Well it was kind of just a quick run down of how you should be in thinking in situations, but it is true you will need to differentiate what level your opponent is thinking on.

That said I definitely disagree that most people at 2/5 aren't putting you on hands. Even most fish are imo.

When you see a bad player call down against pfr who barreled 3 streets with 3rd pair, guess why? he'll tell you why if he wins, he put them on AK. Or when we raise PF and and it goes 2 way on the flop. it's T72 and we bet and he calls. Turn is a Q/K/A, and we barrel. Why? Because he puts us on high cards and that likely hit them.

Or when a bad player calls a check shove on a flush draw board with middle pair and tells you he put you on a FD because why'd you bet so much.

Bad players definitely put people on hands. They are just terrible at it and often times adjust your range so they can play how they want. They don't know what a range is, but if they are stations they're gonna put you on AK/flush draws/bluffs etc and just never fold top pair or w/e.. If they are maniacs they will put you on a weak hand that can't call. If they are weak tight they will put you on aces or a set.

I find it rare that I run into players that don't try to put me on hands.

I think we are talking around the same idea. But what you are saying, while it may be true, is not actually ranging/hand reading.

They have selection bias to fit their already predetermined line. By "predetermined" I mean that fate would have it that they flopped top pair, and in the thousand trials of them flopping top pair they are never folding.

So while they might "range" us on AK high and call down, that's not really what they are doing, they are choosing a hand they beat to comfort themselves.

Real ranging involves actually making a subjective decision outside of your own two cards.

Again I've been told games differ etc., so maybe I'm speaking from a lack of worldliness, but in my games, people DGAF what you have. I'm not exaggerating.

So a turn c/r is most often for value and in the spots where it's not it should be obvious (tilting/spewing/aggro villain)

I also think people are underestimating the power of a hard and fast rule. I see this bad thought process even outside of the poker room...it exists in Finance/investing as well, the idea that if a rule isn't 100% accurate it shouldn't be followed bc surely we can make subjective analysis for each unique situation and thus be closer to 100% accurate.

Surely in theory if we are allowed subjective decision making we can make a correct decision 100% of the time. But the fact of the matter is we can't make perfect decisions at all.

If someone told me I could follow a rule and it would be right 90% of the time, I would gladly take it as the bible.

For example, say a magic wizard appeared and said he could give me one magical pick up line that would work on 90% of women. Even the most successful pick up artist in the world would be a fool not to take it.

Sure, 1 out of 10 girls would smack him. But 9 out of 10 girls would **** him. And that's what matters. Only a fool would think they could beat the spell and thus subjectively pick and chose which lines they'd use on each unique girl and be closer to 100% successful.

Consider yourself lucky to be in games where this is still true.

I can't tell you how many times I've sat at the table in the past month and heard people using terms like 'range' and 'merge.'

I'd say I'm just unlucky in that I think the Philly area is becoming saturated with more and more knowledgable players, at least at $1/$2.

Just because they use those words doesn't mean they have any idea what they mean or how to apply them. There's a few guys in my games who like to use strat talk and it cracks me up because their game does not follow with their fancy triple range merging speak.

There's still a big difference between being able to discuss "range" and actually knowing what to do it. Based on SABR's HHs, I'd say many players are able to put you on AK. The trick is to learn how to exploit that.

+1 what a lot of these regfish talk about is irrelevant. I doubt many 1/2, 1/3 or even 2/5 players have any clue how to execute the strat they discuss. Kinda like a certain poster we all know

I'm right here dude.

Off topic, I actually have no idea who you mean by this.

On topic, Avaritia is right. Calling it a "theorem" is a misnomer, but the rule that you need to re-evaluate the strength of your 1 pair hands when you get raised on the turn--and often fold them when you get raised by a fish--is tried and true.

Only read the first two posts, but the game online did evolve to the point where the baluga theorem was not especially helpful at 1/2 and above. That being said, afaik that hasn't proven true for anything live, especially in LLSNL.

Heh

I bumhunt these players when I play 1/2 because they tend to have the deepest stacks, are extremely predictable and exploitable, and their egos prevent them from learning.

They'll talk about squeezing and 3betting ranges and fold equity and then straddle every orbit and raise T7o from the cutoff over four limpers. forest for the trees, etc.

As far as player populations go, you could do a lot worse than people with money to lose who won't be convinced they need to improve.

The guy that compares himself to Ivey except he's busto and doesn't actually even play poker

Like anything else that is stated in absolute terms for poker, its important to qualify the statement. The "needing to reevaluate" is a good start. But I would note that his reevaluation in the example is rarely correct in LLSNL.

