You are welcome to believe as you will. Learning can happen in threads that I don't start.

This is fair. Now read Captain R's responses to me ITT (it starts in the late 80s) and tell me who is the one who broke civility or who is the one that treated the other unfairly.

You are welcome to your own construction of past events and my goals. Just as Captain R is welcome to his. I will stand on the assertion that my statement is in alignment with my actions.

I'm not sure what this refers to. Can you be more specific?

Please be specific about "the other stuff." As far as I can recall, my only shot directly at Captain R was post #98. After that, I walked away and redirected back into the thread at #107.

The assumption that you're taking into these elastic situations is that everyone plays in precisely the way you think they do. You believe that you've got your game pegged perfectly where you know precisely what everyone is doing and thinking at every step of the way.

But recognize that you're on an extremely fine tightrope where being slightly wrong in just a couple places in your assumptions can tip things dramatically. Among other things, most players are not robotic. Habitual, yes. Robotic, no.

Real life poker has people sometimes doing things they shouldn't do. That includes you. You may not be particularly vulnerable to being "outplayed." But you are vulnerable to their mistakes causing you to misread situations. Their mistake leads to your mistake, except that your mistake is the expensive one. That is the danger of playing a super-fine-tuned game against specific players.

It's very easy to fall into that trap of "so-and-so *should have* done X with Y" and closing your mind off to various possibilities. For example:

Perhaps you think he does, and perhaps he should. But you seem to have admitted earlier in the thread that Joker's preflop game can be a bit inconsistent and that he sometimes does things he shouldn't. These variations matter, and they especially matter when the pot is big.

Maybe you fold sets here 100% of the time. (Correctly or not.) And you can write that into your calculation and get a certain EV for various decisions. But if that assumption is wrong, and maybe you end up calling sometimes because there are just some times you can't bring yourself to do the thing you know you're supposed to do.

That's the reason that 3-betting can be right even if the strict poker logic says it's wrong. As your hand gets closer and closer to the top of your range, you should be more inclined to make the mistake of putting in one too many bets instead of one too few.

-----

I'll come back to this. The 3-bet number seems too high, but I'll need to reread all of your assumptions to see how they connect to the calculation.

Maybe if you played around with Flopzilla, you could give a seminar on how to use it, instead of complaining about how nobody wants to learn.

Why not give a seminar on Flopzilla? Because I know enough to know that I don't know it well enough to do so. And why not try to learn it well enough to actually give a tutorial? It doesn't have much value to me. I don't actually care that much about Flopzilla.

My comment was pointed directly at the direction of comments made in this thread, and not at some abstract idea of learning. Quite literally, I was told that my assumptions "suck" and that "a realistic number may be closer to 90% or closer to 10%" (which one is supposedly meant to interpret as "a realistic number might be above 70% or below 30%").

This is an empty criticism. The numbers are not validated by any methodology at all. And so it's just a pointless "NUH-UH." The fact that not even the slightest hint of effort was put into the criticism other than the mashing of a keyboard is what I'm taking as "not much interest in learning." I would have been completely open to someone taking the situation to Flopzilla and telling me that under conditions X the probability of being outkicked is Y%. I would have learned something (either confirming that I was right or discovering I'm wrong) and probably the person doing the simulation would have learned something because this isn't the sort of thing that I think a lot of people do.

[And with regards to the comment that these aren't numbers you can actually apply, I think it would be absolutely devastating to the argument that you should call in the SB with Q5o if there's a 90% you're outkicked when you flop top pair, and you really ought to know what conditions those are if you play in loose-passive games because getting in with broadway+no kicker from SB in an unraised multiway pot is a thing that happens somewhat often.]

Again, I'll point out that DD came in and pointedly discussed a specific statement he viewed as an error with a warning about how to approach learning. The response? "Oh yeah. I can learn stuff." And then no discussion about the thing that was pointed at until I specifically raised it later. And you know what? There's a conversation and learning happening now. TDK has made his assumptions, but has apparently come up with a counter-intuitive result that needs to be resolved. It might just be a mistake, or it could be that the result is correct. We don't know, but we're going to find out.

