Just keep getting it in ahead

Hey guys,

I've read the following lines in about a dozen threads I've looked through here at CC over the past couple of weeks, usually when someone is complaining about a bad beat or asking for advice on how they played a hand, and every time I do, it makes me want to puke:

"Don't worry about it. Just keep getting it in ahead and you'll make money over time."

or

"Looks good to me, you got it in as a favorite."

As far as I'm concerned, both of these lines have no application to poker strategy. Your goal, especially in cash games, isn't to "get your money in good" or "have the best hand when the money goes in".

Discuss.

if your goal isn't to get your money in good in a cash game what is it?

I'm a winning cash game player over a very large sample going back 5+ years and that's not my goal. Would like to see this discussion evolve without my input, so I'll check back in around 24 hours.

I will be looking for you at the tables.

I hope so. Small sample of my last 30k hands (http://www.cardschat.com/f46/nice-heater-everest-60-75bb-buy-185874/)

Goal is to win money. Way to win money is to get your money in good more often than bad. Thus getting your money in good is the goal.

/thread

This is true.

This is false.

Ok....I will continue to input as we go.

That kind of thinking is results oriented and has little to do with winning money, or in a deeper sense, maximizing the amount of money won per hand played.

Come on WV, you're an accomplished cash games player, and I know you know better than that.

I think there is alot more to it.

Do you mean get your money AIPF good or,
bet/raise when your ahead and check/fold when your behind?

OR...

Would'nt you rather get your money in as the "favorite"?

It seems to me that you're just trolling this thread. If you have something to say or some insight to put out there then do it. Dont pose a question and then tell everyone they are wrong with no other information behind it.

Not trolling. Trying to start a discussion about why I think those statements have no bearing in poker discussion.

Say you get your money in as a 60/40 favourite against the specific hand your opponent is holding.

That's a great result, I guess, but before he turned his hand over you weren't playing against that specific hand - you were playing against the range of hands his line up to that point represented. So even though you were a 60/40 favourite in this specific instance, that still doesn't mean you were a favourite against that line of action, from that particular player.

And that's just the analysis tip of the iceburg. Why else do these statement not apply? What are the real goals you should have as a cash game specialist?

This is more the kind of analysis I'm talking about. Good start.

Uh... depends on your definition of "getting it in good".

If your definition is "I only get it in as a favorite to win when called" then I'd say that's wrong as well as very results oriented (but now I'm being redundant).

If your definition of good means "my fold equity plus my actually equity makes this move +EV against his range" I like that much better.


I would say most people mean the former, and most people are wrong.

I'm also vastly simplifying here. (edit: i'm not mentioning things such as pot odds and SPR and effective stacks which obviously matter...)

Do you mean pot odds as well? say you think against his range you have 40% chance and he has shoved you have to call 40c into 1.20 pot or something?

When I say get it in good I mean this:

Your hand had great equity against his range considering the remaining stacks and dead money in the pot when you got your money in the middle. That's getting it in good to me.

If villain is a 80/60 drooling idiot who 3bets 40% and we get it in pre against him with KK that's getting it in good. Doesn't matter that this time he held AA.

I was under the impression that the object was to get the other players to put their money in with worse hands than yours, or to fold because you represent a better hand than theirs, but maybe I'm confused by the OP.

I like this definition much better as well, especially in defining our goals as a cash game player.

This is also a consideration that many players, especially new ones fail to grasp. I'm quite happy to get my money in "bad", based on the incorrect definition I keep seeing thrown around, as a 40/60 dog, or a 30/70 dog, so long as the pot odds dictate it to be a correct play.

However, pot odds should define your decision against your opponent's "range", not the specific hand he shows up with after the money's gone in.

Spot on. This is much closer to what "good" means to me (still not 100% of the way there). This is not how most people define "good" unfortunately.

Agree 95% with this statement, though it's missing an important qualifier.

I think you're premise of this thread is a good thought but you are going about it the wrong way and could be confusing some of those that may not be as accomplished as you.

Saying:
Borders on wayyy misguided information. If I get my money in with top set with no flush or straight draws on the board and lose the hand, you are saying I've made a mistake. At least that is what your statement above implies. That's poor (read that as 'horrible') information.

