Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Live Low-stakes NL Discussion of up to 3/5 live no-limit, pot-limit and spread-limit Texas Hold'em poker games, situations and strategies.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-11-2015, 05:26 PM   #201
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
That's definitely a discussion worth having. i just wanted to make sure we didn't get into a talking past each other argument when Dr.C thought Spex's thesis was never to 3-bet for value.
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?"
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 05:52 PM   #202
SpexDome
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 783
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
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.

I'm not falling for this bait. You're obviously trying to split hairs over some vocabulary or whatever trying to goad me into an argument. I'm not falling for it. Maybe you could talk me into agreeing with you in some kind of blind-stealing situation, but thats really more of a tournament conversation.

What's patently absurd is the concept of open-raise bluffing as some kind of "completely standard" play. As a side note, if you use terms like "standard" when describing poker plays...you're doing something wrong. If it's pre-flop, and no one has raised, you're either bluffing multiple people who have only limped, or very few people who have only limped. In games with bigger blinds, we could have this discussion, but if you're gonna bluff-open T3o to try and take down $8 pre-flop in a game where the average player is a mega-station...I'm gonna laugh at you. What's even funnier is that you consider it "standard"


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

Pretty simple stuff. If you define your entire range with one bet size, it's very easy for villains to adjust their range to exploit it. Poker is a zero sum game. Every play has a counter play. If you only make one play, it's easier for villains to make the counter play.

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

Interesting you don't approve. Since you've done the exact same thing in two posts now where you simply dump on my strat and provide none of your own.
mpethy...with all due respect, you play too much online.
SpexDome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:00 PM   #203
DrChesspain
Pooh-Bah
 
DrChesspain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,998
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
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.
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.
DrChesspain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:02 PM   #204
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 29,449
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

* gets popcorn, puts on hockey helmet *

GsomeonewarnmewhenitgetstoobloodysoIcanlookawayG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:05 PM   #205
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

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)?
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:09 PM   #206
SpexDome
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 783
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChesspain View Post
There is nothing wrong with squeezing and iso raising limped pots with trash
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.
SpexDome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:13 PM   #207
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,985
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

So the argument is to never bluff in 1/2?
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:14 PM   #208
SpexDome
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 783
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
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)?
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.
SpexDome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:16 PM   #209
SpexDome
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 783
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
So the argument is to never bluff in 1/2?
We're only discussing situations where a bluff would win limps/blinds, nothing else.

Generally, I pass on those at 1/2
SpexDome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:16 PM   #210
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpexDome View Post
mpethy...with all due respect, you play too much online.
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.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:20 PM   #211
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpexDome View Post
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.
Wait. Are you saying you only isolate limpers with hands that you think are better than their range?

Wow. Ok.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:21 PM   #212
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,985
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpexDome View Post
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.
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.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:24 PM   #213
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,985
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Don't troll him! I brought him back once, don't make him leave again!
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:25 PM   #214
SpexDome
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 783
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
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..
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.
SpexDome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:26 PM   #215
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpexDome View Post
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.
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.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:32 PM   #216
SpexDome
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 783
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
Wait. Are you saying you only isolate limpers with hands that you think are better than their range?
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.
SpexDome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:35 PM   #217
SpexDome
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 783
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
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.
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?
SpexDome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:35 PM   #218
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,985
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

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

Read funny here instead:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...php?p=48063292
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:36 PM   #219
DrChesspain
Pooh-Bah
 
DrChesspain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,998
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpexDome View Post
One thing that makes c-betting so profitable, is the ability to do it when we have equity when called.
If you generally have significant equity when your c-bet is called then you are playing way too tight.
DrChesspain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:37 PM   #220
SpexDome
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 783
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

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
SpexDome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:38 PM   #221
DrChesspain
Pooh-Bah
 
DrChesspain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,998
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
mpethy, don't do it! Ignore him and delete this thread.

Read funny here instead:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...php?p=48063292
Unfortunately, there are too many members in this forum who don't know enough to ignore him.
DrChesspain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:42 PM   #222
SpexDome
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 783
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChesspain View Post
Unfortunately, there are too many members in this forum who don't know enough to ignore him.
Says the guy that started this!
SpexDome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:42 PM   #223
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpexDome View Post
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.
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.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:51 PM   #224
SpexDome
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 783
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChesspain View Post
If you generally have significant equity when your c-bet is called then you are playing way too tight.
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.
SpexDome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 06:53 PM   #225
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpexDome View Post
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.
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.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online