Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr
...
I wish you wouldn't respond within the quotes. I don't know if you are aware but when I hit respond on a phone I no longer see the thread so all of your post that remains is "...". I'll copy paste it. My responses in italics.
You're equivocating when you say you don't see how something could possibly work but you're not saying it can't. There is little practical difference in saying "I think there is less than 1% chance this is optimal" and "I don't think this could possibly be optimal."
You also equivocated by constantly arguing people don't need a large sample size but I do for some reason? My recorded SD is 107BB/100. That's not particularly high is it?
Its 60% higher than mine. That's significant. Yours is on par with most good players though so there's nothing wrong with it, but as a math guy I dont have to tell you that you need a significantly larger sample than I do.
Not larger enough to just dismiss other people's results and parade yours every thread. Also you must be the nittiest nit (but consider yourself a LAG?). Are you sure you aren't looking at your BB/hr SD?
But moving on... your definition of standard, solid, ABC is very nonstandard. Unorthodox if you like. ABC means "by the book". Standard means "by the book". Solid means "strong winner". TAG is defined more arbitrarily but using your 16/16 stats that does actually equate to similar range percentages as what I use. I've done the math.
I don't open 14% UTG. I specifically said I thought that range was a bit wide, for my games at least. Ed Miller plays nitty deep stacked Vegas games where such a range is more appropriate. And what you said in another post about "The Course" is just not true. That range is suggested as a baseline for 1/2 and 2/5 both. The book is specifically about low stakes games, as are every source I quoted. You would do better reading a book than taking second hand anecdotes about its contents or blithely dismissing said contents, the accumulated work of experts.
Heres a quote from the book sent to me from my friend who has it..
"Ive chosen these particular hands with a typical 1/2 game in mind..." That sentence is right after he lists the the hands you should raise from EP
You're just wrong here. Did you even read the 2/5 section or did you just sift through for the first passage you thought would show you're right? The Course is split into three main sections. 1/2, 2/5, and 5/T. Read the 2/5 section. Miller suggests the same ranges.
The fact that in the 1/2 section Miller creates hand examples illustrative of 1/2 concepts proves what, exactly, in your mind? All it shows is the examples are tailored for that section.
You also have ignored that your definitions of TAG and nit are arbitrary and not how expert sources define them.
"The Course" is very good conceptually but the ranges are a bit wide for Florida games. Instead of reading Little I would suggest you read one of Matthew Janda's books if you want to learn something new. The first book is more thorough but far more mathematical.
I don't suspect Jonathan Little plays much 2/5 cash, but Ed Miller and Matthew Janda are thorough researchers and even if they don't normally play LLSNL I believe they have played it a lot during their research. The guy who made the crush live poker range (can't recall his name) I know for a fact plays these games in LA as I've seen numerous videos of him doing so.
And for the record that is my "average" range, the CLP range of
77+, ATs+, A5s, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, AQo+
This is 9.35% and a very reasonable open range in 200BB 2/5 games UTG. We can go even wider when there is little 3 betting. And even if I opened 14% that doesn't make me 30/25 because the range doesn't change much at all until the HJ and a lot until the CO. Learn how to average man...
Im cool with that range. Its a heck of a lot less hands than the other list. Thats probably where I am except I throw in something like a 97s or Q9s once in a while to mix it up.
You're cool with that range but strongly objected to
55+, ATs+, A5s-A4s, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, AQo+ (10.6%)
That's 1.25% more. For a guy who never limps tossing in 55, 66 and maybe A4s seemed appropriate. I also said I expect he folds the weaker hands at some frequency so the actual difference is practically nil.
Serious backpedaling.
You're so sure you could exploit someone playing 9 35%+ by 3-betting light but how are you going to know their ranges without a LOT of hours with that player opening specifically UTG and getting to showdown? Moreover, what makes you think I or any other player opening similar ranges wouldn't 4 bet you light? That's part of the purpose of having hands like A5s in our range.
Getting 4 bet lite is so rare its not even worth worrying about. My games dont play deep so theres almost never a 4 bet unless its all in and you bet its gonna be QQ+ almost every single time. Im not saying Ive never seen it, but its rarer than seeing Bigfoot. If you 4 bet me lite, kudos to you.
I keep track of my stats when I 3 bet lite. Ive taken it down 58% of the time preflop. Id say thats pretty exploitive. When they call we play poker and see what happens.
You have missed the point. How are you going to know to light 3 bet me? And we aren't talking about how often light 4 bets occur in your games. I said specifically me in the case you start 3 betting light vs me. But we are getting into the weeds a bit, particularly as you've apparently accepted my opening range.
Believe it or not styles besides yours can win and can even win more than you do. I'm not saying I do but certainly some people do. There is a pro in my room who plays like 40/30 and 3-bets 4-bets and 5-bets very light. And he makes 12ish BB/hr over a 2kish sample which I know for a fact. I struggle to see how he wins that much but I don't dismiss his style out of hand. I see if there are things he's doing that might help me. Interestingly, something you said you do when you see a big winner do something unusual.
Oh I believe it. That's what I keep preaching. When you are good and you get away from standard ABC play, the sky is the limit. This is the guy whose brain I want to pick. Not Ed Miller's.
Ive never said you cant open UTG 14+% profitably. I just said its not standard TAG.
This is pretty circular Mike. You are willing to learn from other crushers but only if their styles deviate significantly from theoretically sound play? Are you that addicted to being "unorthodox" you won't consider more profitable lines or playstyles if they are more "standard"?