Red Chip Poker & Ed Miller | An interesting concept (1 Viewer)

[chkmte]

A couple weeks ago I jumped on the Red Chip Poker training platform. I'm pleased with the value of the CORE 2.0 and would highly recommend it. That being said, the material introduced me to an interesting concept about betting - one that I've never really imagined before.

The general premise is that we need not try and price out the draws (as they're going to do what they're going to do anyway), rather try and string along second-best hands to the showdown. This is where the money is made, not in chasing away draws.

Have you heard this concept from Ed Miller? What are your thoughts?

 

[MikesDad]

I worked some of the CORE including this material on this concept.
As Ed says, if you don't get to showdown, your cards may as well be blank.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I've heard similar things over the years, but never this specific bit of advice from Ed Miller. I'm assuming this is intended as NLHE strategy.

My thoughts are that this logic likely applies very well in small pots but not so much in big pots. The bigger the pot, the more important it is that you're not offering your opponents attractive odds to draw. Nothing wrong with taking down a good-sized pot on the flop instead of offering a flush draw profitable odds to chase to the river. In small pots, however, it can make sense for a modest made hand to let a card peel off somewhat cheaply, for pot control, while also milking second-best hands.

 

[Highli99]

I think fear of flush draws is generally too high in many players. Additionally, many players over estimate implied odds on made flush draws. So you have a situation where people bet hard to chase out draws and then folks call wide to see the cards.

I think that betting lower is a better strategy for drawing along the back door Flush one pair type hands as opposed to the naked flush draws. Naked flush draws will not put money in after draw misses, but one pair hands might.

Balancing out missed bigger bets against naked flush draws versus missed calls from worse hands....I can see where Ed is coming from.

 

[moose]

Obv it is the player's job to figure out if opponent has a strong draw (flush or straight) or weak draw (2nd pr etc). You also need to know if your opponent will chase draws without the proper odds and bet accordingly

Simply betting low to string people along without incorporating these factors is silly. If the opponent is on a naked draw then getting to the river provides no value when he misses and you lose the pot when he hits.

However you win 100% of the hands where everyone folds.

 

[surfik]

Well my friend who is much more experienced player told my to bet heavy any flop with draw possibilities. Argument is that if you let them draw free or chip and they miss, they won't pay you on the river

 

[Highli99]

Well my friend who is much more experienced player told my to bet heavy any flop with draw possibilities. Argument is that if you let them draw free or chip and they miss, they won't pay you on the river

That statement is true but it doesn’t consider that flush draws are less common than pairs. So that is the opportunity cost of betting high.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Flop texture should be an important part f deciding how much to bet. On a rainbow flop with now obvious straight draw a strong hand should be betting much smaller (1/4 pot maybe even 1/5 pot) to keep second pairs, middle pocket pairs etc in. Those hands will call a bet maybe 2 on bet check bet line. Betting 3/4 pot makes no sense on those boards as it will chase out all but the very best hands (sets).

When watching high stakes poker I have often seen KK 4 bet preflop and get called by AK or QQ and then bet very small on a very safe flop to continue w get value from hands chasing 2 or 3 outs.

 

[surfik]

That statement is true but it doesn’t consider that flush draws are less common than pairs. So that is the opportunity cost of betting high.

you never played with me...#anytwosuitedcard

 

[nitzilla]

Have you heard this concept from Ed Miller? What are your thoughts?

I'm pretty sure this was in his book "The Course"or it could have been in his other book "Poker's 1%" I honestly can't remember but I've read them both.
It makes sense, you want to get money in the pot when you're ahead and if they're willing to chase, so be it.

 

[chkmte]

Obv it is the player's job to figure out if opponent has a strong draw (flush or straight) or weak draw (2nd pr etc). You also need to know if your opponent will chase draws without the proper odds and bet accordingly

Simply betting low to string people along without incorporating these factors is silly. If the opponent is on a naked draw then getting to the river provides no value when he misses and you lose the pot when he hits.

However you win 100% of the hands where everyone folds.

This is how I used to think as well. But this concept is challenging that line of thinking - at least that's my understanding. And to be honest, I think it has some merit and here's why. How can we really know if an opponent is chasing a draw or not? Especially at a 1/2 loosey-goosey no-limit game? I'd venture to say we don't know most of the time - if at all. In my experience, most of the folks at this level wouldn't fold a draw with a gun to their head.

So, it's somewhat counterintuitive, but I think what the author of this concept is saying is to play it as mentioned. String along those that will call with an inferior hand because in the long run, this is where the money is made.

I'm not one-hundred percent sold on this idea, but I do find it interesting for sure. I'm going to have to look for the situations in some PokerGo content.

 

[chkmte]

I'm pretty sure this was in his book "The Course"or it could have been in his other book "Poker's 1%" I honestly can't remember but I've read them both.
It makes sense, you want to get money in the pot when you're ahead and if they're willing to chase, so be it.

Were those books worth a damn? I was looking at them but they're awful pricey.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Just shove UTG with AJ or 66 to "protect your hand" and you'll be fine!

 

[Kain8]

Were those books worth a damn? I was looking at them but they're awful pricey.

Bought The Course, here's a synopsis:

$1/$2 or $1/$3 NL: Nut peddle, fold to all checkraises with medium strength hands, treat all players as if they are virtually incapable of bluffing.

$2/$5 NL: Bet, bet, bet. Near pot flop and turn bets often get the job done regardless of your holdings. People still won't go to war with you unless they usually they have it and the leverage of a big river bet is king.

$5/10 NL+: This is where ranges truly start to come into play because of the relative strength of players at these stakes and beyond. Ed doesn't go into these stakes at all in The Course.

 

[Highli99]

Bought The Course, here's a synopsis:

$1/$2 or $1/$3 NL: Nut peddle, fold to all checkraises with medium strength hands, treat all players as if they are virtually incapable of bluffing.

$2/$5 NL: Bet, bet, bet. Near pot flop and turn bets often get the job done regardless of your holdings. People still won't go to war with you unless they usually they have it and the leverage of a big river bet is king.

$5/10 NL+: This is where ranges truly start to come into play because of the relative strength of players at these stakes and beyond. Ed doesn't go into these stakes at all in The Course.

Apparently the .25/.50 game I play in is like a $5/$10 game.