A New Strategy to Beat Low Stakes Poker
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 พ.ย. 2023
- A groundbreaking strategy to beat low stakes poker. Bart Examines sample hands from the upcoming low stakes No Limit book from David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. Taken from the 2+2 thread here:
forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...
Cyber Monday Sale! 35% off of all plan levels at CrushLiverPoker. Click here: bit.ly/CLP-Cyber-Monday-SALE
Checkout our latest Crush Live Poker Free Training videos and podcasts here: bit.ly/FREE-CLP-TRAINING
To submit a hand for consideration for the call-in show read instructions here: crushlivepoker.com/support#fa....
Join the CLP Discord community and follow our socials:
► / discord
► / crushlivepoker
► / crushlivepoker
► / crushlivepoker - เกม
I think we should look at the big picture. 1/3 will become more profitable for good players when the players who learned from this book start coming to the tables.
lololol
@@JMTavares7 I'm picking up on your sarcasm.
It already is. This is what happens when people learn math, and try to justify how MATHEMATICALLY, low stakes "don't work." You CAN and I DO make plenty of profit at 1/3 and 2/5 tables!
@@willh4340 yeah the point that people are not getting is at low stakes people make enough mistakes that are big enough and often enough to make up for the drop or rake.
Halleluiah!! There is a whole generation of terrible players from sitting home during covid and watching Poker live streams and Poker Blogs.
I welcome more of their kind.
When you can't travel back in time to crush 2000's NL, just sit at a table with David and Mason.
They are basically just super OMC Nits. Playing at a table of 7 of them and 1 of you would barely be profitable after rake.
1. The way they played these hands is nearly identical to how the players I crush at these stakes play their hands.
2. Anyone who doesn’t give the correct position, stack sizes, or all of the cards on the board, isn’t going to get any serious respect from me.
3. The number or people that I’m sure Bart has helped beat these stakes over the years, as well as the numerous players I’ve helped go from losing to winning players in these game using “old techniques” is a pretty good indicator the methods already being used by winning players are fine lol.
4. I’m frankly shocked at someone with their reputations writing such ridiculous things. Are we sure their accounts weren’t hacked?
5. Two plus two lol 🙄
Good job as always Bart. You are the man.
Love your podcast my man, hoping you see a couple David’s on your next session!
handing this book out to my local room for Christmas gifts 😊
Can't we just get a lump of coal?
@@1vailchris absolutely
Best comment of the year😂 gold
@@1vailchris sorry that options not in the cards
I'm suggesting it to the poker room manager as making it accompany whatever cash prize the player already gets if they make it to the top 3, 5, final table, or some such level that warrants it. Keep more people playing those so the edge available exceeds the house take % on the buy-in, and in turn make the cash games better at the same time. It's win-win. Well, more like win-win-lose.
I have been a break even to small winner for many decades.
I learned from David Sklansky many years ago. I started watching you daily about six months ago. Since August , this is November, I have been winning almost every session I play. I am actually up several thousand dollars in three months playing 1/2!
Today’s poker is much more challenging than a decade ago.
I am buying your training program today in hopes of moving up to mid stakes at 67 years of age.
Your methods just make sense to me. I have compared many others.
Your advice on basics along with MDF, using hand reading logic, some basic math and going for thin value at the right times have made me a formidable opponent.
Knowing every GTO chart is not only impossible but useless in small stake poker when opponents just don’t know ranges.
No one can push me around anymore. I feel confident, and nimble in places that I use to feel panicked, and incapable before.
Thank you for sharing the free content that got me here and I am just thrilled to invest in my poker future with you today.
wait until your first 2000bb downswing
I’d prolly throw you around on the felt 😂😂
@@Daniel-fo9jf wdym first..............................?????? It can happen again?? Ohhh nooooooooooo
This reminds me of what Eric Drache said about deep stack no limit in Vegas back in the 70's. "Nine guys sitting around waiting to throw queens away".😂
There was no no-limit in Vegas back in the 70s
@@leviwhatever6192 au contraire. There was a game at the Nugget, also they got going during the Series. Always very deep by modern standards.
We need more books like this to restock the pond with terrible players. =)
I'm buying this book for everybody in my home game :)
Fo good players play 1/3 or did they move on to higher stakes?
Poker is a lot like life. You make the best moves you can with the information you have, and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
Sometimes I'll flat a very strong hand preflop to then play very aggressively with a disguised strength hand on future streets. Only against specific player types, and only if we've been at the table for a while and have some data to chew on. When you can get them to say "He doesn't have XX in his range because he flatted" it can work out very well.
I mix it up by underrepping too. They end up doing the betting for u.
If you haven't yolo 4/5 bet cold shoved some nit and shown 53o or whatever your "that's my lucky hand haha", once or twice...you're doing it wrong.
The tourists won't fold even if you play QQ+ face up, afterwards.
Great info. I really need to take advantage of this content. It's well prepared and very valuable to me. Thank you Bart.
When an OMC writes a poker education book
More like when a limit OMC writes a NL book.
I am not sure Mr. Hanson is an OMC.
He definitely is an OM, possibly has the C, but I don't think his play style is as nitty as a real OMC.
