Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

QJs - 200nl

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    QJs - 200nl

    Villain is a good 200nl reg. He runs at 21/20/3.3 over 300 hands or so. He has three barelled 4 times over sample and 2 barelled 6 times. He is a decent winner in the games.

    My image at the table is probably solidish and I have folded to a few of his 3 bets and 4bet him once(he folded). We have been trying to isolate a fish but not had action vs eachother. Any play between us seemed 'honest' for the most part.

    I think preflop is a mistake on my part. He opens 12% UTG FWIW.

    Thoughts on river actions and my line in general.


    No-Limit Hold'em, $2.00 BB (6 handed) - Hold'em Manager Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

    Button ($60)
    Hero (SB) ($356.85)
    BB ($397.50)
    UTG ($297)
    MP ($56.44)
    CO ($237.95)

    Preflop: Hero is SB with J, Q
    UTG bets $8, 3 folds, Hero calls $7, 1 fold

    Flop: ($18) 5, J, J (2 players)
    Hero checks, UTG bets $10, Hero calls $10

    Turn: ($38) K (2 players)
    Hero checks, UTG bets $28, Hero calls $28

    River: ($94) 2 (2 players)
    Hero checks, UTG bets $78

    #2
    pretty hard for him to bluff there. meh i think hes value betting a K there enough for this to be a call

    Comment


      #3
      Pre is a mistake imo.

      His betsizing is extremely scary. I think that polarises kings out of his range a lot. I guess it comes down to what he thinks your range is like. If he thinks that there aren't too many Js in there, this is a bluff almost always, as it looks like he's trying to force a fold from midpairs. If he thinks you keep a J in your range a fair bit and fold midpairs on the river anyway to a smaller bet then this is a better hand always. I think folding this would be a mistake in theory, but I think there's a very strong case to be made for soulreading that he can't have Kx and doesn't need to bet so big to fold midpairs so he has a big hand here a lot and so folding.
      Foldaramus et foldarabimus

      Comment


        #4
        Don't like pre, snap call otb though. There's absolutely no way I'm folding this hand on the river, maybe if the action had been different or we had different reads then it might be ok to fold.

        Little bit of a sidenote but raises on this flop texture always look fos so if you think he'll fps himself it can be worth a try. I think you played it well though.

        Comment


          #5
          Isnt your habd super underrepped and he can easliy be value bettin 10 10 here, snap call for sure no?

          Comment


            #6
            21/20/ but 12% utg ... mmmmm ... are we really seeing JK and 55 here?
            I find it very difficult to resist the urge to shove against someone who has 4 barreled 4/10 times. But thats probably why I'm so awful at this game.
            Last edited by Strewelpeter; 14-05-10, 13:18.
            Turning millions into thousands

            Comment


              #7
              Whats the question? Obv this is an instacall as played.
              Looking for full or part time poker and betting writers. PM if interested.

              Comment


                #8
                Ya, instacall, loads of combos of AK/AA/air your ahead of, shove looks too thin here if thats what your asking?
                "Don't overcomplicate a straight forward game with mathematical bullshit and dicussing different lines with your geeky friends" Chris Olaafson

                Comment


                  #9
                  I'm calling, but i'm not happy about it! Certainly not shoving

                  Pre is fine if you are a good bit better than the player who is raising, i'd fold against decent regs and call against bad ones

                  edit: as RJ said I would often check raise the flop

                  Comment


                    #10
                    obv call river, can be vb worse, can be bluffing etc.

                    With regard to cr the flop, obv it looks full of shit and will prob get floated by all sorts of shit but its really bad against someone observant surely? I mean it leaves you in a pretty bad situation with like every single other hand you can have here....

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by colquhom View Post

                      With regard to cr the flop, obv it looks full of shit and will prob get floated by all sorts of shit but its really bad against someone observant surely? I mean it leaves you in a pretty bad situation with like every single other hand you can have here....
                      What?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                        What?
                        sigh, i mean that's not a very helpful response. I don't think my post is that hard to comprehend. Basically, what I was getting at is that if you take trips out of your range for check calling this flop (and therefore full houses too e.g 55) you're left with 22-1010. That is an incredibly face up range that will be easily exploited by almost anyone. I mean, do you want to put yourself in a situation where anyone is able to barrel 1010+ (prob 99+) for value on this board and a corresponding amount of bluffs? Seems like we're left in what i described as a "pretty bad situation". If "what" was criticizing the language used ("cr, obv" etc) then sorry but I thought they'd be widely understood.
                        Last edited by colquhom; 15-05-10, 03:38.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          It is hard to comprehend, you've just disagreed with yourself! Yes if you always check raise trips + here it will make your check calling range weak, and its possible that a really observant opponent might cotton on to that and adjust against you; however what you actually said was that it leaves you in a bad position with EVERY OTHER hand,of which your check calling range is only a subsection.

