Has a donk on a raggedy board ever meant a hand that will pay off a large bet. Where I play it 90% "Is my pair any good?" 9% "I don't think you hit anything" and I'll reserve 1% for a monster even though I haven't seen a 3 bet out before.

Great game, the sedin sisters got ****ed up today, Kobe was at the game I'm proud he showed up.

LA is up 3-0 "Kings Canada's real team"

Brown is such a ****in beast, he knocked out H. Sedin. Sedin was on the ice tapping on the boards he stood up and was out.

Ashley I commend you for your comments. I guess it all depends on if you win the hand or not. The 3bet in low stakes with marginal holdings is like 3 pointers at the buzzer when you need 2 points for the win. Both shots can win the game. I'm just the type to go for the 2 then the 3, hope that analogy makes sense.

ashley, please don't chunk up the whole thing in a single post. It's like trying to have a conversation with an old lady who just goes on and on about everything and you're expected to somehow go back and respond to each of her points.

LOL hell no...

Thats like saying I should fold AA because the gutshot was going to get there...

We are talking about preflop. When the flop hits you know the equity. So that's totally different.

3betting light specifically. We wouldn't be having this convo talking about AA.

Before we go further, can you confirm whether you are serious or trolling ala the 100% EV discussion...

What? Can you be more specific? In regards to 3betting light, galfond,limon and bart hanson says its a losing proposition.

I don't troll we are having a discussion on stacking off 500 aipf with AJo. Which basically 3betting light for no reason.

While the +1 points where probably a bit overboard, the fact no-one addressed the fact that the stove only addressed the exact hand, rather then a range, was kinda concerning, as well as some of the other stuff.

Not saying the Stovee (is that a word?) didnt understand the concept, but the fact that no-one asked would be very concerning if one of my students told me he/she got it in with AJ once, because they have A9 in their range...

Not all of us can live on here, particularly Australia, where the last thing I want to do after a 8 hour session when Im ready to go to bed is stay up another 3hrs to discuss the finer arts of LLSNL.

---------

Pokah, Im not talking about the merits of 3betting. Im talking about this comment.

If you are judging your decisions by whether you win the hand or not you are looking at things the wrong way.

Quick Example.

Villian raises, folds to us with XxXx

If we reraise, he will fold 95% of his range, the other 5% he will go all-in, and we will only call with 1% of our range (AA and KK)

Assuming villian never compensates, we should raise 100% of the time and make an immediate profit, even though he is going to go all in 5% of the time.

In this case, in YOUR opinion, is the raise correct 95% of the time, or 100% of the time

Again, this is a simple example but simple examples are the easiest way IMO to get some concept across before using real world situations.

It was analogy, not a very good one because you didn't understand.

This conversation reminds me of this.



Im not talking about the exact points of three betting, you may be right, you may be wrong.

Im talking about the fact you are judging a play and whether it was a good play or not by whether you win the hand or lose the hand. That sentence is mind-boggling if so.

RE the basketball analogy: The choice of shot given you are one point down would purely come down to which bucket you make the most often. Normally if you could make a 2 65% of the time, and this particular 3 60% of the time, you take the 3 because of the additional point.

At the end of the game you take which ever has the highest success rate. However, if the opposition knows you need only a bucket to win, they will cover the lane far more closely and allow a higher % shot from outside the arc (Lin vs Raptors comes to mind).

Its a terrible analogy with regards to 3betting though, completely out of left field... though

Also

Is either a lie, or a troll

mindblown

First off about trolling. Its a word only used on the forums. Its something I had to google. Now every time I watch dora and see the troll, I think of 2+2.

Yes, I talk about people on here. We call it clowning where I'm from.

The part your in question of, was only to make my analogy more useful to the convo. I ****ed up and I won't bring up analogies on a poker forum any more.

All I will say about 3betting light now, Is that the higher the spr the more skill is involved. I'm a student of the game. My advantage on my opponents are my postflop skills, edge is what 2+2 calls it.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with the blanket statement "Higher SPR = more skill involved". Even for push-bot games like HU turbo SNGs, there can be an extremely high level of skill to know the millions of scenarios perfectly, though they may only be 10BB deep (this is why Olivier Busquet for example has $1mil+ profits in a game that is apparently "solved"). I think rather than there being "more skill" in higher bb games, there is more manouverability, pots get bigger and so, someone who is betting has more chance to capitalize because there is more money at stake. It also lets you depart from a straight-forward TAG preflop game because we're deep enough to play some more speculative hands that we can out-play people post-flop with due to the depth. I mostly agree and maybe it's just semantics, but rather than say "more skill" I'd just say that edges become magnified for those who are more skillful. Being a successful LAG is difficult at 100bb.

