...

...

...

ACTUAL RESULTS FROM ABOUT 32 HOURS OF MONITORED/RECORDED PLAY AT 1/2 (50 HANDS PER HOUR) OVER 8 SESSIONS.

Net $958 in wins over $18 in losses. For a net of $940 over 1600 hands at $1/2.

Im not an AOK attacker but this is pretty rediculous.

A bad player is going to latch on to this strategy becuase you say it works so well but any seasoned vet knows that ANYTHING can happen over 1600 hands.

You had a first hand experience of running hot for a while and playing out of your roll, feeling invincable and it comming back to bite you in the ass. Don't let your ignorance hurt the noobies.

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Im not an AOK attacker but this is pretty rediculous.

Yeah lol.. it's as if this is proof that nutcamping is a super winning strategy that can murder 200NL for 15ptBB/100

...

This looks like a rewritten version of that OTHER strategy, minus the starting hand chart. You think weak/tight is best and you fold to raises. With this cash game strateghy, no wonder you only play tournaments.

Stuff like this only works on the loosest of tables. The species Pokerfischicus Looseagressivous is dying out, soon to be relegated to thoae sites that refuse US customers.

I can't see how you'd see more than 5 pecent of flops, because the donks would keep raising you out of pots. They'll call you down on any draw, which means you'll need an awesom upswing to outweigh all the bad beats.

...

I'm not misunderstanding it, AOK, but you don't get it. The number of these "over agressive" tables is shrinking by the day.

1.) More and more fish are either quitting poker or smarting up.
2.) Multitabling multiplies the number if tight players at any table.
3.) Small, loose poker rooms are starting to kick out US players.

I'm getting the idea that you believe a tight/passsive game is right for everyone, not just newbies. Well, the point of agression is that you can make people fold to you or pay you off when you have a good hand.

And if this sort of game works, why don't you use it yoursel, instead of only playing tournments recreationally?

...

Let me start by saying I don't use this strategy. I am also not a super TAG. Also, any Strategy that doesn't involve "changing gears" is always going to have its holes.

Poker is about playing your opponent, your cards, and his cards. Read this strategy Read Rentons strategy Use them where they are appropriate. I feel I have a style of play, that lets me adapt to the situation. I play one way against one type of opponent and another against a different opponent especially POST flop. In no limit money is made on the TURN and RIVER.

Ok I don't post much so most people are just going to blow this post off, which is fine. But, I believe you should read ALL strategies. They may not be your style. But try to find a good point or points, see if they can be adapted into your game.

Originally Posted by aokrongly

And the point of nut hunting and trapping is that you can get agressive people who throw out pot sized bets on every street to double you up.

Weak-tight. Decent players aren't going to pay you off.

...

...

Let me start by saying I don't use this strategy. I am also not a super TAG. Also, any Strategy that doesn't involve "changing gears" is always going to have its holes.

Yes, good point, one-gear strategy is easiest to exploit.

Simplified counterplay is based on betting only with good hand. It works best on Sportingbet $25 and $50 LAG donkfests and I guess Aokrongly designed this strategy just for Sportingbet because those games have specific flavour I tried it there when I was getting started with poker, it works decent. You WILL get those ridiculous river calls, believe it or not.

But counterplay applied fully also involves turn and river bluffs with nothing, rep sets and flushes once you estabilish image of "sneaky nit that slowplays everything". Aok even gave simple example with raising opponent off Ace high board but you can implement it in many ways. This is the moment where the fun starts - where aggressive but observant players start to make huge laydowns against "that tight passive nutstraddler" where in fact they get run over like little bitches.

OK, AOK, I see your point. Let's say you have position on me and a set of 2s on the flop. I have TPTK holding AK and bet the pot, say 5BB. You'll flat call. I'll look down at my little cheat sheet and see that you only play 15% of hands. If I don't improve on the turn, I'll bet another 5BB, you'll raise and I'll fold.

Sure, you win. But you don't win much because I had you pegged as a rock. I don't consider 10BB to be "paying you off." You'll be breaking even on the last few rounds of blinds.

If your % at the flop is less than mine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Granted, I'm not going to be your typical opponent. But the online forums are crawling with such people.

BTW, you may be right that a pot-sized raised bet on a loose table may be wasting money, because some fish will overbet the pot anyway. I think Phil Gordon once said that the "Bet Pot" button causes many players to blow away chips.

Waitaminute, AOK. Is the difference between you and a TAG player :

1.) That you bet half the pot instead of the full pot (or more)?
2.) That you won't play suited connectors and suited aces?
3.) That you don't loosen up in late position?
4.) That you don't try to put players on hands?
5.) That you give little consideration to pot and implied odds?

