Question about ‘Poker’s 1%’

HarroginHarrogin Red Chipper Posts: 5 ✭✭
Hi, I had a question about the 2 golden rules in ‘Poker’s 1%’ by Ed Miller. For those who don’t know the rules, they are:

1. If your opponent bets or raises, you should usually continue.
2. If you bet or raise one street, you should usually do so on the next.

My question is about breaking the rules. Ed Miller says it’s only okay to break the rules unless our opponent does so first. I’m a bit confused as to when we can verify that our opponent has broken the rules. Do we watch for our opponent to break the rules the entire game, then change/break the rules against that player in a strategic sense? Or do we watch for our opponent to break the rules in the current hand, then change/break the rules for that hand (in a tactical sense)? I find it hard to be accurate in the latter. Let’s say our opponent c bets the flop, we call, then our opponent checks the turn. Is he/she breaking the rules, or have they entered the ~30% of the time they SHOULD be checking?

Should we focus on the small scope of the hand, or the large scope of the game? Obviously, both are important and have their place in the game, but which do we use when opting to break the rules?



Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file