I'm not trying to be a tool, but isn't the above just a fancy way of saying "you need to play better than your opponents in order to reliably win the monies."

Sent from my BNTV400 using 2+2 Forums

Ur exactly right. This is a banter mostly about semantics in a way however getting back the APD question, Cannot he just flat and play the KhQh just fine and +EV that way. The answer is that he can play it +EV yes, but i doubt will put a dime of real profit---profit he can spend---in his pocket.

If he plays the hand so well that others wont play the hand the way he would---then he makes true profit. But that will be almost impossible to do here playing fit fold post.

So the highest EV, best reciprocal real profit to his KhQh hand is to 3 bet pre and be able to play post VERY well even when he misses. This takes true talent, where flatting and just hoping to hit the flop certainly does not.

This isnt as complicated as many are making it.

No, ur not getting it. And I dont want to get off the track of what APD was really looking for. I answer that in the post above.

One last shot at this for you.

We play HU all day.

I get AA and you get JJ
We alternate AA and JJ every hand.
We both play each hand the best way possible. +EV each time and very standard.

We are playing perfectly +EV yet no money moves. You cannot spend the +EV profit since nobody is making an error.

So...

+EV does NOT necessarily mean you are truly making money you can spend.

Have you actually established how 3bet is more profitable other than saying that calling is what most would do and therefore we shouldn't do it?

You're pretty good with some of these techniques. Were you in politics?

No Limit Hold 'Em: Theory and Practice does. But it is pretty short and leaves a lot of the thinking to the reader. Because as you said, it really is an art form.

All that means is that we should leave the game because we aren't doing anything reciprocally different(aka we don't have an edge). What it doesn't mean is that we should start playing differently just because our opponent makes the same correct decisions we do.

U got it. Which is why i added the "sometimes we can do different and better, and sometimes there just isnt another way that is better".

smh. Wow ANL, I don't even know what to say.

I never once said that I disagree with your reciprocity argument, and yet you have never established how 3bet is better in this spot other than saying:

"Don't do what everyone else is doing."

And you just keep on writing these runarounds as if they're something we are arguing.

Wow, just wow.

How do we know that calling pre in this spot is not the most +EV move in this particular game? Is it because it goes against conventional thinking where being aggressive and pumping chips into the pot to bully your opponents reigns supreme? I know there was a lot of math ITT, but game dynamics has to figure into that somewhere. Just some thoughts.

A few posters have been asking, 'Why must we deviate from what the fish are doing if the fish are executing the highest EV play?'

I think this question contains some confusion regarding the difference between edge and profit.

Suppose a fish chooses action X, and action X happens to be the most profitable decision possible. If we were to find ourselves in the same situation as the fish, we would certainly strive to also choose action X, right?


When we stack someone with AA vs AA AIPF (we hit a flush), we do not utilize our edge, as the cards play themselves.

Obviously there are situations in which a fish will choose the highest EV line... and that obviously doesn't mean that we shouldn't choose the same line. The highest EV line is the best line, end of story.

So when a fish chooses action X, we have no reciprocal edge, because we cannot improve upon action x ourselves.

I feel that betting the turn makes him pay for all the trash that we beat and he raises everything we dont threfore ending the pot on the turn as opposed to checking turn and checking river than letting him set his river price which we will probably call off a full size bet

This is spot on.

Look at DaYu post above. It says it all very nicely.

this thread is getting A LOT of attention... fairly mediocre imo.

Thanks for letting us know. We can end the thread now boys.

Well, for starters 3 betting smallish would regain the initiative. I assume this guy flats a ton of his range, 4 betting only maybe QQ+ AK. Which is fine.

If we all miss the flop I will bet small feeling them out. If called only ---i would bet small my way on flop and even turn, then shoving river if they seem weak or chk folding if they seem strong---all depending on cards etc,

With the initiative, and postflop skill, outplaying a villain flatting a wide range preflop should be fine.

If not adept at this, then yes, flatting and playing the fit fold way might be a better fit. Im just saying its not optimal, so we should strive to learn how to play it optimally.

3 barreling as a bluff in this game is suicidal. It's how bankrolls are lost.

What I'm hearing is Super System poker, "Rep AA and make them fold," against players who don't like to fold often enough. I don't mind playing like that with my semi bluffs where I have equity, but on air it's no good IME. Some very good players agreed with calling pre, so I guess I'm having trouble figuring out the reciprocal edge preflop.

Where is your reciprocal argument now?

Bet small to see where you're at, bet small again on turn to see where you're at, then if you think villain is weak, shove river.

Isn't that like the exact script of every fish?

Anl three! Small and lead flop small lead turn small shove river seems like a suicide line and you don't really rep anything

If you play well postflop, you can outplay them when obvious they dont have a strong hand. I will leave it there.

Betsizing will be a big issue as well. Point is, we outplay them.

Your posts are tilting me.

You can still flat pre, it doesn't mean you are playing like all the fish.

FFS it's pre-flop. There are 3 more streets.

You can use this argument to 3-bet ATC.

It says nothing about why you should 3-bet KQs here.

I super disagree. Am thankful for the back and forth on 3-betting pre, and also for the introduction to reciprocity as a definition of edge, which was new to me.

I think I hear everything ANL is saying while I also sympathize with R.P.'s view that the argument for 3! pre in this hand remains incomplete, since it involves "outplaying opponents" post-flop.

What I take away, as a beginning / learning player, is the lesson that in some situations it'll be possible to envision a play that's greater in EV than my standard play -- while not being sure that I can execute it through the whole hand. The smaller the stakes I play, the more comfortable I am experimenting with different moves.

To apply this others and the OP, the more often we see a given opponent, the more valuable it can be to test certain lines against them so that long term we can identify the most +EV line more reliably.

Has anyone ever written about ROI for experimental plays that fail and the learning curve of holdem? (It'd be pretty difficult / speculative, but possibly interesting.)

-EF