Who wants to learn cash game strategy?

[Lee]

My 3 biggest hates are:

1 - Being unable to fold your 2nd or 3rd full house after betting all streets and large on the river and getting re-raised all-in. My experiences tell me that about 95% of the time when they do this large re-raise (which will stack me), it is because i am beat. Taking solice with comments such as "couldn't fold" or "how could i fold", is just pure bollocks we create in our mind to make the call (which we know is wrong) seem acceptable. You know the one, where you close one eye, press call and then mutter "f-ing knew it, lucky bastard" or "miracle flop" etc. Drives me fucking crazy this one, i know enough about poker to know that i'm behind, use your knowledge you pratt, it has cost you enough learning it.

2 - Joining a table to win a set target for the day and winning this amount within the first few hands. Instead of shutting off the game, you stay and more often than not, lose some of it, then stay there for 3 hours getting back to where you was after 3 hands of joining. If you play poker for a living and your style is to aim for $x per day, leave when you get to this amount. Treat your time at the table as work. If you worked in an office and had your work finished by 1pm, would you hang around like a lost sheep for 4 more hours, cos you feel like you've been shortchanged (i.e. you expected to be playing for an hour or two, yet within 3 mins you have got to what your aim was).

3 - Being scared to raise too much pre-flop with a hand like AJ, AT etc. yet parting with far more on the flop. I think this is a mental block on raising, parting with the chips on the flop is somehow more acceptable, than playing stronger from the outset.

[Newmanseye]

Ok I have been really lazy about this but here is my 2 cents


Cash games

Online I find the cash games are very loose, as a result grinding works best over the long haul, I prefer to play a Live cash game instead of online, its so much easier, people will still refuse to part with that £100 chip as its a physical item, not some money that they have already transfered out of their bank.. or in their eyes spent when its online.

I think the real key to cash play is focused, well timed aggression, i say bollox to all of this " stay out of pots with XXX cos hes a good player crap"  If i see a good player He's the target, firstly as i know I can make him lay down a hand, and i know when i am beat most of the time, the better players seem to have a predictability, so I will raise out of position with  and continue to bet, raise and checkraise untill they fold. Sometimes this backfires and that part of the game, you have to get caught some of the time.

The other aspect of Internet cash games for me can be the boredom factor, when I have to change down gears I often get board from waiting to build up a " he's gone tight " table image hence the mind wanders and i start thinking about MTT's, Omaha Hi lo and naughty websites..so some time it can be a hinderance to come out of that self imposed cocoon too quickly.  Again this is a key reason i prefer the live cash games, whilst you are rocking up you can portray a loose image and can continue to tilt players in the live game, all the while passing the garbage cards, its tough to do that online.

3 key points if you must play cash online are

(1) turn off the chat window, you dont need that distraction

(2) Stay alert, make notes all the time, I say notes are more crucial in cash games than tourneys, They are worth more money in a cash game.

(3) When the fun stops, leave the game - this is my latest revelation, when i feel the fun elemen has evaporated and i am chasing, i just quit as I know my best game comes out when i am having fun.

probably a load of old tosh but thats my input.


(edit)..

Now I have gone through the thread and read it, all i can say is WOW, Great thread and some great points and advice.

You can stick me down for an e-book as well, Now I have a question as to how you deal with the people that continually change gears in cash games.

In my limited experience it works a lot better in Live games, as few people take notice online, only the better players will notice what you are doing and try to adapt to the everchanging style. I have come up against people that combat this part of my strategy well, and I was wondering if you could giveme more insight as to how you would combat this.

[byronkincaid]

6-Max C-betting. I usually C-bet, I wouldn't C-bet if for example 3 people call and the flop comes down KJ9 2 suits, because that's gonna have hit someone and my pair of twos probably ain't in great shape. I have read very good players say they pretty much always C-bet. In the sklansky NL book they say IIRC if you're out of position you should usually check all your hands on the flop good and bad.

It feels like I would lose a lot of money doing this, but occaisional checking seems to be good too. In a way checking is more scarey than betting. What are your thoughts?

Also C-bet size, I usually bet three quarters to a full pot bet. Prob the more I want them to fold the more I bet. Sounds exploitable.

