***Official uNL Stats Checkup Thread***

[RedJoker]

Also another major benefit to this approach for micro stakes players, and particularly those players moving up to small stakes, is that it forces you to plan your hand and it keeps you out of really marginal spots.

Like if a TAG BTN opens and you 3bet TT from the BB because it's in your 3betting range. He 4bets and you're there making arguments to yourself; oh I've 3bet him twice already he's probably getting sick of me, small stakes is so much more aggressive I can't let him push me around, tic toc tic toc, **** it I'm all-in. He has QQ, son of a goddamn bitch.

A much better thought process in that spot is: I'm not happy getting TT all-in preflop, I can coldcall this profitably so I'm not going to include it in my bluffing range. I call, let's play a flop.

[Pokey]

Geez, RedJoker....If I miss my plane it's your fault.

I think we're agreeing FAR more than it appears in this thread, so let me summarize for the people who think (incorrectly) that we hate each other and are about to throw down.

1. We agree about the "where should I three-bet" stuff. If I've got position on an opponent, I like to three-bet when I can. I also agree that I'm happier three-betting CO's steal from the button than from the blinds because of positional advantages. (However, I'd much prefer cold-calling CO from BTN than cold-calling from the blinds, just because it's SO much easier to turn a potentially unprofitable situation into a profitable one simply by moving from OOP to IP. Also, when you're in position it becomes MUCH easier to float the flop or slowplay a monster, and since you get to see your opponent's actions before you make your move you get many more +EV postflop situations. Therefore, I'd be much more inclined to take the passive line from the button than from the blinds, where I'd just rather resteal and move on with my life.) In my post I was comparing apples to oranges, saying that three-betting from the blinds against a steal attempt by a frequent thief is an almost entirely different situation from any other kind of three-bet, and that as a result we can get away with a wider-than-usual three-betting range because our +EV range is so much larger than it typically would be, so we're in agreement there.

2. Regarding an UTG's range to continue to fight against a three-bet: hmmmm, you're probably right: it's probably narrower than I had originally estimated. However, if you think an UTG raiser only continues with 1/5th of his opening range then you must think that a blind thief who is typically tight but stealing a third of his hands is continuing beyond the flop with something like 1/20th of his preflop raising range. Mind you, I think the thief calls to "see the flop" more often than an UTG raiser, but I think he plays fit-or-fold on the flop. Frankly, I'd much rather have an opponent who calls preflop and folds almost every flop than an opponent who just folds almost all hands preflop -- it creates a much more profitable 3-bet situation, since your average win is markedly higher.

3. We have a fundamental disagreement about win percentages. This could easily stem from the different levels we play, but at $200NL cold-calling pocket pairs to set mine is -EV. My feeling is that a typical player who is not used to blind defense (or who is not GOOD at blind defense) will not be comfortable or adept at spotting good opportunities to "make a move" postflop into a preflop aggressor. They also might not have the gumption to actually pull the trigger even if they spot those opportunities. It happens all the time that someone says "OK, I'll call this $2 raise and then I'll check-raise the flop if it comes with a good resteal opportunity." The flop comes "safe" and villain bets $3. It takes nerves of steel to then actually DO it and fire a $9 bet (18 BBs!) at the preflop and flop aggressor with air. If you have the skill to make these moves when it's appropriate then you can swing an otherwise-unprofitable smooth-call into a +EV move, but I think most people who are struggling to defend the blinds don't have that ability, and when you're cold-calling a 7 BB raise OOP, you've got a looooooooong ways to go to try and get sufficient value out of your set....