You get it, like real OG, but instead of OG, I used OMC.
It's funny because they start with the same letter.
@@jeffshackleford3152 Ok, at this point you've thrown the letters around enough, possibly with sarcasm or humor, to the point where I'm going to ask you to define what they mean, haha. Oh, but I'm serious at least on this... OMC = ??
@@Trephining OMC = Old man coffee = that 60+ year old man that literally only plays AA and KK, so about 1 hand per day
OG = Original Gangsta = in gang culture one of the founding / near founding members of the gang, usually command great respect, can also refer to the longer standing members of a gang as well.
Bart I was a premium CLP subscriber and did the Crush NL course but the $44.95 a month was killing me...thank you for the new lower price , i just rejoined....
I would listen to an audiobook of this if bart reads it and sighs after every sentence
Haha brilliant!!!
I remember reading a book by SkLansky about 15 years ago. he was talking about limit poker and specifically referenced a situation where an early position player bets out and you have top pair or an over pair with people behind you. He recommended folding. I think the hand was meant to illustrate the problem of relative position in situations like this. But I think he might be caught up in an old mindset. He would’ve been playing against fairly skilled players in a limit poker game. That is very different from low stakes no limit these days. People will do things like that out into five people with a draw or Colin early position that with bottom pair. They will also call a large number of big bats on the river with very weak hands.
Love the new set, Bart!
Limit players gonna have limits.
@23:03 actually a 6 makes open ended, not a double gutter...Great vid. Bart. I've watched hundreds of hrs of CLP + they are by far my fav. poker tutorials. It was only fitting that you were calling the J4 stream 😎 Keep them coming ! !
13:11 AsKs in the BB -- If this game is structured such that the rake is taken postflop, then there's even a bigger argument to 3-bet here. If all your opponents fold to your 3-bet, you take the pot down rake-free.
Nice background. Bart moved into a castle. You will find his new studio in the west wing. 😊
This is the mancave version 2.0, I assume. That bookshelf thing was very tasteful and elegant, so his wife must have been the designer there 😂
Great stuff Bart. BTW... I have the patience to play less than 10% of hands.
Reg at the $5 $5 NL at Hollywood Park. Been beating the game for years.
After many years, my game is still evolving. But ....
I always adhere to pre flop fundamentals. Value + Eff stacks + position + table dynamics = playing a hand.
I’ve paused at 7:21 - when the KK is being mucked. I actually do this a lot, I would never overlimp here, but I don’t see a way to win the hand often enough against the really loose player fields without some ridiculous variance. I crush the games I play in, and I’m very aggressive, in this spot I’ll never be happy ever playing a big pot, and if there is a big pot I’m dead.
I don’t find a lot of money is made with overpairs 4 or 5 ways as often the board and action won’t allow you to take control and your forced into a call lines and then you hear “2 pair” at the end.
I would however raise preflop big over 4 limps and I would rather pick up the preflop pot than play 4 ways. 2 callers max.
So yes this KK line is extremely passive, but post flop I actually don’t mind the play, I make massive deviations vs player pools, even online rush pools, Im that maniac that bluff min raises the river in a 4 bet pot nobody ever bluffs in, and it crushes.
Anyway unpause, I’m not trying to big myself up, although I have 😅
Edit - After hearing the comments after about the current poker teachers, that’s disrespectful. I have listened to Bart and others a ton, and I do make massive exploits like extreme nitty folds, and in other spots call down high cards with no problem, saying Bart doesn’t know how to win is just disrespectful. I likely agree with some stuff David suggests however in technical hand reading spots, Bart is the guy for these limits.
I don’t think in that KK spot your losing much EV folding depending on the players in the hand, so passing on these spots helps variance a TON, and helps your mental game a ton, there is literally profitable spots all over in a lot of games, ones where you should absolutely iso raise though.
Nice new background, Bart. Very sophisticated.
I used to frequently 3-bet premium hands like AA, KK, QQ, and AK. Thanks to this book I now will fold KK to a raise. The other day an EP player opened for $4 and I proudly folded my KK, because they could have been beat. I also limped the BU with AA, SB folded and BB limped. Flop came AJ2r. BB bets 1/2 pot, I call. Turn is a 5 no flush on board. BB bets 1/2 again and I just call. River is another J making the board AJ25J. BB moves all-in and I fold my AA, because my opponent could have had JJ. So glad I read this book so that I can just fold whenever I'm not 100% sure I'm going to win. Old me would probably snap call, but now I just put my opponents on the nuts and fold. My opponent showed AJ after this hand, but it very well could have been JJ and I don't want to be results oriented.
YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOREVER TO GET THEM CARDS MAN:
I like David’s flop fold w KK
Changed New Year’s resolution - play at the table with these guys
If someone had $12,005,572 in Sklansky Bucs. Could they use that to purchase this book? Asking for a friend.
Wow, I'm glad I found "great" players to get information and learn from. I get so much knowledge from people like Bart, I feel bad for anyone that spends 1 minute listening to these guys. It's time you'll never get back....and MONEY
Book should be called how to win the minimum and let your opponent get there
When you first said "wide range of players" I thought it meant the various types of players, but I can also see it meaning players thay play lots of hands.
