Hello,
I've posted a few threads here before describing the home games I'm playing at.
To sum up in short, 5 of 8 hands are extremely fishy. They don't think of things like equity and pot odds, just hunch.

As to the reason for this thread, the games have become much more wild lately. It's a 1/2 game and every session we're at least 5 buyin deep. Last night 3 players were 10 buy ins deep.

Playing ABC poker with 0 (apart from very Very few spots) bluffing range seems to be the right startegy from my experience. But the thing is, their bluffs are based on hunches and are very random, polarized, and lately, massively aggressive .

Should my strategy be a conservative "play tight, call with nutted hands", or call a bit lighter, hold on for dear life and embrace the swings (a strategy I assume would be +ev)?

I go "play tight, call with nutted hands, value bet, value bet, value bet."

I play in the same type of game, exactly, and this is what I do. It is a mint.

Which ever is higher EV should be the goal. In general if your opponents are making random big bluffs then trying to pick off some bluffs will be higher EV but it isn't a sure thing. It depends on how obvious the bluffs are and how often they are over betting their value hands among other things.

More practical constraints can matter also. Once you are above 2 buyins and still have fish with even more you might not want to call possible bluffs larger then a buyin because it's better to keep your stack for chances at the really deep fish.

You didn't mention the buyin size either. If the size of a buyin matters you might not want to risk multiple buyins in one go. If that is the case it's probably better to call it a night when you get more then a couple of buyins up. Bank up the money until you can handle the swings from calling off bluffs.

If they're making random bluffs, then I suspect very strongly that their line isn't going to make sense. Of course, that will require you to know what their normal line is for a given hand type.

I would suggest that, after the game when you're alone, take a little time to sit down and write down how each of them plays their hands. You will find a pattern. Then, when they deviate from that pattern, it's probably a bluff.

On top of that, you may even figure out a tell, but that would be a bonus.

You should tighten up and refrain from speculative situations, even though those situations might still be +EV. If you just sit back and engage the cruise control, you'll get the money.

The danger in engaging the numbnuts with hands that are only a little bit better than the junk they routinely play is that you may get unlucky multiple times and suffer damage to your bankroll--or to your morale. If you have an unlimited bankroll and nerves of steel, by all means, mix it up. But most of us don't have those resources.

Refraining from marginally +EV plays in an environment where you have a solid advantage is optimal in the same way the Kelly Criterion is used in other advantage play. The BJ counter perceives he has a 1% advantage, he doesn't necessarily bet the table max. He bets 1% of his bankroll.

So yes, playing loony-bird poker (albeit a bit less loony, in your case) would increase your EV. But maximizing EV should not be your sole consideration. The only effect of playing tight-aggressive instead of loose-aggressive with this bunch is that it'll take you somewhat longer to win all their money. But that's probably a good thing in the long run.

I'd just pay close attention to how they play turns and rivers and with what hands from what spots, that is almost never random and usually a pretty uniform pattern appears. Then you just pick them apart from that point in the game, making sure you get there with the type of hands you need.

This guy plays loose and fast early but isn't prepared to stack off without the actual nuts
This guy has no concept of relative hand strength : going to stack off too light, but unaware he's too light.
This guy is willing to get in any draw at any time for any amount no matter how many players
This guy traps w truly nutted hands and never puts in money light
This guy locks up on turns and rivers when it's heads up
This guy hero folds
This guy hero calls

Just so much info to use and they TEND not to deviate --- and most of this information becomes reliable on the late streets... theyll play flops and preflop a million different ways bc their overall strategies are dogsht.

Another thing, numbers of buy ins might not matter if a buy in is $50. See if the money matters to any of them.

I actually think jacking up the variance is a good thing if you are rolled properly. Higher variance increases stack depth pretty significantly as the night goes on in a game with low turnover like a home game. I think everyone will agree that deeper stacks is higher EV for winning players.

If there's risk of not getting invited back, it's also better for your reputation in the game to play more hands. I try to take only every +EV opportunity, but there is an argument to even play some marginally -EV hands. Players who give more action will be more welcome in private games. You could consider them cover-plays, like not splitting tens.

I would advise against consciously forgoing any +EV opportunities. More money is better than less money and I think people often tend to be overly risk-averse when making these decisions. For example you'll see threads where people will suggest folding a 55-45 spot for stacks is worth avoiding the variance. 55-45 is 10% edge on an even money bet (I Imagine you would respect how substantial it is given you seem to come from blackjack?)

