9999th Post: Beyond Basics; Playing ABCD Poker
Also I'd like to hear your input and others on what flattire discusses in this post.
How many of you guys actually do the whole "acting like a donkey" act. Does this work, are other tactics more effective? Like how mpethy mentioned that people knowing he's a pro gets him more fold equity.
Would we rather have people think we are a donk or that we are a pro?
The quick/short answer is that the things that best work are using commonly held misconceptions/mathmatically wrong theories, etc...the type of stuff that the donks who aren't very good but think they are very good will instantly assoicate with the bad players/beginners who are beneath them.
As for is it best to have donk or pro image, I believe the answer is you want the image counter to your play. I am not as aggressive as most on this board, so since I'm much more likely to be showing up with the nuts on a big bet, the extra value from being thought of as loose and dumb trumps the extra fold equity of being thought of as a stone cold poker assassin. Plus there is the extra value in watching said players slowly figure out the donkey stuff is a total act.
He flopped the nut flush, or top set, but because he knows you are a dangerous player capable of having weird hands, like 75s! that could draw out on him, and also are willing to semi-bluff scare cards that don't hit your draw, and he has what he considers a deep stack and he doesn't want to have to make a tough decision for that much money, so he just wants to take your flop bet and move on.
I think your post is a good read for the average 2+2 reader/grinder that is an up-and-comer. A lot of the new grinders out there assume fish are stupid because they don't play +EV. This particularly bothers me when a grinder acts in a condescending manner to the fish for not making the obvious +EV decision. A lot of winning players don't understand that they are not playing poker to win money, but rather for other reasons. As you touched on, the psychology of poker is dedicated to answering such questions.
Apologies if I'm coming across as thread jacking. Just throwing around my opinion, won't be offended if it's moved elsewhere.
I guarantee the explanation as to how they lost, as told to their wife, friends, and probably non-friends too has nothing to do with whether they lost to a big, bad pro or their friendly neighbor. Their explanation to their wife will start and end with the world "unlucky". Further explanation will either be about how they played great but just had coolers (biggest pot lost was to a player they respect; so to them it was two good players dealt a cooler-situation) or donkey-idiot made a horrible call against him and sucked out (biggest pot lost was to a player they don't respect).
Very nice post!
There is a place for them but not much at 1/2 or 2/5. The villain needs to be a thinker, have wide open range and ability to fold when tested, but this depends on our image. I use this play vs I am constantly being attacked in the blinds by a good lag who thinks I'm too tight.
Yeah they key is that villains opening range needs to be wide
I love you, mpethybridge
Interesting 3betting post. I like your spin on it. I cut aand pasted it to my word doc : )
So...
Is 'light value' a Merge?
Is 'Semi-bluff range' Polarizing?
Is 'bluff range' sort of a 'deep' pole to the bluff side against people who 'always' (70%+ F3BET) fold to a 3bet? Sort of like labeling someone able to be 3bet with ATC?
See...I pretty much use these exact concepts although I break it up to Polarizing, Merging and 3betting 'ATC'....in your opinion am I on or off in my classifications?
Like if someone is raising wide from LP and often calling a 3bet, I'll Merge from the blinds by opening up the top of my value range and 3betting AJ, KQ etc and expect to get called light and possibly get 3 streets of value vs hands like QJ, QT, AT, JT etc...Is that the same as your 'Light Value?
If I'm IP and someone 'usually folds' to a 3bet...I'll use your 'semi-bluff' range hands like A5, K5 and T5 to 3bet light. I tend to use these to polarize my 3betting range incase I ever get to showdown they can see I 3bet light so I get value on my big hands liek AA, KK, AK later on. If I'm 4bet I'm polarized so my decision is easy and I can fold in this case cause its my bluff side of the range. Also if I'm called (the player will 'sometime' call as we know) I have a possible over to a hand that calls a 3bet OOP (77-QQ etc) and FD possibilities which opens up the chance to semi-bluff with outs and get some FE...is this right? The same thiking as you or am I off?
Your 'Bluff range' I think of as ATC sort of. Label a guy ATC and pop him any time he raises and I'm in position pn him. I do it cause I know he's weak and always folds to a 3bet cause he assumes you have AA. Problem is...as you pointed out in the top of your post...the fish aren't always stupid. They realize you're 3betting every time they open and adjust. The trick is to figure out how they are adjusting and adjust back. I'll admit I rarely 3bet ATC in 1-2NL, but I don't mind polarizing with A5, K5 and T5 from position...is this correct or no?