...

Originally Posted by aokrongly

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Originally Posted by aokrongly

And the point of nut hunting and trapping is that you can get agressive people who throw out pot sized bets on every street to double you up.

Weak-tight. Decent players aren't going to pay you off.

I have to disagree with this one. They will pay you off. They do pay you off. They are compelled to pay you off. If I'm counterplaying AA and you are standard playing KQ and the flop is K high and there is any sort of draw on the board then you are compelled to bet this between 1/2 and pot size. I check into you, you bet, I call. (I'm obviously on whatever draw is out there or am playing tp bad kicker). so on the turn you fire away again. Hopefully, on the river the draw misses and I get to check/raise you or just throw out a big bet. Why wouldn't you call me down? Every indication is that I have a busted draw hand. I limped preflop, check/called through the river and only now am throwing out a big bet to see if it sticks. It's an autocall followed by "WTF!! You're a horrible player!! How can you limp AA?? You're an idiot!!!" in chat.

1) I haven't played $25 NL in a while, but I don't remember many of the players betting their busted draws. They're line is almost always: check-call, check-call, fold when missed.

2) The check-call, check-big re-raise line is transparent. A decent player will see through it.

3) The most critical problem with "counterplay" is that you're never in control of the action. You completely ignore the importance of taking control of a hand. With the example you gave, what if I actually had a set. I wouldn't play it much, if any different, than TP. You have no idea where you stand when you play so passively as you are recommending. If I actually have a set or two pair you're screwed. Instead of giving yourself a chance to get away sooner and for less money you're waiting until the end to finally put money in. By then you're often screwed because the pot is so swollen that you're committed. People that play like this are the same ones that bitch and moan about their aces getting cracked repeatedly.

I've said it before. Others have said it before. This is horrible advice. You should not be advising beginners to play like this. If you do then at the very least you should also include a disclaimer describing the inherent dangers of playing in such a manner.

my head hurts

By the way, my favorite advice was the theory that if you put someone on a draw (and you, yourself have a made hand), you should look to see if the draw hits or not before putting in any real money. Solid.

aokrongly, can you adress the following point in more detail? ty.

- "if you're going to call anythign to seeif YOU make your draw, then I'm going to see TOO before I take control of this hand. Until I know i'm good I will check or check/call.

This advice, as written, is quite possibly some of the worst advice I've ever heard. So much so that I question your overall understanding of the game.

...

Hey, I am trying to understand your strategy and theories. If you won't explain it to me, explain it to others who may similarly be confused by this:

- "if you're going to call anythign to seeif YOU make your draw, then I'm going to see TOO before I take control of this hand. Until I know i'm good I will check or check/call.

It seems you have this completely backwards, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how this makes any logical sense. Perhaps if you can quickly explain it to me, that will change and I will understand.

I look forward to and appreciate your response.

so you are giving them infinite odds to make whatever draw they're on?

That seems a little silly

...

Aokrongly, I have a few more questions about many of the interesting and headscratching ideas that you have. I know you have a book to sell, but if you take the time out of your busy schedule to help me understand some of the things you are trying to say, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Any other seasoned vets of the 'counterplay' system can feel free to chip in as well.

Hypothosis:
There is a beter way to play NL ring against a mixed table of both sharks and fish. That method revolves around tight/passive poker play until the turn or river.

I disagree with your hypothesis.

Expected Results:
1. one table stake amount in winnings per 8 hours of accumulated table play. For example, 3 tables @ $200 buy-in will result in $200 net profit in 2:45 of play. 2 tables would be 4 hours of play
2. Less bad beats = less tilt play
3. 3x less lost on unmade or broken hands.
4. Moderately less average $ in winning pots
5. Safer play for more consistent results

1. Can you post a reasonably large sample size at any reasonably staked game (NL50, NL100 or higher) where you are making one buyin per 8 hours using this strategy? Say that 8 hours equates to 500 hands. so +50 big bets per 500 hands. +10ptbb/100. I find this unreasonable using this strategy on tables that aren't full of absolutely terrible, maniacal players.

2. AKA passing up edges to avoid bad beats so we don't on tilt. Nice.

3. I can't disagree with the idea that it's hard to lose money when you don't put significant money into the pot without a near-nut hand.

4. Agreed.

5. I would agree that you will get consistent, low variance results using this play. Unfortunately, on anything resembling a tough table, they will be losing results. I can say this with a very high level of certainty.

1. Multiple preflop callers with pot sized or 5xBB raises with "any 2", primarily nut cracking hands - which any hand can be if you have to balls to call a big preflop riase.
2. A GROUP of nut crackers can crack nuts more often than not.