                          Because of that your original post made no sense, I'm not sure what response you want from me to it, I don't know what you mean. I thought there might be some reason to it, hence my post.

                          I disagree totally with what you are saying anyway;

                          a) it might make your check calling range weaker here, but that's not very important. Your check calling range is pretty weak anyway, its hard to flop trips, it much easier to have a pair (and having a weakish check calling range isn't even that bad a thing, it makes you much more likely to be bluffed)

                          b) you should obviously be mixing up your play here (and in almost every other spot imaginable) if you are playing against the same players. Always check calling, or always raising with trips here is terrible if you are doing it against the same players for any length of time

                          c) Check raising trips makes your Check raising range pretty strong, which makes it easier to bluff

                          As in all these situations the important thing is to be aware of how your actions will be perceived (whether or not it goes to showdown) and adjust your play from then on accordingly

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Okay thanks for the replies.

                            I wanted to shove here because my range mainly consists of small-medium pocket pairs and it would look like I am turning them into a bluff. I though it was a good spot to do so and get looked up lighter from a seemly good reg.

                            I think given we are 150bbs deep and he cbets somewhat small that he doubts I have Jx very often along side not having many Jx hands in my range.

                            No one else said to shove here so I guess it is too thin.
                            Last edited by RoadSweeper; 15-05-10, 09:59.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                              b) you should obviously be mixing up your play here (and in almost every other spot imaginable) if you are playing against the same players. Always check calling, or always raising with trips here is terrible if you are doing it against the same players for any length of time
                              Mixing up your play isn't about playing the same hands differently, it's about playing different hands the same.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Why? That's ridiculous, why would you pick that definition over any of the other meanings it could have? In this case we are specifically talking about a situation where you have a particular hand strength and are out of position; are you saying its technically incorrect to call changing your play by sometimes check/calling and sometimes check/raising with hands of this strength mixing it up?

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                  It is hard to comprehend, you've just disagreed with yourself! Yes if you always check raise trips + here it will make your check calling range weak, and its possible that a really observant opponent might cotton on to that and adjust against you; however what you actually said was that it leaves you in a bad position with EVERY OTHER hand,of which your check calling range is only a subsection.

                                  Because of that your original post made no sense, I'm not sure what response you want from me to it, I don't know what you mean. I thought there might be some reason to it, hence my post.

                                  I disagree totally with what you are saying anyway;

                                  a) it might make your check calling range weaker here, but that's not very important. Your check calling range is pretty weak anyway, its hard to flop trips, it much easier to have a pair (and having a weakish check calling range isn't even that bad a thing, it makes you much more likely to be bluffed)

                                  b) you should obviously be mixing up your play here (and in almost every other spot imaginable) if you are playing against the same players. Always check calling, or always raising with trips here is terrible if you are doing it against the same players for any length of time

                                  c) Check raising trips makes your Check raising range pretty strong, which makes it easier to bluff

                                  As in all these situations the important thing is to be aware of how your actions will be perceived (whether or not it goes to showdown) and adjust your play from then on accordingly
                                  Right , I shouldnt have said "every other hand", you're right I was just talking about what it does to your check call range. However,

                                  a) saying that having a weakish cc range isnt a bad thing because you're more likely to get bluffed is just wrong. You aren't just more likely to get bluffed , you're more likely to get value bet more thinly too. You're putting the villain in a very strong situation and us in a weak one. Him with all the strong hands, us with none of them. Thats not good. Also, ye it is hard to make trips and easier to have a pair, which means that we'll mostly have a pair. So why not protect the range of hands we are most likely to have with some strong ones too.

                                  b) see what redjoker wrote

                                  c) Ye it does. However, we have prob max like 6/7 value hands on this board so we can't really cr bluff that much on the flop. Do you not think its more important to create a situation where its easier to get to showdown with our most likely hands or add in a few bluffs on the flop? Also, just because we dont checkraise the flop, doesnt mean we can't bluff the turn or the river. In fact, i'd say that would be a far better line, we still attempt to protect the pairs getting to showdown and we can still bluff. If we cr the flop we can't do that.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                    Why? That's ridiculous, why would you pick that definition over any of the other meanings it could have? In this case we are specifically talking about a situation where you have a particular hand strength and are out of position; are you saying its technically incorrect to call changing your play by sometimes check/calling and sometimes check/raising with hands of this strength mixing it up?
                                    No, it's nothing about the definition of the term, you can use it whatever way you want, I'm saying something a little stronger than that. I'm saying that changing your play by sometimes check/calling and sometimes check/raising with hands of this strength for the purpose of mixing up your play is fundamentally incorrect.

