Why deviate? You’re just crushing his soul when he has KK in this spot whether you play it like you did OR used the ‘most of the time’ line. But the times he has some other PPs you’re getting your value pre and 2+ streets post more often I believe. I just don’t see any need to do anything out of the ordinary post flop IP in a 3b pot against some vanilla, apparently awful, player. His line is atrocious btw.

RJT,

I can buy your better definition of "standard", but the "tight" part I'm not on board with. Apparently everyone's definition of Tight or TAG is different which is fine except that when its different, giving a label like that in your reads is useless.

If I say a TAG raised in EP, and you think I mean he raises 14-16% in EP, when I really mean he raises 6-8% in EP, then there was no point in me even giving him a label.

I also dont think a "nit" by my definition is tight passive. To me a nit is a guy who rarely ever puts any real money into a pot and when he does your basically drawing dead.

Lots of nitty people are very loose passive. They dont mind seeing lots of flops for a limp but no way are they putting any real money into a pot unless they have a lock hand. My tables may have 5 nits out of 9 sometimes. There will be lots of 5-6 way pots. But only if nobody raises.

He probably thinks Im a vanilla awful player too...if we are basing in on this one hand. (Of course he has no idea what I had so maybe not)

Why NOT deviate sometimes? If he had some smaller pp like 88, I think hes probably folding the flop in a 3 bet pot, but could easily try to look me up on the turn and river if I check the flop and look weak. Most people would never check the flop like this in a 3 bet pot unless they missed the flop.

You wouldn't believe the amount of extra money I make overall by checking the flop when most people would (should) bet.

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?

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.

"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...

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.

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.

...

Id say his r/c range is much wider pf starting somewhere like 66+, KQs+ is proly better. Being 200bb deep he can r/c much wider so likely all pairs and sooted broadways in his opening range are calling now.

With that in mind this flop is a clear as day cbet and go from there. If you don't cb these type of textures after 3b pre your cb% is far too low to be optimal imo. If we think about his range from a combinatorial point of view he does have AA,KK,JJ in his range but this is only 15 combos while AK,AQ is 32 combos so already off the bat we are ahead of his range on this flop. Sure we saw results and he had KK this time.. but vs his overall range we are ahead on this board.

Don't believe me try assigning v a range (proper for 200bb eff) and plugging that range into flopzilla and see what equity we get.

Per Shai quoting Ed Miller: 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, AQo+ (14.3%)

10/80 (tightest case scenario - raise 10 of 80) =14.285%

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"?

What if OP's light 3bet gets called? Seems like a profitable spot for a V seeing how passive OP plays postflop.

You think I check every flop in a 3 bet pot just because I checked this one? I think we can call that a form of "results oriented".

Shai,

You have a way of misinterpreting most of what I say.

I have no problem with your opening range at all. I think if you have a few really good player at your table, they will make your life hell but there arent that many good players overall so it should be fine. The 5/10 in my room has some very aggro players and when I play it I get 3 bet relentlessly (and I do 4 bet very lite sometimes to combat it). Im sure your 2/5 games are similar to mine though with very few people 3 betting just because they think you are opening lite, so its not a problem. This entire opening range discussion started when I said I didnt think THIS villain opens that wide and that I wouldnt call that range a TAG range.

My definition could be way off I guess because I dont read poker books. To me a Tight player is someone who is considerably tighter than avg. Most tight players are folding UTG with quite a few of the hands you are listing as raising hands. There are countless threads here where people advise to fold things like QJs/AJ UTG.


Im willing to listen to other crushers who deviate from standard ABC play because those are the ones I can learn from. I already know how to play standard ABC poker. I did it for a long time and won but not at the rate I win now. You may not believe that because I dont post those kinds of hands here, but most of my hands are pretty ABC.

Which hand would you rather me post? These are both from yesterday.

1) I open to $20 in MP AK. LP calls.
Flop ($40) K76. I bet $30. He calls.
Turn ($100) 2. I bet $70. He folds

Total waste of time to post

2) UTG limps. I raise $25 MP AQ. Both blinds call. The BB is a strong player. UTG and SB are mediocre

Flop ($100) A93. They check to me. I check back
Turn ($100) J. SB checks. BB leads $75.

SB will never have an ace and check twice. UTG could have one and have checked to me preflop. I should never have an ace here after being the preflop raiser and checking the flop. So a strong player in the BB can easily be trying to steal this and it would be a good play.

