Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Some questions on Jennifear's successful speculating article

Reply to Thread
  1. mcg22 mcg22 is offline

    Toronto
    Canada

    Posts: 157
    Joined: Dec 06

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 9:11am)

    <span>I would like to start of saying thanks for the great article on successful speculating. I had very recently been considering the importance of stack size when it came to these speculative plays and you have really helped clear a lot up for me!</span>

    <span>I have 2 questions though... </span>

    <span>1. In</span><span> "The blinds must be small in relation tothe stack sizes" </span><span>part, you</span> <span>talk about how your implied odds need to be very high to play speculative hands - saying that "the blinds should be about 1/50 or less of the total stacks (no more than 15-30 in a SNG)". Let me just be sure that I understand this - are you saying that you really shouldn't speculate unless youand your opponent have an M of 50 or more? If this is the case this would almost never be possible (even in MTTs) except for in the first fewlevels. (I am assuming you mean an Mof 50 here because you says blinds - but perhaps you mean 50 <span>big blinds</span>?) </span>

    <span>2. Later you talk about how "It's okayto play against an early position raise and a few callers, as long as the stacks are very, very deep." You then explain why can be agood thing to do. This makes a lot of sense, but I am wondering exactly what your M needs to be to constitute having "very, very deep" stacks? I assume it's got to be well over 50 - as in the above part you were talking about limping with speculative hands and now you are talking about calling a raise. If you are talking about M (and not # ofbbs) I dont think this situation would almost ever happen at all in online tourney play.</span>

    <span>Please help me clear up these things...</span>

    Thanks.
  2. Jennifear Jennifear is offline

    Niagara Falls, NY
    United States

    Posts: 10,222
    Joined: Nov 05

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 9:33am) in reply to mcg22

    1. You are correct in assuming that what I meant to say was 50x the BB. (M of about 33)

    2. In this case the blinds should be 10-20 and the raise no more than to 70 in most cases(assuming 1500 starting stacks)

    Perhaps I should have been more clear in this area, but I was looking to write a general guideline instead of a hard and fast rule, because the answer is "it depends" so often.
  3. beanie beanie is offline

    Saint Paul, MN
    United States

    Posts: 6,272
    Joined: Jan 05

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 9:52am) in reply to Jennifear

    another great point about this idea is it will help you if you ever get to play live in a major tournament. People are much more speculative and like to see more flops in a major live tournament. Learning and practicing in this area is very helpful and also can help your cash games as well.
  4. mcg22 mcg22 is offline

    Toronto
    Canada

    Posts: 157
    Joined: Dec 06

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 9:58am) in reply to Jennifear



    Jennifear...

    Thanks a lot for the quick reply! And again, thanks for the awesome article - keep up the good work!

    I understand that there are no hard rules in poker, only guidelines, but I am still a little unclear of something. Now that I understand you are talking about # of bbs (and not M). - for your answer to my question #2 you gave me an example of a very specific situation- if you have 1500 chips you could call a raise of about 70 chips with a "speculative" hand. 70 chips is about 1/20 of your stack. I am wondering why it is okay to call a raise with a speculative hand here for a much bigger percentage of your stack then you suggest to limp with (where you say you don't want to limp for more than about 1/50th of your stack). Is it just because, as you say, if you hit (and your opponent does have a big hand) you are more likely to get paid off?

    Thanks :<span>)</span>
    Thread Starter
  5. BadIdeaJeans BadIdeaJeans is offline

    Ithaca, NY
    United States

    Posts: 7
    Joined: Mar 07

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 10:42am) in reply to Jennifear

    Perhaps you can be more clear in this area:

    "In addition, keep in mind that bottom two pair are only a very small favorite over top pair."

    I'd like to know in what fantasy land this is true.

    Though I bet it'd make JC Tran feel better than he put his money in as a "small underdog" on the last hand of the LAPC:

    <pre>http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2477813
    pokenum -h ac 7s - jd 6d -- ad jc 6c
    Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing Jc 6c Ad
    cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
    7s Ac 279 28.18 711 71.82 0 0.00 0.282
    Jd 6d 711 71.82 279 28.18 0 0.00 0.718
    </pre>
  6. Jennifear Jennifear is offline

    Niagara Falls, NY
    United States

    Posts: 10,222
    Joined: Nov 05

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 10:48am) in reply to BadIdeaJeans

    I should have used better words than "very small favorite" and maybe used "very vulnerable" instead. The point was, with bottom two, if you are against very hard resistance, the best off you are going to be is this type of favorite, and oftentimes you will be in deep doodoo... meaning don't marry bottom two.
  7. beanie beanie is offline

    Saint Paul, MN
    United States

    Posts: 6,272
    Joined: Jan 05

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 10:52am) in reply to Jennifear

    i learned this lesson the hard way yesterday when I called a raise with K2 and the flop came KK2. Ace on the river lost me a pot worth almost a dime.
  8. BadIdeaJeans BadIdeaJeans is offline

    Ithaca, NY
    United States

    Posts: 7
    Joined: Mar 07

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 11:11am) in reply to Jennifear

    While your point may have been "don't marry bottom two," that's not what is implied by putting the heading "be prepared to fold your non-monsters."

    Obviously if you meet heavy resistance, whether you have bottom two or top two, you're in trouble. That doesn't justify playing either carefully.
  9. RonDworkin RonDworkin is offline

    Toronto
    Canada

    Posts: 158
    Joined: Nov 06

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 11:13am) in reply to beanie

    Well, the call of the raise was certainly suspect.

    But there is no question that you should have beating him to the pot for all your chips on the flop if he was willing to go to the felt.
  10. BadIdeaJeans BadIdeaJeans is offline

    Ithaca, NY
    United States

    Posts: 7
    Joined: Mar 07

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 11:17am) in reply to beanie

    Losing a 2 or 3 outer with a full house taught you that bottom two is bad against heavy resistance.

    Ok.
  11. Jennifear Jennifear is offline

    Niagara Falls, NY
    United States

    Posts: 10,222
    Joined: Nov 05

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 2:13pm) in reply to mcg22

    mcg- you got it exactly right.

    If you are against a big pair, and you hit, your chances of being paid off are greater. Keep in mind you are still looking for callers of that raise before you speculate, so that you get the proper implied odds.
  12. Jennifear Jennifear is offline

    Niagara Falls, NY
    United States

    Posts: 10,222
    Joined: Nov 05

    Mar 2nd, 2007 (3/2/2007 2:15pm) in reply to BadIdeaJeans

    What I see from a lot of folks is that they love to speculate but they can't seem to let go when they "kinda" hit, like bottom two pair specifically. Keep in mind that the pot isn't necessarily heads-up yet, and the more hands out there, the more vulnerable that bottom two is.
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads