Hmm. I mostly base it on the player who opened. How he reacts to 3bets, how he plays in raised pots as the pfr. If someone calls too many 3bets, I'm more likely to 3bet him with KJo and less likely to with 76s. If someone calls too few 3bets, I'll do the opposite.

If someone plays especially bad as the pfr in a raised pot, cbets 100% of flops and goes broke with any piece, or cbets a lot but folds anythign but he nuts to a raise, or only cbets when he hits and otherwise gives up the pot, I might prefer to just call rather than 3bet to let him make these mistakes.

If someone 3bets you, you should consider the size of their 3bet, stack sizes, how often (and what type of hands) they 3bet, how they play postflop in 3bet pots, and how often they fold to 4bets. (and your hand) I think the adjustments for each of these factors should be easy to figure out.

In position, be more likely to call, oop be more likely to 4bet or fold.


It's tough to give you advice on this. We all know what hands are better than others. It's just a matter of where the cutoff is. And that depends on the many factors listed above.

You should almost never be checking very strong hands as the pfr. You should check some complete misses on flops likely to hit your opponent, like if you raise UTG with 44 and button calls, flop J97 two tone. Just c/f. You should be checking back with a lot of midpair or Ace high type hands. Sometimes with gutters or flushdraws, and occasionally with weak TP so that you can call down and discourage him from always bluffing you.

It's more dependent on the board than your hand. If you think it's very likely that the board hit your opponent, or that it's a board he might make a play on, just give him the pot once in a while.

Remember, none of this matters against a weak straightforward opponent. Just pound on him.

As jfish said, experience and pokerstove are a big part of it.

The most important bit of quick advice I could give is to ask yourself 'why' all the time.

Why is he betting this turn?

Why did he call flop and bet river when I checked behind on the turn? What could he do that with? What is he thinking? What does he want me to do?

Why did he raise to that amount? What's he trying to accomplish? Does he want to look strong or weak? Does he want me to fold or call or shove?

Your opponent is doing everything for a reason, whether it's a good or bad reason. If you can figure out those reasons, you can figure out his hand.

Here we go: Do you play on Stars? If you do what is your handle?

Can you put this pic in your avatar?

Good question.

I understand your comparison. Let me first answer why I think being a poker pro isn't unethical, and then talk about the comparison.

My opponents know what they're getting into, or it's their own fault if they don't. The rules of poker are very clearcut and well known.

We're playing a game. A competition. Maybe it's different for me because I'm competitive, but if I wanted to play tennis against Andy Roddick, I would want him to try his hardest. If people are playing poker for competition or fun, and they sit with me, I would think they'd want me to work hard to beat them. They would like there to be pros to compete against.

Then there are people who play just to gamble. Some are addicted, some aren't. Either way, they're going to gamble somewhere, and probably somewhere where they're a favorite to lose. If I don't play poker with them, someone else will, or they'll bet on horses, or blackjack.

In reality, I'm in competition with all of you, the other poker pros, not the fish. We're racing to get their money, and then a bit from each other.

If I didn't play poker, every addicted person would lose just as much money. In fact, if no poker pros existed, almost every gambling addict would lose just as much money, either to the casual poker players, or to other games.

I suppose that if gambling didn't exist at all, there would be no gambling addicts. But that's an impossibility pretty much. And many would-be gambling addicts would find something else to ruin their lives with.

So, on to the comparison with drug dealers. I suppose we aren't that different. Most of what I said above could be said for dealers.

The main difference, besides the legality of it which is not a good argument, is that I don't go searching for people to make them addicts. I don't give free samples to random people to let them get hooked. I guess poker sites do though.

The fact of the matter is, that logically, if a drug dealer never goes out of his way to get new people addicted, he probably has no negative impact on the world. The people who come to him for drugs would find them elsewhere.

I guess if someone comes to him for drugs, but wouldn't have found any and given up had he not been there, he is somewhat responsible for getting them addicted. Other than that instance, he probably isn't hurting the world as a whole by dealing.

I'm fairly sure that I've had a net positive impact on the world, and that I'll continue to even moreso in the future. That's enough for me to feel good about what I do.

Hahahahahahahaha.

If you buy me a drink next time we're in the same place, and you swear to keep it a secret, I'll tell you.

I usually jump right in, like you said, since I know most of the players. If there's a brand new name at 300/600 hu, I'll usually jump in, but proceed with caution. Sometimes I prefer to not play and watch as he plays someone else.

