Just keep getting it in ahead

J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
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.
 
coolnout

coolnout

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Total posts
1,750
Chips
0
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".


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

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
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.
 
Last edited:
Theblueduce

Theblueduce

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Total posts
430
Chips
0
I will be looking for you at the tables.
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
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
 
J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
Goal is to win money.

This is true.

Way to win money is to get your money in good more often than bad.

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.
 
The Dark Side

The Dark Side

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Total posts
811
Chips
0
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"?
 
R

rhoffer21

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Total posts
22
Chips
0
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.
 
J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
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?

Do you mean get your money AIPF good or,
bet/raise when your ahead and check/fold when your behind?
This is more the kind of analysis I'm talking about. Good start.
 
Tygran

Tygran

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Total posts
1,757
Chips
0
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...)
 
Last edited:
I

imwatcher

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Total posts
596
Chips
0
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?
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
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.
 
joe steady

joe steady

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Total posts
287
Chips
0
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.
 
J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
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 like this definition much better as well, especially in defining our goals as a cash game player.

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?

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.
 
J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
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.

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.

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

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

Vollycat

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Total posts
341
Chips
0
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:
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".
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.
 
Vollycat

Vollycat

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Total posts
341
Chips
0
And aren't statements like,
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.
and,
Agree 95% with this statement, though it's missing an important qualifier.
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.
 
No Brainer

No Brainer

Losing keeps me sane
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Total posts
1,853
Chips
0
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.
 
Tygran

Tygran

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Total posts
1,757
Chips
0
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
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".

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.

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?
 
No Brainer

No Brainer

Losing keeps me sane
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Total posts
1,853
Chips
0
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?
 
cjatud2012

cjatud2012

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Total posts
3,904
Chips
0
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.

gold-star-big.png


(sorry for not actually contributing atm, lol)
 
Vollycat

Vollycat

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Total posts
341
Chips
0
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.
 
J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
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.
Awesome. Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. What else?

I still think the 'thin call' and playing the player are the large portion of today's game.
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.

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.
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.
 
Top