You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
ABC of DYM's, by JOHNCONNOR
I have just Posted a Blog by John Connor, the thread title says it all.
This chap does very welll indeed at DYM's (those who know how to check these things will know that) & he's shared his thoughts with us, which is very kind of him.
It's quite a long piece, but it's as good as I've seen, & if you cannot improve at least ONE aspect of your DYM play from reading it, well you are not reading it properly.
Johgn is happy to take questions, feedback, & constructive criticism, but most of all, he's a winning DYM player, & wants to share his knowledge with the rest of us.
So, Post any questions you have for him on this thread, please. I've asked that the "Comment" section of the Blog be restricted to "thanks John" type comments, NOT questions about it. By keeping all the questions & answers in one place - on this Thread - we will all yield greater benefit.
On behalf of Sky Poker, & our players, or at least, those who want to improve their game, our sincere thanks, it's a monumental effort.
The Blog is HERE
Comments
You're of course right, some will slate my raise sizes for being on the large size. As stated in the blog this is one area that I would encourage players to experiment with.
Personally I raise on the larger size to give the raise more chance of getting through, which is usually my primary goal, of course. I found that smaller (2.5x) raises were not as effective at doing this and the 3x raises, I would say, are most effective upto the £11 DYM level or against weaker fields in general.
In tough fields, and if you rail a high stakes DYM, you will see that some of the best players continually raise funny amounts in the 2.2x kind of range. I would certainly not recomend against this against strong fields.
That's the argument, really, raising more gives you a higher success rate, but raising less means your success rate doesn't have to be so high in the first place. It's really about finding a balance. I find that the balance tends to come down on the higher side against weaker fields and the lower side against stronger ones.
Two footnotes to the above:
1) While raising bigger pre-flop creates a larger pot (undesired), this is not such a big problem in DYMs as it may be in, say, an MTT. This is because, as I have alluded to in the blog, DYM stacks are shallow and you're largely 'playing the hand to the end' or not on the flop.
2) I think it's interesting that some of the more modern players (who advocate raising 2.2x to steal), actually advocate raising 3x when in the small blind to negate the positional disadvantage (ie to give them more chance of taking down the pot pre-flop). This is the same reason my raises are on the large size, to discourage action.
my query is about "squeeze plays"
when i grinded dyms for 3 months (£3.30 to £11) i think i got into alot of trouble trying to pick up the dead money squeezing with air, which probably affected my overall profits.
When there was 1 or more limper, it was very tempting to go all in and hoping for folds. Would you recommend this strategy, or should i have resisted the temptation, because often they limp called with things like Q8, and i was sometimes behind!!!
Also How do you combat "limp callers" in general?
EDIT.. one more question regarding limpers do you often try to take it away post flop when there is enough play, because i found that if i was in the BB, they like limping and then min betting any flop!! very frustrating and hard to play against
My "starter" question for John.
Raise sizes.
The current fashion is for much smaller raise sizes, but I happen to agree with you, different size Raises are needed for different situations, skillsets, buy-in levels, & stages of the DYM.
The hard-cases & snarlers, maybe some of the more erudite players, too, are going to slate you for your raise sizes, because the current fashion is for smaller Raises.
How would you counter that argument?
I definately think there's a place for squeezes like this and it's one of my favourite plays to be honest. You have to pick your opponents, though, obviously. Sometimes it won't be possible as you'll have no reads etc. But, if you can, try and look out for the HBL's as I (following Moshman) note people. Before you put an "HBL" note on someone make sure you have seen them limp/fold a couple of times first, to be sure (in one game it may be hard, but over months of playing with the same faces, these traits become really easy to pick up). Then, the best spots are when one "HBL" limps in and then the small blind makes up. This is going to be such a high percentage spot for you to squeeze, and it will usually be (as I'm sure you know) all-in to give yourself maximum leverage.
Finally, maybe an obvious point but just to be clear, don't try any fancy squeeze plays if the money in the pot simply isn't worth it, wait until the late/mid stages.
Post more, Mr K!
For those of us not quite that far along the road, James, would you like to enlighten us with your thoughts on how ICM helps us in DYM's, please?
1) If I understand this question properly (and the highlighted part is the crux of the question) then the answer is undoubtedly Cash4Points. DYMs offer such a great rakeback deal, when compared to the size of your bankroll. I have made 28,000 points a month playing £33 and £55 DYMs with a 'roll I would only have been comfortable playing 50NL with (of course I needed to learn at much lower stakes anyway) so the loss of Cash4Points was huge for me. I'm fairly sure it me a load less hours to eanr those 28,000 points than it would have if I was playing NL50 (possibly even higher I'm not sure?)
If I miss understood the question and it was more to do with challenges of cash play vs DYM play then just give me a shout :-)
2) This is a good question because the topic often arises and I always keep out of it. I keep out because the answer is always provided by an authoritative source, anyway. It is (unfortunately??) very unlikely to ever change. Sky is a business, people pay the 20% rates so it will stay. I do feel for them, though, as 20% is pretty high.
The real, simple, answer though is this. It's there, there's nothing you can do about it, you just have to beat it. You 'only' have to progress to the £3.30 level to get to the 10% rake band. Another option would be saving and depositing enough to play £3.30s instead. I wouldn't recomend that, though, to be honest, I would recomend advancing up the levels. At the end of the day, if you can't scrape more than a 60% win rate (required to beat 20% rake) in the 30p and 60p DYMs, then you probably can't attain more than a 55% win rate (required to beat 10% rake) in the higher ones.
Thanks for a really great read, which i'm sure will in many ways help my DYM game.
With reference to "Cooperation Play" and "people betting into dry flops" you go on to say this is a huge mistake unless you are 100% sure to win the hand.
I have on many occasions been involved in the "Cooperation Play" however, on occasions some players do not cooperate (Entirely their choice) and bet into a dry pot when a player is all-in. So obviously on these occasions we can see that the other player/s are not going to cooperate.
So here is a bit of a 3 barrel question i'm afraid
How do we continue our strategy here?
Should we just keep folding to the small all-in? (at the risk of leaking chips)
or
Do we try to play our hands against the uncooporating player/s?
Thanks
Pokertrev
A great read JC, very nice job you've done there!
P.S where you been for last few weeks?
Only one question.
Do you think it is more profitable long term to play the normal dym games or their turbo counterparts?
I note that you have only posted once before I wonder what you had to say in your last rant.
For the record JC plays ridiculous volumes, and no doubt benefits from a significant rakeback from the site.
especially as JC has spent ages writing a perfectly good DYM blog based on his experiences of crushing this sites dyms. No doubt ICM is a very useful tool at regular SNG's, but i would question its relevance here.
EDIT, maybe you would like to read the article properly and add the ICM bit in?