[totalise]

I think this is a great thread. Perhaps the best one I've ever seen.

I've just read through it and it's been a real eye opener.

I'm going to disagree with a couple of things you've said. I hope no-one sees this as a sign of disrespect. I think totalise is a fantastic asset to this forum. He always takes time out to help people with excellent analysis.
I believe cash games players have far more skill than tournament players. From what I've read, totalise is one of the best csah game players (or one of the best who's willing to share their thoughts consisely and honestly) IMO this makes him the best full stop.

I ain't just trying to argue for the sake of it either. I just believe that a bit of debate helps hash out greater understanding.
In many cases, people retort and I realise what and where I might be wrong.

Rolf tends to take everything too far. He has a book coming out soon, i'd recommend you dont read it. What he fails to understand is that he might wait an hour to find a great table, and he has lost himself an hours wage.

I think there's no such thing as a bad poker book. I'd recommend a prospective player read any one they could get their hands on, and just not take any one source too literally.
If anything it gets them thinking about the game more. If the writer is talking piddle and the reader disagrees, at least the reader is thinking about why they disagree.

The other point I don't necessary agree with is the next one. Of the player who spends an hour on game selection having lost 60 minutes wages.
It gets the session of to a disciplined start, and you can spend the time learning the players you're about to sit with.

Just like this....

 What is optimal behaviour is to sit down, and not play any hand at all for the first 10 minutes (unless it is a monster) this gives you a great period of time to learn the table, learn the tendancies, and then learn how to make money from other people. Once you are armed with this info, you are in a golden spot where you can play your hands and expect to profit from it, without giving other people a free chance at profiting from you

I agree whole heartedly

Surely we're not losing 10 minutes wages though.

Perhaps 60 minutes is a tad far, I would think that it could take somewhat less time. Maybe the hour he quotes isn't so much a literal thing though. Perhaps he really means, a significant amount of time.

Hi tank,

I think the difference is that if you are waiting 60 minutes for the golden seat, you are just (as far as I can see) sat there waiting at the bar doing nothing. if you are sat at the table waiting for hands before playing, at least you have the option to be in pots and have potential for earning. They are similar for sure, but I think its better to play in almost any game whilst waiting for the better game to open, rather then just wait for the great seat to open up (assuming an edge is there, which for someone like Rolf, it probably is)

Also maybe too much is being made of the 60 minutes as you suggest. He is certainly a good player and its the concept of not being in action just to wait for a good action spot that i dont overly agree with

Also by all means point out things you think are wrong/dubious, I dont think anyone in their right mind would feel offended by it, nothing bad can ever come from people debating/debunking things like this..  if I am rite and you are wrong, then you have improved, and if you are rite and I am wrong, I have improved.. so its got huge upside and zero downside


Lee,

great post. I especially like this line

3 - Being scared to raise too much pre-flop with a hand like AJ, AT etc. yet parting with far more on the flop. I think this is a mental block on raising, parting with the chips on the flop is somehow more acceptable, than playing stronger from the outset.

Newmanseye,

not a load of tosh at all, is full of good stuff

Now I have a question as to how you deal with the people that continually change gears in cash games.

these people are certainly the toughest to play.. and what happens is you find yourself reacting to what they do. That is where they bank their winnings. They will go from loose to tight, and then by the time you figured that out, they are probably back to playing loose again. One of the best things I can suggest is to fight fire with fire. Dont be the one reacting to them, make them react to you. If you can have THEM be the ones guessing, you have almost won the battle. Generally, if you can show them that you have got "game", in one or two hands, then it will force them (normally) to play straightforward against you. Its almost like implicit collusion, they are like "ok pal, we are the good players, lets keep out of each others hair and take all the money from the bad players". Thats when you have more of a free reign to take away the smaller pots where you are involved with the other good player (s)


Byron

6-Max C-betting. I usually C-bet, I wouldn't C-bet if for example 3 people call and the flop comes down KJ9 2 suits, because that's gonna have hit someone and my pair of twos probably ain't in great shape. I have read very good players say they pretty much always C-bet. In the sklansky NL book they say IIRC if you're out of position you should usually check all your hands on the flop good and bad.

