Home Articles Books Coaching Free Stuff About

« Hand Discussion #6: My Thoughts
The No-Limit Toolbox — The Continuation Bet »

Q&A #76: Stop Waiting For “Better Spots” To Get Your Money In!

Posted on Sun Jun 24, 2007 07:25:05 PM
Filed under Bankroll Management and Personal Finance, No Limit Hold 'em, Premium Articles, Q&A

Don't miss one article! Subscribe to the Full Feed RSS or get NPA in your inbox.

I’ve pulled today’s Q&A from the comments of another post. Hand Discussion #6 provoked a bit of controversy about whether to move all-in preflop with AK or not. In the actual hand, I pushed, and both my opponents folded.

Most people were wondering whether pushing was really a +EV play, but Greyzy had another question. He wanted to know if pushing was a good idea even if it was slightly +EV.

there has been a lot of discussion about whether EP is a “bad” player or not. This led me to this question: If he really IS bad, why should Ed risk his whole stack now and possibly lose it to the button (or the bad player of course)? Why not wait for an other opportunity where Ed’s odds are better and/or where he has EP isolated?

Of course if we buy enough books Ed will simply rebuy after going all-in with his AKs :)

But what is your opinion if his stack is ALL the money he has in this situation?

Personally I’d rather fold and let an opportunity pass where I have a small margin and wait for a situation where I have a stronger edge (see above for my thought process why I fold).

What do YOU think?

I replied,

I think it’s very difficult to play tough no-limit if you are concerned about the implications of losing your stack. Medium-sized bluffs play a large role in a winning strategy, and if you aren’t pulling the trigger on them because you’re constantly “looking for a better spot,” ultimately I think you’re just not going to perform very well.

These stacks we’re talking about here are only ~60BB, small enough that you can count on getting all-in for that at least a few times every session. If you’re strongly concerned about losing 60BB, I frankly think you’re playing too big.

He responded,

thanks for your comment. This is certainly a weak spot in my game and coming from limit-HE those bigger bets and also bigger swings are something I have trouble getting used to. I guess what you are trying to tell me is that the tougher the games the smaller edges I must accept to take and the higher the volatility will get, right?

Maybe you can help me on this line of thinking: If I have a limited amount of money (no money for a rebuy) should that change my play? Would it be wrong to pass up on a hand with a SMALL +EV and wait for a bigger +EV (I am talking about all-in situations!)? If this wasn’t about poker but about investing in stocks etc. I’d say that waiting would be better. Same in poker?

Aside from a strict financial point of view there might also be a psychological aspect: having a mindset of waiting for “better opportunities” might lead to an easy to read playing style that the other players could exploit. That’s certainly a difference to the anonymus stock market where nobody knows the other actors.

Or am I totally off track here?

It’s an important question, so I figured it deserved a post of its own.

The remainder of this article is insider content available to premium members only. Log in to your account or become a premium member and get instant access.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Print Print :: Trackback :: Respond ::

Related Posts

7 Responses to “Q&A #76: Stop Waiting For “Better Spots” To Get Your Money In!”

John
@ Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:18:25 AM
1

I would just say to the poster, If you cant rebuy into the cash game, it still wouldnt change the way I played. if i bought in for 100 in a 1-2 game, I would play the same whether or not I had 0 left, or 4 more “bullets” in my pocket. The stack size on the table is important, not whats in your pocket.

It may be a bit of a mistake to play in those games, because you might essentially be playing 50-100 per hand show down, and you only get one shot. Its a bad position to be in. of course, if thats you’re only option as far as game wise, then its tough.

When I was fist playing 1-2 live, that was what I was doing, and in a fast game, i was just roadkill, as I waited for great hands, by then had lost some from blinds, get called by 4 people, and get cracked. I quit playing in the game until I had enough money to rebuy if I wanted and more importantly, wasnt playing with scared money.

My advice would be to find tourneys to play instead, I dont see a profitable way to play in small stakes NL cash games with one buy in.

JMO..

Will
@ Mon Jun 25, 2007 02:00:10 PM
2

Just a quick question, you said that you weren’t a winning no-limit player before you worked on your next book but yet you helped write a book on NL theory and practice with David Sklansky? I’m a little confused. Sorry if I sound rude but that just sounds odd.

