An Excerpt From My Book, A small taste of the book I'm working on (unedited) Options

[DanielNegreanu]

Waiting till the turn for more information:

Another bone of contention I have with certain authors is the theory that you should play your hands aggressively on the flop so as to better define your hand, and at the same time, to gain more information from your opponents. This theory is actually very effective in limit hold’em, but that theory doesn’t translate well to no limit tournaments.
The main reason for that, is simple: it’s too expensive. In limit hold’em, a raise represents just one extra unit, but in no limit hold’em, if you are going to raise someone on the flop to “find out where you are at” it will cost you a pretty penny. Let’s look at an example:

With blinds at 50-100 a player from early position makes it 300 and you call with Ah Jh. The big blind calls so three of you see the flop: Ad 8s 3h. The big blind checks and the pre-flop raiser bets out 800. If you were to raise him here, a standard raise would cost you about, say, 2400 in chips. So let’s say you do that, the big blind folds, and now the first raiser calls the bet. What information have you gained exactly? What if the under the gun player re-raises you? Well in this case, it would seem as though you’ve gained some valuable information and your AJ is likely behind. You could fold and take your 2400 loss.
Now, in this same situation, let’s look at the benefits of just calling on the flop and you’ll see that all of the information that cost you 2400 on the flop, you can get with an 800 call on the flop coupled with a reevaluation on the turn.

So now you just call on the flop and the big blind folds. The turn card is a Q and now your opponent bets 1600. You still aren’t sure if your AJ is the best hand, but the fact that your opponent bet again should lean you towards thinking that you are beat. Since you are unsure, though, you call the 1600.

Now, at this point, it’s cost you the exact same amount of chips had you raised on the flop, the only difference is that you’ve made it all the way to the river. To help you figure out the best course of action on the river you have the following information: My opponent raised before the flop and followed through with a continuation bet on the flop. I called the bet, a Queen hit the turn yet my opponent wasn’t afraid and bet once again. I called that bet as well, so if my opponent makes a big bet at the river he has to know that I have a strong hand and am not on a draw.

That’s a lot of information. Your opponent could still bluff you on the river, but the same could be said about his flop re-raise. He may be coming over the top of you on the flop with a weaker ace, or just as a bluff.

There is one other key benefit to smooth calling on the flop in this situation rather than raising: you allow yourself a chance to suck out! If your opponent has, say, AK, bets the 800, you make it 2400, and now he re-raises you off the hand, you’ve just lost 2400 with no chance to get lucky. However, if you just call the flop, you could get really lucky and spike a Jack on the turn or river. Or, you could even make a backdoor flush with the hand and possibly win a big pot.

The only thing that’s better about raising on the flop is that you protect your hand from being outdrawn when you are ahead, and you also get information about your opponents hand quicker. Getting outdrawn with AJ on an A-8-3 rainbow flop should be the least of your concerns. If you are in the lead, then you will be substantially in the lead. A worse ace can only hit one of three kickers, and a pocket pair can only hit one of two cards. The biggest threat is a total of five outs if your opponent has a hand like 8-9. That’s hardly something to be overly concerned about. As for the other benefit, who cares “when” you find out your opponent has you beat? If it costs you no less to see the river, but it takes longer to come to the conclusion that your opponent has you beat, how could that hurt you in the least?

[nutzbuster]

Waiting till the turn for more information:

Another bone of contention I have with certain authors is the theory that you should play your hands aggressively on the flop so as to better define your hand, and at the same time, to gain more information from your opponents. This theory is actually very effective in limit hold’em, but that theory doesn’t translate well to no limit tournaments.
The main reason for that, is simple: it’s too expensive. In limit hold’em, a raise represents just one extra unit, but in no limit hold’em, if you are going to raise someone on the flop to “find out where you are at” it will cost you a pretty penny. Let’s look at an example:

With blinds at 50-100 a player from early position makes it 300 and you call with Ah Jh. The big blind calls so three of you see the flop: Ad 8s 3h. The big blind checks and the pre-flop raiser bets out 800. If you were to raise him here, a standard raise would cost you about, say, 2400 in chips. So let’s say you do that, the big blind folds, and now the first raiser calls the bet. What information have you gained exactly? What if the under the gun player re-raises you? Well in this case, it would seem as though you’ve gained some valuable information and your AJ is likely behind. You could fold and take your 2400 loss.
Now, in this same situation, let’s look at the benefits of just calling on the flop and you’ll see that all of the information that cost you 2400 on the flop, you can get with an 800 call on the flop coupled with a reevaluation on the turn.