It feels like I would lose a lot of money doing this, but occaisional checking seems to be good too. In a way checking is more scarey than betting. What are your thoughts?

Also C-bet size, I usually bet three quarters to a full pot bet. Prob the more I want them to fold the more I bet. Sounds exploitable.

I think c'betting as a matter of course is better then checking. The theory behind the check oop is that you are either going to have something or nothing (obv!), and the math dictates that you will have nothing a lot more often then you will have something, so great players will call flop bets as a matter of principle just to try and steal pots later on in the hand. This is called floating, and its pretty successful. You counter this by either c'betting less, or firing 2~~3 barrels.. as most people fire one barrel and then give up on the turn, so you can call flop, and bet the turn if checked, and you pick up the pot a high % of the time.

Naturally this is where the bet-check-bet line comes in when you flop a monster OOP, you are creating a "float spot" for your opponents, and you want them to fall into your trap.

Against lesser skilled opponents, you should be c'betting MUCH more often, as they dont enter pots in general to try and win them through skill, they enter pots to try and win them through making a hand, and its the same principle as before. They will miss much more often then they hit, so you are getting them to fold quite often post-flop. One thing I used to do at the lower levels quite often was if a couple of limpers were in, I'd go ahead and raise it up with ATC from the button and then c'bet close to any flop. Naturally this requires the correct table dynamics for it to work, but its a great play to make a couple times an hour. I always break NL down like this:

the bad players dribble away chips waiting for that golden hand where they flop a monster vs monster. They win this, and then double up to about even

the av players maintain their stack at what they bought in before waiting for that golden moster vs monster hand

the top players are growing their stack all the time, waiting for that monster vs monster

SO I think it behooves a good strategy to be looking for ways/ideas/concepts to try and grow your stack even if you aren't getting good cards, and the one mentioned above works really good against the correct type of table (limpers/callers and then folders is the dynamic you are looking for)

[MrSpeed]

Great thread Totalise.

One thing i would disagree with is calling people who maintain there stack looking for monster vs monster as average players. This may be correct, however, it is not monster vs monster that all these 'average' players are looking for, it is a greater edge.

If you know that certain players will call you down with top pair/ weak 2 pair etc for all there chips, then can it not be 'correct' to play tight. This then gives off the impression that you are waiting for a monster to the good players (who can be bluffed more often), however, lesser players will not notice and this can be where you make your +EV when you stack them. Just wanted to say as i believe there are many 'correct' ways to play, it just depends on your own styles. Note: this may be more relevant to lower limits but i thought it was worth mentioning.

One situation that i find a lot is 'how often to fire 2 or more barrels'. If you are say last to act on the flop and have a flush draw in a 3-4 way pot. The BB bets out, i often raise in this position (semi-bluff) to get a free card if i think A)there is a chance to take the pot now and B)the BB is unlikely to reraise without a quality hand, not a new concept i know but....the problem comes when he calls, turn is a blank and he checks to me. Should i always take my free card and be grateful or sometimes (%??) fire another barrel as a semi bluff this time with fewer cards to come.

Any thoughts advice would be great. Great thread, lets keep it going.

G

[totalise]

Great thread Totalise.

One thing i would disagree with is calling people who maintain there stack looking for monster vs monster as average players. This may be correct, however, it is not monster vs monster that all these 'average' players are looking for, it is a greater edge.

If you know that certain players will call you down with top pair/ weak 2 pair etc for all there chips, then can it not be 'correct' to play tight. This then gives off the impression that you are waiting for a monster to the good players (who can be bluffed more often), however, lesser players will not notice and this can be where you make your +EV when you stack them. Just wanted to say as i believe there are many 'correct' ways to play, it just depends on your own styles. Note: this may be more relevant to lower limits but i thought it was worth mentioning.

One situation that i find a lot is 'how often to fire 2 or more barrels'. If you are say last to act on the flop and have a flush draw in a 3-4 way pot. The BB bets out, i often raise in this position (semi-bluff) to get a free card if i think A)there is a chance to take the pot now and B)the BB is unlikely to reraise without a quality hand, not a new concept i know but....the problem comes when he calls, turn is a blank and he checks to me. Should i always take my free card and be grateful or sometimes (%??) fire another barrel as a semi bluff this time with fewer cards to come.