The quote was “wide range of the players”
Even then think about what "player types" means. It effectively means the hands they are playing/bet sizes. So in the end it is effectively the same statement.
I haven't read the thread yet, but as stated by Bart, I interpreted it the same as you--various types of players. And Bart stated that Mason clarified that later in the thread. "Wide range of players" is different than "wide ranges of players." But I can see how someone might misinterpret that.
@@GRice999 In the thread it says "wide range of the players" I don't know how the interpretation of that can be disputed. As opposed to "wide range of players" vs "wide ranges of players"
@@CrushlivePoker My point is that when people say "wide range of players" they mean "wide range of playing styles" i.e. old man coffee, hoodie online player, dirty hands construction worker with a beer in his hands. And when we break down what that means, it actually means (a) the range of hands they are playing (b) bet sizing (c) frequency. Meaning another way to say old man coffee is, someone VPIP 10 - 15, raising large preflop, betting when they have it and big. So my point is I don't see any point in the distinction. At their root they are the same thing.
as a self described poker genius I've made the same play with kings queens j's 10's aces many times as in the first example that's a wet coordinated board that higher over pairs don't play well against on later streets, so no need to raise pre flop get called anyway and lose more money, also any player has any hand its better for them to initiate the action and feel like they have the best hand psychologically. and in the last game alot of times people will fold to a 67% size bet when river flush comes in I'd say way more players now a days fold in that spot easily.
Bart went for the throat on this video 😂
I'm glad they called him out by name, or I probably wouldn't have heard about this. Bart doesn't strike me as an attention whore like Doug Polk, and wouldn't insert himself into something that had nothing to do with him. The hand examples are laughable. Sad too, because 2+2 publications were my foundation during the early 00's poker boom.
@@jonathongravitt6902 I recommend you read Mason's first post more carefully, especially the paragraphs before the hand examples. Most posters here and in that thread missed the point. Why they played those hands the way they did will be explained in the book. In a nutshell, they're playing some hands differently than most winning players would because they're exploiting certain situations and tendencies. Whether they're right to do so is hard to judge without reading the explanations. But given their track records, I wouldn't bet against them. They both didn't suddenly go nuts. Give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
@@GRice999 Oh, I read the whole thing, and the damage control and defensiveness from the authors is hilarious.
They were either going for some provocative promotion and it backfired horribly, or they have let the game pass them by.
Honestly, they went from just repeating "read the rest of the book and you will understand the genius of limp/folding KK to "Sorry, we will not be responding to this thread anymore until the book has been released" TO POSTING THE Table of Contents.
I love it.
@@jonathongravitt6902 Mason always posts the TOC of new books and also excerpts. You reading anything into that suggests you're new to the game. As far as not getting into the weeds with the explanations for their actions, it kind of makes sense. Why get into long debates with people who might later agree with you after reading their rationale?
@@GRice999 Ok, sure, maybe they have some [possibly lengthy] explanations that will wind up making these hand examples make sense in a strategic sense.
But how about the glaring lack of information given within the hand examples? Missing community cards, player position, stack sizes, etc... does the book also explain why that information is immaterial? Or why remembering that information for analyzing one's own play is unnecessary? Or do the other strategic considerations contained in these 'explanations' render all that information irrelevant somehow?
I'm definitely willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I used some of Sklansky's books as the foundation of getting started back in 2000-2002, pre-Moneymaker days, when Vegas had lots of Limit Hold Em and 7CS was spread a lot more.
Sklansky contributed a chapter to Doyle Brunsen's SUPER SYSTEM. Malmuth was a good theorist. The game of NLHE passed them by years ago.
years
years
What does Bart mean by 'getting an overlay from the pot', around 14:06? I've never heard that before.
I also got a solid start in poker from Sklansky books. At the "Authors Tournament" at Foxwoods, I was the only audience member rooting for Sklansky. I'm glad Bart kept his criticism somewhat respectful, though I'd have given David even more benefit of the doubt. Live tells and so forth probably partly explain any anomalies when dubious lines are being taken.
I think the book should be named "How to beat low stakes NLHE with low variance." Clearly David is giving up some EV to keep variance down. As we age, that is not a bad idea, if you don't want to become a degen or bust the poker bankroll before figuring out you've no longer got a crushing win rate, and possibly aren't even beating the rake.
Treating an overpair like an underpair, on a wet board, is conservative, but not horrific. There are many spots where AA and KK are really only good for set mining, after you limp with them preflop.
But I will say that the preflop limping with strong hands, is ridiculous, and should not be part of any sound strategy. Get as much money in the pot as possible, while you have huge equity! If it ends up 4 ways, you have over 25% equity, if it goes 9 ways, you have over 11% equity. Sklansky knows that. So, if he gives up that EV by limping, he is clearly on a variance-reduction mission, pretty much set mining and peddling the nuts.
I can win using many strategies, and that is one of them. But it's neither the most fun way, nor the most profitable, for me. Yet, I know old guys for whom it IS the most fun way, because the chance of running out of poker money before the next Social Security direct deposit, is minimized. They like to break even or win a little or lose a little, while getting to play as much as they want, drink as many free drinks as they want, tip the waitresses A WHOLE DOLLAR as much as they want, eat free food off casino points, etc.