4. We did a great deal of quibbling about suited connectors. From my recollection, 2+2ers have been arguing about this topic since the Truman administration. I think much of it is stylistic, to be honest, and your arguments have been quite persuasive for me. I may start three-betting my SCs more often from the blinds (my villains now hate you, RJ). Let's say that "QQ+, AQ+" is a slam-dunk, no-brainer raising range for the both of us, and we're arguing about what's better to add to the 3-betting range: SCs or PPs. Perhaps the answer has been staring us in the face all along, and we just haven't realized it yet: why not raise both? A raising range of "22+, 54s+, AQ+" has us restealing 11% of our hands preflop -- that's one time in nine. It's not SO often that it's going to trigger warning bells for villain, it gives us all the juicy goodness that comes from folding equity, it broadens our defending range, it disguises our hand better, and it still has all the flopability of a nice starting hand. We just got so locked into this "either/or" mentality that we forgot the alternative. Frankly, I wouldn't mind having a wider resteal range, just because it can be so damned effective: in my 25k hands at $200NL I've only had 185 hands where I attempted a resteal from the blinds. (People have only attempted a steal against my blinds 1,930 times, so there's just not much data here yet.) While this isn't much of a sample, I've been winning at a rate of 128 PTBB/100 when I try a resteal, so it seems to be a very effective strategy. In comparison, in the 77 hands where I cold-called a steal I've had a winrate 1/3rd as high, and if you remove the one hand where I slowplayed KK preflop I have a LOSS on the other 76 times that I've cold-called a steal attempt. Maybe I'm just bad at blind defense (a definite possibility!) but my gut feeling tells me that the best defense is a good offense. Why cold-call with ANY of these hands when we could resteal instead? It's not like villains are going to lie down and die when we resteal 8% but suddenly get all ballsy and awesome if we up our resteal rate to 11%....Given my data, restealing is WAY more profitable than cold-calling. Are your results similar? If so, we may have just plugged a leak in OUR games.

5. My comment about "stealing with air being easier than stealing with outs" comes from two places: first is that the steal is +EV on its own merits, and second is that I'd often prefer to fold when villain shows resistance. I went back and did some numbers, and with a healthy number of outs (say, 9+) it's almost never going to be a mistake to get it all-in after we resteal preflop and bet the flop (too much money in the middle already), but it's definitely a rollercoaster ride. Good players can handle that variance, but I'm not trying to preach to the choir, here -- I'm talking to the struggling uNL'er who is inexperienced with blind defense, who may have some tilt issues and who is fundamentally uncomfortable with throwing stacks around with weak hands. The nice thing about pocket pairs is that you can REALLY autopilot them after the flop bet and that's OK. There won't be any hard decisions to face. Suited connectors are a bit more advanced because they require more nuance, a better understanding of the math, and more comfortability with the whole stealing situation. I think I'd still advocate raising only pocket pairs for the beginning blind defender and then having them add in the suited connectors once they get comfortable with the whole concept of blind defense.

6. I'm still not at all convinced that you can profitably cold-call OOP with ANY hands against a blind steal (except for a blatant slowplay with KK/AA or something, which you should do EXTREMELY infrequently, just to mix up your play). Because I deny that premise, I'd prefer to just raise ALL the hands we'd cold-call with and get the uberboost to our winrate from having a wider-than-usual restealing range. Something to remember: while *you* know that you're restealing with 11% of your hands, your *opponent* won't know that. It would literally take tens of thousands of hands for that kind of number to lock up to its true rate. I don't think it's anything to worry about, and I like the benefits of restealing vs. cold-calling entirely too much to give it up on ANY of the hands I'd continue postflop.

7. Regarding the difficulties of postflop play with "weak" resteal hands like TT: first off, that applies to MANY of the hands we've discussed. Second, if we run into the top of his range we're screwed whether we resteal or cold-call. The difficulties of overpair vs. overpair in a raised pot are huge, and whether we resteal or cold-call we run the risk of getting stacked there. So be it -- that's part of the price of playing poker. As to what to do with JJ on a K-high board when we resteal pre and villain raises our c-bet: dump it and move on. Most villains are NOT getting out of line often enough for it to be +EV to defend for our stacks. He REALLY puts his neck on the chopping block when he raises our c-bet, so it gives us the freedom to fold and save 2/3rds of our stack. Just because we say "I'm not happy getting TT all-in preflop" does NOT mean that we shouldn't resteal with it. Remember: villains tend to play a very straightforward game against a resteal because the pot has become large enough that they can't afford to get cutesy. So long as we listen to what our opponents are saying and watch for the (very infrequent) villains who are capable of adjusting to our aggression we'll wind up raking in large sacks of dough by restealing relatively often.