@PokahBlows

Do you judge any poker play, by whether you win the pot or not?

No, I judge it by the math. If the math says its the correct play, then I can't argue about it.

Without pokerstove I would be insane and quit poker along time ago.

Okay.

So if the math dictates that a light 3bet will work often enough to show an immediate profit (such as the simple example i showed before) ASSUMING THAT OUR VILLIAN NEVER ADJUSTS should we make that play 0%, 50%, 95% or 100% of the time given that villian will fold 19 times out of 20?

What about psychological effect of losing an all in hand, or the effect of playing a session down a BI, or several other factors that we are not considering when we shove pre with < 50% equity?

In a perfect world if a guy is folding 19/20 times to our 3bet I would 3bet him with ATC.

Answer: 100% of the time.

Let's set the premise here. Are we talking about 3-betting light or 3-betting shove preflop light?

Not sure if you mean either more or less then 50% equity (sign says less than, but post means more as I read it), but anyway, looking at both

WHEN WE HAVE MORE

Psychologically if losing one "coinflip" where we have somewhere between 55-65% equity completely damages us for the rest of the session then poker as a serious form of either primary or secondary income probably shouldnt be an option.

Bankroll effects could be a factor as per the Kelly Criterion. Im a numbers fish but Im pretty sure that we should still be taking up all but the absolute thinnest of spots for the most part.

WHEN WE HAVE LESS

Im sure you already know this, but obvious having less then 50% is okay if we only require 33.3% if we are getting 2:1 etc...

Its not a complete disaster if sometimes we have less then the required equity vs a certain hand, but enough equity against their range. i.e I dont feel bad getting it in with JJ against QQ when the other person has a range of 77+ AJ+

That kind of thing doesnt really effect, because I find it pretty easy to think of the long run, and am relatively well rolled for the game, and am not going to be depending on poker for the very longterm (till university finishes).

I can understand if it annoys other people though, and really, other than keeping thoughts of the long run and how it evens out etc... I dont really know any way to get over the mental "hump" of starting a session stuck

FWIW I went something like 14 session once where I would be stuck either 15 big bets ($300) or a BI ($200 at the time) within an hour every single time. Didnt always get unstuck, but getting through that three weeks was quite an achievement for me, particularly the last session where I lost QQ < 44 AIPF for stacks, and managed to turn that into my biggest ever winning day in terms of BIs (13 I think was the final result, shame it was the old 2/3 200max and not 2/5 500max)

So let me summarize what you said in a shorter sentence. You are essentially saying that there should not be any psychological effect if you are properly rolled and understand variance?

So what's your point ashley? Should we be flipping any chance we get when we are ahead?

Or should we be waiting for 60%+ equity situations. I hope you pick the latter.

Cool

Just that I thought with the "play is a good play if you win the pot" that you may answer 95%.


The premise was 3betting light with room to fold to his 4bet shove range. Obviously the play wont work 100% of the time (since he has shove hands sometimes) but the question for those I ask is whether you still make the play 100% of the time, and whether its a good play 100% of the time or not (in a vacuum)

Again, it came from the comment, possibly out of context/wrongly interpreted by me, that its a good play if you win the pot.

Since we wont win 100% of the time, I was just curious if Pokah would answer 100% or 95%. A student of mine had trouble grasping this concept (it was slightly different) a few months ago and I was wondering whether it was they just didnt "get it" or I was explaining it wrong. Definately adding this example to my notes though.

Yes, but just because there shouldn't be doesnt mean that there isnt, and its up to the individual to decide whether they can accept positive and negative variance and treat both the same. (to butcher a Wimbledon? phrase)

If we are ahead we arent really "flipping" its a weighted coin. We want to get our money in when "ahead" in general (there are tournament situations that differ, but thats another story for another time). Again, assuming we dont tilt at the thought of losing a pot.

In exactly neutral EV spots (e.g we expect to have 20% pot equity, we are getting exactly 4:1 on our money) its person dependent and situation dependent.

In short buy-in game I would prefer to gamble with the chance to play a bigger stack, especially if there are a few deep fish.

If Im deep and am covering the players I expect to have an edge, im more inclined to fold in a vacuum.

My point was twofold in relation to some of your other comments.

1) We shouldnt judge our play by whether we win or lose

2) Just because we dont have the required equity against a hand, we can still have it vs their range.

I had more to post, but Im heading out and wanted to get this posted before I left.

Again, I mean no disrespect to either of you, but that doesnt mean I wont disagree at certain points