Being a nit enables some people to spend more time playing, than if they unsuccessfully attempt to become GTO crushers with higher variance. You don't need to be a genius, to play at the average skill level of a low-stakes table, while also being two or three notches more selective preflop. At many games, that is all that it takes to win and beat the rake.
so with this being said someone with lots of table time and knowledge what book for advanced players in your opinion is a must read
I limped trapped utg with AA everyone folded the blind checked. The flop was J 8 2. I lost my stack because the BB had 8 2 off suit. I never limped open again.
I love it! The rake in Vegas local casinos is just as bad 20% on the first 20.00 then 10% to 50.00 , 7.00 norm
Imo the most aggregious thing you can do in low stakes is limp aa kk to go multi way. Even if you plan to punish a later raise the risk isn't worth it... low stakes are calling stations. If you're getting folds you're playing so unbelievably tight that the brain dead table notices......
I like the fold with KK on hand 1
Back in the '90's I used to grind the middle-limit limit games at Commerce for 1.5 BB an hour. I did it in large part to the 2+2 books that I read, and Wilson software's Turbo Texas Hold'em. Cut to 2021 - I hadn't played in a long time and most of the games are NL now, my NL game wasn't that good, to get it up to speed I watched a lot of vlogger stuff on TH-cam, and subscribed to CLP. Bart's site is the best IMO. After 4,000 + hours of play I'm winning at a rate of 12+ BB an hour at the 1-3 games that I play. These hands he reviews are real head scratchers, what are Dave and Mason thinking ? The first hand with KK I'm making it 21, if nobody calls, fine, I'll show it to reinforce that I always have it, because I am squeezing there with lots of unpaired big-card hands and my range is horribly unbalanced if I don't raise it. This kind of thinking should be obvious to a modern player, I think Bart should offer those guys a free CLP membership to get them up to speed.
I think the difference here is that Bart is thinking in terms of balanced ranges, and David and friends, are saying, you dont need to think about that stuff, at these limits.
Their plays are shit, its not about not being balanced, its just all post-hoc rationalization of being passive nits. Also Mason and Sklansky don't know anything about balance or GTO, they are so old they could never figure out how to run sims and are too lazy to learn
Peddle the nuts and make money. This might be the books title.
Folding KK for balance. They'll never suspect it.
I don’t think so. They are just making illogical plays and passing it off as exploitative
Low stakes $1-$2 is a very beatable game as there are a lot of terrible players. You just have to play tight/aggressive and not get out of line. You literally can play your hand face up and people will still call you down. Bet when you have and bet when you sense weakness.
Bart, have you ever heard of, or read, the book Automatic Poker? And what are your thoughts on short stack play (ideally 30bb) in live cash games?
While he replies, he mentioned it here, with a short stack, ur limited to playing a boring, tight style of play.
not if you read the book
@@theejayzeeable
My local casino has 1/2 match the stack raked game. With match the stack these games play like 2/5 or bigger alot. Are these games beatable??
Depending on rake Bud. Usually match the stack games are tho
Of course they're beatable. As the average pot size that you personally get involved in goes up, rake matters less and less. Sklansky's real point, is to play big pots you've got a good chance of winning. Which I agree with, I just disagree that limping KK and AKs preflop are a reasonable way to create big pots. Personally, my main theme is to get as much money in as I can, while I am a favorite. So, I don't disagree with the KK fold on the flop, because he's just simply not a clear favorite, and might be drawing very slim. Anyone who flopped a set, straight, or even a pair and straight draw, has him in a bad spot.if he calls down like a frog in a pot of water they turn the heat up on, on each street.
I've been crushing 1/3 NL for the last two years four about 12-13BB/hr. Definitely not enough to make a living, but definitely easy to build my bankroll.
The 87ss hand at the end actually doesn’t warrant a call given the pot odds lol, Bart lists out why he thinks it should be called but the logic is flawed. Most players in 2023 know to be scared when the flush comes in, implied odds of a multi way pot are very poor when you have a hand like this that can’t even cash in by flush over flushing another player. The hand has some reverse implied odds and Bart seems to be ignoring the fact that you can hit your flush and your opponent is going to fold facing a bet a lot of the time.
The AK that hit the ace on the River I agree with the check. The ace is much different than the flush from the opponent’s perspective, as the J that you are targeting is not likely to pay off a bet, but may bet when checked to. Same with many other hands like may bluff at the ace but never call a bet. Only some crazy ace have like the one he did actually will call and often will bet too, so this is the one hand and play I disagree with you. Tho of course it should have been reraised preflop, that’s key in profitable low limit poker, and not just to narrow the field, but to get calls from terrible often dominated hands. That’s the reason I always raise from the big blind with big suited aces, even AT in limit poker that is, even tho it doesn’t get anyone to fold.