[PKS Ace]

I think Pokey works best when someone tells him he's wrong. I think both Pokey and RedJoker just gave uNL some ridiculously valuable material to think about.

[absoludicrous]

Pokey -

I'd love to hear what you have to say about my stats.

Thx RJ, appreciate the feedback.

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by Pokey

Geez, RedJoker....If I miss my plane it's your fault.

I think we're agreeing FAR more than it appears in this thread, so let me summarize for the people who think (incorrectly) that we hate each other and are about to throw down.

Nice summary. I don't know though, all this mathematics and poker theory is o.k. I guess but we could always just settle this argument by duking it out for a few rounds.

1. We agree about the "where should I three-bet" stuff. If I've got position on an opponent, I like to three-bet when I can. I also agree that I'm happier three-betting CO's steal from the button than from the blinds because of positional advantages. (However, I'd much prefer cold-calling CO from BTN than cold-calling from the blinds, just because it's SO much easier to turn a potentially unprofitable situation into a profitable one simply by moving from OOP to IP. Also, when you're in position it becomes MUCH easier to float the flop or slowplay a monster, and since you get to see your opponent's actions before you make your move you get many more +EV postflop situations. Therefore, I'd be much more inclined to take the passive line from the button than from the blinds, where I'd just rather resteal and move on with my life.) In my post I was comparing apples to oranges, saying that three-betting from the blinds against a steal attempt by a frequent thief is an almost entirely different situation from any other kind of three-bet, and that as a result we can get away with a wider-than-usual three-betting range because our +EV range is so much larger than it typically would be, so we're in agreement there.

Yeah I'm going to have a wider coldcalling range from the button AND a wider 3bet bluffing range. The two aren't mutually exclusive although at first a lot of people would assume so. God I love the button.

3. We have a fundamental disagreement about win percentages. This could easily stem from the different levels we play, but at $200NL cold-calling pocket pairs to set mine is -EV. My feeling is that a typical player who is not used to blind defense (or who is not GOOD at blind defense) will not be comfortable or adept at spotting good opportunities to "make a move" postflop into a preflop aggressor. They also might not have the gumption to actually pull the trigger even if they spot those opportunities. It happens all the time that someone says "OK, I'll call this $2 raise and then I'll check-raise the flop if it comes with a good resteal opportunity." The flop comes "safe" and villain bets $3. It takes nerves of steel to then actually DO it and fire a $9 bet (18 BBs!) at the preflop and flop aggressor with air. If you have the skill to make these moves when it's appropriate then you can swing an otherwise-unprofitable smooth-call into a +EV move, but I think most people who are struggling to defend the blinds don't have that ability, and when you're cold-calling a 7 BB raise OOP, you've got a looooooooong ways to go to try and get sufficient value out of your set....

Nah, I'm playing 200nl as well but a lot of high stakes players disagree about this too. Raptor and Taylor Caby think it's not profitable. BobboFitos, aejones and luckychewy think it is (provided villain isn't extremely good). I think it almost comes down to image, history and game flow. Like if I've been check raising a lot of flops recently, etc. then my implied odds are much higher. If I've only just sat down then I may find it harder to get paid off but my 3bets will likely get more respect.

Well it's like I told the 17/14 player earlier; when your only decision is how much to cbet with AA on A83 you're going to struggle to improve. The same can be said here; if you never coldcall then you'll never acquire the skills to do it profitably.