                                    You can of course check/call or check/raise if you think that play has the highest EV in isolation but for the purposes of balancing or mixing up your play, doing only one is always going to be superior (disclaimer: unless a boundary point lies somewhere in the middle of that hand strength).

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Well that's not what you said, it doesn't matter what you mean when you post something, what matters is the actual words you use. Your first post is nonsense, mixing up your play can be about millions of different things; many of which may actually be counter productive, but it doesn't mean it's not "mixing up your play"

                                      Your last post may or may not be right (It actually depends on what you mean by EV, once you have check raised a player and shown down a hand of a particular hand strength, the EV of check raising is going to change dramatically, meaning the highest EV might change between c/call and c/raise), but there is almost zero value to a forum in posting something like that as if its gospel without giving any explanation whatsover.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                        Well that's not what you said, it doesn't matter what you mean when you post something, what matters is the actual words you use. Your first post is nonsense, mixing up your play can be about millions of different things; many of which may actually be counter productive, but it doesn't mean it's not "mixing up your play"
                                        The words I used were actually a quote I like which I changed slightly, from Chris Ferguson. I hadn't considered that the meaning might get confused when I posted it.

                                        Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                        Your last post may or may not be right (It actually depends on what you mean by EV, once you have check raised a player and shown down a hand of a particular hand strength, the EV of check raising is going to change dramatically, meaning the highest EV might change between c/call and c/raise), but there is almost zero value to a forum in posting something like that as if its gospel without giving any explanation whatsover.
                                        That's exactly what I said; if you think one play has a higher EV in isolation due to whatever million reasons (player type, recent history, etc., etc.) then it's of course fine to check/call or check/raise. However, from a balance perspective, the EV doesn't change due to recent history, that's irrelevant.

                                        I'm not sure why you think it doesn't have value or that it lacks explanation (even if it did, if somebody had a question about it then I or somebody else could have elaborated). The quote sums up the point that the best way to balance your lines is to take the same line with different hands, not taking different lines with the same hand. An example would be opening preflop; you don't sometimes raise and sometimes limp with AA to mix it up, you just raise all the time and raise with other hands which balance it. If you did try to create a limping range it would make it easier for good players to exploit you, regardless of what hands you put in the raising/limping ranges. It also applies to situations where you usually take more than one line such as calling/raising on the flop.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          That's a really bad example for your argument, lets assume we are discussing which approach is better, mixing up your play by using ranges, or mixing up your play by taking different lines with the same hand. The problem with your example is that is completely misleading, because its such a bad line (and that's not just in isolation, it also forces you to start limping other hands) that the alternative is much more appealing. The example proves nothing, its like an argument over the rights and wrongs of military intervention and using Vietnam as your sole example.

                                          Why is better for balancing to only take on line with any one particular situation? (We may as well stick to this hand). If I notice that someone check calls sets on dry flops I will assume that they will never have a set when they check raise (which is a good assumption for 99% of my opponents). The moment I see them check raise a set (having check called one before) they have just made my life much harder, as I can't exclude a set from either range, whereas before they leaked a lot more information. Surely its easier, from a balance perspective (which isn't even that important for these stakes) to have your strong hands spread over the two options.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by colquhom View Post
                                            Right , I shouldnt have said "every other hand", you're right I was just talking about what it does to your check call range. However,

                                            a) saying that having a weakish cc range isnt a bad thing because you're more likely to get bluffed is just wrong. You aren't just more likely to get bluffed , you're more likely to get value bet more thinly too. You're putting the villain in a very strong situation and us in a weak one. Him with all the strong hands, us with none of them. Thats not good. Also, ye it is hard to make trips and easier to have a pair, which means that we'll mostly have a pair. So why not protect the range of hands we are most likely to have with some strong ones too.

                                            b) see what redjoker wrote

                                            c) Ye it does. However, we have prob max like 6/7 value hands on this board so we can't really cr bluff that much on the flop. Do you not think its more important to create a situation where its easier to get to showdown with our most likely hands or add in a few bluffs on the flop? Also, just because we dont checkraise the flop, doesnt mean we can't bluff the turn or the river. In fact, i'd say that would be a far better line, we still attempt to protect the pairs getting to showdown and we can still bluff. If we cr the flop we can't do that.
                                            A check raise is better because it has a much bigger EV, I would worry about balancing after I stacked the guy for all his chips, not before. The points about having a weak calling range and strong bluffing range were just that it's not all bad, usually when you are check calling its good to have a somewhat weak range, because you are more likely to get bluffed, which is where almost all the profit comes from from calling OOP

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                              That's a really bad example for your argument, lets assume we are discussing which approach is better, mixing up your play by using ranges, or mixing up your play by taking different lines with the same hand. The problem with your example is that is completely misleading, because its such a bad line (and that's not just in isolation, it also forces you to start limping other hands) that the alternative is much more appealing. The example proves nothing, its like an argument over the rights and wrongs of military intervention and using Vietnam as your sole example.