Can you go into a little detail about what you consider to be "nut crackers"? I assume you are reffering to hands like J7 that can stack someone who WAY over-values AK on a AJ7 board, or something like that. But then again, you're not cracking nuts, you're cracking a marginal TPTK.

3. 1/2 to pot sized bets only eliminate the nut cracking hands that lost potential. The one's on a draw stay in.

In other words, you've made money already from hands you shouldn't have, and you are laying poor odds (thus, making money), against draws.

4. You can beat players who know how to fold to negative EV odds, or a single "gambler". But you cannot beat a table full of these type people with "Standard Play" consistently.

Lol. ***PLEASE ADRESS THIS POINT***

This is what a good tight-agressive player would call a 'goldmine'. People who call down with trash and constantly play big pots with second best hands. Sure they'll catch a break and double up once in a while, but these are tables that good players LOVE to play on. A bad tight player, yeah, a table full of donkeys may be able to eat them up. I think this is a very poor observation by yourself, Mr. O'krongly.

5. ROI for Standard play is 10% per 8 hour session in this environment IF YOU DON'T TILT OUT from consecutive bad beats. Variations occur from an extra-ordinary string of cards or comcumstances, but over time the 10% rule will apply.

Earlier you stated that you expect to make a table stake per 8 hours of play. This translates to 100% per 8 hours seession, no?

On a related sidenote, I wish NL ring was this easy and calculated.

6. Standard play BRAODCASTS YOUR HAND to good players and is unobserved by bad players.

excellent point.

There is another "non-standard" way to increase ROI in this situation - COUNTER-PLAY. Counter-play is a form of tight/passive play that exploits the tendencies of both strong shark players and weak fish players. The only risk of counter-play is being labelled a ROCK and getting less action with your good ahnds. However, most players will either learn that lesson the hard way - by paying you off repeatedly - or they will naturally be drawn to "banging their head against the rock" repeatedly.

I'd argue that -most- players would realize that you won't put significant money into the pot without a huge hand and get away before they do so. The players that consistently are the kinds that will be busto soon. And the ones that the more agressive players will get the much bigger chunk from...

Counter play play reduces your mathematical odds in some situations - by giving opponents drawing odds. However, both shark "feel" players and fish will take poor drawing odds to "crack you" which results in limits to your ability to have consistently large results - either by losing large pots or by tilting out (or both).

What?????

...... you mean these types of players ultimately are the ones bumping (shoving?) up your winrate over a big stretch of hands? For the life of me I can't figure this out either, please adress it. I don't understand how players taking -EV shots at you ultimately hinders your expectation in the long run.

One major monetary advantage of counter-play is the "twitchy fish response" - which will be explained later. The other major advantage is that you become a "stealth pallyer". Both of these overcome mathematical weaknesses with psychological advantages.

Inventing new phrases. Nice.

Good to know we're trying to psyche players out instead of actively trying to take their money.

1. Twitchy Fish Response - There are fishing lures that mimic sick and dying fish movements. These lures can often cause a fish to strike even when it isn't hungry. It's a natural, biological, evolutionary response to eliminate weakness on spec. Calling bets is a weak action. Repeatedly calling is a very weak action. Very regularly agressive players will instinctively attack this weak, passive display - The Twitchy Fish.

Of all the terrible analagies you will use in this post, I actually kind of like this one. One must note that a good agressive player will attack these weak fish with strong made hands and are betting for value.

We must also differentiate between the fish who will stack off with an obviously-beat top pair, and the uber-rock that won't go broke without the nuts. And won't put significant money into the pot with what, t2p or better?

2. Stealth Play - In electronic warfare there are two ways to feel out your opponent. Passively or actively. When you actively ping your opponent with Radar/Sonar, etc. you get information, but you give vital info as well. When you bet or raise at a poker table you're actively pinging your opponents and giving away vital information. When you check or call, however, you're giving away the least information possible about your hand. Even a fold gives more info than a check or even a call. These are passive plays that leave your opponents to fill in the blanks. And often it triggers the twitchy fish response.

A call from a player like yourself gives out a lot of information. A call from a calling station doesn't. One must learn to differentiate between the two.

Stealth play also conserves your resources and information "display" until you reach terminal stage. Like a cruise missle that uses passive GPS or terrain recognition technology to approach a target and only turns on active radar once in the kill zone. Counter-play uses this same philosophy, once you have your victim in the kill zone, after he has given all his information and can only guess at yours. Once you know your hand is the best - not potentially the best - then you turn on your active radar with a big raise that puts him to the test. Is it a bluff? Why did he only call where standard play dictates a raise? Would he really slowplay with a flush draw on the board? Is he stupid or weak? He's weak! (twitchy fish). The additionaly benefit of stealth play is an enhanced ability to steal pots on the river once you show that you're willing to slowplay monster hands.