4. We did a great deal of quibbling about suited connectors. From my recollection, 2+2ers have been arguing about this topic since the Truman administration. I think much of it is stylistic, to be honest, and your arguments have been quite persuasive for me. I may start three-betting my SCs more often from the blinds (my villains now hate you, RJ). Let's say that "QQ+, AQ+" is a slam-dunk, no-brainer raising range for the both of us, and we're arguing about what's better to add to the 3-betting range: SCs or PPs. Perhaps the answer has been staring us in the face all along, and we just haven't realized it yet: why not raise both? A raising range of "22+, 54s+, AQ+" has us restealing 11% of our hands preflop -- that's one time in nine. It's not SO often that it's going to trigger warning bells for villain, it gives us all the juicy goodness that comes from folding equity, it broadens our defending range, it disguises our hand better, and it still has all the flopability of a nice starting hand. We just got so locked into this "either/or" mentality that we forgot the alternative. Frankly, I wouldn't mind having a wider resteal range, just because it can be so damned effective: in my 25k hands at $200NL I've only had 185 hands where I attempted a resteal from the blinds. (People have only attempted a steal against my blinds 1,930 times, so there's just not much data here yet.) While this isn't much of a sample, I've been winning at a rate of 128 PTBB/100 when I try a resteal, so it seems to be a very effective strategy. In comparison, in the 77 hands where I cold-called a steal I've had a winrate 1/3rd as high, and if you remove the one hand where I slowplayed KK preflop I have a LOSS on the other 76 times that I've cold-called a steal attempt. Maybe I'm just bad at blind defense (a definite possibility!) but my gut feeling tells me that the best defense is a good offense. Why cold-call with ANY of these hands when we could resteal instead? It's not like villains are going to lie down and die when we resteal 8% but suddenly get all ballsy and awesome if we up our resteal rate to 11%....Given my data, restealing is WAY more profitable than cold-calling. Are your results similar? If so, we may have just plugged a leak in OUR games.

I agree it's definitely stylistic, however I'd probably put all SCs, suited one gappers and suited aces, and strong suited two gappers in my bluffing range before I'd include PPs because I feel that they balance a lot better with the value part of my range, they add a semi-bluff segment as opposed to a pure bluff segment. But yeah if I'm in a spot where I want to 3bet bluff more than 9% of my range then I'll probably add PPs.

My range for bluffing depends on my range for stacking off though, if I'm only happy getting in with QQ+, AQ+ (3.8% of hands) then I'm pretty limited to how much I can bluff. In some spots I'll want to use a 1:1 ratio, which would be 54s - KQs and 64s - 97s while in other spots I may be using a 3:1 ratio and going mental with anything pretty. So I think it's important to decide what you'd prefer to 3bet bluff and depending on the situation gradually add-in or take away different hands.

5. My comment about "stealing with air being easier than stealing with outs" comes from two places: first is that the steal is +EV on its own merits, and second is that I'd often prefer to fold when villain shows resistance. I went back and did some numbers, and with a healthy number of outs (say, 9+) it's almost never going to be a mistake to get it all-in after we resteal preflop and bet the flop (too much money in the middle already), but it's definitely a rollercoaster ride. Good players can handle that variance, but I'm not trying to preach to the choir, here -- I'm talking to the struggling uNL'er who is inexperienced with blind defense, who may have some tilt issues and who is fundamentally uncomfortable with throwing stacks around with weak hands. The nice thing about pocket pairs is that you can REALLY autopilot them after the flop bet and that's OK. There won't be any hard decisions to face. Suited connectors are a bit more advanced because they require more nuance, a better understanding of the math, and more comfortability with the whole stealing situation. I think I'd still advocate raising only pocket pairs for the beginning blind defender and then having them add in the suited connectors once they get comfortable with the whole concept of blind defense.

You're not forced to call just because you have outs. However, if it's profitable to make the call then bet calling > bet folding. If we're going to fold anyway then having 9 outs = having 2 outs (assuming our opponent shoves or folds) but let's say we need 20% equity to make the call if shoved on, would you rather have 2 outs or 9 outs? I'd much rather have 9 outs because I can then call and claim back some (re: a lot) of my lost EV.