                                              Why is better for balancing to only take on line with any one particular situation? (We may as well stick to this hand). If I notice that someone check calls sets on dry flops I will assume that they will never have a set when they check raise (which is a good assumption for 99% of my opponents). The moment I see them check raise a set (having check called one before) they have just made my life much harder, as I can't exclude a set from either range, whereas before they leaked a lot more information. Surely its easier, from a balance perspective (which isn't even that important for these stakes) to have your strong hands spread over the two options.
                                              You don't need to spread it over 2 options if you never do one of them. For example in this hand you could just never check raise the flop with any hand. Then you don't need to worry about that.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                                That's a really bad example for your argument, lets assume we are discussing which approach is better, mixing up your play by using ranges, or mixing up your play by taking different lines with the same hand. The problem with your example is that is completely misleading, because its such a bad line (and that's not just in isolation, it also forces you to start limping other hands) that the alternative is much more appealing. The example proves nothing, its like an argument over the rights and wrongs of military intervention and using Vietnam as your sole example.
                                                That's just one example, you may not need to have a check raising range on the flop in this hand either. People take unnecessary lines all the time, that was just the clearest example.

                                                Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                                Why is better for balancing to only take on line with any one particular situation? (We may as well stick to this hand). If I notice that someone check calls sets on dry flops I will assume that they will never have a set when they check raise (which is a good assumption for 99% of my opponents). The moment I see them check raise a set (having check called one before) they have just made my life much harder, as I can't exclude a set from either range, whereas before they leaked a lot more information. Surely its easier, from a balance perspective (which isn't even that important for these stakes) to have your strong hands spread over the two options.
                                                We're talking about playing vs. good players we want to balance against so the stakes don't really matter.

                                                Hands in hold'em are pretty much continuous, 99 is very similar to 88 on a Q73 flop. Taking this a step further, you could set up your ranges where you check raised 50% of the time with both 99 and 88 and check called the other 50% of the time with them. Alternatively you could check raise with 99 100% and check call with 88 100%. The two approaches would be pretty much equivalent and have practically the same expectation. However, when you expand your range to include more hands, one subset of hands may play much better one way then the other. Then you are giving up expectation using the 50/50 method.

                                                RS's hand isn't a great example since it suffers the same problem you mentioned for my AA example, you may not need to have a check raising range on this board to begin with. But take a less dry board where you'll definitely want to have both check raising and check calling ranges.

                                                If we keep the overall frequencies for different lines the same then the problem with the player who both check called and check raised with the set was that check calling likely had a much lower EV than check raising, he wasted expectation for very little gain. Even if he never check called with a set, he could have check called down with top pair and had what should be a pretty much equivalent effect on your value betting and barrelling ranges. However, if instead of check raising with that set he now needs to check raise with top pair to keep the same frequency, that also presents a problem since he'll frequently be value stacking himself when he continues on the turn and river.

                                                It's not really about giving away information, you're always going to do that, the point is that if you could come up with balanced ranges then it wouldn't matter how much information you gave away. You could write down all your ranges in every spot, send a copy to all your opponents and then follow it exactly and it wouldn't matter, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
                                                Last edited by RedJoker; 15-05-10, 20:00.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Some great reading in this thread imo
                                                  ''Oh my god, I'm dropping shit like a pigeon
                                                  I hope you're listening, smacking babies at their christening''

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    perfectly displays the contrast in playing styles imho. Could we call it optimal play v exploitive play?

                                                    As for the river bet, is it quite a big bet for value with Ak, would you expect his bet size to be designed around an amount that can elicit a call from weaker hands.
                                                    Last edited by TheSnapper; 16-05-10, 15:53.
                                                    "Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when, in fact, to be proven wrong should be celebrated, for it elevates someone to a new level of understanding."

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by TheSnapper View Post
                                                      perfectly displays the contrast in playing styles imho. Could we call it optimal play v exploitive play?
                                                      Mixing up your play by taking different lines in the exact same situation with the same hand isn't part of exploitative play, since one play will have a higher EV and would always be taken. Similarly taking different lines in the exact same situation with the same hand isn't part of optimal play either, since other hands will be used.