I think the point is that one wide range is good and advantageous, but trying to play an overpair against several wide ranges is not. I put the first hand into a simple calculator where the three hands hero is against is a nut flush draw, straight draw, and top pair. Those and better is what will bet and call the flop so this is one of the best-case scenarios (the best being multiples of the same type of draw or multiple top pairs, obviously). KK has 35% equity so it's a call getting 4:1 but only those times when we're close to the best-case scenario and if you start to factor in hands you're behind like J9 and 77 and J7 and 8T, it's a marginal call.
You know a good cure for that? Bet KK Pre!
@@dingusmcpheeEXACTLY!!
They need to title it "Like Only Malmuth Can" because this is a going to literally be the textbook to play "Like OMC"
living in vegas, the first hand (KK) is a perfect example of the kind of play i see every time i go to the casino in the $1/2 or 1/3 games. it is almost always made by the 65+ year old player who i can only guess wants to see the flop to see if an ace hits.
This is unbelievable. And it’s funny too, because I’ve personally met a lot of guys who think they are good at poker and openly play like this. The whole idea of good low stakes play is getting maximum value and having discipline in key spots to further exploit the other players. If I saw someone get to showdown in the AK hand I would instantly mark them down as a nit or scared…
The problem with isolation plays in low stakes is that often you can't isolate. Limp - 3 bet - call is the norm. And if I believe sklansky is limping with AKs to balance his limp range since he's also trying to limp in with small SC's and PP's from early position since you aren't ever getting punished for these plays. It's also stressed in the book that these are very very specific exploits to very specific table conditions that you can an see more often in low stakes but it's definitely not to be used all the time.
You gave me an idea for a book. I could use xtra money. I’m a loose maniac that wins big or lose big everytime I just need lessons in writing.
That KK hand is nuts.
Never thought id see a time where id say “ aiwish david sklansky was in my game” 😂. I think this goes to show how profitable poker was back in the day if these guys were the winners 😂😂
On the AK vs A2 hand Bart is saying he would bet a jack on river because hero shouldn’t have an ace here (so get him off a chop) but then agrees with the flop and turn calls… so hero could have AK, AQ of spades? Is it the preflop play the reason hero shouldn’t have an ace? Still feel I’m missing something when Bart says he’d bet the jack which also makes heroes check now, correct?
(a) you're thinking too binary (b) hero does not have a lot of aces because yes, many are raising preflop (c) how many ace highs are calling three streets without raising. (d) There are not a lot of jacks that bet that river for value though, KJ is probably it because the other ones get value owned. I'm assuming Bart would agree that the only jack that is betting the river is KJ, TJ would probably C/C. It is more about "how often" does something happen vs "does he have x or y" because the opponent always has x or y, it is just a matter of how frequently he has that and what strategy we are going to apply to attack that frequency.
@@brianwilson7624 copy. That makes sense. What do you think his river lead sizing should’ve been?
Bart, your math in the last example is off. It would only be true if Sklansky is drawing to the nuts, which he isn't. A board pairing spade could give villain a boat or better, or villain could have a higher flush draw. It's probably still a call, but a closer decision than you suggest. And if you know villain is prone to fold to a bet when the third spade comes (or fold to a bet large enough to give you insufficient implied odds on the turn) then folding is correct.
Absolutely true. Stacking off with an 8-high flush is bad. And if you're capable of bet-folding it, bet-folding it to a bluffer who knows that, is even worse. An opponent doesn't need to have you dominated (or figured out) very often, for Mason to be right that folding is possibly best, and is certainly the lowest-variance way to play it.
Great video. Well explained. Bart tell it like it is or should be.
i think wide range of players can have two meanings, (range as in whole cards) or range as in (player types) if the field is mostly (Loose passive) like 2016, then the field can easisly be beat by using a plug and chug strategy. But now the field is really mixed. Lot of tags, lot of low stakes people "trying" to impliment solver stuff.Most intersting is the evelution of the nits. Been seeing a lot of limp call uncapped (instead of limp raise) and been seeing a lot more blufing from them post flop, and bluff catching in good spots. AC - 2/5 has a lot of the limp call nits
1-2 CAN be beatable if you find the right game and run well, stay patient, and play smart. There's a woman who plays 3-4x a week in Iowa I'm friends with, and she makes anywhere from 50-70k a year playing 1-2. I ask her why she won't move up in stakes, and she says she doesn't want the added stress with bigger swings in her bankroll. Tells me all the time people think she's a rock (she really isnt) and play at her with a bunch of garbage to try to stack her but usually she's the one who's got it.
Anyway in Texas where I play... a casual 1-2 game can get deep real quick at the right cardhouse, so it's kind of irrevelent regarding time/raked games on being able to profit.
The problem with 1/3 stakes are:
1. The biggest problem that no one talks about is that every single fucking hand goes multi-way. This cuts into the amount of hands you see and frequency. That makes the win rate and back pain (of sitting in the seat) not worth it.
Lesser reasons:
2. The rake. 2/5, where I am, has the same rake structure capped at $5 (+2 bbj), which makes 1/3 miserable when everyone is limping.
3. The limping. This highly contributes to number 1
4. Lack of 3bet
5. The people are just more miserable.
However, in my experience the best 1/3 tables that beat 2/5 are when they are 1 or 2 limpers but most of the players are raising (making it possible to 3bet).
