<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Playing No-Limit With A Plan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/playing-no-limit-with-a-plan.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/playing-no-limit-with-a-plan.html</link>
	<description>Training poker players into professional players</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:32:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: karbyn</title>
		<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/playing-no-limit-with-a-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-14460</link>
		<dc:creator>karbyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/?p=604#comment-14460</guid>
		<description>“the pros say jack ten is a better hand than aces.”

Generally, I&#039;d agree with you.  But let&#039;s add a qualifier to make us both happy ... &quot;to win a gargantuan pot, with a whole lot less risk.&quot;   

Why?  Because you are going to let JT go a lot easier than your opponent will his AA.  You basically say that in your followup.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“the pros say jack ten is a better hand than aces.”</p>
<p>Generally, I&#8217;d agree with you.  But let&#8217;s add a qualifier to make us both happy &#8230; &#8220;to win a gargantuan pot, with a whole lot less risk.&#8221;   </p>
<p>Why?  Because you are going to let JT go a lot easier than your opponent will his AA.  You basically say that in your followup.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: La distancia adecuada - Vedast - IntelliPoker</title>
		<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/playing-no-limit-with-a-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-14422</link>
		<dc:creator>La distancia adecuada - Vedast - IntelliPoker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/?p=604#comment-14422</guid>
		<description>[...] primer lugar, os recomiendo la lectura de este art&#237;culo de Ed Miller, titulado &quot;Playing No-Limit With A Plan&quot;. Es bastante posible que realic&#233;is jugadas de forma autom&#225;tica, sin plantearos si [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] primer lugar, os recomiendo la lectura de este art&#237;culo de Ed Miller, titulado &quot;Playing No-Limit With A Plan&quot;. Es bastante posible que realic&#233;is jugadas de forma autom&#225;tica, sin plantearos si [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Attenborough</title>
		<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/playing-no-limit-with-a-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-14359</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Attenborough</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/?p=604#comment-14359</guid>
		<description>Hey Ed, I would just like to say I think this is a very well written article which goes a long way to explaining why often suited connectors are over valued in NLH. The other night I was playing a live game in a casino and another player said he prefered 67suited to pocket aces. He said he had lost thousands with aces but had won loads with 67suited. I countered by suggesting as this was a live game environment and he wasn&#039;t taking notes he couldn&#039;t produce any evidence to prove his assertion. When I look at my poker tracker stats I find I make most money with aces.
Another friend of mine insists that &quot;the pros say jack ten is a better hand than aces.&quot; I strongly disagree with him but he is completely adamant about it. I understand than in really deepstacked games a player who plays aces really badly (by tipping the strength of his hand pre-flop and then refusing to release it post flop) a player could lose money with aces against a good player with J10 in position. But such a player will also show a loss with J10 (unless it is some bizarre player who plays J10 brilliantly but aces like an idiot). What do you think?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Ed, I would just like to say I think this is a very well written article which goes a long way to explaining why often suited connectors are over valued in NLH. The other night I was playing a live game in a casino and another player said he prefered 67suited to pocket aces. He said he had lost thousands with aces but had won loads with 67suited. I countered by suggesting as this was a live game environment and he wasn&#8217;t taking notes he couldn&#8217;t produce any evidence to prove his assertion. When I look at my poker tracker stats I find I make most money with aces.<br />
Another friend of mine insists that &#8220;the pros say jack ten is a better hand than aces.&#8221; I strongly disagree with him but he is completely adamant about it. I understand than in really deepstacked games a player who plays aces really badly (by tipping the strength of his hand pre-flop and then refusing to release it post flop) a player could lose money with aces against a good player with J10 in position. But such a player will also show a loss with J10 (unless it is some bizarre player who plays J10 brilliantly but aces like an idiot). What do you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spadebidder</title>
		<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/playing-no-limit-with-a-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-14342</link>
		<dc:creator>spadebidder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:09:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/?p=604#comment-14342</guid>
		<description>AKQJT -

Of course you&#039;re right, so let me add some context.  I&#039;ve found that at low-stakes cash tables the implied odds tend to be a lot higher than they would be with better players.  On the $.25/.50 tables on Full Tilt I have a nice positive ROI, and I find that most of my profit comes in big stack-size chunks 2-3 times a session.  

