Hi,

I have recently started to play higher limit heads up to what i am used to, mostly 10/20 NLH, and I am amazed and how the typical player plays at these limits. I really enjoy playing these levels (even if it is above my bankroll)but I cant understand some of the plays I am seeing.
In short players seem to push on any draw at all, no matter how much is in the pot or what they put you on. I have alreay won and lost 6 or 7 all ins against draws on the flop even though the price doesnt seem to be right (most are calling my bets, not even pushing themselves)
Now I am not one to criticise players who have played at higher levels than me for a while, but what am I missing? I understand that the cards become less irrelevant at the levels, but surely basic maths and theory applies? Are these just bad players I have played or are typical 10/20 players just manic gamblers? I havent played nearly enough hands to get firm stats but these are just first impressions i am getting

any thoughts?

Heads up is like a game of game theory . You try to figure your opponents out before he figures you out . In fact , in the high stakes heads up matches you don't even really need to look at your cards which is a bit of an exaggeration on my part but you get the idea . There is more emphasis on trying to get a read on your opponents betting tendencies than anything else .

Maybe they think you're scared money and are trying to push you out of your confort zone,

or they are dong it to set up a crazy table image,

or they just suck.

Doyle Brunson's supersystem book recommends this. When you have a flush or straight draw on a flop (8 or 9 outs) push allin. The idea being that most of the time people will fold and that the times you do get called you have won enough small pots to cover the fact that you are getting the worst of it against top pair etc.

My only suggestion would be to find these players who will do this regardless of what's in the pot (they are willing to ignore pot odds), then try and play against them as much as possible. I wouldn't know what the odds are for how often this would occur, but the general tactic would be to see as many cheap flops as possible with a strong K Q or Ace and try to get them to go allin on a draw against top pair. You are about a 2-1 favourite in this situation.

I saw that maniacal plays in high stakes. You aren't really on a freeroll like Brunson says when you do this if you play 100BB deep but it makes you unpredictable. However, they PUSH all in on a draw, they don't CALL it unless they are idiots. If they CALL it, then play against them as much as you can and exploit that.

Yeah, this is 100% wrong.

Hume , are you on drugs ??

If this is 100% wrong , then the object of the game is to NOT figure your opponent out before he figures you out .

Wow , you're pretty good !!

LOL

Thanks for such useful insight. I thought the comment was on. Maybe it isn't a comprehensive view, but heads up it certainly a battle of trying to figure out ranges and tendencies, no question about it.

OP, I assume that other players are perceiving you as too tight, if one after another is doing this. Thus fronm their perspective the Fold Equity together with the outs gives them proper odds to push.

Heads up, you simply have to be willing to stand your ground with less than the nuts. Far less than the nuts if opponents routinely do this.

Be careful here, heads up play, especially high stakes hands cannot be analysed in a vacuum. Yes some opponents may be overly aggressive, but there will also be those who are setting up an image and betting pattern thats -EV so you will try to exploit it. They will then in turn exploit your new tendencies (usually in a much beigger pot )
This gives a +EV sequence of hands for your opponents. Also bear in mind that others will be attempting to do just this, but getting it horribly wrong. Maybe these are the players you have come across?

And how exactly do you do that without looking at your cards...

Besides, there exists an optimal solution to HU nl that doesn't take the opponent into consideration at all. This optimal solution would/will most likely beat the best HU players of today for a significant margin.

Yes an optimal solution in theory "exists", but Im pretty sure it hasnt been found yet. I think the bot Phil Laak played recently is the closest seen so far. I do believe it will get there eventually though. 6max is another matter

Knowing your opponents tendencies and looking at your cards are too independent events . What does this have to do with anything ?

Ok, I will play any of you HU. You don't look at your cards, I play higher stakes than I normally play. I've never played higher than 50nl HU, so should be an easy win for you once you've figured out my frequencies.

Do you suffer from reading comprehension?

Did I not say that I was exaggerating when I said you don't have to look at your hole cards . The point I was trying to make is that your hole cards are of less importance at heads up high stakes since many hands don't even go to showdown .

No, he suffers from being a troll. He has deliberately ignored your statement in order to post a whole bunch of gibberish about how dumb you are. He has no interest in working through the actual problem at hand; he would rather address the straw man he created in order to "win' a non-existent argument against a non-existent foe.

Its a personality disorder. The rest of us saw your actual statement, which (I think) meant "your opponents perception of your play is very, very, important," in HU, moreso than in other forms.

And I agree.

I'm concerned about my opponents range. I know mine, bumpkin. And I will adjust mine accordingly after I have some information about his.

There exists an unbeatable strategy for when you only know your own cards and don't do any modeling on the opponent. On the other hand, if aba didn't look at his cards I could beat him and I'm a ridiculously worse player than aba. I agree that hole cards matter less than in other forms of poker but they are still really important.

Maybe I read too much into your previous statement though, or came off as to categorical myself. Sorry about that.

There are many bad players, but it is also possible that you have overlooked the strength of hands you dismiss as draws.

How often does a flush draw win?

The flush hits about 35% of the time, but that's not the same thing as winning.

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=3057682
Board:A 6 2
A K 0.620
9 3 0.380

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=3057686
Board: 8 6 2
A K 0.436
9 3 0.564

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=3057696
Board: 8 6 2
K K 0.537
A 3 0.463

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=3057713
Board: 8 6 2
K Q 0.157
A 3 0.843

>>>There exists an unbeatable strategy for when you only know your own cards and don't do any modeling on the opponent.

What makes you think this? Can you provide a reference/link to substantiate?

Watch out, it'll probably be a Rick Roll.

Well kind of true, there is a unbeatable (notice this does not mean perfect or optimal) stategy for short stacked heads up play if you are the small blind.

It doesn't apply to the big blind unless your opponent is also playing a similar stategy (which is almost never the case) and it doesn't apply to deep stacks.

Mathematics of poker.