Well, Dr. C can clarify if he so chooses, but I got the impression that he was saying all of our raises preflop should be value raises, which is a patently absurd claim.

As was the claim that standardized raise sizing makes you exploitable.

Really, the whole post was flawed. I understand, but don't approve of, Dr. C's impulse to simply mock it.

People really should just go thru this thread (I think it was this one) and read SABR42's posts saying to themselves "this is how the best in the world play; the only adjustments I should make are those I make because I don't have sufficient skill to play this way. So how should I adjust for my lower skill edge?"

mpethy...with all due respect, you play too much online.

SpexD wrote And we raise pre-flop for value. Always for value. We 3-bet as a bluff.

I actually wasn't mocking the above as much as trying to warn the less experienced readers that the above is advice which should be ignored. There is nothing wrong with squeezing and iso raising limped pots with trash, depending of course on our image, our reads of our opponents, the various stack sizes, etc.

Similarly, one can 3-bet for value or as a bluff, again depending on the factors I mentioned above.

As I mentioned in a prior post, I believe his quote above is so extreme and silly that there is nothing wrong about telling newbies to ignore it. If someone tried to claim that clouds in the sky means it will always rain I would have responded the same way, without the need to explain why it is absurd.

* gets popcorn, puts on hockey helmet *

GsomeonewarnmewhenitgetstoobloodysoIcanlookawayG

Hey spex:

It folds to us in the CO and we raise to 3.5bb with T7s.

Are we:

1. Raising because we think we have the best hand (for value)?

2. Raising because we're happy if all 3 players behind fold (bluffing)?

3. Raising because the most likely scenario in which we get called is we will play IP against a better hand with a well-concealed holding, so we evaluate the combination of FE and equity as +EV (semi-bluffing)?

Again, you're just trying to bait me into a vocabulary war.

Squeezing limpers at 1/2 no limit is stupid. You know that. Try it 100 times and then come back here and tell me "there is nothing wrong with it". I'll be in those 100 trials, you actually take down the pot less than 20 times.

Iso-raising is where you're just splitting hairs over words. If your'e going to say that I, SpexDome, have not been the champion of big pre-flop iso plays for months on these boards, then you are either woefully ignorant, or intentionally obtuse.

I consider that a value play. You don't do it with "trash". That's suicide at 1/2 no limit. You do it with a range of hands that is better than your opponents range. LLSNL villains make one mistake....they play too many hands. The individual hands don't really matter. On a range vs range basis, the hero should be betting with the stronger range, and the villain should be calling with the weaker range, ALWAYS. Getting villains to put in money with weaker hands is called value.

IF you are making the play with trash, then you are making a mistake. When you bet weaker hands into better hands, it violates the fundamental theorem of poker, and you are DEFINITELY not good enough to overcome that with your post-flop skill advantage.

So the argument is to never bluff in 1/2?

It's #3, obv. And I'll refer you to my previous post. No one beats the iso-raise drum harder than me. Ask Garick. You're also being intentionally obtuse, and seemingly for no other reason than to impress the community with your intimate knowledge of vocabulatorial nuances.

But you aren't JUST doing it with T7s. You're doing it with a range of hands that is BETTER than the range your opponents will call with. If T7s is part of that range, more power to you. If it isn't, then you're leaking.

We're only discussing situations where a bluff would win limps/blinds, nothing else.

Generally, I pass on those at 1/2

There's nothing I could say in reply to you that I haven't already said ITT. I see no reason to repeat myself.

Well, I guess I should say this: your zero sum paragraph attempting to explain how you think standardizing raising strategy makes us exploitable made no sense to me. I saw no logic there whatever. The whole idea behind standardized raise size is that it gives away less information on your holding than varying your raise size. I'd love for you to explain how giving away less information is more exploitable than giving away more information.

The standard argument against standard raise sizing is it is an unnecessary loss of flexibility, because at low stakes, villains generally will not notice that you are giving them free information when you vary your raise size with your hand strength.

You may very well be the first person in the history of poker to argue that giving away less information is more exploitable than giving away more; so yeah, please do explain your revolutionary insight.

Wait. Are you saying you only isolate limpers with hands that you think are better than their range?

Wow. Ok.