                                                      You wouldn't really associate mixing up your play with an exploitative strategy anyway. I guess the one way it might make sense is if you decided to make a certain play that wasn't maximally exploitive since you felt it would create a more profitable exploitative situation in the future. That's getting pretty close to the realm of optimal strategies though.

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by RedJoker View Post
                                                        Mixing up your play by taking different lines in the exact same situation with the same hand isn't part of exploitative play, since one play will have a higher EV and would always be taken. Similarly taking different lines in the exact same situation with the same hand isn't part of optimal play either, since other hands will be used.

                                                        You wouldn't really associate mixing up your play with an exploitative strategy anyway. I guess the one way it might make sense is if you decided to make a certain play that wasn't maximally exploitive since you felt it would create a more profitable exploitative situation in the future. That's getting pretty close to the realm of optimal strategies though.
                                                        Take a common and basic enough scenario of TPTK, opponent dependent we may bet 3 streets for value versus some, whereas, that is obviously not possible versus the tighter more savvy others. I guess the key is the "exact same situation" part of your statement, are there ever "exact same situations"
                                                        "Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when, in fact, to be proven wrong should be celebrated, for it elevates someone to a new level of understanding."

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by TheSnapper View Post
                                                          Take a common and basic enough scenario of TPTK, opponent dependent we may bet 3 streets for value versus some, whereas, that is obviously not possible versus the tighter more savvy others. I guess the key is the "exact same situation" part of your statement, are there ever "exact same situations"
                                                          You could think of it that in the middle of a hand you decide your strategy is going to be to c/c 75% and c/r 25% to mix it up.

                                                          Comment


                                                            #30
                                                            Originally posted by RedJoker View Post
                                                            You could think of it that in the middle of a hand you decide your strategy is going to be to c/c 75% and c/r 25% to mix it up.
                                                            Is it possible for a random formulaic mix of 75% c/c and 25% c/r to maximise ev? Obviously it has merit in terms of making it difficult for opponents to read, but at a cost. My current deciding factor for any action over another is based on my hand strength v my opponents range, his call/fold tendancies and particularly, his calling range.

                                                            Just so I fully understand, are you suggesting that we play a random 75%cc/75%cr versus all opponents as a standard default play for say , a range of sets,2pr,tp,and some small amount of random bluffs? with another random factor deciding when its time for the 75% play as per the Harrington suggestion of "second hand of watch"
                                                            "Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when, in fact, to be proven wrong should be celebrated, for it elevates someone to a new level of understanding."

                                                            Comment


                                                              #31
                                                              No, I'm suggesting that it's absolutely terrible and there's no logic behind it or reason to do it from either an exploitative or optimal stand point.

                                                              Comment


                                                                #32
                                                                Originally posted by colquhom View Post
                                                                You don't need to spread it over 2 options if you never do one of them. For example in this hand you could just never check raise the flop with any hand. Then you don't need to worry about that.
                                                                Check raising is a very good tool, I would hate to put myself into a situation where I never check raised. I love playing against people who rarely check raise.

                                                                Comment


                                                                  #33
                                                                  Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                                                  Check raising is a very good tool, I would hate to put myself into a situation where I never check raised. I love playing against people who rarely check raise.
                                                                  I'm obviously not saying don't check raise in general. Check raising is class. This situation is pretty specific. He opens utg and he's tight, you flat in small blind. Flop is JJ5 rainbow. In this situation I don't think you should check raise ever without specific reads. I struggle to think of more than a few hands we'd even need to bluff with along with all the other reasons I said why it wouldn't be good.

                                                                  I obviously wasn't making some broad generalization about the merits of check raising in general.

                                                                  And we can check raise the river which on the sexy scale is far superior to check raising the flop.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                    #34
                                                                    Originally posted by RedJoker View Post

                                                                    It's not really about giving away information, you're always going to do that, the point is that if you could come up with balanced ranges then it wouldn't matter how much information you gave away. You could write down all your ranges in every spot, send a copy to all your opponents and then follow it exactly and it wouldn't matter, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
                                                                    I sometimes get the impression you are trying to break even against your opponents. The ideal situation in is to have your opponents have an incorrect idea of your range, be it unbalanced or not; not have it so your opponent is faced with a series of neutral EV decisions.

