9999th Post: Beyond Basics; Playing ABCD Poker
02-24-2012
, 05:04 AM
Quote:
Also I'd like to hear your input and others on what flattire discusses in this post.
How many of you guys actually do the whole "acting like a donkey" act. Does this work, are other tactics more effective? Like how mpethy mentioned that people knowing he's a pro gets him more fold equity.
Would we rather have people think we are a donk or that we are a pro?
Also I'd like to hear your input and others on what flattire discusses in this post.
How many of you guys actually do the whole "acting like a donkey" act. Does this work, are other tactics more effective? Like how mpethy mentioned that people knowing he's a pro gets him more fold equity.
Would we rather have people think we are a donk or that we are a pro?
The quick/short answer is that the things that best work are using commonly held misconceptions/mathmatically wrong theories, etc...the type of stuff that the donks who aren't very good but think they are very good will instantly assoicate with the bad players/beginners who are beneath them.
As for is it best to have donk or pro image, I believe the answer is you want the image counter to your play. I am not as aggressive as most on this board, so since I'm much more likely to be showing up with the nuts on a big bet, the extra value from being thought of as loose and dumb trumps the extra fold equity of being thought of as a stone cold poker assassin. Plus there is the extra value in watching said players slowly figure out the donkey stuff is a total act.
02-24-2012
, 11:04 AM
Quote:
I guarantee the explanation as to how they lost, as told to their wife, friends, and probably non-friends too has nothing to do with whether they lost to a big, bad pro or their friendly neighbor. Their explanation to their wife will start and end with the world "unlucky". Further explanation will either be about how they played great but just had coolers (biggest pot lost was to a player they respect; so to them it was two good players dealt a cooler-situation) or donkey-idiot made a horrible call against him and sucked out (biggest pot lost was to a player they don't respect).
02-24-2012
, 11:39 AM
02-24-2012
, 11:43 AM
02-24-2012
, 12:16 PM
02-24-2012
, 12:17 PM
02-24-2012
, 12:56 PM
02-24-2012
, 01:23 PM
02-24-2012
, 04:09 PM
Quote:
You have a winning image; deal with it:
A few weeks ago, a guy my age sat down at the table two seats to my left. I said “hi,” and then went back to watching the game. I didn't play any hands for the next 10 or so. I was just sitting there sipping coffee, watching. After an orbit or an orbit and a half of folding, the guy turns to me and says, “so, how long have you been playing for a living?” I said, “uh, live, only a few months. But I haven't played a hand since you sat—how could you have known?” He said, “it's obvious—you are just sitting there, but you look like you are in charge.”
A few weeks before that, a drunk guy sat down at my table two seats to my right. I played a couple of pots in that time, nothing significant. Around the end of his third orbit at the table, the drunk and the guy to my right got into a conversation about keeping track of other players' actions after the drunk called a player's winning hand. The guy to my immediate right says something like, “well, this is $1/$2, you don't have to worry about people being able to do that.” The drunk guy says, “wrong. That guy on your left can tell you every action every player at the table has made in the last orbit.” He looks at me and says “right?” I denied it, but the drunk just laughed and said, “yeah, ok, I shouldn't have blown your cover. Sorry.”
Not bragging, there is a lesson here it took me these two dramatic episodes to learn: Almost everybody at your table has you pegged as a winning player. They see you riffling chips. They see you expertly cut out that $50 bet. They see your card cap and how you have a routine for looking at your cards in turn, capping them if you're going to play, and then making your bet. They can even tell just by looking at you whether you seem comfortable at the table. I get asked out of the blue 3 times a week, minimum, whether I am a local (this is the clever way that vacationers try to trap you into admitting you're a pro
), or outright whether I'm a pro player. (Do what you want, I won't lie about it).
Your job is to adjust correctly to it. As I said, I won't lie about what I do for a living, so it is fairly common for me to be playing a session where my end of the table knows that I coach and play for a living. It increases my fold equity dramatically, and against most players, it narrows their ranges against me to make a bet. Every now and then, someone will want to make a play on me because they want to outplay the pro—I even had one guy whip out the Rounder's quote: “Ha! Look at that. I got ****. I bluffed the big ringer.”