Ed Miller
@ Mon Jun 25, 2007 03:02:11 PM
3

Will,

Sure. I was the “writer” for NLHTAP. David gave me almost the entire book’s worth of concepts to write about, and I put them into readable English. Many books are actually written by someone other than the main author. David could have picked an English major to do the job I did, but he picked me because I came with facility in poker and math. My role on that book was similar to Bill Robertie’s role on the Harrington books.

I wrote a couple of sections on my own, but only when I felt confident I knew what I was talking about. :)

And I should clarify what I said about “winning player.” I meant that I wasn’t a winner in some of the tougher NL games. It’s hard not to be a winner in some of the super soft small games around Vegas.

Greyzy
@ Tue Jun 26, 2007 07:12:07 AM
4

Ed,

it’s kind of consoling to see that you had the same problems (i.e. feeling emberassed etc.) as I am still having. Of course I ordered your new book already a while ago and now I am very curious how it will (hopefully) help me to overcome this mindset.

I also appreciate the comments that the (blind-)level of the game is rather the point to consider.

I am not sure if the following is too theoretical to be of any value during a hand, but maybe someone is interested in discussing this a bit further:

What lead me to the original question is something I read about changes in basic strategy in Blackjack when playing for a bonus with a wagering requirement (the article is here: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Correct_Blackjack_Basic_Strategy_On_Internet_Casino_Bonuses.htm).

The idea is that you can either DOUBLE DOWN (and thereby meet the wagering requirement) or just HIT (and then need to play an additional hand). Hitting in itself has a higher +EV than doubling down, but the additional hand has a -EV (and you must play it to meet the wagering requirement). So you actually have to look at the combination of TWO hands when comparing it to doubling down.

I sort of reversed this idea and applied it to the situation described in the hand:
a) either move all-in (but risk being out of a +EV game against worse players) OR
b) pass up on this SLIGHTLY +EV situation and “live to fight another day” in a game where you have an edge over the other players

From a strictly mathematical point of view there should be a borderline, where even though pushing is profitable in itself, the risk of being out of the game outweighs it. So the higher your win rate (BB/100) the more of a favourite you should be when you decide to push all-in. At least that was my idea.

I don’t know if anyone can draw any practical conclusions from this thought that one could actually use while playing a hand. I’d be happy to hear that I tickled somebody’s brain enough to come up with something surprising. :)

Ed Miller
@ Tue Jun 26, 2007 02:19:19 PM
5

Greyzy,

You’re absolutely right that theoretically there’s a point at which you would reject a slightly +EV push in order to reduce the risk of being out of action.

I react strongly against that notion because my experience is that it has little practical application (for one thing because EV is almost always a fuzzy estimate in poker). But some people, particularly those who WANT to pass up on risky (or even not-so-risky) plays use this idea to justify playing weak-tight. I think most poker players would benefit from ignoring this idea entirely.

In blackjack the idea is more useful because you can calculate EVs perfectly, so you can know exactly where the strategy changes appear.

6

[...] money management is to play in a game where the stakes don’t affect your marginal decisions. Check out this recent article from Ed Miller on this topic. If you agree with Miller, you get it. If you don’t agree with him, your thinking is flawed. [...]

AKQJ10
@ Thu Feb 07, 2008 05:49:47 PM
7

Wow, I wish I’d seen this post earlier. I’ve had almost this same conversation with people on 2+2 Beginners who erroneously talk about passing up “small” 5% edges because they’d rather wait for a better spot to get all the money in. Ed’s psychological diagnosis is spot-on.

I agree that although there can be a theoretical justification for that view, and Sklansky even mentioned it in his tournament book (back in the days where there weren’t 100 online tournaments every hour!), it’s greatly misused. In fact, I agree it’s so greatly misused that the phrase “wait for a better spot” should just be banned from the poker beginner’s vocabulary.

Finally, I’m glad Ed co-wrote NLHE:TAP regardless of his level of poker knowledge, because I prefer poker books in English to books in Sklanskyese.

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>