6. I'm still not at all convinced that you can profitably cold-call OOP with ANY hands against a blind steal (except for a blatant slowplay with KK/AA or something, which you should do EXTREMELY infrequently, just to mix up your play). Because I deny that premise, I'd prefer to just raise ALL the hands we'd cold-call with and get the uberboost to our winrate from having a wider-than-usual restealing range. Something to remember: while *you* know that you're restealing with 11% of your hands, your *opponent* won't know that. It would literally take tens of thousands of hands for that kind of number to lock up to its true rate. I don't think it's anything to worry about, and I like the benefits of restealing vs. cold-calling entirely too much to give it up on ANY of the hands I'd continue postflop.

Well then you could just increase the air hands you 3bet instead of using hands you can profitably coldcall. At some point the EV of 3betting a coldcallable hand will outweight the EV of 3betting the worst alternative + opportunity cost I suppose. That's arguing on the fringes though.

7. Regarding the difficulties of postflop play with "weak" resteal hands like TT: first off, that applies to MANY of the hands we've discussed. Second, if we run into the top of his range we're screwed whether we resteal or cold-call. The difficulties of overpair vs. overpair in a raised pot are huge, and whether we resteal or cold-call we run the risk of getting stacked there. So be it -- that's part of the price of playing poker. As to what to do with JJ on a K-high board when we resteal pre and villain raises our c-bet: dump it and move on. Most villains are NOT getting out of line often enough for it to be +EV to defend for our stacks. He REALLY puts his neck on the chopping block when he raises our c-bet, so it gives us the freedom to fold and save 2/3rds of our stack. Just because we say "I'm not happy getting TT all-in preflop" does NOT mean that we shouldn't resteal with it. Remember: villains tend to play a very straightforward game against a resteal because the pot has become large enough that they can't afford to get cutesy. So long as we listen to what our opponents are saying and watch for the (very infrequent) villains who are capable of adjusting to our aggression we'll wind up raking in large sacks of dough by restealing relatively often.

O.k., but we'd rack in even more sacks of dough if we kept the same restealing frequency but used hands which we can't coldcall. Then we gain virtually the same EV from 3betting but a whole new layer of EV from the hands we're now coldcalling.

With JJ on K high, we might as well have had 65s/44 in that spot, they're identical except with JJ we'll often have really awkward decisions.

The best thing about coldcalling these 88 - JJ and AQ/KQ/AJ type hands is that they keep in all the dominated hands which would otherwise be forced out. When we 3bet AJ and get called JJ - AA, AQ+ is a pretty significant part of their range. However, against a loose stealing range those hands are a very small part and things like A2 - AT, J8 - KJ are trapped in the pot with us.

This is more from a theoretical discussion and I definitely agree with you that, for a micro stakes player, having a small coldcalling range and an easy to play 3betting range is perfectly reasonable.

[orig!naL]

Great read! These last two pages should be arranged into a single thread and sticky'd.

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by orig!naL

Great read! These last two pages should be arranged into a single thread and sticky'd.

If you go up to "My 2+2" in the top left you can change your settings so that it shows 100 posts per page, way less clicking then .

[_dave_]

I think both Pokey and RedJoker just gave uNL some ridiculously valuable material to think about.

Indeed, ty both.

[MOTU79989]

What stats should I post, if I need help??

[Skuzzy]

positional stats from PT are good or the HEM equivalents.

[MOTU79989]

How can you post the picture on here??

[orig!naL]

RedJoker/Pokey, can you offer any advice?

After watching the LAG video by mdm13 a couple weeks ago, I've put in a ton of hours overhauling my TAGish game. I used to play around 16/14 and now I've got myself playing around 21/18. I realize this is not a ton of hands, but its something to work with for now and I'd like to know if I'm on the right track.

I feel like I may be playing a little too loose out of the blinds. Should I be folding blinds more? What about WTSD%? Any other things I can look to improve?