If everyone goes multiway like that, just raise larger? even if it's to $30, if everyone calls you're getting tons of awful hands to put in a ton of money. If all but 1-2 people call, you've accomplished your goal of thinning the field. People limp-calling like crazy is great!
@@jacevincent2574you beat me to it… Exactly
@@jacevincent2574 I'd rather play a tournament if I'm going to shove every turn I see.
@jacevincent2574 absolutely. Gotta read the table and adjust accordingly. I like to mix up my raises. Small raises for hands that I don't mind multiple callers, like suited connectors, and larger raises for premium hands to get the garbage out. This allows u to be more creative with your play and is just alotta fun also.
I mean, what are the results they've gotten playing small stakes (how small?) using these methods? Do they say? If they've had good results, does that mean they've just been lucky? Or what?
You come at the hand breakdown king, you best not miss.
That moment when you realize that you are standing on the shoulders of OMCs.
I think a bit more exploitatively at 1-3 and often come to decisions that, I feel I have a valid argument for, but are certainly not GTO. That said, after the first hand I didn't need to hear any more. I cannot think of an exploitative spot where playing kings in that way could in any way be optimal.
Maniac behind you raising 100 percent of hands...
@@GosuTricksno dumb
Limpin is pimpin!
It was a different game long ago. Back then you had to let your opponent get a piece of the flop and then get your value from them instead of preflop value
1/3 certainly beatable for $40-50 an hour . Assuming $400 max $8 rake not drop rake 10% up to $5 + $3 jackpot
A book for nits great that’s all we need I already hate the casino 2/5 game because of them
wide range = more treasure AND more landmines / being in the line of fire, good luck!!
So classic that they wouldn’t include the effective stacks.. sounds like the farmer dude in the tournament describing his bad beats
Bart, if you'd had this info before the wsop main event, maybe you would have taken 1st, and I would have collected 600,000 on my 5%.
Bart woke up and chose violence lol
So last hand David played correctly but mason disagreed? That was confusing. He got 7:1 on a 4:1 shot - pretty good.
As someone who started in the game reading lots of 2+2 books (especially liked Dan Harrington's) I have no problem stating that David and Mason have obviously not evolved with the game. Not saying GTO is the end all be all, but technology now allows us to simulate most any common situation in a way that we do not need to guess at the "correct" play over the long run. I have not read their new book (nor will I), but I feel comfortable saying trying to apply concepts from 10-20 years ago and ignoring the quantum leap enabled by technology = disaster.
There is no such thing as "not GTO" because even if you're being "exploitive" which means betting more/less, raising wider/tighter, you have to ask tighter/wider compared to what? Betting larger or smaller compared to what? It is compared to the main line, i.e. GTO. When people say exploitive vs GTO it simply means they don't understand the words they are using. Not because they don't know how to beat the game but rather because they haven't really thought about the meaning of the words and terms they are using. Charlie for example says "fuck GTO" and I've not doubt he plays well but he doesn't know what he is talking about when he says that because exploitive is GTO. Lastly if you exploit someone it just means you're creating a new GTO range adapted to their range. So the term is just wrong from all directions and only serves as a place holder for "I deviated from the main line"
@brianwilson7624 not sure if you were responding to another comment, but who said anything about there not being GTO?
@@brianwilson7624 You mean that there is no such thing as GTO. Every hand of poker ever played in non-GTO. What you are describing is exploitative play by definition, even if you think you're playing optimally given certain exploits. Also, your assumptions can be wrong and you could actually be losing EV with your "exploits". Even if you know for a fact what your opponent's range is in every given situation (which you can't in practice), you don't know how he'll respond to your actions or what action he might take. Solvers assume rational opponents making rational decisions, but no human is fully rational. An expert at exploitative play will do much better than anyone thinking they're playing optimally given certain exploits.
@@GRice999 You missed my point (not saying it was your fault). I'm saying when you "exploit" someone. What does that mean? It means you think they are raising to wide/thin calling too wide/too thin betting too large/small. Now my deliberately provocative question is (a) "compared to what" and that is GTO. If you say "he opens too wide from the BTN" you mean he opens to wide compared to the main line and thus you'll deviate in some fashion to exploit him deviating from the GTO opening range (could be any range, this is an example). And thus exploitation still references the main line. (b) there is no GTO opening range, GTO is a toy game that starts with a particular opening and collapses into equilibrium. Thus if you are exploiting someone, you're exploiting them from equilibrium, which really means in your head, you've adjusted the mainline range the opponent would have if he was at equilibrium (for that bet size) assigning him a new range you believe is more accurate and then creating a new GTO response to his opening. Thus from two separate lines of logic, you are still using GTO. If you go to GTO Wizard you can assign different bet sizes and opponent ranges and given certain ranges you will be losing money if you just play the collapsed equilibrium of the static, non-relevant GTO size. Meaning, if you play the GTO line of 100BBS effective in BB vs BTN open of 2.5x vs someone who is opening 4x you are going to lose money. You need to know the GTO range vs the 4x open. Intuitively you could still assume because the play opens 4x from the button he sucks, adjust on the fly to be tighter and play the range generally the same as the 2.5X defense and you'll probably be fine. The reason the main line looks like it does is because the simulations have battled each other with various opening ranges and bet sizes and the one that makes the most money against an opponent who is constantly shifting strategy is the popular main GTO lines you see today, there is a reason people don't open for 6x and it isn't because it hasn't been tried. This is also why you shouldn't jump right into equilibrium unless you know the opponent is already playing equilibrium and playing it well. You should exploit the opponent as much as you can as his play style falls into equilibrium, for most people their play will never reach equilibrium so you should exploit them and take the money and run. An example of this would be rock paper scissors, toy game. A balanced approach is to play everything 33% of the time. However, if you know your opponent loves to play rock then you should play paper and rock. If you know you will only play three hand you should only play paper. If you know you'll play 100 hands you should play mostly paper but near the last 50 you should mix in rock and paper. If you know you'll play 10k games you should start to mix in all three and by game 5000 you should be playing around 33% for everything (assuming the opponent has adjusted or near adjusted), you don't jump right into 33% right off the bat, you beat the shit out of your opponent all the way down until he reaches equilibrium
@@matthewhardy3682 You said "not saying gto is the end all be all" which means you think GTO and Exploitive are two different things. Which they are not.
