ITT: GG is afraid of losing money with one pair
IRL: I seem to only win money with one pair

Yeah browni is right, you just cannot seem to apply range concepts in practical situations and grasp how what your moronic opponents are doing is meaningless when you do things a complete player would do. Go ahead limp the nuts so you can tiptoe across 3 postflop streets (Or fold badly/well/who knows 0-1 streets) when they don’t open up the action pre, or make them fold the worst hand always pre when they do open up your limp to further action. If I were an IP caller on K87r against browni and the flop we’re K87, I’d be pretty much dead unless stacks were deep enough to leverage. He doesn’t have AA, he has all sets and nutgutters/bdfd and TP and bdsd/FD all of which might be mixed as bets and checks and... yea, I’m dead.

You make pairs?! ☀️ 🏃

Imagine starting with one...the best one even...

You want me to explain why the statement "The only time the rest of the money goes in postflop is when we won't have best hand" is wrong in reference to this toy game?

In other words, GG made a such obvious and incorrect statement that it requires no explanation?

I am sure GG knows better than that.

Thanks, you indirectly made it quite clear.

yw

I shouldn't have said the "only" time money goes in the toy game we're not ahead, I misspoke; I should have said something more along the lines of there's typically more money headed toward 87s way postflop than there is AK (or something like that, I realize I'm wording this horribly).

Basically, the toy game (iirc) in AK vs 87s (keeping in mind that AK has about a 60/40 advantage preflop) is that when the flop comes, so long as we figure similar skillz for the opponents, is that 87s is likely going to fare better postflop. Neither is going to lose much money to the other when they both flop one pair. AK is going to fare a lot better when they both flop two pair. But AK is going to lose a lot more to 87 when it flops TP and gets outflopped than vice versa (how much does AK lose on A87 vs how much does 87 lose on AK8); ditto for trips (how much does AK lose on A88 vs how much does 87 lose on AA8). And 87 is going to make more straights, and be much more likely to get paid off when it makes one when AK makes TP than vice versa. And ditto for flushes. Basically, everything Tanq was saying about RIO vs IO.

Course, there's always more to it than than (toy game isn't taking into account bluffing, we're making some assuming regarding skill level, and so on and so forth). But the main point is: having the best hand preflop ain't necessarily the coup you think it is in NL if you're only getting in small percentages of your stack preflop.


I have zero problem regarding creating small SPR pots with big TP type hands for their pure card edge; heck, that's all I attempt to do. But the key is to accomplish that SPR by getting in huge percentages of your stack (when you're the fave and have charged your opponents far too much to enter the pot), especially if you're most likely going to have to hurp durp in the rest of your stack postflop. In this 10way example we offered 9 opponents awesome IO of 29+:1 to go to the SPR 1.9 pot, where everyone got in a rather lol 5% of their stack preflop. If we hadda setup an SPR 1.9 pot HU, that means our lone opponent would have had to put in a lol hugenormous 21% of their stack, getting IO of only 4.75:1. (Not saying that obviously everyone wouldn't rather have the latter result, just saying not all SPRs of x are exactly the same regarding IO vs RIO / pure card edge).

GcluelessNLnoobG

AA pre in NLHE is quite a large favorite all the time.

AA pre in PLO not so much.

PLO is not relevant to GG's points.

I’m not so much comparing equities as making a cut and dry situation where it doesn’t really matter what your opponents do, your “mistakes” will still result in your overall strategy being profitable.

Like sometimes we take a 7 way flop with AA for 4 bb a man and it comes T75 and we get the last 96 bb in against 55 and hate our life. But that doesn’t mean we did anything wrong technically. Getting stacked and making a mistake is not a 1:1 relationship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stop dude. Just stop. Answer the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But to me, this mostly is just a giant mistake. And yes, I still realize like Browni points out that we're not just up against 55 here and that we're up against a range of hands (some of which we're ahead, like maybe some Tx that stacks off or aggro 98 or whatever).

But in the end when all the dust settles, it really is just about who has made the most amount of massive mistakes and who hasn't. Consistently getting yourself in spots where you'll often make a huge mistake for 95% of your stack as a massive underdog doesn't seem like the best plan to me.

GcluelessbestplannoobG

some people are just scared of variance. no shame in it. its the same reason some folks just put all their money in a 1.5% APR savings acct.

This is probably a totally separate question, but my guess is the only good long term method regarding poker is a low variance approach due to the fact that it's unlikely any normal human would be able to healthily / mentally / strategically withstand a high variance approach.