I definitely think people play worse/better depending on how they're doing, but in about 75% of the games I play, I feel my edge is significant enough that it doesn't matter what mood they're in. Against the tougher 25% of opponents I play, I definitely pass on some games if they're running good and I am not.

ty

Actually, I'm very friendly with whitelime and wouldn't play him hu even if I he weren't a great player, which he is.

I usually won't play genius HU either. If I think he's unfocused, or I feel especially good, I will, but 90% of the time I won't.

I feel the same way about Patrik actually. I suppose I'm more likely to play Genius than Pat, because Pat never plays below 200/400, but I think they are very close in skill level.

The main reason I don't like to play Pat is that I think my edge is very small, or occasionally negative, and he only plays very high stakes with a very high variance style. There are just much better, and much less risky spots.

TY Gtr.

The truth is, very little can be taken from SNGs and applied to cash, much like very little can be taken from cash and applied to SNGs. It's a completely different game. Those who succeed at one are likely to be able to succeed in the other, but they have to relearn everything.

I guess I had trouble at first learning to push small edges. In SNGs you usually don't want to get it in as a 55/45 fave, but in cash you do. That makes the correct play in SNGs often to take down the pot when you have the best hand, rather than risking getting sucked out on to get more value.

I had a lot of SNG turn cash players show me hands where they pot the flop and turn with KJ on K763r board to 'let them know I have a big hand' or 'not let them draw at their straight'

I dunno if you do that or not, but basically what I'm saying is, be willing to risk losing the pot to max your value, and don't over-rep your good hands.

Trying to showdown winners rather than squeeze value out definitely falls under this category.

I definitely could, but I don't want to try and die.

tyty

Awesome thread. When you're playing HU against somebody you've never played before, how much do you try to get into their heads? IE, are you willing to make some bad plays intentionally and lose some money to set them up (this probably was more effective before people knew who you were)? I ask this because I'm trying to become a good HU player, and I've noticed that if I play very loose for the first 20-30 hands and show down a couple bad bluffs, suddenly I can take people to valuetown.

This is a tough question. Even though it's a specific scenario, it's kind've asking how to play poker in general.

What I can say on the topic:

Innocuous flops make for some very interesting psychological battles. There are very few hand combinations that connect well with a K83r flop, so it's very much a matter of how often your opponent will play fast with a set, KQ, K5, and how often he'll bluff. All of that is your job to figure out.

As for playing back at it, a float looks much much more credible, but most people won't 4bet bluff a K83r flop for most of their stack. So, sometimes a 3bet bluff is better. It all depends on your opponent.

Something to think about: If you have 76cc on a Kd8c3s board, 1/3 of turns give you 8+ outs to (call or) shove over a turn bet with. A few more turns give you a pair to shove or call with too.

Any club (9), 9 (3), 5 (3) and then 3 6s and 3 7s.

I may write a book. I'm not sure.

I have never felt bad about winning a bunch, no. My goal when I sit down is to win a bunch, so if I feel bad when I do that would be silly.

I think your study/play ratio should have a lot to do with your future goals. If you plan to play for a while, I'd make it a point to improve as much as possible, as it will pay off down the road. That might mean more studying. If you just want to make a few bucks this year, play more.

That said, playing is an important part of the learning process. Probably more than studying.

Where are you getting this info from? I'm not disagreeing with you but this is the first I've heard of these ideas.

Interesting post. I don't know much about Freud, or psychology in general. Well, by that I mean I haven't studied it much. I think I understand people fairly well though.

I just read a bit about the Id, ego, and superego. I think I'll just explain how I feel in my terms so I won't confuse myself and cause a misunderstanding.

The most important thing to consider during a hand is how your opponent will reason in that situation.

However, there are an infinite amount of situations that may arise when playing poker. Even two identical scenarios aren't actually identical, as the second occurs at a different time with different history between players.

A player's reasoning process in a certain situation is based on his personality, in a sense. (It's also based on his intelligence and how he thinks about poker in general. I guess we can call all of that combined the 'poker personality')

So, when a hand is played, you try to figure out your opponents reasoning process in that hand. You use all of the hands you've seen to inform your knowledge of his poker personality, which you then use to estimate how he'll handle a new situation.

all past hands (reasoning process) -> poker personality -> this new hand (reasoning process)

It's late, and I'm out of it. I hope that wasn't gibberish.