So now you just call on the flop and the big blind folds. The turn card is a Q and now your opponent bets 1600. You still aren’t sure if your AJ is the best hand, but the fact that your opponent bet again should lean you towards thinking that you are beat. Since you are unsure, though, you call the 1600.

Now, at this point, it’s cost you the exact same amount of chips had you raised on the flop, the only difference is that you’ve made it all the way to the river. To help you figure out the best course of action on the river you have the following information: My opponent raised before the flop and followed through with a continuation bet on the flop. I called the bet, a Queen hit the turn yet my opponent wasn’t afraid and bet once again. I called that bet as well, so if my opponent makes a big bet at the river he has to know that I have a strong hand and am not on a draw.

That’s a lot of information. Your opponent could still bluff you on the river, but the same could be said about his flop re-raise. He may be coming over the top of you on the flop with a weaker ace, or just as a bluff.

There is one other key benefit to smooth calling on the flop in this situation rather than raising: you allow yourself a chance to suck out! If your opponent has, say, AK, bets the 800, you make it 2400, and now he re-raises you off the hand, you’ve just lost 2400 with no chance to get lucky. However, if you just call the flop, you could get really lucky and spike a Jack on the turn or river. Or, you could even make a backdoor flush with the hand and possibly win a big pot.

The only thing that’s better about raising on the flop is that you protect your hand from being outdrawn when you are ahead, and you also get information about your opponents hand quicker. Getting outdrawn with AJ on an A-8-3 rainbow flop should be the least of your concerns. If you are in the lead, then you will be substantially in the lead. A worse ace can only hit one of three kickers, and a pocket pair can only hit one of two cards. The biggest threat is a total of five outs if your opponent has a hand like 8-9. That’s hardly something to be overly concerned about. As for the other benefit, who cares “when” you find out your opponent has you beat? If it costs you no less to see the river, but it takes longer to come to the conclusion that your opponent has you beat, how could that hurt you in the least?

edit: Any good guess for a release date?

[irishguy]

brilliant! Thats one of my bigest pet peeves of strat boards the constant "you need to raise to define your hand...." or " "You need to raise to see where your at..."

looking forward to the book.

[David_Nicoson]

Good stuff.

The queen in this particular sequence is interesting because it's something of a scare card to AK.

[AKoffsuit]

edit: Any good guess for a release date?

Yeah. Is there a release date yet?? I can't wait. This teasing is too much, thanks for the excerpt.
I just got your 1st book "Hold'em Wisdom for the Pro's" and it's a very well done.

[DCJ001]

I hear a lot of poker authors and commentators like Phil Hellmuth, Phil Gordon, Gabe Kaplan, etc. say, "find out where you are at.” Daniel and these three players, authors, commentators are intelligent and articulate individuals, but illiteracy is contagious and this phrase is just plain wrong.

I challenge Daniel to say, “find out where you are” in his books, which is correct usage of the English language. He would be setting an example and he would possibly be a positive influence in encouraging literacy in the game of poker, in case anyone is interested in being literate.

As a side note, I agree with the philosophy of not needing to raise on the flop to determine where you are in the hand.

[Dan The Man]

Nice. Looking forward to the rest of the book.

[11 to 1]

Did you ever read Stephen King's book On Writing? Great book - short, and best book on writing I ever read. When you go over this, you might keep his advice in mind: rewrite is first draft minus 10%. Like:

Another bone of contention I have with certain authors is the theory that you should play your hands aggressively on the flop so as to better define your hand, and at the same time, to gain more information from your opponents. This theory is actually very effective in limit hold’em, but that theory doesn’t translate well to no limit tournaments.
The main reason for that, is simple: it’s too expensive. In limit hold’em, a raise represents just one extra unit, but in no limit hold’em, if you are going to raise someone on the flop to “find out where you are at” it will cost you a pretty penny. Let’s look at an example:

Now ask yourself how you want to position yourself as a writer? That is, what's your "table image?" Do you want to say what some people will read here: "I am smarter than the other guy...." as soon as you start out, or do you want to take yourself out of it and become the "wisdom voice?" The first way is what you have:

Another bone of contention I have with certain authors is the theory that you should play your hands aggressively on the flop so as to better define your hand,....

the second way is something like this, which puts the focus on the reader and their experience:

You've probably read that you should play your hands aggressively on the flop so as to better define your hand, which works well in limit Holdem where a raise represents only one extra unit. But this concept doesn't translate well to no limit tournaments where a standard raise is several times the BB at least and a very expensive way to "find out where you're at." It also opens you up to a reraise.