The part relating to the morale / nerves of steel / etc. is highly overlooked and very undervalued regarding success over the long term, imo. At the very least, we'll each have to honestly evaluate how well we actually deal with it (and we won't all come to the same conclusions, which is fine).

GcluelesslongtermnoobG

I think we have to set the bar somewhere. I don't think it's unfair to expect "don't go on monkey tilt, and walk away if you do instead of continuing is correct." Assuming your entire BR isn't on the table is also a fair assumption and speaks to far bigger problems with the OP than the hand if we have to consider that every time someone shares a hand.

No one needs a response to their thread if their end game goal is low variance: Nut peddle and play uber tight. People post here for the most part to make sure they are making the best play, not the one that loses them the most money.

The best play is very rarely black & white. So there's a lotta leeway for us to all find our own best way.

And as much as we'd all like to think we're taking the "highest EV line", the truth of the matter is that we'd have a very difficult time mathematically proving that away from the table even given all the time and tools possible (let alone at the table in real time) due to a lot situations simply being extremely complex. If you disagree with this sentiment, then simply prove otherwise by going over a few HHs on this first page and compute the EV of each possible line (show your math!); you won't get very far (thus why almost no thread is concluded with "see, this line has an EV of x while this line has an EV of y, thus this line is clearly better").

GimoG

False dichotomy. It's not a binary choice between playing super-loose and "nut peddling."

There are many, many, many situations in gambling where you might want to forgo the absolute best play(s). One example that comes to mind is a BJ counter not splitting tens even though the count justifies it. Even if it is the best play, you risk blowing your cover. Or you might perceive/evaluate a prize fight where you think that -1500 on the champ is actually good value. You decline that bet, though, because you just don't want the variance and would feel terrible if you lost.

The absolute worst outcome against a table of fish is a) to bust out or b) to lose so much that you start to play badly. And as long as we have limited bankrolls and human brains, it's worth it to avoid such outcomes.

Think of it as insurance. All insurance (fire, auto, etc.) is -EV. But we buy it because psychologically and/or financially, we can't handle a disaster. That's the same reasoning I use when I muck that J9 suited when someone raises. Yes, I could conceivably have the best hand. Yes, I could flop the nuts. Yes, I could outplay the fish after the flop. But ten minutes from now, I'll be able to play a raised pot against the same dumdums with AK or QQ.

Ironic that you say my post is a false dichotomy when you create one with blackjack.

But to use your example, it would be like someone asking to split tens on a blackjack forum, and saying then giving them information with the assumption they ****ed up the count. Do we really have to ask questions like "are you sure the deck is at +4" or can we assume the deck is correct? Everything else you added is relevant information, just like a read on a player, and not something we just presume is wrong.

Not even going to go into prize fighting because two people fighting has far more variables than an objective deck of cards. The logical conclusion to your logic is that you should fold the nuts on the turn if you can't handle variance of the opponent getting there. I don't think you actually would suggest that, which means despite your comment about forgoing the "best play", there is clearly a line somewhere it is wrong to negate it.

@GG: As has been explained multiple time by many different people, you are the one coming with the advice that challenges the math and in many cases is flat out wrong. You need to explain why making a sub optimal play is correct in the long term.

I don't "need" to explain anything, least of all to you. But I'll try, because it appears that you desperately need such an explanation.

Only in a vacuum should we hypnotically gravitate toward maximized EV. If I offered to bet all of your assets--cash, your house, your car, etc. on a proposition where you were a 51:50 favorite, would you take it? By your, uh, "reasoning," it would be foolish not to. Likewise, buying fire insurance is -EV, as is buying health insurance (if it wasn't, the companies offering it would go broke). So by your metric, one should never buy insurance.

Your point is so weak that you had to construct a straw man argument wherein I supposedly advocated folding the nuts. But dear boy, here's the reality: sacrificing small amounts of EV in order to lessen variance doesn't "challenge the math"; on the contrary, it supports it.

Hell, even the casinos sacrifice EV to avoid variance. Why aren't the blackjack and crap table minimums $100,000 rather than, say, $5,000? Surely it would maximize their EV to accept bets that large.