                                                                    Also a range based approach suffers greatly from the problem that all poker hand's don't take place at the same time. Every time you play a hand against someone some variables change, sometimes enough to change how you should play a hand.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                      #35
                                                                      Originally posted by colquhom View Post

                                                                      And we can check raise the river which on the sexy scale is far superior to check raising the flop.
                                                                      No it isn't (although I suppose I don't know what turns you on!), your hand looks much stronger if you check raise the river with trips, because its how I expect most TAG's to play their trips. I don't expect them to check raise the flop which is what makes it good.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                        #36
                                                                        Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                                                        I sometimes get the impression you are trying to break even against your opponents. The ideal situation in is to have your opponents have an incorrect idea of your range, be it unbalanced or not; not have it so your opponent is faced with a series of neutral EV decisions.
                                                                        Yeah, I see why it might look that way. It's actually a misconception that balanced play involves giving your opponent neutral EV decisions. In reality there's usually only one or two specific hands in his entire range you're trying to make indifferent to decisions, and only one of those will be neutral EV.

                                                                        I'm not trying to break even, people make mistakes and have leaks which don't even need to be exploited. The guy who both check called and check raised with a set for example, you don't need to make any adjustment to him, you can just let him piss away expectation. However, if you start making unnecessary adjustments to him then you may have just made his mistake a profitable one.

                                                                        It's not like I play a perfectly balanced game, I doubt 34/25 is going to turn out to be game theory optimal. I make adjustments and take exploitative lines all the time, but having a framework allows you not only to work out where your opponent's leaks are, but also the best way to adjust in order to exploit them (and when you don't even need to adjust). I feel the best way to know where my opponent isn't balanced and has leaks is to know where balanced is to begin with.

                                                                        You felt my earlier post was of no value to the forum but I feel that most responses to hand history threads are of little value. There's a reason most posters leave the forum once they get to a certain level, static hand histories taken in isolation aren't particularly interesting. The line with the highest immediate EV isn't necessarily going to be the best for an overall game plan. An example would be the cutoff opening and hero otb with QJs. 3betting is nearly always going to be the highest EV play in isolation but the problem is that you can't 3bet every hand, so for the overall game plan calling will be the best play. People may have worked that out now but a couple years ago that wasn't the case and there are other spots where people are still missing the same concept. Almost all responses are looking to find the best exploitative play but the game plan and framework is almost never discussed (until you and me feel like getting into an argument ).

                                                                        I'm not that interested in talking about what the best way to play this particular hand in isolation is but colquhom's question of how c/ring is going to affect our overall ranges is a much more interesting and complex one.

                                                                        Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                                                        Also a range based approach suffers greatly from the problem that all poker hand's don't take place at the same time. Every time you play a hand against someone some variables change, sometimes enough to change how you should play a hand.
                                                                        And every time you play a hand you affect future hands, sometimes to the detriment of those future hands.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                          #37
                                                                          Originally posted by RedJoker View Post

                                                                          I'm not trying to break even, people make mistakes and have leaks which don't even need to be exploited. The guy who both check called and check raised with a set for example, you don't need to make any adjustment to him, you can just let him piss away expectation. However, if you start making unnecessary adjustments to him then you may have just made his mistake a profitable one.
                                                                          I don't think the player who check called and check raised a set has pissed away any expectation (he could of/have (lol) but he didn't need to), I would assume that when he chose each option he weighed up the relative EV's and either picked the higher one or picked one of two similar options. Actually I think that this is one of decisions in holdem that is very difficult to estimate the true EV of either decision, for many reasons; but one of the prominent ones is that a normal TAG will assume another TAG will never check call a set on a very dangerous board. That one fact makes check calling sets on very wet boards an occasionally brilliant play.

                                                                          Originally posted by RedJoker View Post

                                                                          You felt my earlier post was of no value to the forum but I feel that most responses to hand history threads are of little value.
                                                                          Well I was clearly wrong about that, this is the most interesting thread I've read here for a while (werewolves aside), but the point I was trying to make was that I find it annoying when someone makes a broad and controversial statement as fact, without giving any reasoning. I, and assume most people here, are past the stage where we are going to blindly accept something without understanding the reasoning behind it. There is obviously a balance to be found; no-one has time to explain everything they say & most of it has been repeated ad nauseum before, but I felt that your post was not going to be of any use to anyone without reasoning (I might be wrong about that).

                                                                          [quote=RedJoker;78436] You can of course check/call or check/raise if you think that play has the highest EV in isolation but for the purposes of balancing or mixing up your play, doing only one is always going to be superior (disclaimer: unless a boundary point lies somewhere in the middle of that hand strength).