Have at it - plz tear my game apart! thx

P.S - I went through the entire conversation between Pokey/RedJoker, threw it into a Word doc and used the highlight feature to highlight everything I thought I needed to pay more attention to. I'm not sure how transferable it is, as I'm sure everyone has different areas of improvement, but if anyone would like the study notes, shoot me a PM and I'll email it to you.

[T-Bird]

Slightly OT, but this is direct at the previous poster:

I play a 16/14 game at the moment and feel like I open a very wide range, especially CO and the Button. I can't see how 21/18 is possible without adding in some really junky hands or playing marginal hands OOP.

Any examples of hands you added to open with from CO/Button as well as the other positions would be great.

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by orig!naL

RedJoker/Pokey, can you offer any advice?

After watching the LAG video by mdm13 a couple weeks ago, I've put in a ton of hours overhauling my TAGish game. I used to play around 16/14 and now I've got myself playing around 21/18. I realize this is not a ton of hands, but its something to work with for now and I'd like to know if I'm on the right track.

I feel like I may be playing a little too loose out of the blinds. Should I be folding blinds more? What about WTSD%? Any other things I can look to improve?

Have at it - plz tear my game apart! thx

P.S - I went through the entire conversation between Pokey/RedJoker, threw it into a Word doc and used the highlight feature to highlight everything I thought I needed to pay more attention to. I'm not sure how transferable it is, as I'm sure everyone has different areas of improvement, but if anyone would like the study notes, shoot me a PM and I'll email it to you.

16/14 is more nitty then taggy fwiw. Your stats look very solid.

Your VPIP from the SB is very tight. There's nothing wrong with this and playing tight OOP is very rarely a bad thing. However, if you wanted to, you could complete a few more hands when there's limpers or attempt to steal the BB when it's folded to you a little more. If you do decide to complete more make sure you take lots of stabs at the limped pots.

Your fold blinds to steal are fine, not overly tight or loose.

63% cbet is on the tight side but not a massive problem.

WtSD is fine, given that you've got a 52% W$SD and a 48% W$WSF it's likely you're running a little hot, how bad huh? Anyway, don't be concerned if one of them drops down a little over the next 10K hands.

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by T-Bird

Slightly OT, but this is direct at the previous poster:

I play a 16/14 game at the moment and feel like I open a very wide range, especially CO and the Button. I can't see how 21/18 is possible without adding in some really junky hands or playing marginal hands OOP.

Any examples of hands you added to open with from CO/Button as well as the other positions would be great.

You don't. As you improve you'll move away from the starting hand chart mentality and your opening range will become dependent on table conditions and your opponents. Sometimes it will be very tight, other times extremely loose.

From UTG a minimum would be 22+, KQ, AQ+, AJs+.
If you wanted to widen your range you could also include all SCs, suited one gappers, suited broadway and AXs as well as AJo.

MP will be pretty similar except that you can open slightly wider, stuff like offsuit broadways and A8o+ become more playable in your wide range. You can add in some of the suited broadways to your tight range, A8s+ would probably be a minimum.

CO tight range would be similar to UTG wide range with the offsuit broadways and A8o+.
Wide range can get very wide depending on table conditions. The tighter the opponents that are left the more stuff you can open. If there's a very weak player in the blinds we can still open wide but with hands that play well postflop, which is where we will inevitably be going.

BTN would have the CO tight range as a minimum as well as anything that looks remotely playable; offsuit connectors, offsuit one gappers, suited two gappers, K9s+, Q8s+, AXo, etc. Although I personally hate playing AXo myself.
BTN wide range can get to ATC and, more often, any two suited cards. It really depends on the table though.

SB opening range depends on the player in the BB, something like CO tight range would probably be a minimum but if the player is very tight then we can go up to BTN wide range.

Obviously if you're a beginning player the wide range doesn't apply to you. For those that are a little more experienced you could try using the wide range for a session or any time you feel like mixing it up. Remember that table conditions are extremely important, trying to force a table of calling stations to stop calling you will be impossible. Personally I use pretty stringent seat selection so that the fish is always on one of the three seats to my right. A fish on your left forces you to tighten way up.