20 replies to this topic

[Pipedream]

I was listening to the rounders podcast this week when they interviewed The Grinder and they touched on the subject of small pot poker. This sounded a lot like DN's approach to the game, but they didn't go into much detail about how to implement a stragey like this. Anyone have any input on how to to apply this concept in NLH tourney's and how would that be different if applied to a cash game?

[ben_wallace]

Small pot poker is a hard game to play. I know I personaly l am not ready for it. The basics of it it getting involved in a number of small pots vs seeing only a few large ones. The reason behind this is that you can see the flop, then try and outplay your opponent after the flop. Normally it is employed only by those who are very good at putting people on hands and reading players, cause you need to be very good at this to outplay them. It is in essence chopping away at little pots and slowly building your stack by consistently adding to it with small amounts.

One of the upsides is that you see a lot of flops without risking a large amount of your stack and it becomes harder to put you on a hand cause you play so many different hands.

The downside is that because you are playing so many hands, that if you aren't connecting or aren't outplaying people your stack will get whittled away. This style is very effective if done correctly, but it is very easy to get wrong because most people trying to play it just got involved in way too many pots and chop themselves away instead of their opponents.

[CardWarfare]

"small ball" is the strategy I use in my main home game tournament, simply because I've become so familiar with the styles of most of the players.

It basically combines very liberal starting hand requirements with frequent bets of smallish size to gain information.

The benefits are numerous.

you protect your stack by not risking large percentages of it on one hand

it's easier to avoid traps because of a lack of commitment to the pot

it's easier to set traps because of your maniac table image


I will agree that it takes a large degree of reads and confidence in those reads to pull off. I don't use this strategy when I play in cash games at the cardrooms, but I do use it in my homegame, where, like I said, I'm very familiar with the players and their tendencies

[Pipedream]

Great responses guys...the input is much appreciated. This style intrests me so much right now because of the structure of a weekly tournament I play in. Your starting stack is 1950, blinds start out 10-20 and jump to 20-40 in 30 min. After an hour the blinds are 50-100 and double every 20 min from there on out. I found my normal tight play in the start hasn't been able to get me very far as you have to build a fairly large stack in the first hour. I've been playing pretty loose the first hour seeing lots of flops and trying to connect. A lot of the people who play this tourney are new to the game or older predictable players who make a lot of mistakes. Am I taking the right approach given the structure? Suggestions? I'm having a tough time getting past the 100-200 levels. By the time the final table starts blinds are around the 500-1000 level.

[MasterLJ]

Playing tight is correct if that's the tourny set up.

1950 in chips with 10-20 blinds and blind doubling every *30 minutes* that's pretty slow.

I play in a weekly tourny that starts you out with 20k in chips and blinds are 25-50 to start but go up every 15 minutes. I play very aggressive poker with a wide variety of starting hands because I am looking to snipe buy-ins, not a measely pot here and there. It's not exactly small pot, but it's trying to sucker in people without a concept of pot odds (which there are quite a few). When I make a large hand to their top pair, if I start betting 10-25% of their entire chipstack (overbetting the pot by several times over) they are generally oblivious and still make the call. To boot I'm only risking 0.25% of my chip stack to see a flop in the first 15 minutes of the game, that could pay huge dividends. If you do the math here, that means I only have to double up on 1 in 400 hands for aggressive playing to be profitable early on.

I really try to avoid saying things like, "I had no choice," or I was "forced" to do something, but I certainly let the blind-to-stack ratio influence my play.

Typical low to mid-limit tournament strategy involves the blind to stack ratio to dictate your play.

When the BB is 1% of your chip stack you don't have much to worry about. When it's 10% you need to play super aggressive short-stack game. When it's 5% you should begin transitioning to a more aggressive game where stealing the blinds pays off. Not to mention that if you're lucky enough to snag a monster starting hand, you can pay it just like you would when stealing the blinds and possibly get callers who are "sick of your bullshit."

[Pipedream]

I see very few players at this tourney with any concept of pot odds. I do seem to do better when I pay close attention to stack sizes which I have not been focusing on at the begging stages. And I see the "sick of your bullshit" call A LOT.

[MasterLJ]

I see very few players at this tourney with any concept of pot odds. I do seem to do better when I pay close attention to stack sizes which I have not been focusing on at the begging stages. And I see the "sick of your bullshit" call A LOT.

Yeah, welcome to just about every home game out there.

Essentially there are 12-20 of us who play every Thursday of which, only 5 I consider competition. Even still they are not that sophisticated.

I got some shit when the blinds were 12k/24k UTG is all-in for 27k it is folded to me (pot is now 63k) and I call the 3k with 52os. *shrug* Good thing some of the 5 people who actually know how to play were able to explain why this was a good call.

In any case the cost of calling the blind in ratio to your stack size is a very key element of tournament play. Generally speaking, when the blinds are less than 1% of your stack you should be playing big-stack poker. You don't want to be reckless, but you want to limp in to a lot of pots.