Any thoughts advice would be great. Great thread, lets keep it going.

G

I think in general I prefer the semi-bluff with non-nut draws, and prefer just calling on the flop with nut draws. When its multi-way, you dont mind raising with a small flush draw, maybe just maybe people with a bigger flush draw will be folding if it goes bet/raise before the action has gotten to them, and if you can achieve this, you have increased your equity hugely. Conversely you bet out hands like straight draws that might give you action if you and they both hit, but people fear the flush draw quite a lot. Compare this to a nut draw, you dont mind calling to attract overcallers, as you like to play big pots when you make the nuts, and the more people in there, in general it makes it more likely you will get your wish

As to whether or not to fire the second bullet, this is something that is really table dynamic. As a general rule, you should probably take the free card. I mean, you say in your post you raise to get a free card, so you should be quite happy to take it when you can. If someone is sand-bagging you with a monster, you win a huge pot if you hit (because they get all desperate to get money in the pot due to them missing the turn c/raise) and if they have a weakish hand that wants to get to showdown, you probably wouldnt be able to bet them off the hand anyways... so I think in general you are betting people off hands that you want calling (ie weaker draws that make second best hands). You can always fire at the river if you miss and it gets checked to you again, so i think as a general rule, taking the free card when you can get it is likely the best play

One thing i would disagree with is calling people who maintain there stack looking for monster vs monster as average players. This may be correct, however, it is not monster vs monster that all these 'average' players are looking for, it is a greater edge.

thats true enough, but I think in general NL is a case of waiting for the big pot to arrive, and what you do whilst waiting for that pot is a pretty good mark of the quality of player you are up against. It was more of an illustration of why picking up the chips is something you should be striving for, rather then a hard fast rule on what a good/bad player is.. as if you are against a complete bunch of lunatics, you cant do anything BUT sit and wait for that big hand, so you are forced to play the waiting/draining game. Obviously your next comment quoted below supplants any of the generics written above.

Just wanted to say as i believe there are many 'correct' ways to play, it just depends on your own styles

theres nothing truer then this

[ACE2M]

You said you did your bankroll in a couple of times, how did you get back on the path? Surely you didn't deposit a $100 and start 0.25/0.50 or smaller.

[totalise]

You said you did your bankroll in a couple of times, how did you get back on the path? Surely you didn't deposit a $100 and start 0.25/0.50 or smaller.

nope, would deposit $500 or so and just lump it all on a table and try and parlay it into a goodly sum. Then get it to a grindable sum and work from there. If I lost that, I'd put more in. Its almost like having a bankroll not on the poker-site, but at the time it just felt like a bingo shot to get a sum worth grinding off. I was fortunate to have a well-paid job at the time, so losing $500 a pop dint really mean much in the grand scheme of things. If you can afford to risk it, and can replace it easily, I think thats the best way to treat a small roll. Protect the big rolls which are harder to replace

[Junior Senior]

Lovin it Totalise
Who'd have thought that tubby little 18yr old who couldn't hit his hat on the golf course would be writing an e-book on poker.  Those county golf officials in their grey flannel blazers would not approve :-)


I'm not just here to criticise your golf btw, I do have a question. -

Your playing deep stacked against a good solid oppo who has raised preflop with something like  .  You call with  .  The flop is  .

You get into a raising war.  At what point if any do you get away from this hand or is it a case of stacks in the middle and flip em'.  I guess I am really interested in how you deal with a player that is deep stacked, pretty much has you covered and is not relenting in the betting - you have a monster but not the nuts.


P.s. this is a GREAT thread.

[totalise]

Who'd have thought that tubby little 18yr old who couldn't hit his hat on the golf course would be writing an e-book on poker.  Those county golf officials in their grey flannel blazers would not approve :-)

lol indeed! Although I can claim to have beaten Oliver Wilson in matchplay, without handicap! Beat that young 'un!