GjustaguessG

Lol, you are freaking relentless. Its not about seeking out high variance just because- its about looking to execute an approach that maximizes our EV. Our EV in the games raises,and an unavoidable consequence of that is higher variance. Higher winrate longterm, but also variance.

Eric Seidel once said: "If you _always_ gets it in with the best of it, you are doing it wrong. You are leaving money on the table and is simply playing too tight".

All the biggest winners you will find in the game,alle the crushers- does have a bumpy graph due to their unavoidable swings. Because they go for spots, and they dont hold back when a +EV spot arises (even when it is for their whole stack), no matter how small it is. And i can assure you they allow their opponents to make mistakes in low SPR pots with AA, and they doesent mention SPRx10 pr post when they talk about a pokerhand.

It’s probably best to mix it up.

Interesting side note: the reason I’m even aware of your existence and like your posts is due to the fact that I lurked these forums for a decade during times of burnout due to blistering downs when trying to beat the game (like end the game altogether) with a tiny edge push mower. I found your posts to be comforting as they gave me a vision on how I should reset. That said if you want out of that stretch your experiencing, then I recommend you burn a little gas. Go to war.

I guess the world’s best players are able to switch gears at the right time...

Nude pics still available GG. Good luck.

There seems to be this notion that there can be no wrong because you have the best starting hand.

And yet, you cited your own example that clearly demonstrates that it could be wrong:

Actions are not independent of each other. If you think there is nothing wrong with allowing someone to set mine for 4bb and then paying them off on the flop for 96bb, then we already agree on the argument.

Again, playing OOP has higher RIO than IP and playing against more players will also have higher RIO, especially if your skill level is limited.

A skilled player would likely want as many players as possible with AA, but that same skilled player would not shrug off getting it in with remaining 96bb on T75 flop as "nothing wrong technically."

It's interesting to see how everyone is projecting themselves as super players and only GG is honest with himself.

you are painting the entire human race with the same brush. not everyone thinks like you. mental fortitude probably exists on a normal distribution.

I actually credit GG for his self awareness. Not so much his lack of willingness to do anything about it.

I’m fine with you playing devil’s advocate but please don’t simplify my post to being a total generalization. Example: if you bet this flop and next to act goes all in, you may have to fold as next to act has 5 players to worry about behind (and is saying that he doesn’t care). OTOH if you check to the button who bets 20 bb into 28 bb and you xr all in when it comes to you, it is 100% fine.

GG constantly talks about mistakes. But he doesn’t define what a mistake is.

Like if we defend against a button open with 77 and the flop comes AJ9, and we check fold to a bet, it doesn’t matter if our opponent had 65 this time. We won’t ever be in good shape and often be in terrible shape.

So is a “mistake” getting our stack in when we are beat? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it can be in this situation. Sometimes it’s totally fine. Figuring out when it’s a mistake to get it in and when it’s not is part of developing your skill set.

So what is a mistake?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re relentless dude. Answer the question. Are you worried about being exploited or are you worried about being stacked?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a great solution actually. Just fold AA preflop. Now instead of risking 100 bb, we risk absolutely nothing. Seems like the ideal way to exploit our 70 VPIP opponents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Solid as f--- post. Also bolded part of course, +1.

There's no other risk-adverse obviously +EV play?

I'll admit, I'm completely surprised by the number of responses so far in the "I want everyone to call" camp versus "I only want x to call". But I'm also rather surprised there's been very few respondents overall; my guess is most don't want to get caught in the same shitshow I am by not towing the company line, but I could be wrong.

So long as everyone keeps putting themselves in spots that they believe they'll thrive in, I'm sure everyone will do just fine.

GcluelessNLnoobG

So are you acknowledging that playing AA is +EV? What makes it +EV?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How could I have done anything else when you provided a straight forward scenario?

So are we just going to move onto another oversimplified scenario in which you're likely going to say I am oversimplifying into a total generalization?

You are very much missing the point that the decision tree gets very complicated when there are more players involved.

One thing that most people seem to overlook is that multiway poker involving 6+ players is strictly a LLSNL phenomenon. So the idea that any single player can comfortably navigate OOP against 5+ players just because he/she has AA is borderline fantasyland.

Funny you're using this example to support your position, and yet it is actually more fitting to explain why AA is difficult to play because of its RIO.

It will be hard to make a big mistake with 77, because check/folding incorrectly to 65 is only risking what is in the pot, hence the low RIO.