Can you give your thoughts on the Tomahawk cruise missile? Quite a piece of hardware that is.

3. Tilt Buffer - The first two psychological factors of counter-play affect your opponents. The third affects you. Tilt caused by having big hands cracked - if not the first time then repeatedly - is real and costs real money as long as the player is on tilt. Counter-play doesn't overvalue hole cards from a "payback" expectation standpoint. "Slow Playing" heightens your risk of being cracked by also reduces your losses when it happens AND reduces your expectations to always have big pocket pairs hold up. The net difference is very low in real money but the psychological differences regarding tilt are huge.

good points. Tilt and poor bankroll management are 2 of the most overlooked dangers of being a poker player.

Here's some advice for those still reading: don't tilt. It's not worth your time. You might have some adreneline rushing through your head but you are still in control of all of your actions. Stop and think. Don't tilt, not worth your time.. yadayadayada..

The overall tactic is playing tight, positional poker with the same considerations as TAG poker Except you play very passively until the turn or river. That means yo ucheck/call the same hands you would normally bet/raise preflop - with one or two exceptions. In exceptional circumstance you will call/RERAISE preflop. But generally you ar eslowplaying or passively playing 95% of the hands you are involved in - still using tight/positional preflop considerations. These tactics are designed for tables that have a mix of "ace crackers" and fish where a standard 3-5xBB raise will NOT reduce your competion to 1 or 2 max players, and for tables wehre your competition will make calls that defy drawing odds with their drawing hands.

I recently read over your '19 hands strategy' and you never talked about position. In that strategy, you would open-limp QJo under the gun at a full table, but also open-fold ATs on the button at the same table, assuming you followed the strategy according to the parameters you laid out.

Ok, so the brunt of the strategy so far is to slowplay absolutely everything preflop because we're afraid to see a flop with donkeys that overvalue bottom pair, because we are terrible post-flop players that are uncomfortable with our playing ability. And the fact that they might hit 2 pair with 37o and win a moderate sized pot from our overpair/TPTK. We will continue...

- "if you're going to call anythign to seeif YOU make your draw, then I'm going to see TOO before I take control of this hand. Until I know i'm good I will check or check/call.

***PLEASE ADRESS THIS POINT***

I politely asked for a quick explanation to this before, to which I received some sarcastic BS that completely avoided my question because anyone who has ever played poker knows this advice is terrible.

Let me break it down. We have the best hand (say TPTK, 2 pair, set, overpair, whatever). Somebody else has a draw.

Let's take a look to see if it hits with them. Let's ignore that the draw will miss approximately 2 out of 3 times (assuming flush draw or OESD), and we will win nothing. In fact we lose what was already in the pot, and perhaps an extra bet or 2 on the end, depending.

The 2 out of the 3 times that it doesn't hit, We miss out on a huge amount of value because we were afraid of the draw hitting. But hey, at least we didn't lose a moderate sized pot when it did hit!

- "if you are going to only make small bets until you get 2 pair or better, then i'm just going to call your bets untili I get TOP 2 pair or better.

How often do you think your opponent makes 2 pair while you make a better 2 pair?

Hint: less often then you think. On a sidenote, if I were playing you with a flimsy 2 pair, it would be a ridiculously easy fold if you were putting in significant portions of your stack. Of course this is when you're supposed to say (oh, so I can easily bluff you off hands! See, proof that the strategy works!)

What about all the value you're missing out on when you have AA on a 952r board, and your opponent is calling you down with 65?

- "if you are willing to risk a significant amount of chips to delare you just made a great hand I'm going to believe you unless I have the nuts, then I'll put you all in for your trouble.

all-in with the nuts, fold everything else. Nice.

- "you want to improve your hand - SO DO I. So let's see who improves more. Or I already have the nuts, so I hope you improve anyway!

Yes, hands are usually fun and dandy when we hold the nuts!


I will only briefly comment on the next few paragraphs about turn and river play for a variety of reasons, one of which is me wanting to finish this already super-long post and to alleve the readers of reading so much. If anyone is interested, I could give my more in-depth opinions.

Ok, nevermind, it basically talks about going allin with near nut hands, and playing super passively and playing small pots with marginal TPTK like hands. Of course it is exploitable, but anyone using this strategy should be playing on play money, NL10 type tables where the play would probably be so attrociously bad that this is solid.