As for the hand in question, there are two types of great players. There are the JP's/Thewys of this world who would be willing to go to war with a few draws on that board (as well as 2pr/sets)  so you should be eagre to stack off against them.. and there other great players who aren't so willing to stack off with draws, so you are likely facing a set from them. Given that you beat one set and are losing to the other, you are going to be 50/50 against that range, and when it comes to call off your stack, you will be getting laid much better then even money on your stack, so you should likely get the chips in, although you wont be as happy to do it. Set over set is a spot you probably should (in general) lose your stack if you played the hand correctly (there might even occasionally be a misplayed overpair thrown into the mix, which weights it strongly in your favour)

My own personal experience is that you should only be willing to fold middle set on a board like this against someone who you know with absolute certainty would only play the nuts in this spot, so thats going to just be entirely read dependant, not something you can learn in a thread etc

online I dont think I've ever folded a set on a flop like this, because playing against great online players, they are too good to only have top set in this spot, and against bad online players, they can have pretty much anything. As for live, well I dont have a lot of experience in that field, so I cant really comment. Maybe its the case you can look into their soul and know that they have the nuts, but I think that is being too fearful of monsters under the bed and I suspect (but might be wrong) that you cant really read someone well enough to justify folding here based on reads alone.

I'll be interested if this is right or not, because if you can read someone this well, its a function of live play that you cant learn in books/theory etc, and something that you dont have at your disposal online

[WellChief]

I'd like some discussion on bet sizes, particularly after raising preflop.  I've watched some players on high stakes games and some will always bet the pot after raising preflop and checked to, or are first to bet, while others range between 1/2 to 2/3 of the pot.  Is there a certain line you like to go down or do you vary your continuation bets based on texture of the flop/mixing your game up?   I'd have to say that I virtually never bet the full pot after raising preflop, I like to vary between 2/3 to 3/4 for example.  I can however see why players might do this - It makes it tougher for players to reraise you without a strong hand if the raise equates to a high proportion of their stack, although you are often just burning money when you get raised back and all you have is ace high.

[Lee]

I've thought for sometime now, that to be a successful cash player, it is more about minimising your losses, rather than maximising your wins. By this i mean removing the following scenarios:

1 - loose calls pre-flop cos you are bored, followed all too often by fold, fold, fold

2 - steaming or tilting and forgetting that it is real money. I think playing in dollars is very bad for the English as they have no real attachment to the $. It has always made me smirk when i lose say $60 on a hand and say "ah well that's only £25 sterling". Whereas if i win $60, then i've just won £35-40 sterling. This could be countered by saying that playing with a currency which is not your own can help as it removes some part of the "money" side and can hopefully help you just play poker though.

3 - raising a multipot in late position, knowing full well, that come the flop, there will be 3 or 4 players at least and you will then have no idea on what to do, especially if you catch something ok but not great. Put simply, trying to move players out of a pot, where you know full well, unless there house and car is on the line, that they will not be going anywhere.

4 - play at a level where you can take a loss to your roll and not have this imprinted on your brain - "i must get that back, i've played for 3 weeks to win that FFS" etc.

5 - When you are in the SB and its folded round to you and you feel impelled to do something to the BB. Its an unraised pot, with so little in it, just let it go, you can easily pick up blinds using your brain and more importantly your position. Blind battling, really pointless IMO.


Now it may seem strange to concentrate on your losses rather than your wins, however once you achieve a certain level at poker, you can get your hands paid off quite regularly. TRUE, the very best players will get a little more by cuter or unconventional play, but in general, if you have half a brain and know what you are doing, you can get paid quite easily. So....once the wins are pretty to sure to come along, it is time to fine tune those plays, but IMO, it is more important to concentrate on your losses now as that will show a greater improvement to your overall profit.

A great laydown for me is far more appealing than outplaying someone. Not because outplaying isn't appealing, it's simply that learning to laydown and stop spunking chips away is something i need to improve on far more than the winning side of poker. When i'm ahead, i'm often aware and sure of it, when behind i'm regularly not sure.

I'm not sure if this reads as i'm trying to say. Basically, although not quite as simple, many poker hands play themselves, the profit your KK will show against AQ on a Q high flop will regularly fall into a certain bracket. Whereas your KK losing to JT on a JT7 flop is something far harder to remove and something i am personally working on.

If you can save $ by not making these losing moves, it frees up $ that you never normally see. With these $, use them wisely on the hands where you can get paid.

[Sark79]

In one of DN blogs, he mentions that playing other styles of ring games will help your main game progress faster.  Most peoples main game on Blonde will be Hold-Em .  Do you think it is beneficial to play other games such as Omaha H/L, 7 Stud and PL Omaha?   In what ways do you think mixing the ring games we play will benefit your Hold-Em game? 

[Lee]

In one of DN blogs, he mentions that playing other styles of ring games will help your main game progress faster.  Most peoples main game on Blonde will be Hold-Em .  Do you think it is beneficial to play other games such as Omaha H/L, 7 Stud and PL Omaha?   In what ways do you think mixing the ring games we play will benefit your Hold-Em game? 

This is a good point Sark. On a personal front if i have played Omaha hi or hi/lo for say a week non stop (nothing else), once i return to holdem, i find reading the flops and the players, far easier. In omaha you have to be aware on the flop, you have twice as many cards as you normally do and so do your opponents!! This has always helped me big time. I remember the first time i returned to holdem after a long stint of maybe 3 or 4 weeks on purely omaha. It felt like someone had cleaned the window and somehow made holdem a lot clearer.

[totalise]

Great post Lee.

Most people spend too long worrying about improving their A game, which is great.. but the problem is that we cant all play our best all the time, so we resort to B/C all the way to Z.  I think the best online players have B and C games close to the A game, which is why they win so much, and the not so good players have a reasonable A game, but a piss poor B/C game, which is why they probably lose. Trying to improve your non-best game is probably AS important as improving your best.

Sark

I think playing other games is good because it helps you think about other concepts which can then filter through into Holdem. I found that if I play omaha for a while, it aids my NL game because you are forced to concentrate more, board texture and oppo tendancies are so important in Omaha, you HAVE to pay attention. In NL a lot of the moves (as Lee alludes to in his great post) are close to automatic, so its easy to get sloppy. You cant do this in omaha otherwise you will be getting an introduction to the world of BUSTO.. so its definately the case that other games can have benefitial effects on your stock game. The problem is that if you play too much limit, you start using limit moves in NL games, which can be quite disasterous


Wellchief:

Is there a certain line you like to go down or do you vary your continuation bets based on texture of the flop/mixing your game up?

in an ideal world we would bet more with made hands and bet less with bluffs, as you want to get more money in the pot when you are ahead and risk less when you have nothing. Problem here is that we dont live in an ideal world.. so my default line is nearly always a pot-sized bet if the table is full of unknowns/good players. Against weaker players, you can vary your bet-size based on hand strength, because they dont have the requisite ability to try and exploit you.. so i think that as a stock rule, your bet sizing should vary more on the players in the hand then the texture of the flop. Saying all that, you definately have to take into account the amount of callers and the texture of the board. If it comes 789 and u raised with AK, you shouldnt be betting this flop hardly ever, so its standard to base your frequency of c'bets based on the flop/players to the flop.. but I think its folly to bet a different sized amount, because despite what we try and say about non-exploitation, its hard to randomize the bet size in a manner that hides your hand, so potting it (or making your bet always 3/4 of the pot..w/e) is in my eyes the best idea. Whatever your standard bet is, I recommend just betting it each time you decide to bet

I can however see why players might do this - It makes it tougher for players to reraise you without a strong hand if the raise equates to a high proportion of their stack, although you are often just burning money when you get raised back and all you have is ace high.

Yes, thats why I bet the pot, it makes them less likely to try and take it away.. and if you have quite an active game, you will have nothing a lot more then something, so this is always welcome, plus the times you have something, you are building a bigger pot in case you get action, so its self servicing. Naturally it burns to lose money when you get raised back and you only have Ace high, but the cost of losing those c'bets is more then made up the times they a) fold when you have A high and b) when they raise you and you have something

Obviously if they are constantly raising you, you have to try different tactics.. either c'bet less in terms of frequency, which does come down to board texture and oppo tendancies, or c'bet less in terms of pot size, but then that goes back to making sure you dont vary that amount based on what you have.. otherwise good players will eat you alive