Now, if you want to say something like: 'A large portion of your money will come from reading opponents, understanding their tendencies and exploiting those tendencies.', or 'Calling thin with poor odds but good implied odds will account for good profit.' Cool. But saying that 'getting it in with the best hand is not proper poker' is slightly moronic imo.

I like your push for a discussion, but you've worded it rather poorly.

And aren't statements like,
and,
the definition of trolling?

Goodness man, make a statement so we can debate it instead of playing 20 questions and pointing out flaws you seem to see that no one else can surmise.

The statements that you have quoted in your OP look like they were made when someone has been all in and a favorite to win against a specific hand.

This is obviously no good as we have to be ahead of the specific opponents range and considering a lot of other factors (pot odds, fold equity etc.) to be 'getting it in good'.

Has the person playing the hand figured out their opponents range, roughly calculated their odds and decided whether or not they are 'getting it in good'? Maybe, maybe not.

Saying things like this does have its place. In a BBV forum, cash game thread or somewhere that you have just posted to show everyone how much of a goose the villain is.

His statement in absolutely no way implies your hypothetical is a mistake. Far from it actually. Is it even really necessary to state as part of a poker strategy that if you can get your money in in a 100% certain spot of being well ahead, you should do so? If you have issues with that you may want to pick up another game. (I'm not implying you believe this, but I think you are really misreading his statement)

All he's saying is that the definition is incomplete which it is, and thinking that this is the one and only goal or maybe better put, the entirety of your poker strategy at the table, is flawed.

Sorry, but I'm not looking to spoon feed answers. I'm also not going to tell you I have cash games 100% figured out. I was hoping for some input from others that didn't just stick to the general advice I keep seeing posted on here day after day about "getting it in good".

I would agree you definitely didn't make a mistake here, and I think if "good" is properly defined than those statements can apply. The problem is that "good" is often defined loosely as "being better than a 50/50 favourite when the money goes in" on a lot of the threads I've read. Look back at the first few replies I got.

I was hoping to start a discussion of what the appropriate goals of a cash game player should be, without using those tired old sayings. Maybe I'm trolling, as I've never really been a forum guy, just a poker player, and I'm trying to keep the discussion moving forward.

Maybe I'll just step out of this thread and see what it evolves into without me (which was my initial intention, until I saw the /thread comment).

Cliff notes:

What should be the specific goals of a cash game player, in your opinion?

To be able to put specific opponenets on a range of hands, be able to estimate what sort of equity our hand has against his range, and to be able to roughly calculate odds and outs throughout the hand, while knowing how our bets will affect our SPR and estimating how much fold equity we have.

There is probably more but is this what you are trying to get at?

JMcCabe, you're not trolling. This thread is pretty awesome so far imo, and I think it's definitely the right way to go about it.



(sorry for not actually contributing atm, lol)

No No, I wasn't trying to get you to leave at all, but I felt like you had a statement to make but was looking to maybe critique others in getting to it. Not a problem with that at all, but was just curious about what you were trying to dig at. I like the premise of the thread, it certainly makes ya think.

I think I've just been playing so long that I've stuck to the old sayings because they are simple and short. 'Get it in with the best of it.' 'Cont to play the game properly.' 'Improve my bb/hr rate as a marker for play.' 'Use proper br management.' etc.

But you are right. This game has certainly evolved and saying old mantras, while maybe still true, really may not be encompassing the changes of today's game.

I still think the 'thin call' and playing the player are the large portion of today's game. Especially in the low to mid grinding levels (to me this is 1/2NL to 5/10 NL). Those games used to be goldmines, but now are filled with ABC Rush players that have a general grasp of the game, and understand, in part, the importance of aggression.

Awesome. Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. What else?

Yes, though I'd argue those have always been a big part of the game. They're definitely more important now, due to the amped up aggression, but these points are a little too specific and don't help us define goals.

Still can be goldmines with the right strategies, imo. You just need to properly counter what is generally considered to be the "right" way to play nowadays. However, this is a bit off topic.