My blackjack example referred to cover, not to having the count right or wrong. And my boxing example referred to betting, not the various vicissitudes of the fight itself. You obviously didn't read my post with even the dimmest comprehension.

Well, yeah. The "geek poker" movement, which pretty much dominates the thoughts and actions of the hoodie+earbuds crowd (and certainly the internet), purports to be able to reduce poker to a series of equations and mathematical formulae. That approach completely discounts the human element--because, I strongly suspect, these young Turks grew up staring at a computer screen and thus have about as much human interaction skills as a goldfish does.

That's led to the gross overuse of such learned-sounding terms as "range" (which no one can possibly know about another player, since one only sees a small fraction of the hands he plays and none of the ones he doesn't) and "blockers" (as if the presence of a jack in one's hand made it impossible for someone else to make a king-high straight). Then, of course, there's OOAS, or Overuse of Acronyms Syndrome (it's how you signal that you're part of the club).

Poker is a game of incomplete information, which, I strongly suspect, makes many people uncomfortable. So they try to quantify the unquantifiable.

The biggest problem applying variance reduction techniques to poker is that you often end up over-rolled for the games you're playing because bankroll isn't always the barrier to entry for higher stakes. It's often skill or availability.

Even with a small-ish 20 buyin roll there are very few situations it mathematically makes sense to decline, and if you are winning at a decent rate you won't have a 20 buyin roll for long. Live games also tend to be so soft that taking those gambles that you "should" decline from a bankroll growth perspective is hardly going to have an impact.

I also think you're ignoring that neutral EV portions of your range still add to the value of your overall strategy by making you significantly tougher to play against.

Are you denying the value of the concepts of ranges and blockers?

Speaking of human interaction skills, do you realize how aggressive and abrasive your tone comes across in many of your posts?

Your first point's validity varies with just how "soft" those games are and your personal risk tolerance, in terms of both your bankroll and your mindset. My POV is that as your opposition becomes worse, you should gamble less, because you'll get the money eventually without gambling (much, anyway).

I doubt very much that a table of fish, or any one fish, observes the patterns of my play and makes rational decisions based on that. And by definition, I neither gain nor lose by making a neutral-EV play.

I don't deny the value of those concepts. I said that they were overused and overvalued. They are used as an attempt to apply "hard logic" to what are actually "fuzzy logic" situations.

My tone is in the medium-low range compared to most of what I see here and elsewhere on the internet. And I find it highly risible that people respond nastily to posts I make and then complain about my tone. Fundamental attribution error, I guess. (I'm not saying that necessarily includes you, though you are sounding a bit, um, preachy.)

If you don’t have the limited bankroll (20 BI+) needed to make +EV plays that aren’t sure things, and every consideration at the table revolves around reducing variance, you should probably drop down in stakes. You might also try a short buy strategy, but honestly, this probably will increase your variance (though it will make your decisions easier since most important decisions will be made before the flop).

madrobin, to be honest you come across as a condescending and self-righteous. In recent posts you have made derogatory use and descriptions of “geeks” to describe people who enjoy serious discussion of strategy, and you have referred to players as “donkeys” for advocating open raising with 77. Both absolutely ridiculous claims.

Close to 100% of the posts in this subforum are of the form: “here’s a spot, what’s the most +EV action”. Not “here’s a spot, what’s the action that minimizes a combination of variance and EV”. If you don’t want to participate in such discussions, you don’t have to drop a comment. Maybe you’d prefer another subforum like BBV.

If multiple people are telling you that you come off abrasive, it’s probably you not us. Food for thought.

in my observation the biggest problem with the "pass up marginal ev to reduce variance" line of thinking is that the players who advocate this generally dont seem to be accurately assessing which spots are marginal, so it has a bigger effect than intended (not to mention the second order effect of consistently folding in semi-close spots). imo if you are even asking about it, you shouldnt be doing it (and there are other good reasons not to do it even if you arent asking!)

Range is, by definition, fuzzy logic. I struggled with the concept for years, as I had gotten pretty good at putting players on a specific hand. So much so, that they would frequently show me and ask how I did it. Ranging hands is two, or more, levels above that and the information can be used sooner in the hand - thus decreasing losses and increasing profits.

I'm not really surprised that you disparaged the concept, it's really quite difficult to apply. I'm just at the point of using it correctly in-game and have a long way to go.