So as much as certain posters want to complain about me, and however they want to characterize my posting, there's evidence that I'm *actually* leaning into the learning.

I need to amend this because I did call Captain R a liar in #131. I don't view it as a shot as much as it is just an assessment of his explanation of his statement, but it can certainly be taken as one.

These statements seem to contain the necessary information.

1) It looks like you're using 15% as an estimate for the probability that you have a flush. I think that's an estimate based on the 17.5% and the 13.4% numbers.

2) You're 4-betting the nuts (3 hands), which you're saying is 5.7% of your range. This seems to be calculated based off of the 40 hands you listed plus 12 KQo combos for a total of 52 hands.

3) You're calling with your non-nut flushes, which is 4 hands out of 52, which is about 7.7%.

4) The 17.3% number is from your calls with two pair or better, but not flush hands. I think that's your 6 sets plus 3 suited KJ (which should probably only be 2 suited KJ since the K and J on the board are different suits).

5) 69.3% is the remaining times you don't call.

6) You didn't calculate the 3-bet correctly when considering the times you fold. The last number in that line should be 17 and not 18. That's where the inflation came from.

I will reproduce the calculation more equitably. You're going to raise the nuts. You're going to only call with sets and not two pair.

0) I think your hand count is wrong. I can't reconcile the "suited kings" number. There are 2 KJs hands and 3 KTs. There's also 3 KQs, but if you count those in there, then you only have 9 KQo hands. So something is wonky. Your AKs hands are in your AK listing. So I'm going to use the following hand count:

KTs (3)
KQs/KQo (12)
AK (12)
AA (6)
KJ (2)
Sets (6)
Flushes (7 -- 3 nut flushes + 4 non-nut flushes)
TOTAL == 48 hands

Calling:

An estimate is not good for a direct comparison. So this will be done with the exact values in the 48 hand count.
* You will 3-bet with the nuts, which is 3 hands.
* You will call with with non-nut flushes, which is 4 hands.
* You will call with everything else.
* BB will lose with everything.

EV[Call] = 6.3% * (-3) + 8.3% * (-2) + 85.4% * (17) = 14.16

3-Betting:

* You will 4-bet with the nuts, which is 3 hands.
* You will call with non-nut flushes, which is 4 hands.
* You will call with sets, which is 6 hands.
* You will fold everything else.
* BB will call with everything and lose with everything.

EV[3-bet] = 6.3% * (-4) + 8.3% * (-3) + 12.5% * (19) + 72.9% * (17) = 14.27

Miscellaneous Comments:

* I don't know that you call with top pair for one more bet. If you fold that, the EV of calling goes down and makes 3-betting more profitable.
* If BB wins, it should hit both scenarios in basically the same way. The total EV will go down, but I don't expect that the difference to change much.
* At the end of the day, the question is still basic: He is wagering 1 BB to win 2 BB. If that ratio holds in the hands you call with, it's a win for him. You have 7 hands that beat him. If he gets a call out of 3.5 hands of your remaining range, it's +EV to 3-bet. That's about half the time you hold a set.

I think you're getting really close to a breakthrough!

So if you don't really care about learning how modern poker players study modern poker, what is it that you care about deep down inside? What have all your posts really been about?

It took me some time to process the sheer irony of this specific accusation.

The premise that if I wanted to learn about poker, that I would be giving seminars about poker seems patently absurd to me. And that "learning" poker means "learning every single tool that 'modern poker' players use"? Are modern poker players completely helpless without Flopzilla?

Or that because *I* am not particularly interested in learning how to use Flopzilla at some high level that it means I can't anything new in poker? Not to mention the kind of crap that gets thrown at me because of what is perceived to be my playing level:

I could easily turn this around: If this is what it means for people to be "interested in learning" then why is it that *NOBODY* is giving Flopzilla lessons? If there were an interest in supporting newer poker players, why doesn't one of the players who actually plays a lot of poker these days do this sort of thing?

