Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2018, 07:42 PM   #201
Amanaplan
acanalpanamA
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Getting There
Posts: 4,884
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
This would probably be pretty close to what I do most of the time.
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.
Amanaplan is offline  
Old 10-04-2018, 07:48 PM   #202
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
Re: This one has me scratching head.

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.
MikeStarr is offline  
Old 10-04-2018, 08:04 PM   #203
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amanaplan View Post
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.
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.
MikeStarr is offline  
Old 10-04-2018, 08:05 PM   #204
Shai Hulud
old hand
 
Shai Hulud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,934
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
I hate when people tell me something wont work because lots of what they tell me wont work, does work for me all the time. But, I dont see any way raising this range is profitable from UTG in a full ring game. It certainly isnt what Id call a TAG. Thats LAGgy as hell. If its working for you, then I applaud you, but if you come to my table, I will 3 bet the living hell out of you. I'll 3 bet you lite constantly, but even with standard players you should be getting 3 bet way too often.

Ive seen guys come and go playing like that but not one has lasted more than a month or 2 in my room. I have to assume its because they aren't winning. Most of them came from the online 6 max games and that amount of preflop aggression just doesnt work live.

If youre raising 14% UTG, what are you raising in LP? 35%?
A player like that must be playing like 30/25 or maybe higher. I only know one guy who plays like that who I think is a winner, but its tough to tell because his stack is up and down so much and he tops up so often that theres no way to know if hes winning or losing. This guy plays very well post flop and is tough to play against so he probably does win but I doubt many people can do it.

When people talk about needing crazy large sample sizes to determine win rates or when they talk about 8-10 buy in downswings being common occurrances, I always laugh. But playing like this Im sure those things are true.

Again, I hate when people say something wont work so maybe I open up even more in EP, but I definitely think youre overdoing it.

I raise a suited small Ace occasionally if the table is tight or something like 86s now and then but I cant see that as standard at all.

Maybe Ill actually read a book and see if it can change my mind. Whats the name of Little's book that you are talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
I hate when people tell me something wont work because lots of what they tell me wont work, does work for me all the time. But, I dont see any way raising this range is profitable from UTG in a full ring game. It certainly isnt what Id call a TAG. Thats LAGgy as hell. If its working for you, then I applaud you, but if you come to my table, I will 3 bet the living hell out of you. I'll 3 bet you lite constantly, but even with standard players you should be getting 3 bet way too often.

Ive seen guys come and go playing like that but not one has lasted more than a month or 2 in my room. I have to assume its because they aren't winning. Most of them came from the online 6 max games and that amount of preflop aggression just doesnt work live.

If youre raising 14% UTG, what are you raising in LP? 35%?
A player like that must be playing like 30/25 or maybe higher. I only know one guy who plays like that who I think is a winner, but its tough to tell because his stack is up and down so much and he tops up so often that theres no way to know if hes winning or losing. This guy plays very well post flop and is tough to play against so he probably does win but I doubt many people can do it.

When people talk about needing crazy large sample sizes to determine win rates or when they talk about 8-10 buy in downswings being common occurrances, I always laugh. But playing like this Im sure those things are true.

Again, I hate when people say something wont work so maybe I open up even more in EP, but I definitely think youre overdoing it.

I raise a suited small Ace occasionally if the table is tight or something like 86s now and then but I cant see that as standard at all.

Maybe Ill actually read a book and see if it can change my mind. Whats the name of Little's book that you are talking about?
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.
Shai Hulud is offline  
Old 10-04-2018, 08:23 PM   #205
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shai Hulud View Post
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.

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


"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 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.


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.
...
MikeStarr is offline  
Old 10-04-2018, 11:48 PM   #206
wowsooooted
Pooh-Bah
 
wowsooooted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: nearly there
Posts: 5,074
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
I decided to keep this pot small since AA/KK/JJ beats me. I really only beat AK/TT. Maybe hes wider than that but Ive seen no reason to think so.
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.
wowsooooted is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 12:19 AM   #207
RJT
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 3,571
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
...I played 2 1/2 hrs with the dude. Thats what? 70-80 hands. He raised about 10-11 times. For all I know he couldve card dead and been a 25/25 type player. You cant really expect me to have solid reads on the guy in 2 1/2 hrs.

He raised about 10-11 times. He never seemed to be out of line. He folded a lot post flop. He never got to showdown. There's no much info to go on.
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%
RJT is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 01:26 AM   #208
Shai Hulud
old hand
 
Shai Hulud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,934
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
...
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"?
Shai Hulud is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 06:59 AM   #209
mrdestiny
centurion
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 148
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shai Hulud View Post
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.[/i]
What if OP's light 3bet gets called? Seems like a profitable spot for a V seeing how passive OP plays postflop.
mrdestiny is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 08:48 AM   #210
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdestiny View Post
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".
MikeStarr is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 09:17 AM   #211
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
Re: This one has me scratching head.

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.
MikeStarr is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 09:52 AM   #212
4_4
grinder
 
4_4's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 604
Re: This one has me scratching head.

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"
4_4 is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 10:11 AM   #213
DrChesspain
Pooh-Bah
 
DrChesspain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,998
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
The more I think about it, I really dont care to read any poker books at all.

There is much better and more relevant info to be had by watching good players and discussing hands with them.
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.
DrChesspain is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 10:34 AM   #214
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChesspain View Post
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.
MikeStarr is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 10:41 AM   #215
4_4
grinder
 
4_4's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 604
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
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.
4_4 is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 10:42 AM   #216
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4_4 View Post
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"
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.
MikeStarr is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 10:44 AM   #217
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
Re: This one has me scratching head.

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?
MikeStarr is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 11:14 AM   #218
4_4
grinder
 
4_4's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 604
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
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.
4_4 is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 12:39 PM   #219
Amanaplan
acanalpanamA
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Getting There
Posts: 4,884
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4_4 View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
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.
Pretty much
Amanaplan is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 12:49 PM   #220
4_4
grinder
 
4_4's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 604
Re: This one has me scratching head.

et tu Amanaplan? sigh
4_4 is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 01:51 PM   #221
setintostraight
adept
 
setintostraight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 828
Re: This one has me scratching head.

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.
setintostraight is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 02:21 PM   #222
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,489
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
most books won't give you nearly as much benefit as spending that time with an equity calculator.
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!"
OvertlySexual is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 02:32 PM   #223
4_4
grinder
 
4_4's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 604
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by setintostraight View Post
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.
My unbiased opinion is that the dizzy quip was the thread highpoint. I'm going to keep an eye on that guy.
4_4 is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 02:48 PM   #224
bwslim69
I'm a Diva, Bruh
 
bwslim69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: TPS reports
Posts: 23,931
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
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!"
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.
bwslim69 is offline  
Old 10-05-2018, 03:03 PM   #225
DrChesspain
Pooh-Bah
 
DrChesspain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,998
Re: This one has me scratching head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
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?
LOL at conflating a discussion of aggressive play and rudimentary GTO ideas with "regurgitating the same ABC lines back and forth."
DrChesspain is offline  

Closed Thread
      

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 01:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive