kept his style over the years. Today he is a big loser - and he can´t do anything against. You see, what I mean? To be a solid player with a decent "understanding of the different aspects of the game that is needed to win at that level" is not only not enough to step up - it´s probably not even enough to win in a couple of years from today.

It´s like many other things in life. In my "youth" I was able to change the spark plugs of my VW Beetle - or even dismantle the carburator. This was way (!!) more than most other were able to do and some watched me as a guru. Were I a good mechanic? God beware - if you had shown me a Ford I would´ve looked like a pig at a clockwork - b/c I didn´t understand WHAT I did or how things were constructed. I had just learned the basic steps to get my job done - but not more.

This is the reason I ask for the definition of ABC player.

If the definition is somebody who never changes his approach regardless of opponent (non-adjuster) then thats not who I am thinking of as solid/ABC.

That type of player could maybe be breakeven at best in the current games I play in.

Even though Terp doesn't seem to like the idea of generalizing about opponents, I personally think its pretty effctive when looking at pre-flop ranges and 3betting/4betting ranges/river shove ranges.

I just can't see how it is bad to "think" what range an opponent holds and how your hand plays against that range.
Is he the type of player who will stack off with TP or even less? (do I have the implied odds to call)

If you play 16 tables or more I don't think you get the chance to do much more than generalize about an opponent.
That's the downside of playing a style which misses some lower EV oppotunities per table but has a higher hourly because of volume.

Is that overall optimal at that level, probably yes

The downside is if we want to play better opponents (move up), we may need extra skills to keep ahead.

But surely those skills are additional. We add to the style we have to grab those extra EV spots.

We still find fish at higher levels and play the same way we would at lower levels.

The vast majority of our earnings come from fish.

Its no surprise the high stakes guys cream themselves every time scout324 comes on line.

With regards to your "definition of an ABC player"... Allow me to quote myself.

ABC play, as defined by Justin, is taking profitable spots and working down a line of profitability until you reach a point of that is slightly above 0EV, not getting in spots where you are slightly uncomfortable and the EV is thinner.

In short, the definition of an ABC player is a player who plays a style that has a heavy emphasis on the obvious +EV spots, but avoids the ones that are closer. I know a player on iPoker who is very ABC and never gets out of line. He seems overly concerned with pot control, plays a very exploitable fit-or-fold type of style, yet still wins. He makes most of his money from spewy regulars, tilt monkeys, fish and rakeback. He is, in my opinion, the definition of an ABC player. He even fails to valuebet top pair good kicker for two streets.

With regards to your "definition of an ABC player"... Allow me to quote myself.

ABC play, as defined by Justin, is taking profitable spots and working down a line of profitability until you reach a point of that is slightly above 0EV, not getting in spots where you are slightly uncomfortable and the EV is thinner.

In short, the definition of an ABC player is a player who plays a style that has a heavy emphasis on the obvious +EV spots, but avoids the ones that are closer. I know a player on iPoker who is very ABC and never gets out of line. He seems overly concerned with pot control, plays a very exploitable fit-or-fold type of style, yet still wins. He makes most of his money from spewy regulars, tilt monkeys, fish and rakeback. He is, in my opinion, the definition of an ABC player. He even fails to valuebet top pair good kicker for two streets.

Uh and he wins? at 1c/2c ?

With regards to your "definition of an ABC player"... Allow me to quote myself.

ABC play, as defined by Justin, is taking profitable spots and working down a line of profitability until you reach a point of that is slightly above 0EV, not getting in spots where you are slightly uncomfortable and the EV is thinner.

In short, the definition of an ABC player is a player who plays a style that has a heavy emphasis on the obvious +EV spots, but avoids the ones that are closer. I know a player on iPoker who is very ABC and never gets out of line. He seems overly concerned with pot control, plays a very exploitable fit-or-fold type of style, yet still wins. He makes most of his money from spewy regulars, tilt monkeys, fish and rakeback. He is, in my opinion, the definition of an ABC player. He even fails to valuebet top pair good kicker for two streets.

What that suggests is that an ABC player extracts the vast majority of his EV

Having watched the vast majority of beginer series here, they normally ALL advocate an exploitable style as being optimal when you have poorer opponents who wont recognize this/exploit you.