Assume people will play differently against you than they will against the other people at the table, because most of them really do notice that you know what you're doing. The reason for this is simple:
A few weeks ago, a guy my age sat down at the table two seats to my left. I said “hi,” and then went back to watching the game. I didn't play any hands for the next 10 or so. I was just sitting there sipping coffee, watching. After an orbit or an orbit and a half of folding, the guy turns to me and says, “so, how long have you been playing for a living?” I said, “uh, live, only a few months. But I haven't played a hand since you sat—how could you have known?” He said, “it's obvious—you are just sitting there, but you look like you are in charge.”
A few weeks before that, a drunk guy sat down at my table two seats to my right. I played a couple of pots in that time, nothing significant. Around the end of his third orbit at the table, the drunk and the guy to my right got into a conversation about keeping track of other players' actions after the drunk called a player's winning hand. The guy to my immediate right says something like, “well, this is $1/$2, you don't have to worry about people being able to do that.” The drunk guy says, “wrong. That guy on your left can tell you every action every player at the table has made in the last orbit.” He looks at me and says “right?” I denied it, but the drunk just laughed and said, “yeah, ok, I shouldn't have blown your cover. Sorry.”
Not bragging, there is a lesson here it took me these two dramatic episodes to learn: Almost everybody at your table has you pegged as a winning player. They see you riffling chips. They see you expertly cut out that $50 bet. They see your card cap and how you have a routine for looking at your cards in turn, capping them if you're going to play, and then making your bet. They can even tell just by looking at you whether you seem comfortable at the table. I get asked out of the blue 3 times a week, minimum, whether I am a local (this is the clever way that vacationers try to trap you into admitting you're a pro
), or outright whether I'm a pro player. (Do what you want, I won't lie about it).Your job is to adjust correctly to it. As I said, I won't lie about what I do for a living, so it is fairly common for me to be playing a session where my end of the table knows that I coach and play for a living. It increases my fold equity dramatically, and against most players, it narrows their ranges against me to make a bet. Every now and then, someone will want to make a play on me because they want to outplay the pro—I even had one guy whip out the Rounder's quote: “Ha! Look at that. I got ****. I bluffed the big ringer.”
Assume people will play differently against you than they will against the other people at the table, because most of them really do notice that you know what you're doing. The reason for this is simple:
There hasn't been one time when I went to Vegas where someone did not ask me, "So, do you live here," which I do not. In fact one time on our way out I stopped by Mandalay Bay with my wife and decided to play another hour before we had to leave. I bet her that I would get asked if I lived in Vegas. Sure 'nuff, it happened. From this thread I now have a little more insight into why the question is being asked. The last time it happened instead of saying, "I'm just visiting...," I played along with it as an experiment. I told him I do in fact live in Vegas and I do play pro. My buddy was sitting to the left of me and was having a hard time holding his laughter in. I was experimenting with it though. I wanted to see how he would react. I chatted it up with the guy and I treated him real kind and he told me about his crappy life as a teacher and how he wished he had the balls to do what I do. I then began to 3bet him. Fold. Fold. Fold. And fold some more. If he limped in and I raised... F >O >L> D. Did not matter what I had. I had so much FE it was not even funny. It made me realize that playing with a winning image is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you adjust. In fact it made it easier. Is everyone going to make it that easy? No, but you will run into the guy who will make it that easy. A couple of weeks ago I did the same thing to an old timer. Chatted it up, stacked him once, and just kept betting him off pots. On the way out he told me how much of a pleasure it was playing with me. He knew I was a serious, winning player, and he liked it.