bart goin hard here
Hey Bart I’ve been watching your videos for awhile now. I went broke down in Vegas and came back with 300 won by my close friend and I going half on a wsop online tourney. I took that 300 dollars and have built it up to over 10k playing a 1-3 3-300 spread game at a 4 dollar max drop over 4 months
I see people limp multi-way in 1/3 and 2/5 quite often in live games. I see that especially from older players who always try to trap.
If you listen to the chatter at 1/3 games (parq casino I'm looking at you) even the regs at the table suck, they are constantly saying stuff like this. One of the regulars folded his KK face up preflop (no raise or limp) and the BB was a young guy and was like "why would you do that" and the guy starting laughing at him and was like "he doesn't understand it isn't a bad beat hand". Live poker will be good for a while because the regulars that used to play 90's style don't realize they suck yet, there is just enough variance and lack of hands to make them think they are still good.
What’s overlay mean?
Limp re-raise is leaving a ton of value on the table. No one calls this raise, so you almost always take it down preflop. I always fold to this because it's almost always AA or KK - especially if it's an OMC.
@beesting23 There's really only one time when it's acceptable, and that's when there's a maniac to your direct left who will attack limps every time and a bunch of dummies behind him who will always call his raise trying to trap him.
I have a limp-3B range from UTG when playing 1/3 at a loose table. It's not something I'll employ all the time, but used sparingly, it can be effective. The point isn't getting calls, it's avoiding situations where you're playing AA/KK multi-way and OOP, vs being able to get stacks in pre flop with a LAG in LP. The issue is the stack sizes.
The 1/3 games I play are $500 max buy-in. A typical open is to $15. If you get 3B, it's to $45, sometimes more. This makes 4B sizing awkward, in that the standard 3x size is pot-committing, such that most pre-flop 4B's are just all-in. Having a limp-3B range allows me to be the 3B'er, putting the pressure back on the LP raiser to figure out an optimal response.
The tactic has the added benefit of isolating dead money from EP/MP over-limpers and anyone who cold-called the original raise.
Again, it's not something I do a lot, but in the right game, it works well, and can be massive EV.
@@snex000 Those people usually aren't folding to a single raise often, either. They also are the kind of people who will get annoyed if you keep raising and 3 bet you.
@@Jermo484 Neither are the dummy "trappers" behind them folding. But go ahead play 1 pair in a 7 way pot if you want.
@@snex000 did you just suggest that limping to try to limp raise is going to get fewer players involved than just raising yourself? Lol.
I am never going to play as passive as these guys in these spots.
I have mentioned this before on your videos. It has got even worse in Ontario Canada though.
Rake in Ontario went up to $15 plus $1 for all games 2 years ago.
Woodbine casino in Toronto just opened poker this summer: 10% up to $20 plus $1.
Just don't go. Casino niagara has $14 session fee, which is the only acceptable rate in Ontario.
@@adamqu334714 per hour or 14 per actual session? Might be about the lowest rake in the world if it's per session
Ya that’s the problem though, not everyone can drive to Niagara to play. 3 hours each way to play some 1/3 lol
@@drewstrongitharm9680 I've heard there are some poker rooms in toronto with only $6 rakes. I just play in a lot of different home games, but yeah, Woodbine's structure is really disappointing.
The Electronic tables at Woodbine used to take $3, no dealer to tip or make mistakes, 30 second shot clock and 60 hands/hour. Ah the good old days.
I agree with Bart's assessment of the first hand, BUT I also understand where Sklansky and Malmuth are going with this hand. In their prior books the emphasis has always been on raising with hands like this where it results in a hand that is heads up or against an additional player. So, they're trying to make the point that you MUST fold hands that you normally would not when in multiway pots. Failing to adjust to multiway pots is a MASSIVE leak at low stakes. Was this the best example, probably not because not raising when there are 4 limpers and your in the HJ is just stupid, but I think I get why they used the hand as an example.
You have some great points, where do you play at?