If you look at the player rattings in HEM they have an ABC badge, players who play too tight and don't value bet top pair against the right opponent are normally rock type players.

Most ABC players will (value) bet until they meet any resistance against many player types.

If you look up ABC players on PTR the majority tend to be winners but rocks tend to be breakeven or small losers.

thanks for your patience. i want you to understand that i am not attacking you personally, but i am attacking ingrained, incorrect ideas.

optimal as a poker term does not mean making the most money. in fact, it means making NO money - game theory optimal means we are balanced. here as a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_(game_theory)

the term you are scratching at is "EV optimal."

your goal should be to derive the game theory optimal (zero EV) solution to a situation and then deviate as far as you can positively (EV optimal) to exploit your opponent. use observed exploitable tendencies to accomplish this. note that you are becoming exploitable in doing so, as you always do when you are anything but GTO, but you expect not to be exploited and thus to show a profit.

and as far as winning=solid, i again disagree. winning consistently does not make you a solid poker player. it makes you good at a system and i don't fault that accomplishment, but why settle for it and why build a moat around a small castle? build a bigger castle...

This is the reason I ask for the definition of ABC player.

If the definition is somebody who never changes his approach regardless of opponent (non-adjuster) then thats not who I am thinking of as solid/ABC.

That type of player could maybe be breakeven at best in the current games I play in.

Even though Terp doesn't seem to like the idea of generalizing about opponents, I personally think its pretty effctive when looking at pre-flop ranges and 3betting/4betting ranges/river shove ranges.

I just can't see how it is bad to "think" what range an opponent holds and how your hand plays against that range.
Is he the type of player who will stack off with TP or even less? (do I have the implied odds to call)

If you play 16 tables or more I don't think you get the chance to do much more than generalize about an opponent.
That's the downside of playing a style which misses some lower EV oppotunities per table but has a higher hourly because of volume.

Is that overall optimal at that level, probably yes

The downside is if we want to play better opponents (move up), we may need extra skills to keep ahead.

But surely those skills are additional. We add to the style we have to grab those extra EV spots.

We still find fish at higher levels and play the same way we would at lower levels.

The vast majority of our earnings come from fish.

Its no surprise the high stakes guys cream themselves every time scout324 comes on line.

i can see i am failing to communicate to you. i am sorry.

some of this comes from your resistance to redefining some basic terminology. applying outside-of-poker meaning to inside-of-poker words fails here.

microstakes players tend to idolize the 'solid' 'ABC' player who wins at a consistent rate. he has developed a somewhat rote strategy. sure, he plays hand X v opponent type Y differently than opponent type Z, but he fails to adjust between Y1 and Y2.

yes, his solution is more profitable than no adjustment at all, but why settle for that? in short, that is the essence of this video. if i cannot convey that with this, i am not sure i will be able to explain it.

i'd like to thank ohjoy and others for their active participation and say that they did understand and summarize quite well.

i can see i am failing to communicate to you. i am sorry.

No problem, i am just trying to learn like evryone else

some of this comes from your resistance to redefining some basic terminology. applying outside-of-poker meaning to inside-of-poker words fails here.

I am not resistant to anything, feel free to correct me.

microstakes players tend to idolize the 'solid' 'ABC' player who wins at a consistent rate.

You have used ABC player a lot yet I still don't see where you have defined such a player.

I have asked you a number of times in this thread, I even gave my opinion on what it means to me.

he has developed a somewhat rote strategy. sure, he plays hand X v opponent type Y differently than opponent type Z, but he fails to adjust between Y1 and Y2.

But that makes him solid but not a great player.

If he can play more tables/longer then his overall hourly is better than if he took these smaller EV oppotunities.

As already stated its easy to say "but he fails to adjust between Y1 and Y2" yet this statement is kind of weak without specific hand examples/situations.

Show me what to look for between player type Y1 and Y2

yes, his solution is more profitable than no adjustment at all, but why settle for that?

Thats doesn't make it bad, just less than perfect.

I can only speak for myself and say that I have not settled for anything.

I am constanly looking to improve even though I am a winning player in the games I play.

in short, that is the essence of this video. if i cannot convey that with this, i am not sure i will be able to explain it.

fair enough, maybe a definition of how you think ABC players play at various levels would be useful.