The second way positions you as the Voice of Wisdom, your statement " this concept doesn't translate well to no limit tournaments" becomes then not an argument with anyone, but a fact you are conveying. This might not be the style you want, you might want to be arguing, it will certainly generate arguments among the readers and be a kind of free publicity. But while you are writing, you might want to think about not just conveying ideas and information, but who you want the public to see when they read your work and how you best serve your audience.

Writing, as I am sure you are fiinding, is like Holdem - easy to learn, lifetime to master. Really nice job for a first draft, BTW, I wish mine ever looked this good.

So, I've had this question for a while. You know, Doyle Brunson always says he wishes he never wrote SS 1 because everyone knew his game after that. You do know the first people to read this will be every pro who might play you, right? I am really looking forward to your book, especially with gems like this in it - but - are you sure you want to do this? Look what happened to Hellmuth after he wrote his book, his game became an open one!

I have to tell you one of my favorite things I ever heard you say was : what's wrong with limping? Bring back the limp! Whew! Thanks for that, it's nice to have someone open up the advice and say the way I, or anyone, feels their game, might just be valid.

[11 to 1]

With blinds at 50-100 a player from early position makes it 300 and you call with Ah Jh. The big blind calls so three of you see the flop: Ad 8s 3h. The big blind checks and the pre-flop raiser bets out 800. If you were to raise him here, a standard raise would cost you about, say, 2400 in chips. So let’s say you do that, the big blind folds, and now the first raiser calls the bet. What information have you gained exactly? What if the under the gun player re-raises you? Well in this case, it would seem as though you’ve gained some valuable information and your AJ is likely behind. You could fold and take your 2400 loss.
Now, in this same situation, let’s look at the benefits of just calling on the flop and you’ll see that all of the information that cost you 2400 on the flop, you can get with an 800 call on the flop coupled with a reevaluation on the turn.

So now you just call on the flop and the big blind folds. The turn card is a Q and now your opponent bets 1600. You still aren’t sure if your AJ is the best hand, but the fact that your opponent bet again should lean you towards thinking that you are beat. Since you are unsure, though, you call the 1600.

Now, at this point, it’s cost you the exact same amount of chips had you raised on the flop, the only difference is that you’ve made it all the way to the river.

This is just excellent! So well-presented and clear! I was just thinking, what if, after this, you inserted a text box and set up two hands side-by-side, one side with the standard raise on the flop and how that could progress very expensively to the river, and the other with the play you have described, and the total savings in chips.. Some people who play very well and have poker talent, don't get info as well from reading as they do from visuals - so in a book we get stuck trying to find a way to reach the visual learner. This example is a perfect candidate for an at-a-glance format, I think.

[Merlopj]

Did you ever read Stephen King's book On Writing? Great book - short, and best book on writing I ever read. When you go over this, you might keep his advice in mind: rewrite is first draft minus 10%. Like:
Now ask yourself how you want to position yourself as a writer? That is, what's your "table image?" Do you want to say what some people will read here: "I am smarter than the other guy...." as soon as you start out, or do you want to take yourself out of it and become the "wisdom voice?" The first way is what you have:

On another grammatical note: shouldn't the title be "Waiting UNTIL the turn for more information" ?

Great strategic point tho... It should help my game immediately.

P

[GoStags92]

Did you ever read Stephen King's book On Writing? Great book - short, and best book on writing I ever read. When you go over this, you might keep his advice in mind: rewrite is first draft minus 10%. Like:
Now ask yourself how you want to position yourself as a writer? That is, what's your "table image?" Do you want to say what some people will read here: "I am smarter than the other guy...." as soon as you start out, or do you want to take yourself out of it and become the "wisdom voice?" The first way is what you have:

Another bone of contention I have with certain authors is the theory that you should play your hands aggressively on the flop so as to better define your hand,....

the second way is something like this, which puts the focus on the reader and their experience:

You've probably read that you should play your hands aggressively on the flop so as to better define your hand, which works well in limit Holdem where a raise represents only one extra unit. But this concept doesn't translate well to no limit tournaments where a standard raise is several times the BB at least and a very expensive way to "find out where you're at." It also opens you up to a reraise.

The second way positions you as the Voice of Wisdom, your statement " this concept doesn't translate well to no limit tournaments" becomes then not an argument with anyone, but a fact you are conveying. This might not be the style you want, you might want to be arguing, it will certainly generate arguments among the readers and be a kind of free publicity. But while you are writing, you might want to think about not just conveying ideas and information, but who you want the public to see when they read your work and how you best serve your audience.