[ben_wallace]

warning: small pot will never work against calling stations and sheriffs. it is a system that requires you to pick up dead money. If peopel will call you to teh end it is never going to work case you will be paying off as amny hands as you are raking in, cause often in small ball you will be betting with a weak hand in order to try and pick up money

[Pipedream]

warning: small pot will never work against calling stations and sheriffs. it is a system that requires you to pick up dead money. If peopel will call you to teh end it is never going to work case you will be paying off as amny hands as you are raking in, cause often in small ball you will be betting with a weak hand in order to try and pick up money

Well put ben. This is one of the important points that I have been missing out on and one of the reasons I was put out very early last night. I did get called down twice by Queen High, but it did no good when I was rivered later twice by the calling station and a sheriff

[TheKingOfAces]

Damn, queen high?

STRATEGY SHIFT: Increase value bets, decrease bluffs/semibluffs...

You can still enter alot of pots, but you definitely don't want to be splashing around with trash. Make sure your hands have enough value to make it worth playing against such idiocy.

[Jordan]

to play postflop...

in a tourney...

most of the time you need a good structure...

most tournies don't offer good structure...

even ones that "do", still aren't that great.

thus, play cash games, and watch your hourly rate go booooommmmmm

- Jordan

[anselm]

I'd just like to encourage you to continue learning about small pot strategy and experiment to see if it suits you. But I'd be very careful if I were you, it can get you into serious trouble if you're not being methodical. Negreanu and Hansen may appear reckless to some, but there's definite calculations behind the craziness. I'd still venture that for the vast majority of people the best strategy is tight-aggressive. If you can walk the fine line between smart loose-aggressiveness and total maniac then more power to ya.

[violaman]

I think I've heard the quote from a few pros that if they were to try to pick a winner for a smallish tournament before it started they would look to the maniac as the guy with the best chance to win because if he gets lucky he's going to have a lot of chips. I think this small pot strategy is the 10k buyin version of this strat. Pros like Negreanu saw that players were being very tight and wary of being outplayed in tournaments so they proceeded to take advantage and steal lots of small pots. I think this strat is quite viable in smaller home tournies if the structure caters to it, but I think it suits very few people. You must be able to garner a good feel for each player at your table so that you know where you are in a hand and if playing very aggressively is the right move. I've been playing for a little over a year and a half and have tried to play this way but have found it just isn't for me yet because I don't make great reads all the time. Nevertheless I think this is the most advanced and most profitable way to play tourneys with slow structures because it can keep you in a tournament when you aren't getting great cards. Good post.

[davezz5]

I wonder if dn covers 'small ball' in his up-coming book?

[Pipedream]

I'd just like to encourage you to continue learning about small pot strategy and experiment to see if it suits you. But I'd be very careful if I were you, it can get you into serious trouble if you're not being methodical. Negreanu and Hansen may appear reckless to some, but there's definite calculations behind the craziness. I'd still venture that for the vast majority of people the best strategy is tight-aggressive. If you can walk the fine line between smart loose-aggressiveness and total maniac then more power to ya.

I've been experimenting with it a great deal lately. I've found I'm either making it deep into the tourney or busting out very early. I agree this would be an ideal strategy in a deppstack tourney. One nice thing about this experimentation is that I am learning to how to play weaker hands from different positions. I've been playing for about a year and a half and I feel I can read people very well. I started out playing very tight agressive but find the style has become boring and not very effective for me as of late. I've been finding projecting a looser image and switching gears at the right time is more effective.

Oh yeah KING it's amazing some of the things I've been seeing lately. I was playing $2 limit holdem this weekend and got called by 8 high! The lady said she just knew I was bluffing (which I was) but I had Ace high and knew it was good all the way to the river. Guess she just wanted me to show the hand down.

[Zach6668]

An article by Gavin Smith in the Full Tilt Newsletter regarding small pot poker. It refers to tournies here, but it applies nonetheless:

You'll be seeing a lot of me on next year's World Poker Tour broadcasts. So far in the 2005-2006 schedule, I've made three final tables. I won the Mirage event, finished third at the Bellagio and fourth in Tunica. When you see a broadcast that features my play, you may be left scratching your head, asking, "Why the heck is that guy playing those cards?"

There's no question that I do play an unconventional game. But, there is a method to my madness.

I play a style that's usually referred to as "small-pot poker." Using this approach, I'm looking to pick up a lot of small pots by applying a constant level of pressure to my opponents. Pre-flop, I raise frequently, especially in position. My raises are small, usually around two-and-a-half times the big blind, as opposed to the customary three or four times the big blind. I'll raise with a huge variety of hands - everything from big pocket pairs to "junk" hands, like 6d-4d, or 5c-8c.

Usually, I'll miss the flop when I raise with junk. In fact, two-thirds of the time, I won't make as much as a pair. But here's the thing: If someone called my pre-flop raise, he's also going to miss the flop most of the time. When we both miss, I have a distinct advantage. As the pre-flop aggressor, I have control of the hand. Most of the time (as much as 90 percent of the time), I'll follow up my pre-flop aggression by betting roughly half to two-thirds of the pot on the flop. A good percentage of the time, this bet will be enough to take down the small pot.