FWIW, I am probably the most nitpick guy in LLSNL forum, and I have tough time doing it to any of mpethy's posts because he has put in so much thoughts.

Don't troll him! I brought him back once, don't make him leave again!

There's that word "standard" again. I guess you live in a world where you get to play with the same 9 people every session and they never vary their tendencies, ever.

Anyway, you're stacking the deck by suggesting that there is only one alternative to having a standard raise size. Sure, I agree that having a raise size that correlates to your hand strength is exploitable. But so is having a single raise size for every hand.

By making the same raise size, villains can put you on a static range, every time. Yes, it's certainly perceived wider than if your bet size indicated your level of strength, but nevertheless there is a finite number of hands that correlates to that single raise size.

That's all a villain needs to construct counter measures.

Now if you had big raises that were 75% big hands and 25% weak hands along with small raise sizes that were 25% big hands and 75% weaker hands, then it becomes much more complicated to adopt counter measures. And as our size/range mix becomes more convoluted, villains can only respond with ABC fishiness.

Hence villains play more straightforward, hence amplifying our skill advantage, hence, not being exploitable.

This is completely wrong. Your stealing range should be WAY BEHIND the range villains will call with.

ETA: way behind the range they will play, not just call with.

It's not hard to do in a game where the average fish has no problem limp calling with 64s. T7s from your example earlier is often a fine hand to get busy with.

Are you making the same play with 72o? what hands are you victimizing when you do that? One thing that makes c-betting so profitable, is the ability to do it when we have equity when called. T7s hits enough flop for that to happen, 72o doesn't. So putting money in pre-flop with ahnds that miss the flop so very often is going to be a leak, because you lose your c-bet when called virtually every time.

PUtting money in with those hands is the mistake your opponents are making. Don't try to tell me you can exploit them by doing the exact same thing.

Now I have to be the one who splits hairs over vocab. This is a PRE-FLOP debate. So if we're talking about "stealing", then fine, I agree, do it with trash if you want. But I still maintain that it's bone-headdery at 1/2 no limit. Especially if there is any kind of rake pre-flop.

In any event, I've already challenged you to show me some results. Try "stealing" 100 times and tell me how many times you take down a pre-flop pot with....oh lets say, a bottom 15% hand. And what's your total win rate for those 100 hands?

mpethy, don't do it! Ignore him and delete this thread.

Read funny here instead:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...php?p=48063292

If you generally have significant equity when your c-bet is called then you are playing way too tight.

Ok kids, I'm off to actually play this game for real now. I'm anxious to get back and read mpethy's dissertation on how to crush 1/2 NL with 83 offsuit.

spex out

Unfortunately, there are too many members in this forum who don't know enough to ignore him.

Says the guy that started this!

You're still giving away more information. As described, you are on a range that is still tighter than what you can play with a standardized raise, and you're telling your opponent 100% of the time that you are highly likely to be either at the top or the bottom depending on whether you go big or small.

Playing a wider range for a smaller raise introduces more uncertainty. When I go 3.5bb, I can always have AA-87s. When you go 7bb, you almost always only have a premium, and when you go 3.5 you almost always have marginal stuff. You HAVE introduced some uncertainty, but not nearly as much, either quantitatively or qualitatively, as someone who never varies their raise with their hand strength.

You just lose on the information issue. Again, the best arguments for varying raise size with hand strength concede the information issue. They argue that you receive adequate compensation for the information loss through getting additional value and from manipulating SPR to best fit your hand.

Those arguments definitely have merit, and are worth considering depending on table conditions. But your argument that standardized raise sizing is more exploitable is just completely off base.

If you're trying to tell me that frequently going to the turn, in a bloated pot, drawing thin or dead, is part of a winning strategy......

aaah screw it, you've already embarrassed yourself. I'm not needed here.

Spex out, for real this time.

Sure. I never said that I isolate with ATC. 72o is a fine folding hand.

But there are two possible outcomes to our isolation raise: the limper can continue, or he can fold (or they). I have different ranges based on which of those two is more likely. If I think they will call, I need a hand that can flop some equity. If I think they will fold, I can add in hands that don't play as well.

What you are calling an isolation play, raising with a hand that is ahead of their ranges, I wouldn't consider an isolation raise at all; it's a pure value raise, and I don't really want folds most of the time. It just happens to take the form of an iso raise.