It would give those of us looking to improve some kind of benchmark to see if I/we are one of those players.

this will be my last post. i do hope i reach you here.

No problem, i am just trying to learn like evryone else

good! i do appreciate your patience.

I am not resistant to anything, feel free to correct me.

i see you as being resistant since you keep reusing terms in a way that i have repudiated.

You have used ABC player a lot yet I still don't see where you have defined such a player.

I have asked you a number of times in this thread, I even gave my opinion on what it means to me.

i define it directly below the portion you quoted. this is basically just a summary of how uNL players tend to define ABC - treat opponents as members of some group and apply standard lines according to the variables {holding, board, opponent type}

But that makes him solid but not a great player.

i suppose you like the term solid and there's no point in trying to pry it from you, but in my view he is not even playing poker, he is just mass-applying a pre-fabricated strategy as it applies. you've arbitrarily decided that this is 'solid.'

this isn't poker to me, so it's hard for me to call this 'solid poker.'

If he can play more tables/longer then his overall hourly is better than if he took these smaller EV oppotunities.

this player may well be maximizing his immediate hourly, but he is stunting himself. if he believes in this approach, he probably has little interest in deucescracked.

As already stated its easy to say "but he fails to adjust between Y1 and Y2" yet this statement is kind of weak without specific hand examples/situations.

Show me what to look for between player type Y1 and Y2

the possible examples i could provide are so numerous i am not sure what to say. consider anything, really.

"both these guys see a million flops, but what then?"
"how often does this nit follow through on the turn, and with what sorts of holdings?"
etc.

Thats doesn't make it bad, just less than perfect.

I can only speak for myself and say that I have not settled for anything.

I am constanly looking to improve even though I am a winning player in the games I play.

again, i am happy you seek actively to get better

fair enough, maybe a definition of how you think ABC players play at various levels would be useful.

It would give those of us looking to improve some kind of benchmark to see if I/we are one of those players.

i have said it many times now (see above). in fairness, i may not have presented it in such a way that it was obvious that i was introducing a definition and i will be more mindful in the future.

he plays hand X v opponent type Y differently than opponent type Z, but he fails to adjust between Y1 and Y2.

I'm guessing what you mean by this is that the 'abc player', knows how to adjust between the commonly used player labels like 'NIT' 'TAG' 'LAG', etc. But fails to deviate between the different nits and TAGs.

So instead of tailoring their strategy to each specific opponent, they have a standard game plan vs every player group. For instance they might say "if a nit raises the turn in this spot you should always fold", instead of thinking "what kind of hands is THIS nit raising with on the turn?"

I'm guessing what you mean by this is that the 'abc player', knows how to adjust between the commonly used player labels like 'NIT' 'TAG' 'LAG', etc. But fails to deviate between the different nits and TAGs.

So instead of tailoring their strategy to each specific opponent, they have a standard game plan vs every player group. For instance they might say "if a nit raises the turn in this spot you should always fold", instead of thinking "what kind of hands is THIS nit raising with on the turn?"

Here is the problem.

If we all except that the vast majority of our profit comes from bad/fishy players, the slight adjustments we make vs good/tight/solid players wont really be worth a huge amount.

We never win that much against players who don't make many huge mistakes.

Here is the problem.

If we all except that the vast majority of our profit comes from bad/fishy players, the slight adjustments we make vs good/tight/solid players wont really be worth a huge amount.

We never win that much against players who don't make many huge mistakes.

I think you misunderstood. I simply used those labels as an example, this also includes the bad players, loose passives, calling stations, maniacs w/e. Even against bad players there's always going to be an optimal strategy that will get the most value out of that player, which will probably make you stack him faster. And when you stack him faster he will lose less against other regulars.

Also every extra amount of bb's you can win from anybody is better than not winning vs that opponent at all. Even if you win only 10bb's from a regular in every session, if you do this vs 9 others in the same session, that's still 1 buy in you would've missed out on, if you didnt know how to exploit that small edge you had in that single pot.

this will be my last post. i do hope i reach you here.

Sorry you don't feel discussions are worthwhile.

If you truely are failing to reach me, then thats unfortunate as I think I am your target audience.

I am a winning SSNLHE player, who understands poker to a reasonable degree.