Let me give you an example. Imagine that you're playing in the big blind and you hold Ks-Qs. I raise in late position to two-and-a-half. K-Q suited is a pretty decent hand against someone like me, who has been raising constantly. Still, it's not necessarily a hand you want to risk your whole tournament on. So you call.

When you opt to just call, I put you in a position where you really need to hit the flop. If the flop is all rags, you need to be worried that I made two-pair with 4-7. Or, if there's an Ace on the flop, you need to be concerned, since I could be holding a real hand. Most of the time, you'll end up surrendering the hand to my bet on the flop.

If you do hit a hand - say the flop comes K-Q-4 - that's fine. With my playing style, I'm accustomed to getting check-raised a lot. But that's okay, too. I didn't risk a whole lot with my bets, so I can just surrender the hand and look for better spots down the line.

There are a couple of other advantages that come with playing this style. One is that no one ever puts me on a big hand pre-flop. So, when I do pick up pocket Aces or Kings, my hand is well disguised. My opponents are willing to call with marginal hands (like the aforementioned K-Q) and maybe get themselves in a lot of trouble. If someone does flop top pair when I hold an overpair, it's likely I'm going to get a big portion of his stack.

The other great benefit comes when I hold junk and hit the flop hard. When I raise with 5-7 and flop a straight, an opponent holding pocket Jacks is going to be in a lot of trouble.

Some of the best tournament players around - Daniel Negreanu, Gus Hansen and Phil Hellmuth among them - employ some version of the small pot approach. Is it the right method for you? That's something you'll have to find out for yourself.

I do, however, caution beginners from trying this style as it requires a lot of difficult decisions (what do you do with top-pair bad-kicker on an 8-high flop, for example). These are answers that sometimes come easier to more experienced players who have developed a feel for the game.

Still, you can give small-pot poker a shot. Register for a low buy-in tournament online and mix up your game. If the tournament doesn't go so well, you'll only be out a small buy-in.

[nomad_monad]

Thanks for the Gavin Smith posting.

One observation and two questions.

It seems like another challenging aspect of this strategy, in addition to constantly having to make good reads, is watching your own betting patterns. It could become easy in this type of style to fall into a rote style of play, where you dump your hand on the flop to a raise and continue to the turn if you have a hand. It seems like two major risks here are

1) not varying your flop play enough, which means that observant opponents will start raising/CR you with nothing. at this point your aggression becomes nothing more than a set-up for theirs. and when you have a hand, it becomes obvious that you do.

2) in an attempt to vary your flop play, you take very marginal or nothing hands to the turn, and end up playing a big pot when the real goal was to avoid doing so, especially with marginal hands.

It seems like in addition to being able to make great reads, this strategy also puts a premium on being able to make good "meta-game" reads - in other words, knowing when to switch gears.

Anyone have any advice on that?

Also, the reasons for adopting this strategy in a tournament setting seem pretty sound, provided you can execute. But what about in a CASH game? You're not under pressure to accumulate chips like you are in a tournament.

Personally, I'd like to hear from a successful NL cash game player if there are any adjustments he/she makes in a cash game when employing small-ball. My guess is that you play it a little tighter since no one's in a hurry, so people will be more inclined to wait and trap you with a monster rather than trying to push back with something equally marginal (which given tournament constraints is more likely there). I'm not saying that the entire +EV from this strategy comes from going up against marginal hands that are playing back at you, but it definitely has to be part of it. It seems like in a cash game that portion of your expectation is probably lessened.

[GoStags92]

Small pot poker is a hard game to play. I know I personaly l am not ready for it. The basics of it it getting involved in a number of small pots vs seeing only a few large ones. The reason behind this is that you can see the flop, then try and outplay your opponent after the flop. Normally it is employed only by those who are very good at putting people on hands and reading players, cause you need to be very good at this to outplay them. It is in essence chopping away at little pots and slowly building your stack by consistently adding to it with small amounts.

One of the upsides is that you see a lot of flops without risking a large amount of your stack and it becomes harder to put you on a hand cause you play so many different hands.

The downside is that because you are playing so many hands, that if you aren't connecting or aren't outplaying people your stack will get whittled away. This style is very effective if done correctly, but it is very easy to get wrong because most people trying to play it just got involved in way too many pots and chop themselves away instead of their opponents.

Position plays a HUGE part of small ball poker. As with most every aspect of the game, using this style is much more effective from late position.

[jayboogie]

This is the style I've adopted more or less and it requires a lot more post-flop play obviously, so playing Limit Cash games will probably help you the most for playing this kind of style in a tournament. You'll be left with a lot more decisions than you normally would, so your hand reading skills need to be really good. With hands like QQ, JJ, I've started calling the raise rather than re-popping and having to decide whether to call an all-in. I prefere seeing flops and making my decisions after it rather than before it. With the amount of people willing to push with AK pre-flop, I'd rather not have to make a call with QQ early on and flip a coin for all my chips.

[Pipedream]

bump