In 1/2NL for instance with a $25 pot and $25 bet heads up where you think he has an underpair and you want to rep pairing the flop A - they you raise to $75. That's a pot sized raise, and if he doesn't have the A, he will lay his pocket underpair down.

This is incorrect. You do not know what a pot-sized raise is sir.

A pot sized raise in this situation would be a raise to $100. Yes.

AA/KK - With AA or KK.
Early or mid pos - call and Hope someone raises behind you. If noone raises you have to look at it as a drawing hand and hop for trips.

oh my god.

You are doing your readers a tremendous disservice.

Can you give your thoughts on when to play (limp and raise) other hands and in what positions? I assume you limp/call or limp/fold everything else.

By the way, is there any merit to just doing a lrrai (limp reraise allin) with AA/KK and folding everything else?

Be a male prostitute - "you have to pay alot to see my nuts!!"

Nice.

Net $958 in wins over $18 in losses. For a net of $940 over 1600 hands at $1/2.

1600 hands. Solid.

Advice: search 'variance' on FTR or 2+2. Read up on it.




I felt this post was necessary and in FTR's best interest. I apoligize if I sounded harsh or rude in any of my comments. Feel free to disagree with any of the points I made, as I won't feel offended by it in the least. It would be appreciated if you could make a few responses, where noted. Thanks and have a great day.

- Lukie

sry, your post came while I was making mine, gonna read that now.

...

...

I'm not a poker vet and I still need lot of learning but I tried that strategy a year ago, here is a link with some HH''s. Bear in mind that the games were VERY soft and loose (very pasive or very aggressive) and my poker experience was zilch, there is lot of fishy play of mine.

But there is one thing to notice, my huge turn/river bets and really inferior calls. Sometimes I was amazed what a sick calls I was getting and not only by fish but "solid players" who were constantly misreading my hands.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ht=counterplay

Originally Posted by aokrongly

I only win 25BB because I didn't build a pot against two players with decent draws that likely would've stayed in all the way to the river.

fyp

...

Originally Posted by aokrongly

20 min in here's a great example:

I figured I had tptk the whole time here. Had I bet it, I would have paid dearly. Counter-play made it cost me, 3BB with tptk against a flopped set.

The advantage of passive play is pot control. You tend not to lose much on your losers. You also tend not to win much on your winners. The only way you're going to win money by playing passively is by having a hand. You're also going to get drawn out very frequently. Aggressive play allows you to win both when you do and do not have a hand.

If you want to languish at micro stakes for eternity then play passively. If you have an desire to move up in stakes and make decent money then you're going to have to incoporate aggression into your game.

Originally Posted by aokrongly

I don't know what fyp means.

"Fixed Your Post"

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Originally Posted by aokrongly

20 min in here's a great example:

I figured I had tptk the whole time here. Had I bet it, I would have paid dearly. Counter-play made it cost me, 3BB with tptk against a flopped set.

The advantage of passive play is pot control. You tend not to lose much on your losers. You also tend not to win much on your winners. The only way you're going to win money by playing passively is by having a hand. You're also going to get drawn out very frequently. Aggressive play allows you to win both when you do and do not have a hand.

If you want to languish at micro stakes for eternity then play passively. If you have an desire to move up in stakes and make decent money then you're going to have to incoporate aggression into your game.

As much as nuts and I love to poke fun of each others' posts, I can't stress how right he is, THIS TIME.

20 min in here's a great example:

I figured I had tptk the whole time here. Had I bet it, I would have paid dearly. Counter-play made it cost me, 3BB with tptk against a flopped set.

you don't have top pair, top kicker. You also are playing against possibly the only person in this universe who is more passive and afraid of a better hand than you are. Not a good example for passively playing.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

BB ($34.38)
UTG ($26)
MP ($39.12)
Button ($19.45)
SB ($26.38)

Preflop: SB posts a blind of $0.10.
UTG calls $0.25, 2 folds, SB (poster) completes, BB checks.

Flop: ($0.75) A, K, K (3 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG checks.

Turn: ($0.75) 6 (3 players)
SB checks, BB bets $0.25, UTG calls $0.25, SB folds.

River: ($1.25) 9 (2 players)
BB calls $33.88 (All-In), UTG calls $25.50 (All-In).

Final Pot: $60.63

BB has Kc Ks (four of a kind, kings).
UTG has Ad Ac (full house, aces full of kings).
Outcome: BB wins $60.63.

AA didn't have the nuts, so he shouldn't have gone broke, obviously

Originally Posted by midas06

AA didn't have the nuts, so he shouldn't have gone broke, obviously

that what counterplay tells me