Card removal (blockers) is tied directly to hand ranges. If you are facing action and have AK, then there are fewer combos of AA & KK you could be against. This is where you have to apply your experience and your read of your opponent to decide if he is likely to have one of those fewer combos, or if his range includes AJs+, AQ+, TT+, etc.

Yes, there are a few that attempt to make a formula out of it, but experienced live players just use it to swing a decision, not make a decision.

Flame off.

To be fair it's definitely not just him. I don't think it's ever you though.

The bigger the edge the less variance has an impact, so I'm willing to accept more the higher my edge is. I don't really understand the opposite mindset but it doesn't seem to be unique to you.

Not all of your opponents are completely unobservant, although for the ones that are, neutral EV hands don't do anything but add variance, sure. However I'd still argue more variance is better up to a point for reasons I gave earlier.

Edit: Also want to say that the concept of ranges is IMO the single most important concept in poker, so I don't think it could ever be overvalued. It doesn't matter that you never figure out someone's exact range. You just need to do your best with the information you have available.

I didn't think my tone was abrasive. Merely called him out in a polieter way than he was willing to do for me. Speaking of:

It seems your reading comprehension needs some work. Unless you somehow think your username can be shortened to GG

Complete misinterpretation of my point, because the assumption is we are properly bankrolled for sitting down. Having 100% of my net worth on the table is a situation no poker player should ever be in and if they were, I would hope the advise they would get is to immediately stand up, cash out, and go to GA. Many comments often reflect riding the variance train because even if something makes sense, you will lose. But the assumption unless otherwise given is that you won't lose your house when variance doesn't go that way.

I did say I don't believe you would support that, but if there is an argument for risk aversion, there is an argument to fold the (at the moment, nuts) if you find yourself in a situation where you can't handle losing it. Why that's never relevant is obvious. If someone was in that situation, as was said here, there is a bigger problem than the hand, and the player should step down in stakes.

There are tables you can go over 5k maximum, but for the most places, you'd have to ask them that. I am sure people far smarter than either of us figured out the right amount to keep whales coming back, while keeping the casino safe in a case of bad variance. Kind of the same situation that even casinos want to be bank rolled properly.


Your blackjack example was trying to create a false dichotomy for situations that don't happen in poker. You don't try to dodge the pit boss or make a play to risk anyone getting wise. And Jesus Christ, who pissed in your cheerios?

On topic, short answer for the OP is it depends on the table and the player. If you got a player in a hand who calls down 3rd pair, that isn't the player you want to bluff bet let him call you into oblivion. You got the tight/mubs fish, bluff him every now and then, and let him play faceup for you. It's rare that other players will understand balance, but from my experience, they will notice tight tendencies, and it's hard to say what adjustments they will make.

If they are all oblivious, then just play smart poker.

No, it merely means that this is the internet, and when the monkeys don't like what you're saying but can't refute your arguments, they throw feces at you. Aside from that, I haven't heard that from "multiple people"--just one person. And I could certainly call other people here abrasive, but that would be a waste of time.

Look, I get it. I'm the new kid on the block. Not yet part of the "in" crowd. I don't speak swaggering poker pseudo-expert lingo. And I don't think I can destroy any poker game merely by fixing my steely-eyed gaze on my opponents and waiting for them to crumble.

And yes, I have opinions that not everyone agrees with. Heaven forfend.

Thanks for the comments everyone!
Let me fill in some information gaps:

-My seat at the game is guaranteed, I often host the game and usually people check in with me before inviting new players (even when im not the host).

-The game consists of the same 10-12 players, depends on who's available, 6-9 handed.

-We've been playing for a few years now. Most of them have the same patterns (donk bet river when missing a draw, for example), but those patterns are a drop in the sea. When they x/r you all in its extremely polarized and its a guessing game at that point most of the times.

My bankroll is a bit smaller lately, due to investing most of my money right when the downswing began, so that might be the reason self doubt is creeping in.

I'll write it again: "play tight, call with nutted hands, value bet, value bet, value bet."

I play in the same type of game, exactly, and this is what I do. It is a mint.

When I loosen up and start playing crap like they do, I lose more often than not. I win a ton playing tight -- not nut-pedaling and not nitty, but good hands, thinking about position, etc. And value bet the hell out of them. They will pay.

this