Let's get back to defining the real goals of a top-notch cash game player.

Make a reasonable consistent rate that can impact the things you want to do or have in your everyday life. Or in the extreme case (top players), live off the winnings so poker is your sole meas of income and you can financially do what you want.

Then there is always, enjoy the game for what it is to the individual. That could be the billionaire that wants to unwind and enjoy table talk, to the nit that won't tip a dealer because he needs money for rent.

An interesting thread. But part of what makes it interesting is the fact we have a mixture of deep strategic thinking and semantics. But it's good since the more clarity we have between these two the better.

I will make a basic statement.

I believe there is nothing wrong with "getting your money in good" as a goal as long as we agree that odds and stack sizes (implied odds) can have an effect on the equation. And...

Here, I'll shoot another wheel off as long as we are tearing up words.

Being results oriented is a prime goal in poker.

As long as in this case the result is getting our money in ahead more often than not BECAUSE WE understand the ranges represented by our particular opponents well enough along with that above consideration of odds to make that right decision more often.

I have always felt resistance when someone starts speaking in simplistic absolutes. "It is never right to open limp", or "As long as you're ahead when the money goes in..."

These statement are founded on a mountain of assumptions. Dividing the semantics from the strategy is important. So is separating the realistic from the academic. Thus it is RARE in nlhe games with fair skilled players that open limping makes any sense.

I have always felt that certain kind of minds that can handle deep abstraction beyond pure math and strategy have a very difficult to quantify advantage in this game.

Then again I could just be romanticizing an ideal.

In my opinion it all comes down to "correct decisions"

Sometimes the correct decision is to put in all the $$$ when you know you

aren't a Favourite. I think that is where the OP is trying to get people to

think outside the square of "I got it in good!" and "I had the odds to call"

Situational Poker is probably my best guess. Playing the player and the

situation that sort of strategy..... seems like alot of work to me. My brain

is starting to ache as I type this, I gotta go..

This has me confused as all hell.

I think OP your over analyzing. If pre flop I have AA an I call a all-in and lose 10 times in a row what do you think the advice would be? Yep, that's right "keep getting it in ahead".
It's about making the right decisions(positive equity) that will pay off over time nothing more.
If I'm in the sb and the bb will not call a 5bb raise unless he has AA I will be raising 100% of the time(when folded around). No matter what I have I am "getting it in ahead"(positive equity). That's it. If you making neg equity decsions then you will be a loser.

I believe the point of the OP is that you could be the favorite when the cards are flipped over, i.e. you got your money in good, but against your opponent's range you were getting crushed, so your results is what made the play look good, not necessarily that it was actually correct.

This is what's confusing in the fact I don't think this is what OP meant.
If you got it in bad against opponent's range, people will say that and not 'keep getting it in good' or such.

Well, someone who gets it wouldn't say that, but many players, especially beginners, often just look compare your own hand to your opponent's hand, and then will say that they played it correctly or incorrectly. If that makes sense.

Wow...resurrected from the dead. Old thread that is.

cjatud nailed down my point pretty much dead on.

Most beginners are very results oriented when looking at aipf hands or pretty much any ai hands. They base whether or not they, "got it in good," simply based on the cards in each player's hand once their on their backs.

A lot of threads on CC, especially those dealing with bad beats, but also line checks and "did I make the right call" threads back up this misconception by saying things like, "Well, you got it good," meaning simply as a favourite.

What these phrases, especially when misused, fail to consider are things like:

- your opponent's expected range (read my other posts ITT, not just the OP)
- pot odds
- relative stack sizes and SPR
- fold equity
- table image
- metagame principles
- history with opponent
- etc, etc

Your goals can't simply be to get it in good in a vacuum. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if you always get your money in as a favourite against your opponent's specific hand, you're definitely doing something wrong. You're spewing money all over the place, specifically in hands that don't go to showdown.

This thread gets a gold star, because its special.

Seriously, you may understand how to play poker, but this thread teaches no one.

didn't you hear, c9? he doesn't want to teach anyone, he wants everyone else to teach each other stuff while he looms in the background and makes vague statements