UTG folds. I min raise to $150. I think Im ahead most of the time and I want to get back the value I may have lost on the flop if he has an Ace. If he reraises Im folding. Its unlikely hes reraising without a monster because too many people would play AA/99/JJ this way in my shoes. He calls.

River ($400) 2. He checks. I check back because I doubt hes calling another bet unless he has me beat. I probably only get more value from ATs and even then maybe not. I dont think he will call another bet with something like QJs.

He had QTs. I really love his turn bet when he picked up the straight draw and it looked like a $75 bet would steal the pot.

This hand is a hell of a lot more interesting, but when I post hands like this everyone thinks I play every hand this way which isnt true. I made $150 more on this hand by checking the flop. Of course I couldve gotten outdrawn by checking it also. That comes with the territory. You have to tread lightly when you do this since I gave them a free card to outdraw me, but they will normally tell me when Im beat and overall I win more money playing non ABC like this.

In the AK hand I may have won more by checking the turn to him and seeing if he would try to take the pot away from me. That would be non ABC and may or may not have worked but again, I dont try that stuff every hand.

In case you missed the point, I DO play standard ABC more often than not but its boring to post that stuff here.

Not sure your point on the AQ hand. You think 150 to see where you're at is ��? Legit confused, but I assume you do know you'd get flamed if posted.

Edit..."cool"

It sounds like you have no idea what type of information is available in poker books written by well-recognized crushers.

Worse, you seem to have an actual disdain for learning about or understanding basic fundamentals when you can just base your strategies on feels and random hands you witness at the table.

Tell me one guy who has written a book who is crushing 2/5 games right now. Id much rather read a book written by a 40/30 crusher like Shai described than some guy who crushed 2/5 a few years ago and then wrote a book as hes playing 10/25 or higher now. The games are changing too fast for a lot of that info to be of much use to anything but a novice. Those books are written for novices.

I didnt raise to $150 to see where I was at. I raised for value because I was very confidant that I was ahead. I checked the flop for...

1) Deception
2) To protect my checking range in future hands
3) To let someone catch a 2nd best hand or
4) To think their hand which is already 2nd best IS best.

In this particular hand that flop check made me an extra $150. Everyone wouldve folded to a flop bet. Please dont say this is results oriented. I know I made $150 extra this hand but couldve lost the hand if the guy had JJ or J9s. I also know I didnt make the entire $150 because he had 18% equity on the turn and some amount of implied odds to hit the river.

Im just making a point that we dont have to play ABC all the time to win. We can make much more sometimes playing non ABC. Im also trying to convey that I do play most hands much closer to ABC than people think. I just dont post those hands because they are of no use to anyone except a novice and there are already plenty of them posted.

Im not trying to change anyone's mind. Play however you like. This forum is supposed to be a place to exchange ideas, but if all we are going to do is regurgitate the same ABC lines back and forth at each other, whats the point?

The key to winning poker is playing as close to correct as we know how and continuing to improve our understanding of "correct". If you post something half-assed, poorly thought out and without any foundational basis, you're just posting noise.

Nope

Pretty much

et tu Amanaplan? sigh

I gained another 10x respect for Mike after this thread, not because of the way he played any of the hands posted inside the thread, but because he continues to civilly respond to at least 5 people who consistently misinterpret everything he posts and still hasn't lost his **** yet.

And I do agree with his point on books too. There was a list of casinos he played at, which is probably way broader than most book writing 'crushers'. Not to mention most books won't give you nearly as much benefit as spending that time with an equity calculator.

That is of course until he does write a book at which point you will regard him as out of touch while rejecting his advice out of hand without knowing what he's written in the book, because if it's written in a book it must be useless.

The circular argument cannot be falsified, it can only be reaffirmed again and again.

True. Most surgery books won't give you as much insight as the one you gain spending your time with a knife on a cadaver.

The degree of anti-intellectualism on display is flabbergasting, but ultimately not surprising.

"We got into poker because there was supposed to be no reading!"

My unbiased opinion is that the dizzy quip was the thread highpoint. I'm going to keep an eye on that guy.

This is a remarkable thread.

I think Mike would be wise to read and re-read Overtly's post over and over again. Succinctly on point

If one plays around with an equity calculator they no longer need to read.

LOL at conflating a discussion of aggressive play and rudimentary GTO ideas with "regurgitating the same ABC lines back and forth."