There is always a player or two on those tables who can&#039;t let go of TPTK or 2 Pair no matter what is on the board (sometimes even with just top pair weak kicker).  I sit there all night seeing a lot of flops either as a limper or calling a 3x raise with a speculative hand, and the occasional lead when I have a big starting hand.  I win a few small pots here and there, but I stack somebody probably half of the times I hit a set, straight, or flush, and make 50BB or more on the hand.

On those tables my stats might be something like 30% VPIP / 5% PFR, whereas when I play higher cash stakes or tourneys I&#039;m probably more like 16%/10%.  So I&#039;m playing looser and more passively, seeing flops and waiting for the stack-winning hands.

I don&#039;t play that way at all against a tough table or in any tourney situation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AKQJT -</p>
<p>Of course you&#8217;re right, so let me add some context.  I&#8217;ve found that at low-stakes cash tables the implied odds tend to be a lot higher than they would be with better players.  On the $.25/.50 tables on Full Tilt I have a nice positive ROI, and I find that most of my profit comes in big stack-size chunks 2-3 times a session.  </p>
<p>There is always a player or two on those tables who can&#8217;t let go of TPTK or 2 Pair no matter what is on the board (sometimes even with just top pair weak kicker).  I sit there all night seeing a lot of flops either as a limper or calling a 3x raise with a speculative hand, and the occasional lead when I have a big starting hand.  I win a few small pots here and there, but I stack somebody probably half of the times I hit a set, straight, or flush, and make 50BB or more on the hand.</p>
<p>On those tables my stats might be something like 30% VPIP / 5% PFR, whereas when I play higher cash stakes or tourneys I&#8217;m probably more like 16%/10%.  So I&#8217;m playing looser and more passively, seeing flops and waiting for the stack-winning hands.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t play that way at all against a tough table or in any tourney situation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AKQJ10</title>
		<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/playing-no-limit-with-a-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-14338</link>
		<dc:creator>AKQJ10</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/?p=604#comment-14338</guid>
		<description>spadebidder, 

The implied odds of flopping a draw aren&#039;t nearly as good as you seem to indicate. 

A really big draw might have good implied odds, e.g. an OE straight flush draw allows you to get a lot of money in at an advantage, and a 50/50 draw (flush + gutshot, flush + pair) gives you some fold equity at even money on the flop, which adds to your IO.

But most often, you&#039;re going to flop something like a flush draw or OESD.   Your hand isn&#039;t there yet, and is an underdog to get there.   You&#039;ll probably want to call at least one flop bet, but that&#039;s diminishing your IO.   You might have to call a second bet or fold on the turn if your draw doesn&#039;t come in then.

Moreover, if you hit a flush or a fairly obvious straight, you may not get much more action from your opponent.

Therefore, I think it&#039;s plausible that the 19:1 implied odds you&#039;re envisioning just won&#039;t materialize.   I agree with Ed, in a previous post -- for SCs to be profitable calling a raise, you have to be willing to steal on occasion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>spadebidder, </p>
<p>The implied odds of flopping a draw aren&#8217;t nearly as good as you seem to indicate. </p>
<p>A really big draw might have good implied odds, e.g. an OE straight flush draw allows you to get a lot of money in at an advantage, and a 50/50 draw (flush + gutshot, flush + pair) gives you some fold equity at even money on the flop, which adds to your IO.</p>
<p>But most often, you&#8217;re going to flop something like a flush draw or OESD.   Your hand isn&#8217;t there yet, and is an underdog to get there.   You&#8217;ll probably want to call at least one flop bet, but that&#8217;s diminishing your IO.   You might have to call a second bet or fold on the turn if your draw doesn&#8217;t come in then.</p>
<p>Moreover, if you hit a flush or a fairly obvious straight, you may not get much more action from your opponent.</p>
<p>Therefore, I think it&#8217;s plausible that the 19:1 implied odds you&#8217;re envisioning just won&#8217;t materialize.   I agree with Ed, in a previous post &#8212; for SCs to be profitable calling a raise, you have to be willing to steal on occasion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spadebidder</title>
		<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/playing-no-limit-with-a-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-14332</link>
		<dc:creator>spadebidder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:18:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/?p=604#comment-14332</guid>
		<description>Sorry, to clarify: percentages I noted above are winning % for all times I was dealt the hand, not just those I put money in.  Obviously the percent of wins when I put money in, is higher.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, to clarify: percentages I noted above are winning % for all times I was dealt the hand, not just those I put money in.  Obviously the percent of wins when I put money in, is higher.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spadebidder</title>
		<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/playing-no-limit-with-a-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-14328</link>
		<dc:creator>spadebidder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/?p=604#comment-14328</guid>
		<description>Good food for thought there.