                                                                          I still don't think I've gotten an answer as to why that is the case

                                                                          I read your reply a few times, and I don't think you really answered the question. I was not suggesting that you deliberately take a bad line in order to mix up your play, but rather raising the almost existentialist idea that changing your line will maximise your EV (and help your balance (I fear I might regret that last statement)) for each time you play the hand. 88/99 is a bad example I feel, because bar turning it into a bluff, there really is little case for ever check raising it. Good examples are where there are two or more viable options, where the EV of the hand in a vacuum (to make the argument simpler) is either very hard to calculate (but you don't know which is better), or close enough to not matter much. I don't understand why, in cases like that, a mixed strategy is not superior to a fixed 100% strategy, for balancing reasons, or in fact any reasons.

                                                                          Originally posted by RedJoker View Post

                                                                          (until you and me feel like getting into an argument ).
                                                                          I think I'm old enough now I can call them discussions!

                                                                          Originally posted by RedJoker View Post
                                                                          I'm not that interested in talking about what the best way to play this particular hand in isolation is but colquhom's question of how c/ring is going to affect our overall ranges is a much more interesting and complex one.
                                                                          Yes me too

                                                                          Comment


                                                                            #38
                                                                            Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                                                            No it isn't (although I suppose I don't know what turns you on!), your hand looks much stronger if you check raise the river with trips, because its how I expect most TAG's to play their trips. I don't expect them to check raise the flop which is what makes it good.
                                                                            I suppose its irrelevant but i actually expect most people to check raise the flop with trips rather than the river.

                                                                            But who cares if you expect them to cr the river with trips, then you'll just fold AA when they turn 66 or something into a bluff.

                                                                            I actually don't think its harder to stack someone with the cc,cc, cr line than cr the flop. They're going to have to vb all the hands on the river that they might stack off with if you cr the flop anyway, they might pick up a few more hands to vb they didn't have on the flop too. The only reason it would be harder is if they never expect one to take this line with a bluff but if you don't then that is your mistake. So if you have roughly the same chance of stacking them, can also protect your weak sd value hands and can still bluff I really don't see how check calling isn't the best as in comparison with check raising you lose out on the protection of your weak sd value range.

                                                                            I get what your saying though, that we should choose actions based on our perceived range to mess with people and hopefully they make really bad errors against us. This is obviously a totally credible strategy. I just don't think that check raising the flop with trips in this hand because people will expect you to cc,cc, cr with them isn't a good enough reason to do it. There has to be more to it than that.

                                                                            I just think that this type of strategy is only going to take you so far in poker.

                                                                            Comment


                                                                              #39
                                                                              Originally posted by colquhom View Post
                                                                              I actually don't think its harder to stack someone with the cc,cc, cr line than cr the flop. They're going to have to vb all the hands on the river that they might stack off with if you cr the flop anyway, they might pick up a few more hands to vb they didn't have on the flop too. The only reason it would be harder is if they never expect one to take this line with a bluff but if you don't then that is your mistake. So if you have roughly the same chance of stacking them, can also protect your weak sd value hands and can still bluff I really don't see how check calling isn't the best as in comparison with check raising you lose out on the protection of your weak sd value range.
                                                                              I don't agree that a check call, check call, check raise line is more likely to stack someone. Most people I play with at 12 at 50 1 will not bet every street with an overpair, and they are more likely to call a flop raise (as in they will almost never fold to a flop raise) but they are quite likely to fold to a turn raise. You should at this stage realise that I think this, so your first paragraph is irrelevant. How can you think I think each line has an equal chance of stacking them? Seriously???

                                                                              Originally posted by colquhom View Post
                                                                              I get what your saying though, that we should choose actions based on our perceived range to mess with people and hopefully they make really bad errors against us. This is obviously a totally credible strategy. I just don't think that check raising the flop with trips in this hand because people will expect you to cc,cc, cr with them isn't a good enough reason to do it. There has to be more to it than that.

                                                                              I just think that this type of strategy is only going to take you so far in poker.
                                                                              WTF are you talking about? The whole purpose of poker is to make your opponent confused as to your real hand. If people expect you to never check raise trips, and you stack them by doing so (where you would not of otherwise) then you have played very well and chosen a great line. What more do you want from the strategy? It's only a small part of an overall gameplan anyway, it just happens to be the issue at hand.

                                                                              I understand that you might not think that is the best line, and it might not be in many games/situations, but your last sentence is infuriating nonsense.

                                                                              Originally posted by sklansky - Theory of Poker View Post
                                                                              Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                                #40
                                                                                Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                                                                I don't think the player who check called and check raised a set has pissed away any expectation (he could of/have (lol) but he didn't need to), I would assume that when he chose each option he weighed up the relative EV's and either picked the higher one or picked one of two similar options. Actually I think that this is one of decisions in holdem that is very difficult to estimate the true EV of either decision, for many reasons; but one of the prominent ones is that a normal TAG will assume another TAG will never check call a set on a very dangerous board. That one fact makes check calling sets on very wet boards an occasionally brilliant play.
                                                                                That's fine if he did it for exploitative reasons; if he thought one play had a higher EV the first time and a different play had a higher EV the second time due to whatever different variables. However, if he decided to make a different play for the sake of mixing it up or balance then he pretty much pissed away expectation for little to no gain.