Heh. $4.7k on a TV. Holla!

Thank you

I can't really give you quick advice that will make it much easier. It's still poker.

Just realize that as you move up, opponents will get better, and you need to play differently vs better opponents.

Also remember not to lose confidence just because it's higher stakes. These players are playing the same game you are with the same rules. Don't be intimidated.

I think it's less of a factor than most people think. I suspect that it feels like the losing player is getting run over more than he actually is. Selective memory type thing.

Momentum definitely plays an part in HU matches though. I think that most of it has to do with the fact that people play worse and less decisively when stuck. They don't trust their decisions as much. The opposite is true for players who are running better.

Also when players are losing, they often go on autopilot and hope to run good. Players who are winning think about every hand and look for any +EV spot. This might have the effect of the losing player not fighting for the small pots.

Someone losing is often scared to make correct plays because they feel their opponent is inside their head. They can envision their (good) river bluff getting snapcalled with bottom pair, so they opt not to make it. Things like that.

As far as adjustments, you just have to make sure you're thinking things through the right way. If you notice yourself feeling like your opponent is more likely to flop a hand than he actually is, you need to quit, or figure out how to get your head straight. He's no more likely to flop a set than anyone else is, even if he's hit the last 10 flops hard.

You have to fight the images burned in your mind of him consistently raking in pots, making the right calls, and hitting big hands time and time again with logic and math.

Some good thoughts, I tend to over analyze/ hype higher games just because they are for more money. We're still playing hold'em and I think I'm pretty good at it, having confidence is obviously important when moving up.

An unrelated question: At what point do you think players cannot rely on good game theory and strategical knowledge, without the intelligence to get into higher levels of thinking? I don't know how well I'm articulating this, I guess at what point can people not win because they are simply not smart enough? Like, they have done all the studying and work on their game that they can.

I kind of feel the same way as the other guy (5/10 and 10/20 player looking to move up eventually), and part of it is because I just feel that the players' skill level makes a big jump at 25/50 and above. For example, look at this hand played by cts over a year ago. It's really hard for me to understand his thought process in a hand like that, and it's only a level higher than 10/20.

Gold Jerry Gold

Derive the theory of relativity please, havent heard that one in 25 years !

Nice post Jman

Phil, amazing thread so far. I'll steer away from the strat questions to give you a break...

On HSP, we saw you play against Hellmuth, Negreanu, Harman, Jamie Gold, Brandon Adams, Sammy, and Eli. After you, who is the best NLHE cash player from that group, and who are the two worst? I know you don't want to "talk bad" about anyone, but since these people are all playing 300/600, I don't think anyone would be offended if you called them the worst player out of that group.

Jman, if you make it this far with the questions...

You mentioned a while back in this thread that you didn't think your recent river c/r article was very good. I actually thought it was pretty good, and it opened me up to recognizing and thinking about those kind of situations in a way I hadn't before. After not totally understanding it the first time I re-read it and have been thinking quite a bit about it recently. One of the things that I found quite interesting was that between two thinking players the situation on the river is actually fairly well-defined and so more obviously susceptible than other spots in NLHE to game theoretical analysis, range balancing etc (I may just be talking crap there)

So anyway before I incorporate it verbatim into my game I wanted to ask, was there anything in it that you think on reflection is actually incorrect or wrongly emphasized? Or did you just feel it wasn't written that well?

Well only reason I can think of is rake. If there were no rake and same stacks I really dont see why a sng or cash game would be that different.

I play Hu sngs mostly, but now I changed to cash Hu. Befoure it was much better to play sngs becouse of rake. Is there really so much difference? humm Comments would be apriciated.

Do you coach live and if for how much? Do you play omaha hi/lo? Would you like to see omaha hi NL on tilt?

gl

Oh, what u had against cacambo board [Qs Kc 3s 6h 5d] Total pot $64,200. I understand if u dont want to tell...

What can I say that hasn't already been said, other than that having taken the time to read thru these 48 pages has been the most insightful thing ive done/read since i started playing.

Unlike my parents, yours must be very proud.

***, it sucks to be **** at this game.

jman,

if aba played a $500 SnG, would he be + or - EV and is it close? Assume he just sits down without prior deep strategy of endgame strategy, but that he can apply common sense such as shoving a bunch 4 handed, tightening up ur calling range in the same situation etc.