I want to add to this image concept... Treat others respect and have fun with them. There are two winning images... The guy who gets a long with all and is feared, but respected and approachable... and the guy with a winning image who is feared, but not respected and people think he is a plain ole' jack a**. I know a couple of each and I can see how people respond to those players. It's night and day. Be the guy who will chat it up a little even though they know you are a serious player. The people like that guy and they know they are probably going to lose to that guy... BUT THEY DONT MIND!
That revelation I had... “well, this is $1/$2, you don't have to worry about people being able to do that.” Tell me we all haven't said something like that. I see it everyday here. It's 1/2 people don't do X at 1/2. It probably is true people don't 4bet 87sooted some high percentage of the time, but to say people at this level no matter how good or bad are not thinking is false. They may not be thinking like us, but they are thinking. About a month ago I am playing a home game with some of the worst players. I had the same auto-pilot thinking for this game which was, "people at this level don't think about X." I get into the pot with the worst player not only at this table but probably any table that is running in the city at that moment. She wins the hand and then makes a comment, "I called because usually when you play against me and you have it you do X, Y and Z." Me >
but with out an open mouth. My light bulb turned on so fast and bright that the bulb filament blew and I had to replace it. Got me one of those new energy saving bulbs. I will try to never auto-pilot and say that "this never happens at 1/2" again. I might not understand what bad players are thinking, but they are thinking.
Quote:
Most of the “fish” are smarter than you.
So after I answered the guy who asked me how long I had been playing professionally, he and I got into a nice conversation, and he turned out to be a great guy. He is a mover and shaker in Democratic politics in his state, went to Harvard undergrad and Harvard law, and his hobby is researching and writing a history of FDR's presidency.
He was a terrible poker player. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't the smartest guy in the room, or that he turned off his brain to play poker. He was still dazzlingly smart, and proved it with his powers of observation. His poker leak was simply that he didn't know what to apply all of that brain power to thinking about. If he did know what to think about, he'd quickly learn to crush any game he chose to play.
Recently, the consumer electronics show was in Vegas. The average quality of the games went up significantly—not because all the electronics geeks were terrific poker players, just that they were way above average in intelligence, and, everything else being equal, a smart novice will make fewer and smaller mistakes than a less smart novice.
While the show was in town, I kept telling the dealer to enforce the English only rule when those guys got to talking about cloud networks and code and all sorts of stuff that sounded like ancient Sumerian to me.
Most tourists who come to Vegas to play poker are smart, above average income, white collar guys who, allowing for their youth, are experts in their field. Their field happens not to be poker. In fact, we are fortunate that:
So after I answered the guy who asked me how long I had been playing professionally, he and I got into a nice conversation, and he turned out to be a great guy. He is a mover and shaker in Democratic politics in his state, went to Harvard undergrad and Harvard law, and his hobby is researching and writing a history of FDR's presidency.
He was a terrible poker player. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't the smartest guy in the room, or that he turned off his brain to play poker. He was still dazzlingly smart, and proved it with his powers of observation. His poker leak was simply that he didn't know what to apply all of that brain power to thinking about. If he did know what to think about, he'd quickly learn to crush any game he chose to play.
Recently, the consumer electronics show was in Vegas. The average quality of the games went up significantly—not because all the electronics geeks were terrific poker players, just that they were way above average in intelligence, and, everything else being equal, a smart novice will make fewer and smaller mistakes than a less smart novice.
While the show was in town, I kept telling the dealer to enforce the English only rule when those guys got to talking about cloud networks and code and all sorts of stuff that sounded like ancient Sumerian to me.
Most tourists who come to Vegas to play poker are smart, above average income, white collar guys who, allowing for their youth, are experts in their field. Their field happens not to be poker. In fact, we are fortunate that:
This does not mean we can't beat them, it just means the guy who you are calling a fish could very well be the CEO of a fortune 500 company. The one advantage we have over them is that we possibly take our profession/hobby/fun a little more serious and just as much as they studied and worked to get to where they are at, we did the same for poker. Could you imagine what they could accomplish though if they put in the same effort in poker that we did. Stuff it took me a year to learn they could probably learn in a matter of months.