If I am missing many of your points then members that have less of an understanding of the basics of poker than myself might also be having trouble.

i see you as being resistant since you keep reusing terms in a way that i have repudiated.

Again I am not resistant to doing anything. Just because I make mistakes in language and terminology doesn't make me resistant, it makes me incorrect.

i define it directly below the portion you quoted. this is basically just a summary of how uNL players tend to define ABC - treat opponents as members of some group and apply standard lines according to the variables {holding, board, opponent type}

I have asked you a few times if you define this player as a winning player or the rocky type breakeven/slightly losing type play.

I explained exactly what I personally think an ABC player is.

Tell me If I am wrong. I only know what I know. I am willing to learn.

i suppose you like the term solid and there's no point in trying to pry it from you, but in my view he is not even playing poker, he is just mass-applying a pre-fabricated strategy as it applies. you've arbitrarily decided that this is 'solid.'

this isn't poker to me, so it's hard for me to call this 'solid poker.'

(1) A decent solid winning player plays better than 97% of all poker players at his levels, to say he isnt playing solid poker is silly.

(2) What is really stange is you put down a "pre-fabricated strategy" yet EVERY player in the world has a pre-fabricated strategy.
The steps may be more complex with better players but it's always....... what do i do if....type questions.
Even in your example you would take steps (thought processes) to look at the differences between Y1 and Y2

To say......."this isn't poker to me, so it's hard for me to call this 'solid poker.'" comes off as a bit elitist.

Of course it's poker, it's winning poker. Something the vast majority of members of this website would love to achieve.
Anyone who wins at a decent rate in the modern games has put a lot of thought into various street by street strategies.

this player may well be maximizing his immediate hourly, but he is stunting himself.

But at the same time he is building a bankroll to play higher and pay for websites like this and pay for coaching so he can get better. Thats my aim.

if he believes in this approach, he probably has little interest in deucescracked.

I am interested in Deucescracked, I pay $29 every month to be a member here.

I know many other people in the NL FR forum who play an ABC type style (my definition)

Again, I think I am your target audience. Tell me if I am wrong?

the possible examples i could provide are so numerous i am not sure what to say. consider anything, really.

"both these guys see a million flops, but what then?"
"how often does this nit follow through on the turn, and with what sorts of holdings?"
etc.

You started out in your first post agreeing that your videos would be better with more hand examples.

Now its all too complicated?

This thread is getting strange.

again, i am happy you seek actively to get better

Absolutely, I can only do that by asking questions when I don't understand something.

The downside is if we want to play better opponents (move up), we may need extra skills to keep ahead.

But surely those skills are additional. We add to the style we have to grab those extra EV spots.

I think the confusion here is that what you call skills are what most people would call techniques or strategies. In my opinion the skills are what we can use to work out effective strategies.

Math skill lets you do the calculation which means you can 3bet someone with too high a fold to 3B with any two cards.

Hand reading skill lets you see good possibilities for bluff catching and thin value betting.

There are other skills and capabilities (and to be honest just writing this post makes me think that I should actively work out what they are and work on all of them) and being more highly skilled in all of them will help us devise new strategies for changes and differences, from table to table, site to site, game to game, and most importantly on an ongoing basis as poker develops and changes.

I think that the idea that you can add skills is wrong, you can improve them or you can develop them, and using the skill set you have you can devise strategies to use in particular spots.

We still find fish at higher levels and play the same way we would at lower levels.

The vast majority of our earnings come from fish.

Even fish have skills and strategies they have developed from them: Raise Aces big, fold to scary Cbets, etc, etc... I would go as far as to suggest that the SSNL disease is thinking that because we can eat the smaller fish we swim with, we won't get eaten when we move up.

So I think the exact point of this series if I understand it is to encourage us to develop our skills to the point where we can be comfortable in any situation/game and be winning players at a higher level.

And finally, I appreciate that mass multi-tabling can be profitable, and that it is not conducive to improving skills but surely there is a valid counter point that cutting back to improve, move up levels and win more, while delaying gratification could be more profitable.

Peace :-)

Steve

http://academicearth.org/courses/game-theory

for anyone who wants a primer on game theory,

i just came across this on 2+2. anxiously making my way through it so i can't yet promise it's value but i imagine it'd be extremely helpful to anyone looking for some ground.

gl,
justin