Writing, as I am sure you are fiinding, is like Holdem - easy to learn, lifetime to master. Really nice job for a first draft, BTW, I wish mine ever looked this good.

So, I've had this question for a while. You know, Doyle Brunson always says he wishes he never wrote SS 1 because everyone knew his game after that. You do know the first people to read this will be every pro who might play you, right? I am really looking forward to your book, especially with gems like this in it - but - are you sure you want to do this? Look what happened to Hellmuth after he wrote his book, his game became an open one!

I have to tell you one of my favorite things I ever heard you say was : what's wrong with limping? Bring back the limp! Whew! Thanks for that, it's nice to have someone open up the advice and say the way I, or anyone, feels their game, might just be valid.

I think that your advice here is excellent. Your comments regarding how you position yourself as the writer should be considered, and as a reader I know that I much prefer this style of writing.

This approach, coupled with Daniel's ability to convey his thoughts well on paper as to how hands and situations play out will be valuable to all who buy this book and are looking to improve their game via the small ball approach.

[Guru1069]

Do you fold or pay off on the river to another bet ?

Say your up against KJ and 10 rolls on the river.


88 83 A3 A8
33
AA
QQ
24 and a 5 rolls on the river
JJ would be sick if they caught the final J on the river

With the calling method there's 5750 in the pot. What would be the correct pot odds to call the river with just the ace ?

Sorry that's the next page.

One final note write your blog however you want to write your blog. It's your forum write it in crayon.

When's the last time somebody came to your house and told you how to dress. Mom gets to so that doesn't count. LOL


Thanks bud

[-LeroyAce-]

I dont know why people are trying to look all smart by making grammatical corrections here? He said himself in his blog "If you want to read an unedited excerpt from the upcoming book". This is all great info thanks Daniel. Cant wait for the book.

[dlingdling]

I dont know why people are trying to look all smart by making grammatical corrections here? He said himself in his blog "If you want to read an unedited excerpt from the upcoming book". This is all great info thanks Daniel. Cant wait for the book.

Not taking it as people trying to look smart. This has been one of the most constructive threads on the forum lately. Start with valuable advice from the man, add a few supportive editing suggestions (I also enjoyed King's book) and even some follow-up comments on the original post. If only all threads could be like this.

I haven't integrated the "raise to find out where you are" advice into my game yet, so it's refreshing for Daniel to offer the opposing view, the permission to approach it a different way and the reasoning to back it up. Looking forward to learning more...

[strivewind]

this is great material. keep them coming.

[All_In]

I dont know why people are trying to look all smart by making grammatical corrections here? He said himself in his blog "If you want to read an unedited excerpt from the upcoming book". This is all great info thanks Daniel. Cant wait for the book.

[All_In]

Did you ever read Stephen King's book On Writing? Great book - short, and best book on writing I ever read. When you go over this, you might keep his advice in mind: rewrite is first draft minus 10%. Like:
Now ask yourself how you want to position yourself as a writer? That is, what's your "table image?" Do you want to say what some people will read here: "I am smarter than the other guy...." as soon as you start out, or do you want to take yourself out of it and become the "wisdom voice?" The first way is what you have:

the second way is something like this, which puts the focus on the reader and their experience:


The second way positions you as the Voice of Wisdom...

i like DN's style..it has more emotion to it, as if to emphasize his disagreement.

there's more than one way to write.

[11 to 1]

i like DN's style..it has more emotion to it, as if to emphasize his disagreement.

there's more than one way to write.

I agree, there are even more than two choices. I wasn't suggesting a style as much as pointing out that "voice" is an active choice. In the first draft, King calls it something like the "locked door" draft, because you are just letting it all pour out, you often don't consider these things. But, these are things to think about, choices to make.

Generating the argument can be the best part if you can keep the coals banked, it brings more ideas to the party. BUT - sometimes, it gets in the way of whatever the writer is trying to accomplish. So, I was bringing up the point, not suggesting anything was wrong.

Everything isn't a criticism, yanno!

[SLICE517]

Excellent option for this senario.

But shouldn't we vary our play for the same situation.

Sometimes this play could be the right play other times the "see where you are at" might be the play to make.

What if they do have AK and think they can check raise you on the turn, and just call the flop raise and check to you on the turn.
Now you check the turn, you get the same result.

It is impossible to make a decision on the correct play without taking other factors into consideration.
chip counts, type of player, time in the tournament, etc, etc

My first post so don't destroy me.

[bozzer]

Standard.

Quite well written, but I agree with the poster who suggested a slightly less combative style. All very clearly put though.