Resisting The Raising Reflex In No-Limit Hold’em

great example to remind us to think about why we should or should not make a certain type of play and not unthinkingly use a necessary approach like aggressive play in the wrong situation. wish i could learn to think before i make plays on autopilot

re paying for articles : any consideration of an annual subscription for full access to all posts ?

Nice article, Ed. A lot of players tend to get a little overly aggressive because they don’t understand how to use their position or how important it is to control the pot size.

I think there is a similar principle in chess. When I reached a certain stage, the players above me advised me to “play gambits all the time”. For those not in the know, a gambit is where you give up a pawn early in the game in exchange for certain positional advantages. The loss of a pawn means that you theoretically have a lost game, but in practice you get to go on the attack which frequently causes your opponent to make mistakes. This taught you how to attack and maximize whatever advantages you have.

All this only worked if you analyzed your games afterwards to find out whether you missed anything and how you can improve.

So in poker, the hyper-aggressive strategy of “never calling” has the potential to teach you what aggression does and does not accomplish. It’s probably a good thing to do at some stage in your poker development. But just like you should not “always” play gambits in chess (you just do it for a while to learn) you shouldn’t always play a “never call” strategy in poker.

Very good article Ed,
esp for someone who learned poker playing limit.
There aggression is the key.
It was a bitter expierience for me to learn that in NLH position and “2nd strike capabilities” are more Important.
Overall: “patience is a virtue”

Hi Ed,
First time posting…lots of good advice here Ed.

I use to raise in these situations to create unfavorable pot odds for flush/straight draws but I’ve learned that many opponents, at least at the small stakes I play, don’t seem to care much about pot odds. So now I generally do what you are suggesting and simply call these bets to see what the turn brings. Happy to see you think it’s a good strategy.

I liked this article a lot when I read it in CP. It’s true that this is a major thought adjustment from LHE to NL, and Ed’s explanation really does a good job of explaining it. I wish someone had taught me early on (like, in GSIHE, hint hint) that protecting one’s hand is not nearly as useful or important in NLHE.

I recently asked for input on the forums on a hand where I tried to use some of these same principles. It’s a little different, because on the flop I check my AT top pair of aces behind rather than betting it (or, in the case of this post, calling a bet). Then on the turn I call a bet with top two even though I’m moderately sure I’m ahead, because I want to underrepresent my hand. I’m convinced that playing it this way leads directly to my opponent paying off with a weak hand on the river.

It’s not my usual way to play a hand that strong, but it has certain metagame benefits so that my opponents can’t assume that check or call = weakness. The relevance to this post is, top pair-ten kicker could easily not be good on the flop, so I’m happy to keep the pot small and see what develops.