I've been playing some $25 NL tonight using Smash's wait and push strategy. I think I broke the rules with this hand, although I never had to call any really large bets. I'm curious to see both how other NL players suggest playing this and how proponents of Smash's strategy play it.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (9 handed) converter

Button ($41.87)
SB ($22.85)
BB ($9.70)
UTG ($33.25)
UTG+1 ($23.52)
MP1 ($18.70)
econ_tim ($21.55)
MP3 ($55.77)
CO ($15.53)

Preflop: econ_tim is MP2 with [Qd], [Ad]. SB posts a blind of $0.10.
1 fold, BB checks.

Flop: ($1.10) [Qh], [Ac], [9s] (4 players)
BB checks, UTG+1 bets $0.5, econ_tim calls $0.50, Button folds, BB folds.

Turn: ($2.10) [5h] (2 players)
UTG+1 bets $2, econ_tim calls $2.

River: ($6.10) [4s] (2 players)
UTG+1 bets $2, econ_tim calls $2.

Final Pot: $10.10

unlesss i'm missing something. why do i not see any raise?

- Jordan

I'm playing by Smash's strategy where you push with a set or better.

ok...

so basically you cost yourself money on this hand purposefully?

- Jordan

Raise the turn to 8 dollars and bet 10 at the river. Quit playing so passively, with the way the hand played out, top two pair is clearly good. Playing tight and waiting for monsters isn't a terrible strategy, but you don't have to take it so far.

You have to raise this somewhere, you are giving away soooo much money if you don't.

I raise preflop.

if he checks to me I bet the pot or damn well close.

if he bets the flop i raise and i make sure he is all in on the turn. he may be all in on the flop tho depending on how much i raise preflop and how much he bets on the flop.

otherway.

I raise preflop.

if he checks to me, i can check here and give a free card (although there are a few cards that could slow u down on the turn, at 25 nl i'm not too scared), but i prefer a bet, if you wanna draw him in, jsut bet half the pot.. i like fast playing though. im not much for slow.

- Jordan

Once again, I'm playing according to a very specific strategy.

Since reading comprehension is low on these boards, I'll repeat

I'm playing according to Smash's strategy.

Anyway, this isn't how I would normally play, but I'm giving it a shot to see what happens.

I'm playing according to Smash's strategy.


No you aren't, or you'd fold the flop.

OK. Just wanted to get it from the horses mouth.

Still seems to me that there are big implied odds for calling the flop bet, not to mention the big chance that I'm ahead.

But I thought calling with two pair was against the rules.

Still seems to me that there are big implied odds for calling the flop bet, not to mention the big chance that I'm ahead.


Sure.

This has nothing to do with the strategy, though, which is about conserving chips to hammer huge edges.

Huger than top two.

This is the part that seem inconsistent to me. If I have less than $25 in chips, and I can make a +EV play with 2 pair, then I don't see the down side.

If I win then I'll have more chips that I can use to exploit my huge edges. If I lose, I can rebuy and have the same amount of chips I did before.

This isn't a tourney.

This is the part that seem inconsistent to me. If I have less than $25 in chips, and I can make a +EV play with 2 pair, then I don't see the down side.


When someone playing my strat has a set.

Good luck.

I didn't say I was pushing with top two. I just think folding them to a small bet is silly. Obviously Villain is not playing your strategy since he made a $0.50 bet and did not push.

I'm not satisfied with your response. You are arguing a point that I never made. I just explained why you don't need to "conserve chips" when you are at or below the buy in. And you haven't said anything that makes me think otherwise.

I've been playing your strat tonight for a few hours and have passed up dozens of profitable plays in order to see how it turns out.

I'm not satisfied with your response. You are arguing a point that I never made. I just explained why you don't need to "conserve chips" when you are at or below the buy in. And you haven't said anything that makes me think otherwise.

I've been playing your strat tonight for a few hours and have passed up dozens of profitable plays in order to see how it turns out.


You're missing the point.

I saw that you were playing with his strategy, that's why in my post I said waiting for monsters and playing tight isn't a horrible idea. I was just saying in this spot it's clear your top two pair is the best hand and probably has your opponent dominated. I understand waiting for huge edges with big hands and in my opinion it's clear you have your opponent dominated.

If I am it is only because you have not made it sufficiently clear.

You advocate your strategy because you say it earns as much or more money per hand than any "sophisticated" strategy at low limits.

I'm not arguing the preflop strategy of limping or calling small raises with pairs and suited aces and pushing with aces and kings. I merely showing a profitable opportunity that arises on some flops when you play these hands. All that I need to assume is that I can make money playing AQ when it flops top two pair. Maybe this is something you won't concede. But if I somehow could make money playing this and similar hands, then it seems like an improvement over your original strategy.

You argue that I should pass up an imediately profitable situation in order to reap larger rewards in the future. This argument fails because our play of the current hand has no bearing on the profitability of future hands (under special circumstances). As long as we start this hand with less than the table max or as a substantial chip leader, then we can make exactly the same amount of money on the next hand whether we win or lose this hand. Why? Because, in the first case we can rebuy to the same amount of chips we started with. In the second case, our effective stack is only as large as the largest opposing stack, so we can lose chips and still have the same win potential.

Well, what I'd recommend is playing your best game for 20k hands, mechanically for 20k hands and then comparing the results.

I understand you're point, you're missing mine. I've never said this was the optimal strategy for making the most BB/100 in NL. It's clearly not. I'm saying it makes more BB/100 that the way 99% of posters here play. Perhaps you're that 1% who does better.

Give it a shot and let me know.

Good luck.

I guess we'll just have to wonder, since I find limit a lot more interesting and profitable.

I guess we'll just have to wonder, since I find limit a lot more interesting and profitable.



Me too.

How's the girlfreind?

I'd use Smash's strat but also deviate from it and push all in on the flop.
He's not using it as he isn't pushing.

The hands that beat You on the flop are 9-9, A-A and Q-Q. I'd take the chance on the push (I know UTG could be limping with A-A or have 9-9)

If he has a gutshot, You're more than 80/20, and if he has J-10 You're about 2:1 (granted it's not 70/30 as the minimal edge)

I'd take a shot here... then go back to Smash's strat.