There's a good reason I really don't care what the opinion of certain segments of the forum think about me.

Because flopzilla isn't the tool of choice for the cool kids?

Serious answer:
The real solvers don't really require a lot of forum discussion. The people who use them well don't share for free. Sometimes you can make DonJuan mad enough in some post to share some real sims. There was one thread where Lawdude made OnTheRail15 mad enough to share some real GTO strat, it was like the best thread of that year.

When you and I learned poker, we discussed hands on forums, it was a really good way to get better. Shortly after, I think that hand history review from online hands was the route. The monthly HH thread on these forums was a gold mine of learning. Now? People are renting server time to solve spots using tools that cost real $. The way you get better at poker is less about arguing spots, because the solvers are so good. Even in multiway pots. Heck, bots crushed 6m PLO a few years ago, even up to the mid-stakes. So the idea that humans have some special poker abilities in "complex situations" is fantasy at this point. Lucky for all of us, the Bellagio 20/40 will always be good. A few other mid/high stakes games will likely be decent for a long time. Then, maybe mix games will save us poor humans?

Glad to hear about the B's 20 game.

When I look through this forum, here are the stakes of the games I see:

15/30 live
4/8 live
4/8 live
4/8 live
4/8 live
8/16 live
8/16 live

I will freely grant that higher level poker is simply tough these days, especially online. But these aren't the games that players are discussing here. I had to go back to a May thread before finding the most recent online game post, and that was for a 0.25/0.50 6-max.

Is the average competition at any of the games that are discussed in this forum at the level of requiring super-secret methods of advanced solvers? Probably not, but I could be wrong.

I have no aspiration to go to the next level up. I have neither the time nor the desire to fight to be competitive in those more difficult games. It's just not worth the effort.

If it's necessary to be renting server time to beat these games (4/8 to 15/30 live, or 20/40 Bellagio), but at the same time nobody wants to say anything about their simulations/experiences to reveal any knowledge, it once again challenges the raison d'etre of this forum.

Of course, I don't believe that those games are so tough as to require this, but I live in Vegas and have no idea what a random 15/30 game in some other part of the US is like. I still believe low/mid-stakes games are beatable with solid fundamentals, and that honing those fundamentals is both entertaining and profitable for those who want to put in the effort.

Edit: And I'll still note that someone who is considered to be a good player in this forum came out with the estimate of 10% to 90% being outkicked when flopping a top pair no kicker from the small blind. The fact that this was uttered tells me that there's still plenty of low-hanging learning fruit to be had because everything I've seen tells me it's just a terrible estimate. I think the "call or fold QTo from the button after 5 or 6 limpers" is at least academically interesting in terms of how one understands the value of multiway spots and how one approaches those situations (though such situations are becoming much more rare). And certainly there are tools and databases that can shine some light on those questions. But, of course, discussions of these things require people to be forthcoming with their assumptions/simulations/whatever.

Or we can just state our beliefs and call it a day.

Again, you are literally changing what I said. You stated the chance of being outkicked was ~50% (45%), and I said that was a useless calculation.

Here's an example of where the number is closer to 10% (than 50%). Yes, that actually means it could be under 30%.

In the games I play, nobody open-limps any Q that they are going to play. A reasonable range estimate is something like QJs+ in EP, QTo+ in MP, and any Qx they are going to play in LP they are going to open-raise. The rest of their Qx hands they will probably fold. So in a situation where two people open-limp in early and middle position, their ranges are decapitated at something like T9s-, small pairs, possibly AWs (though they will usually raise these also). Basically multiway hands that aren't strong enough to open-raise.

If you see two people open-limp in front of you, QJo is an easy raise, probably QTo also, because of aforementioned weak open-limping ranges. There could be combos of Q9s they would overlimp, but that's a pretty reasonable range estimate.