In situations like this I find the Rule of 5 &amp; 10 is quite useful.  I believe it&#039;s those times when you have to call between 5% and 10% of your stack that these strategic considerations you describe are vitally important, and the call surely can&#039;t be automatic. I personally don&#039;t call over 10% of my stack with a middle suited connector at any full table, perhaps with rare exceptions.   

But for 5% of my stack or less, in cash play I will almost always call a standard raise with 76s or similar hands if I&#039;m in one of the last 3-4 seats. I think it can be nearly automatic at that level, and I don&#039;t think there are many circumstances that would cancel it out.  I break down my odds very simply like this:

Roughly 1/3 of the time I&#039;ll flop a very playable hand, which means either a primary draw (23%), or 2 pairs or better made (6%).  When this happens my implied odds are huge.

Roughly 1/3 of the time I&#039;ll flop just a pair, which can win small pots when no one else hits, and can improve.  Certainly it can be played, albeit carefully.  And sometimes it is combined with a primary draw too.

Roughly 1/3 of the time I&#039;ll flop nothing and not put any more money in the pot.

So for risking 5% of my stack, I&#039;m going to have a playable hand a high percentage of the time, and the chance to make a big stack-winning hand sometimes.

In your example you used 8% of the stack, and I completely agree that requires planning and strategy to play suited connectors.  I may not be up to that skill level yet to risk that much on such a hand.   But for 5%, the only thing that keeps me out is early position, and even then if the table is right I may call.  

PokerTracker currently shows me winning 18% of the hands where I&#039;ve played 76s, 29% with 54s, 21% with 87s, and 33% with 98s.

Just my $.02.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good food for thought there.</p>
<p>In situations like this I find the Rule of 5 &amp; 10 is quite useful.  I believe it&#8217;s those times when you have to call between 5% and 10% of your stack that these strategic considerations you describe are vitally important, and the call surely can&#8217;t be automatic. I personally don&#8217;t call over 10% of my stack with a middle suited connector at any full table, perhaps with rare exceptions.   </p>
<p>But for 5% of my stack or less, in cash play I will almost always call a standard raise with 76s or similar hands if I&#8217;m in one of the last 3-4 seats. I think it can be nearly automatic at that level, and I don&#8217;t think there are many circumstances that would cancel it out.  I break down my odds very simply like this:</p>
<p>Roughly 1/3 of the time I&#8217;ll flop a very playable hand, which means either a primary draw (23%), or 2 pairs or better made (6%).  When this happens my implied odds are huge.</p>
<p>Roughly 1/3 of the time I&#8217;ll flop just a pair, which can win small pots when no one else hits, and can improve.  Certainly it can be played, albeit carefully.  And sometimes it is combined with a primary draw too.</p>
<p>Roughly 1/3 of the time I&#8217;ll flop nothing and not put any more money in the pot.</p>
<p>So for risking 5% of my stack, I&#8217;m going to have a playable hand a high percentage of the time, and the chance to make a big stack-winning hand sometimes.</p>
<p>In your example you used 8% of the stack, and I completely agree that requires planning and strategy to play suited connectors.  I may not be up to that skill level yet to risk that much on such a hand.   But for 5%, the only thing that keeps me out is early position, and even then if the table is right I may call.  </p>
<p>PokerTracker currently shows me winning 18% of the hands where I&#8217;ve played 76s, 29% with 54s, 21% with 87s, and 33% with 98s.</p>
<p>Just my $.02.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Asimov666</title>
		<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/playing-no-limit-with-a-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-14326</link>
		<dc:creator>Asimov666</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/?p=604#comment-14326</guid>
		<description>Great post Ed..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post Ed..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