All of that leads to mpethy's next section of the why are they playing.
Quote:
Recreational players play poker for different reasons than we do.
If you haven't read “The Psychology of Poker,” by Alan Schoonamaker a half dozen times, then you have a major leak in your game. This book is the first and last word on the psychology behind different playing styles. Understanding its content is a major step toward improving the way you play against recreational poker players.
The fact of the matter is that most people who play recreationally these days have a clue. It's very rare today in Vegas to find someone at the table who has never played before, or who is drunkenly spewing off chips in stack size increments. The most commonly consumed beverage at my tables recently is Red Bull, with green tea or water being a close second. The mistakes people make are more marginal than they were a year ago when I was here auditioning for life as a live grinder, and the mistakes they were making a year ago were more marginal than they were in the 4 years before that, when I was coming to town annually for poker vacations.
That's not to say the games are hard. They are not. In fact, they are still pretty easy. What I think of as ABC poker still gets the money. But the average player is much better and makes smaller mistakes on average. Against these better players, you have to look to their psychology and understand why they are playing in order to understand the type of mistakes they are prone to make in order to maximize your earn against them.
In future posts in this thread, I'll be addressing a variety of situations where I think ABC poker is insufficient to maximize your earn in today's Vegas strip games. I'll be discussing ABCD poker—nothing terribly complex, but adding an additional element to your ABC game.
In addition, I'll be answering your questions, so if you have a situation you want me to address, feel free to post a request ITT.
If you haven't read “The Psychology of Poker,” by Alan Schoonamaker a half dozen times, then you have a major leak in your game. This book is the first and last word on the psychology behind different playing styles. Understanding its content is a major step toward improving the way you play against recreational poker players.
The fact of the matter is that most people who play recreationally these days have a clue. It's very rare today in Vegas to find someone at the table who has never played before, or who is drunkenly spewing off chips in stack size increments. The most commonly consumed beverage at my tables recently is Red Bull, with green tea or water being a close second. The mistakes people make are more marginal than they were a year ago when I was here auditioning for life as a live grinder, and the mistakes they were making a year ago were more marginal than they were in the 4 years before that, when I was coming to town annually for poker vacations.
That's not to say the games are hard. They are not. In fact, they are still pretty easy. What I think of as ABC poker still gets the money. But the average player is much better and makes smaller mistakes on average. Against these better players, you have to look to their psychology and understand why they are playing in order to understand the type of mistakes they are prone to make in order to maximize your earn against them.
In future posts in this thread, I'll be addressing a variety of situations where I think ABC poker is insufficient to maximize your earn in today's Vegas strip games. I'll be discussing ABCD poker—nothing terribly complex, but adding an additional element to your ABC game.
In addition, I'll be answering your questions, so if you have a situation you want me to address, feel free to post a request ITT.
When you understand why they are playing you can start to adjust. Just like our winning image where the "fish" adjust to us (they know the reason we play is because we take the game serious for whatever reason) we need to also be adjusting to them. Whether that means being more chatty with them, adjusting to their reason for being at the casino -maybe to gamble - and opening our range a little, both, or whatever else.
I can't wait to see mpethy's continuation of this post and hopefully he answers some of the questions above. This thread is already in the Best of LLSNL thread and will live there for-ev-er.
Last edited by AcePlayerDeluxe; 02-24-2012 at 06:26 PM.
02-24-2012
, 06:08 PM
Quote:
Mpethy - great post - I read the first part, skimmed the second and plan on coming back tomorrow and reading the rest carefully (too tired now).
A couple of questions (forgive me if they are too forward, no offense intended):
1. Why would anyone think that someone playing 1/2NL is a pro per your story?
2. Given all your technical knowledge of the game, why are you playing 1/2 and not 5/10? Is it BR? Seems like a waste of your time unless you are trying to collect data/do some kind of an experiment/etc.