@@brianwilson7624 I used to play primarily at Foxwoods, but now I'm on the other coast and play at Thunder Valley.
@@daithi1966he’s asking because he wants to take your money
28:37 What if Hero bets $50 at the river and gets check raised to $150. Is this still a call?
Yes because video ends at 24 minutes😅
@@khangbob
These hands are shocking. I cant believe this because their book nlhe theory and practice was the first book that really taught me winning lessons and id recommend to any player wanting to learn no limit.
Ghost writer
I’ve heard some of the best coaches say there are several high profile “coaches” out there that teach slightly less then optimal play as well as questionable exploit strategies just to keep the masses at a disadvantage. 🤔
Jonathon Little is an example and I think raise your edge. Both of them do not use the ranges they suggest on their website and there are videos of both of them explaining that they think it is dangerous for amatures to try and implement the correct ranges. There is a video where Doug is interviewing with Ben about DNegs HU match and Ben tries to say "I don't know why Daniel tried to implement the exact preflop ranges. He should have simplified the ranges so he would make less mistakes postflop and pre". And Doug just destroys him by saying "If you don't think you have an edge against someone, I don't think it is a good idea to start off by deliberately making mistakes preflop". There is ego to their teaching strategy too, it is "I can learn this strategy but it is too hard for you". Another example is GTO wizard, they have the ranges vs optimal play but they don't use those ranges. For example 45BBS deep ICM/half the field gone, they will give the GTO line of 3bet 10bbs +1 for every limper. When in reality the optimal GTO line is smaller than that and if you start banging off 10bbs raises with ajs+ 99+ from SB to BTN you're going to get more folds than that line intends to get and thus you should be raising a wider hand range or raising smaller (which is what the actual coaches on that site do and they call it exploitive, but it is not exploitive it is GTO but vs the correct range, a range they do not show you on their site because they want to keep it to themselves)
@@brianwilson7624 Interestingly I have a poker coaching premium membership and I have had a lot of success in the 3 months I’ve had it. Jonathan little was one of the coaches that said other high profile coaches teach less then optimal strategies and questionable exploits…. 😬
Been playing for almost 2 decades now. Bart is spot on with everything he says. Been following him for a long time. He verified a lot of concepts I figured out on my own at NL Low stakes live.
My personal experience assuming a reasonable rake you can make $10 per $100 cap assuming some players buy in for the max, you are the best at the table, and use all the tools available for live play including patterns and tells. Just takes 1 key decision every 2-3 hours to skyrocket your winrate.
You want to make a living? Play 2/5 or better. Preferably with a $1k cap or better.
GAME SELECTION rules. there are so0 many great 1/2 games in Vegas
late at night. alcohol and people having FUN adds to the positive EV.
I beat 1/2 and 1/3 for 12-14bb for thousands of hours. It’s VERY possible. Rake is $7 per hand max I believe. 7 or 8.
You played thousands of hours and don't know what the rake is?
whoa I couldn't even make it through the KK hand without laughing my head off, this is like tuff_fish strategy.
Raising 77 to ISO a UTG raise is bad in 1/2-1/3. I play in games where Ax facing a 70$ bet like in the last example is overwhelmingly folding. A 50$ bet is overwhelmingly folding, in fact. KK limping in the first hand is just plain awful, obviously. The other hands were not THAT far off if applied to my 1/2 game. I definitely think Sklansky is taking his concept too far, but interestingly not THAT much too far. As the game quality improves and turns into short stacked 2/5 with some LAG's at the table then these hands are all plain awful.
People learned too much and got too good reading SuperSytem and later listening to Bart and other trainers. This book is an attempt to fill the tables with bad players again.
Bart I usually totally agree with you but this one you’re totally wrong in the first hand. He limped in so he’s only in for 1 BB. It’s now worth it to run it out and taking the chance that they didn’t have 2 pairs, straight, or flush draw. If he raised and got called different story but since he didn’t rise preflop then opponents can have anything.
Haha, I love the fact that they're identifying other players as weak and passive while limp folding premium hands. They must have been playing against each other.
Limping pocket KK & AK suited made me wanna puke, especially in a CA drop game 🤮
I like Sklansky, but I agree that those limps are simply terrible. Get money in while you have huge equity!
Bart I'm that player who plays 1-2 NL in a way that most people would find ungodly boring. Any and all solvers, software and or books on poker strategy would HATE the way I play... but it's profitable. The people at my table constantly comment on how little hands I play. But if you want to beat the rake you have to avoid paying it unless your hand is premium. I've been a winning player for a decade now, a very boring decade haha!
I said the secret to beat low limit is if you don’t have the nut and the passive player shows aggression just fokd
I play 1-3 ar Rivers Casino Des Plaines. It is a VERY Beatable Game. I'm not going to waste my time stating what my Hourly average is because I don't want to waste my time getting called a liar and defending myself. I admit the room I play at is extra juicy, the players have a lot of money and they are all mostly VERY Bad. I also admit you have to play Extremely Tight and have Incredible Patients. It's not an easy day at the office by any means.
Im snap raising that turn 6s vs a LAG
Like others have said, thank you Sklansky and Malmuth for potentially helping me when I jump on a table in a few years.