So yes, in this game when 3 people limp to you in the SB, the chances of you being outkicked with Q5o are "closer to 10%" than 50%.

Now obviously the "closer to 90%" case is pretty unlikely and was said purely for effect. I thought that was obvious, but I guess Aaron W. is only able to take things at level 0.

By the way, even this calculation is a stupid way to approach the problem, as already explained by others in this thread. The fact you fixate on the number as if the calculation is meaningful, is pretty telling. Even a simple equity calculator will give a much better approximation on whether a hand is profitable or not, which is your first-level determination on whether to play Q5o or not.

Merry Christmas.

You were so close, and then you went back to blaming the external.

I'll jump in when you're close again.

Meh -- This is like when you trying to lecture me on the importance of loyalty to your friends, how insider information is super-super important, and all sorts of other things you tried to lecture me on in that thread because I told you that closing down credit cards as a means to improve your credit score was a bad idea.

We come to the table with vastly different ideas of how the world works.

Edit: If you want to believe the implication "If you wanted to learn poker, then you would be giving Flopzilla seminars," then so be it.

A few points:

1) The calculation was *explicitly* dependent upon having 6 opponents in a limped pot. So this isn't even an appropriate comparison to the situation that was being discussed.

2) "In the games you play" I'm having trouble picking out ranges for what ranges a 7-handed pot would have. It seems that if QTo is a raise after two limpers, that Q9o would still be playable. That makes quite a lot of hands playable for the remaining seats. So I'm still skeptical that you actually get this value down to 30%.

(Edit: I think you should also weigh in on the QTo from the button thread.)

3) No person in their right mind use the phrase "closer to 10%" when they mean "less than 30%." Just be truthful and admit that you were exaggerating and stop trying to post-hoc justify the stupid things you've said. It's so much simpler to say "I was exaggerating to make a point" and not "I said closer to 10% because I meant less than 30%."

Edit:

4) And I reject the premise that estimates like this are "useless." It's an estimate in the same way many estimates are in poker. The error bars for estimates in general are quite large, but it's important to know that it's "closer to 50%" and not "closer to 10%" or "closer to 90%." As I stated earlier, if it were true that you had a 90% chance of being outkicked if you flop top pair of queens from SB, that dramatically changes your perspective on whether or not limping is profitable.

[Edit x2: I think that saying "the chances could be around 30%" or even "closer to 30%" is a completely reasonable thing to say. Even if I might be skeptical of the claim, I don't think it's absurd or unreasonable.]

It is exactly like that, except "loyalty to your friends" could be "listening to Captain R" and "insider information" is "Flopzilla."

I'm glad you were able to draw a parallel. Maybe if a third example comes up you'll see the pattern more clearly.

Much like your friend in financial services who is also a blogger of some type, I'll listen if he's able to put forth a coherent justification for his position. If Captain R were actually giving lessons on Flopzilla (and they made sense), I'd probably listen.

You don't seem to logic much or recognize irony because you missed them both in both of your posts. According to you, I don't have the insider information to give to others and should be listening to what others are telling me. If I were to try to give the Flopzilla seminars, I'd be the idiot yelling at people in the bank that they calculated my credit score wrong.

Again, I have good reasons not to care much about your opinion of me and will continue to not do so. I will continue to weigh information based on their intellectual content alone.

It will work as long as you are the most knowledgable person around you.

The trouble with trying to be the smartest guy in the room is that you wind up spending a lot of time with people who are stupider than you are. What's the fun of that?

I opened this thread thinking - wow this many posts must be some great and interesting content. Oh how wrong I was.

Every thread I’ve read that this Aaron guy posts in, he just ****s all over it. Can he get his own forum or thread or something that I can just avoid? It is annoying when I open a thread from Dark Knight or someone else and then have to scroll through 30 posts of his drivel to find actual content.