                                                                                Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                                                                Well I was clearly wrong about that, this is the most interesting thread I've read here for a while (werewolves aside), but the point I was trying to make was that I find it annoying when someone makes a broad and controversial statement as fact, without giving any reasoning. I, and assume most people here, are past the stage where we are going to blindly accept something without understanding the reasoning behind it. There is obviously a balance to be found; no-one has time to explain everything they say & most of it has been repeated ad nauseum before, but I felt that your post was not going to be of any use to anyone without reasoning (I might be wrong about that).
                                                                                I guess I didn't really think it was that controversial, playing different hands the same way isn't a new idea. Most people know to c/r and play aggressively with flush draws to help balance their strong made hands. Lots of people open suited connectors and other marginal hands UTG to provide a balance for their big PPs. Although I can see why the stance that any other method of balancing is suboptimal might be extreme, particularly for people not familiar with game theory.

                                                                                Pretty much none of the people I listen to for poker advice explain the reasons behind any poker theory they post. That's not to say that they don't give reasons, it's just that the reasons they give aren't focused around game theory and, as far as I'm concerned, aren't the reasons why whatever they say is or isn't correct. colquhom's question of how c/ring this hand affects our check calling range is a good example. Not raising dry flops is something which aejones talks about a decent amount in his videos and he gives his reasons for it. However, it's not like I can go and ask him to prove his stance game theoretically, if I want to know whether what he says is correct from a game theory point of view, I have to do that myself. Likewise, I have my reasons for what I say but I can't explain them from the exact point of view which you or anybody else (sometimes this includes myself as well) wants to hear, if you want to know if they're correct or not than you need to evaluate them yourself to a standard you're happy with. Even when the people you listen to for advice give their reasons you shouldn't just accept those either.

                                                                                I evaluate pretty much everything new I hear about poker from a basic game theory stand point and if it doesn't make sense to me then it's basically rubbish as far as I'm concerned. If something is possible, such as the optimal solution for dry boards not involving check raising, then it's something that I'll spend more time thinking about. I guess the point I'm trying to make in a roundabout way is that people should try to evaluate things for themselves. I know enough poker jargon and poker pseudo-logic to convincingly argue almost any stance at this stage; why listen to me, I could be just making up convincing nonsense to amuse myself?

                                                                                Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                                                                                I still don't think I've gotten an answer as to why that is the case

                                                                                I read your reply a few times, and I don't think you really answered the question. I was not suggesting that you deliberately take a bad line in order to mix up your play, but rather raising the almost existentialist idea that changing your line will maximise your EV (and help your balance (I fear I might regret that last statement)) for each time you play the hand. 88/99 is a bad example I feel, because bar turning it into a bluff, there really is little case for ever check raising it. Good examples are where there are two or more viable options, where the EV of the hand in a vacuum (to make the argument simpler) is either very hard to calculate (but you don't know which is better), or close enough to not matter much. I don't understand why, in cases like that, a mixed strategy is not superior to a fixed 100% strategy, for balancing reasons, or in fact any reasons.

                                                                                I think I'm old enough now I can call them discussions!
                                                                                88/99 was just to illustrate the idea of almost continuous distributions, you could replace 88/99 with 82/92 or 33/77 on the Q73 flop, the point still holds, the difference in EV will be small whether you play the 100/0 or 50/50 strategy. However, if one hand plays slightly better than the other one way then it should make sense that we can improve our expectation by using a 100/0 strategy rather than a 50/50 strategy. Now, when we expand our range to include a large number of different hands, where each one will play slightly better one way then the other, it becomes a big problem if we're just using a 50/50 strategy.

                                                                                If the EV is exactly the same then it falls under my disclaimer: unless you're on a boundary point. The ability to have mixed strategies is actually crucial for the existence of optimal strategies in poker, although it wouldn't be if poker hands were completely continuous. Like I mentioned there are typically only a couple of boundary points on each street, this is where a mixed strategy might be necessary to ensure perfect balance. However, optimal solutions to real world poker problems aren't precise enough for it to ever really come up. Time for another quote:

                                                                                "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

                                                                                So while there are technically specific points where a mixed strategy might be necessary to find a perfect solution, you're really arguing (sorry, discussing) on the fringes.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                  #41
                                                                                  "morpheus is fighting neo!!!!"

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  Working...
                                                                                  X