A couple of questions (forgive me if they are too forward, no offense intended):
1. Why would anyone think that someone playing 1/2NL is a pro per your story?
2. Given all your technical knowledge of the game, why are you playing 1/2 and not 5/10? Is it BR? Seems like a waste of your time unless you are trying to collect data/do some kind of an experiment/etc.
Quote:
That being said, not ashamed at all. Given that mpethy coaches and given that most half-decent jobs would pay someone of his intelligence way more than he could possibly make at 1/2, I was legitimately interested in why he chose to spend his time at 1/2 as opposed to say coach those hours or get a job to build a roll, etc. I was trying to see if he was doing it for some educational purpose a la 'I am playing there so that when i coach 1/2 players I want to be able to tell them I play in those games and know the tendencies of their opponents'.
I have read a lot of mpethy's old threads on the micro forum and always enjoyed them, and under a different SN played in some of the games on FT with him. My sense from his posts and his play was that his was a very solid, tight technical style designed to grind out profits over over a large sample with technically correct, unimaginative play that is scalable to multitabling.
The other direction I was going with my questions is to see if he thought what he was writing was largely applicable to bigger games/if he had thought through adjustments he would make deeper/against better opponents that I could learn from, or if he was targeting folks playing typical 1/2 opponents, which is very helpful to a lot of you but doesn't apply to me, and if that were the case I was going to bow out of the thread.
So bottom line is I have legitimate and to me constructive reasons for asking what I did and meant to offense by my questions. Peace.
I have read a lot of mpethy's old threads on the micro forum and always enjoyed them, and under a different SN played in some of the games on FT with him. My sense from his posts and his play was that his was a very solid, tight technical style designed to grind out profits over over a large sample with technically correct, unimaginative play that is scalable to multitabling.
The other direction I was going with my questions is to see if he thought what he was writing was largely applicable to bigger games/if he had thought through adjustments he would make deeper/against better opponents that I could learn from, or if he was targeting folks playing typical 1/2 opponents, which is very helpful to a lot of you but doesn't apply to me, and if that were the case I was going to bow out of the thread.
So bottom line is I have legitimate and to me constructive reasons for asking what I did and meant to offense by my questions. Peace.
I agree your questions are 100% legit, and I didn't take any offense at all. Well, I was mildly insulted by the "unimaginative" bit, but since I went out of my way to cultivate and exploit that image, I guess I shouldn't be.
I was a lawyer until 2007 or so, and I burned out on it. My wife and I were doing ok, not great, but ok, and with our daughter grown and out of the house, we didn't really need all the money, so I was free to quit with no plan. Between '07 and '09 I backed into coaching and playing for a living, which I did until Black Friday. On Black friday, I was in the process of getting our Vegas house, paying a tax bill that was way bigger than I had estimated, and getting ready to jump into life as a live grinder. I had a big chunk of my liquidity on FT, and a lot of the remainder had gone to the house and the taxes. So on April 15th I went from having decent liquid life and poker rolls to having no poker roll and a small liquid life roll.
I play 1/2 because it is all I can afford to play without dipping into sources of funds I'm not willing to dip into. By any reasonable standard of bank roll management, I'm not even rolled for 1/2.
Black Friday also wrecked the coaching business, as it took the vast majority of Americans out of the potential customer base. After BF, everybody canceled, even the Europeans, and I was too soul crushed to take on the few people who contacted me. It has come back some, but at a greatly diminished volume that does not amount to full time work like it did in '09 and '10, when I was coaching 30-40 hours a week. I think I did 18 hours last week. If I had booked only 18 hours of coaching in a week in '10 or early '11, I would have been in a panic, lol. But in the post-BF world, last week was a good week.
The thing is, you have to play the hand with discipline. You're bluffing. You expected a fold. Common sense tells us if he calls, he's at the top of his range, and we should give up if we don't crush the flop instead of shoveling in good money after bad. Crushing the flop, BTW, probably also means seeing an ace on the flop. I believe I'd turn in my card capper and take up knitting if I ever failed to c-bet air on an ace high flop in a 3 bet pot.