While its certainly closer to a call, the c/r in hand two is rarely AK/KQ. My point isn't to be nit-picky. But to emphasize that in applying this "theorem" we really need to qualify it in a way appropriate to live poker. I think its much "stronger" in live poker because the game plays so much more passively.

I agree with people that straightforward application of "fold one pair to turn c/r" almost always gets the right results but for the wrong reasons. But its right the vast majority of the time nonetheless. And a lot of people would save A LOT of money if they followed it more closely.

This is soo true especially in live poker. Theres ways guys play hands thats just never a bluff. I mean absolutely never, but guys on here are like you need xx% equity its a snap call. No its a snap fold and you can do all the math you want. I see it in so many many threads on here. They think its a slam dunk and anyone who doesnt agree is a fish because they can stove something and do a ev calc.

Shady- they're using the right process just the wrong input info. The problem isn't that they're doing the math, it's that they're making wrong assumptions about the data they're using. I think most of us would be better off doing more math. Not less. The math adds up if their bluffing frequency is zero. That's where the mistake is often made.

Funny thing is I have recently been reading HOC (for the umpteenth time) because his basic strategy fits the live games in my area very well. His section on turn play sums up one pair saying if you have shown consistent strength in the hand and your opponent bets or raises - your top pair is "very unlikely" to be good.

You can't blame the attempt at logic by many in the general player pool. They understand through playing that when the bets get bigger on the turn the hand values need to be stronger. They think in a absolute sense. Leverage does not come into play often on the turn because of stack sizes. A decent percentage of these players will "spazz" from time to time. Learning to spot when that is about to happen is player dependent.

Here are two good examples from a 2/5 game I played in last night...

Regular raises pre to $15, two callers in position. Reg has $1,800. Relative unknown(who has LRR'd twice in last hour) has $575.

Flop($45): Q53
Reg bets $25, guy calls.

Turn($95): 4
Reg bets $90, guy raises to $200 (with about $325 behind)...

What is his range? If you said 55, 33, A2 and 76 you are almost correct. You need to include A2o which is what he had. He showed after the reg 3-bet the turn all-in with AQ no .


Yours truly was UTG+1 with KK. UTG limps, Hero raises to $25, folds to UTG call.

Flop($50): J85r.
Check, Hero bets $40, call.

Turn($130): 7.
Check, check.

River($130): K no flush.
UTG bets $125, Hero raises all-in, UTG tosses in $100 more with 87s.

Why does this hand fit here? What does hero do if UTG bets the turn? Of course this would be a much more difficult question with deeper stacks.

^ You were sitting with $290 at 2/5? Or V had $290 and you had him covered?

This highlights something that I see on the forum a lot, and it's related to the Baluga "Theorem".

Sometimes people responding in threads will say things like, "Disregard the fact that the guy is playing for big money--it doesn't make sense for him to have any hands that beat you, so he should be bluffing. It's just so unlikely that you're beat."

In LLSNL, where people call way too wide preflop and generally don't play well, there are plenty of hands that can beat us that don't "make sense" but that people will show up with anyway! When you can't rule out hands that beat you, all of a sudden you have to default to how likely it is that you're being bluffed--and it's usually a lot more likely that you got sucked out on by a junk hand and your opponent is telling you that.

I had her covered...

I have heard it said "when someone makes a big bet the fact that this person just made a big bet is the most important piece of information"

That's pretty much straight out of NLHT&P: "A big bet is the most relevant and accurate information available."

Depends on how much he bets. Bigger he bets, more likely Baluga fits, and plus it is quite common for stop-n-go line to be strength.

GRUNCH

I find the Balugawhale Theorem to still be accurate against the vast majority of live villains.

But the strategy is exploitable: If you know someone is following the theorem, you can profitably bluff raise them on the turn all the time. That's assuming they do not pot control the turn with one pair. If you're heads up against the suspect villain and they bet pot and turn, the majority of their range is one pair, probably around the 60-80% area. Therefore, bluff raising turn is profitable.

The problem is in real life, it's tough to tell whether someone is following the theorem. In higher stakes games (2/5+), with good players I think it's fairly reasonable to say a larger portion of the player pool is following the theorem, therefore it's exploitable.

The bolded isn't true at all. Especially at 2/5 where there still is generally a small "good" player pool. Now at higher stakes or just with more solid players, then yeah, they aren't auto stacking off with OP or TPTK hands. But live players are generally stacking off a lot lighter than online players and the number of good players is not always a direct function of stakes