Building on simple strategies vs attempting complex ones

[doubleup]

Byron's post about folding a set and my response got me thinking about whether it is better for a beginner or even a competent player looking to improve, to approach nl with a simple strategy and then build on that by analysing mistakes rather than try to assimilate a very complex strategy where the errors might be difficult to isolate.

EG  You play NL with medium stack and open raise with pre-selected hands in various positions.  If just called, you always c-bet if checked to or first to act.  If the c bet is raised, you go allin with top pair or better or a draw.  Otherwise you fold.

Obviously other things are going to happen pre-flop, but the above is an example simple strategy that gets us to the end of a hand. 

After playing the above we find that we generally win more pots than we lose, but we lose more big pots than we win.  So we make adjustments fully understanding what we are doing and try again.  The process continues until a winning game is developed. 

The main point is that everything is then based on your game and your understanding of how various types of player play against you.  Not on trying to link together your experience with things you see and read and falling back on maxims like "don't go broke in an unraised pot" when you're not sure what to do.

Anyone agree/disagree - has anyone actually tried this approach?

[iceman]

Byron's post about folding a set and my response got me thinking about whether it is better for a beginner or even a competent player looking to improve, to approach nl with a simple strategy and then build on that by analysing mistakes rather than try to assimilate a very complex strategy where the errors might be difficult to isolate.

EG  You play NL with medium stack and open raise with pre-selected hands in various positions.  If just called, you always c-bet if checked to or first to act.  If the c bet is raised, you go allin with top pair or better or a draw.  Otherwise you fold.

Obviously other things are going to happen pre-flop, but the above is an example simple strategy that gets us to the end of a hand. 

After playing the above we find that we generally win more pots than we lose, but we lose more big pots than we win.  So we make adjustments fully understanding what we are doing and try again.  The process continues until a winning game is developed. 

The main point is that everything is then based on your game and your understanding of how various types of player play against you.  Not on trying to link together your experience with things you see and read and falling back on maxims like "don't go broke in an unraised pot" when you're not sure what to do.

Anyone agree/disagree - has anyone actually tried this approach?

 i think i come across this strategy every day and its so usual  its the main reason certain letters of my keyboard have worn away.

[AlexMartin]

I go broke in any pot where i think i have the best hand or there is a good chance my opponent can fold a better hand.
But some of the stuff you talk about i actually do. I always continuation bet and i have pretty standard SB/BB/Button responses. We all win the odd big pot, but its the accumulation of tiny edges that turns us into a real money maker.

[M3boy]

With practise, missed continuation bets are easy to spot, and am aggressive re raise can prove VERY effective

[AlexMartin]

With practise, missed continuation bets are easy to spot, and am aggressive re raise can prove VERY effective

without doubt. i personally like the step higher than that, the re-re-raise of the anti continuation bet. But you need to know your player.


Play ABC poker until you know the game inside out. You can make a mint playing ABC on most sites.