Quote:
I'm assuming you're advocating the light 3 bet for value only. This would mean you agree with the prevailing view that there's no need to balance your 3-betting range at live-low-stakes. If this is the case, then 3 betting light is not really an essential betting strategy, given how "thin" its value. Just to give me an idea, what, on average, would your light 3 betting frequency be during a 1/2 session? Do you sometimes not 3 bet light at all, for instance?
I'm assuming you're advocating the light 3 bet for value only. This would mean you agree with the prevailing view that there's no need to balance your 3-betting range at live-low-stakes. If this is the case, then 3 betting light is not really an essential betting strategy, given how "thin" its value. Just to give me an idea, what, on average, would your light 3 betting frequency be during a 1/2 session? Do you sometimes not 3 bet light at all, for instance?
light value
semi-bluff
bluff
The only reason for this is because of the player pool. The player pool calls way too many 3 bets. In fact, I rarely see a fold to a 3 bet, and when I do, I make a careful note of that player's ability to fold. For most players in the player pool, their range to make an initial raise consists entirely of hands that they think are too good to ever fold to a 3 bet. So they never do. So you can get thin value from them.
The spots in which we can 3 bet our semi-bluffing ranges and bluffing ranges will be few and far between.
My favorite situation in live play is to have the jesus seat on a decent lag. I wait until we are in late position (or middle sometimes), and I 3 bet him relentlessly with my semi-bluffing range. The fact that he is decent means he knows that it is usually a big mistake to flat a c-bet OOP, and that he has a wide enough stealing range that he needs to fold most of it; it also means that he is not good enough to fight back with light 4 bets.
Quote:
@mpethy
1) How does position fare wrt the types of 3bet? Are you more likely to employ a bluff 3bet from the blinds while other types of 3bet in position?
2) Would limp/3betting be less or more credible than cold 3betting? My initial reaction would be to mostly give a limp/3better credit for AA, KK and (depending on the size of the 3bet) possibly AK
1) How does position fare wrt the types of 3bet? Are you more likely to employ a bluff 3bet from the blinds while other types of 3bet in position?
2) Would limp/3betting be less or more credible than cold 3betting? My initial reaction would be to mostly give a limp/3better credit for AA, KK and (depending on the size of the 3bet) possibly AK
From a range perspective, I would say: My range to 3 bet when in position is usually polarized and weighted toward semi-bluffs roughly 3 to 2. My range to 3 bet from the blinds is polarized, and roughly equally weighted between semi-bluffs and value hands.
I don't aim for these proportions, and they are only rough estimates, anyway. I think they are the natural result of looking at a button stealer and going, "meh; he'll probably call often enough that I don't have a lot of fold equity, especially if my frequency gets out of hand," and pegging him as a "sometimes calls," guy. Whereas I look at the same decent+ player when I am OTB and he opens from the hijack or the CO and I think, "heh, he can't call OOP with the vast majority of trash he is opening, and he knows it," and I just naturally have more opportunities to 3 bet him.
Somebody asked about stack size. Unless I say otherwise, I am thinking of 100 to 150bb stacks that are common on the strip. I usually only 3 bet short stackers for light value. If i ran across a technically proficient short stacker, a. it'd be the first time; and, b. I'd go into poker stove mode.
Quote:
You didn't discuss stack depth at all in your 3-bet discussion. I know your background is online (= mostly 100bbs) and you are a data driven guy (again, your data being probably mostly 100bb data), but have you thought through 3-betting adjustments IP/OOP with stacks of 150bbs? 200bbs+? Maybe that's ABCDE, but would be curious on your thoughts =).
Quote:
Interesting 3betting post. I like your spin on it. I cut aand pasted it to my word doc : )
So...
Is 'light value' a Merge?Yes
Is 'Semi-bluff range' Polarizing? Yes
Is 'bluff range' sort of a 'deep' pole to the bluff side against people who 'always' (70%+ F3BET) fold to a 3bet? Sort of like labeling someone able to be 3bet with ATC? I just consider ATC additional cards in a polarized range. The key thing to remember about players who fold to 3 bet 70%+ is that the only two serious mistakes you can make against them is to 3 bet a hand as a semi-bluff that you could profitably call with (we call this cannibalizing your calling range) and building a big pot post flop with air.
See...I pretty much use these exact concepts although I break it up to Polarizing, Merging and 3betting 'ATC'....in your opinion am I on or off in my classifications?
Like if someone is raising wide from LP and often calling a 3bet, I'll Merge from the blinds by opening up the top of my value range and 3betting AJ, KQ etc and expect to get called light and possibly get 3 streets of value vs hands like QJ, QT, AT, JT etc...Is that the same as your 'Light Value?
If I'm IP and someone 'usually folds' to a 3bet...I'll use your 'semi-bluff' range hands like A5, K5 and T5 to 3bet light. I tend to use these to polarize my 3betting range incase I ever get to showdown they can see I 3bet light so I get value on my big hands liek AA, KK, AK later on. If I'm 4bet I'm polarized so my decision is easy and I can fold in this case cause its my bluff side of the range. Also if I'm called (the player will 'sometime' call as we know) I have a possible over to a hand that calls a 3bet OOP (77-QQ etc) and FD possibilities which opens up the chance to semi-bluff with outs and get some FE...is this right? The same thiking as you or am I off?
Your 'Bluff range' I think of as ATC sort of. Label a guy ATC and pop him any time he raises and I'm in position pn him. I do it cause I know he's weak and always folds to a 3bet cause he assumes you have AA. Problem is...as you pointed out in the top of your post...the fish aren't always stupid. They realize you're 3betting every time they open and adjust. The trick is to figure out how they are adjusting and adjust back. I'll admit I rarely 3bet ATC in 1-2NL, but I don't mind polarizing with A5, K5 and T5 from position...is this correct or no?
ALSO...I change my approach a lot depending on if I'm in or out of position on the original raiser...your post didnt mention position at all (or if it did I missed it sorry) Do you have any suggestions for that?
Sorry if that's too many questions. Your post was awesome
- DA -
So...
Is 'light value' a Merge?Yes
Is 'Semi-bluff range' Polarizing? Yes
Is 'bluff range' sort of a 'deep' pole to the bluff side against people who 'always' (70%+ F3BET) fold to a 3bet? Sort of like labeling someone able to be 3bet with ATC? I just consider ATC additional cards in a polarized range. The key thing to remember about players who fold to 3 bet 70%+ is that the only two serious mistakes you can make against them is to 3 bet a hand as a semi-bluff that you could profitably call with (we call this cannibalizing your calling range) and building a big pot post flop with air.
See...I pretty much use these exact concepts although I break it up to Polarizing, Merging and 3betting 'ATC'....in your opinion am I on or off in my classifications?
Like if someone is raising wide from LP and often calling a 3bet, I'll Merge from the blinds by opening up the top of my value range and 3betting AJ, KQ etc and expect to get called light and possibly get 3 streets of value vs hands like QJ, QT, AT, JT etc...Is that the same as your 'Light Value?
If I'm IP and someone 'usually folds' to a 3bet...I'll use your 'semi-bluff' range hands like A5, K5 and T5 to 3bet light. I tend to use these to polarize my 3betting range incase I ever get to showdown they can see I 3bet light so I get value on my big hands liek AA, KK, AK later on. If I'm 4bet I'm polarized so my decision is easy and I can fold in this case cause its my bluff side of the range. Also if I'm called (the player will 'sometime' call as we know) I have a possible over to a hand that calls a 3bet OOP (77-QQ etc) and FD possibilities which opens up the chance to semi-bluff with outs and get some FE...is this right? The same thiking as you or am I off?
Your 'Bluff range' I think of as ATC sort of. Label a guy ATC and pop him any time he raises and I'm in position pn him. I do it cause I know he's weak and always folds to a 3bet cause he assumes you have AA. Problem is...as you pointed out in the top of your post...the fish aren't always stupid. They realize you're 3betting every time they open and adjust. The trick is to figure out how they are adjusting and adjust back. I'll admit I rarely 3bet ATC in 1-2NL, but I don't mind polarizing with A5, K5 and T5 from position...is this correct or no?
ALSO...I change my approach a lot depending on if I'm in or out of position on the original raiser...your post didnt mention position at all (or if it did I missed it sorry) Do you have any suggestions for that?
Sorry if that's too many questions. Your post was awesome
- DA -
02-24-2012
, 07:30 PM
Quote:
I had so much FE it was not even funny. It made me realize that playing with a winning image is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you adjust. In fact it made it easier. Is everyone going to make it that easy? No, but you will run into the guy who will make it that easy.
That revelation I had... “well, this is $1/$2, you don't have to worry about people being able to do that.” Tell me we all haven't said something like that. I see it everyday here. It's 1/2 people don't do X at 1/2. It probably is true people don't 4bet 87sooted some high percentage of the time, but to say people at this level no matter how good or bad are not thinking is false. They may not be thinking like us, but they are thinking.
That revelation I had... “well, this is $1/$2, you don't have to worry about people being able to do that.” Tell me we all haven't said something like that. I see it everyday here. It's 1/2 people don't do X at 1/2. It probably is true people don't 4bet 87sooted some high percentage of the time, but to say people at this level no matter how good or bad are not thinking is false. They may not be thinking like us, but they are thinking.
Quote:
They may not be thinking like us, but they are thinking
The GENERAL implication is "Players at this level suck, they just play their hand, so anything past ABC Level-2 analysis is worthless". This is false, and will cost us money. They do apply thinking, but it may not be related specifically to hand ranges. The guy who folded to you every time you raised him because he knew you were a pro was thinking "I have limited amount of money, I know this guy is an awesome pro so he either has the nuts or he'll figure out a way to bluff me anyway, let me just minimize my losses against him and look to try to make money against other people" combined "I enjoy socializing with this guy and there's positive value to being able to sit next to him and talk about poker, so I don't want to get felted on my only buy-in by him, so I'll fold to his raise". It may not have been thinking about your hand range, but it WAS thinking; and once you figured out what he was thinking, you adjusted, changed your play, and won. It was, in it's own weird way, Level 3; his Level 2 analysis (What Do I Think He Has? ZOMG HE IS A NICE GUY AND A PRO, SO HE WOULD ONLY RAISE ME WITH A MONSTER), so you went to Level 3 (Since he thinks I am an awesome pro and always have hands, he'll fold to every raise of mine).
The SPECIFIC implication of the statement above is that, specifically when it comes to [Poker Concept X] isn't very important at LLSNL because the area of the game that it's looking to exploit some potential edge isn't very likely. For example, the other thread in this forum that was discussing the idea that, when building a 3betting light range, that certain hands (A5s) have a little extra value for their ability to also 5bet semi-bluff as opposed to others (87s). At LLSNL, this situation only will come up against very specific (very good, aggressive but disciplined, and deep-stacked) villains, so when playing all other villains, don't think about it.
It doesn't mean don't think about what all other villains are thinking, just don't think about the specific concept when figuring out the way to exploit other villains. The example I will end with is to think about the Villains who obsess about the BBJ. Imagine there was a HUGE BBJ at the casino you play, but it's ONLY for Quad 5s or below being beat (I know, weird conditions) by higher Quads. Despite the rarity, some fish think that any hand that can make a BBJ is worth playing since ZOMG 40% of $500,000!
So now you'll get some nits who are going to flat 3bets with a range of 22-55, JJ-QQ, AKs (presuming they're going to raise with KK+). Yeah, it's ******ed as all hell approach by them, but it is a type of thinking . Once you know that's their approach, adjust and exploit.
Seems simple enough, but I'll be the first to admit that it's not nearly as easy at a table as it is on this board.
02-24-2012
, 07:54 PM