ALSO...I change my approach a lot depending on if I'm in or out of position on the original raiser...your post didnt mention position at all (or if it did I missed it sorry) Do you have any suggestions for that?
Sorry if that's too many questions. Your post was awesome
- DA -
So...
Is 'light value' a Merge?
Is 'Semi-bluff range' Polarizing?
Is 'bluff range' sort of a 'deep' pole to the bluff side against people who 'always' (70%+ F3BET) fold to a 3bet? Sort of like labeling someone able to be 3bet with ATC?
See...I pretty much use these exact concepts although I break it up to Polarizing, Merging and 3betting 'ATC'....in your opinion am I on or off in my classifications?
Like if someone is raising wide from LP and often calling a 3bet, I'll Merge from the blinds by opening up the top of my value range and 3betting AJ, KQ etc and expect to get called light and possibly get 3 streets of value vs hands like QJ, QT, AT, JT etc...Is that the same as your 'Light Value?
If I'm IP and someone 'usually folds' to a 3bet...I'll use your 'semi-bluff' range hands like A5, K5 and T5 to 3bet light. I tend to use these to polarize my 3betting range incase I ever get to showdown they can see I 3bet light so I get value on my big hands liek AA, KK, AK later on. If I'm 4bet I'm polarized so my decision is easy and I can fold in this case cause its my bluff side of the range. Also if I'm called (the player will 'sometime' call as we know) I have a possible over to a hand that calls a 3bet OOP (77-QQ etc) and FD possibilities which opens up the chance to semi-bluff with outs and get some FE...is this right? The same thiking as you or am I off?
Your 'Bluff range' I think of as ATC sort of. Label a guy ATC and pop him any time he raises and I'm in position pn him. I do it cause I know he's weak and always folds to a 3bet cause he assumes you have AA. Problem is...as you pointed out in the top of your post...the fish aren't always stupid. They realize you're 3betting every time they open and adjust. The trick is to figure out how they are adjusting and adjust back. I'll admit I rarely 3bet ATC in 1-2NL, but I don't mind polarizing with A5, K5 and T5 from position...is this correct or no?
ALSO...I change my approach a lot depending on if I'm in or out of position on the original raiser...your post didnt mention position at all (or if it did I missed it sorry) Do you have any suggestions for that?
Sorry if that's too many questions. Your post was awesome
- DA -
Thanks mpethy. I appreciate you taking the time to contribute with your skill and knowledge.
Mpathybridge,
Interesting read, I'm gonna spend more time with it after I get some coffee in me. But what's the deal with playing 1-2nl. Is this your usual game? If you've been playing full time for a year and not stepped up then why? BR? Don't need to? Comfort? What's up? I'd also love to hear what you're stats are (I.E.- standard var/hr, hourly $, levels, how deep u play).
Interesting read, I'm gonna spend more time with it after I get some coffee in me. But what's the deal with playing 1-2nl. Is this your usual game? If you've been playing full time for a year and not stepped up then why? BR? Don't need to? Comfort? What's up? I'd also love to hear what you're stats are (I.E.- standard var/hr, hourly $, levels, how deep u play).
Great poast, can't wait for MOAR. I have so much to say and ask, yet I cannot put it into words. I am going to read a few more times and maybe I can come up with something to add/ask.
For all the people on the "why you play 1/2" bandwagon... Maybe its a comfort thing? He doesn't live a balla lifestyle and making ~15/hr is good enough. Some people live debt free and have big savings accounts. However with that said... I think in one of your posts you said you analyzed a guy who played perfectly at 50NL. The only leak he had was that he played to low. Would you consider this one of your leaks? Why or why not? You may not need a balla roll, but don't you kind of owe it to your skill level to play higher? (I really hate asking this question because I think it takes the focus of your post, hopefully it can be tied in somehow.)
For all the people on the "why you play 1/2" bandwagon... Maybe its a comfort thing? He doesn't live a balla lifestyle and making ~15/hr is good enough. Some people live debt free and have big savings accounts. However with that said... I think in one of your posts you said you analyzed a guy who played perfectly at 50NL. The only leak he had was that he played to low. Would you consider this one of your leaks? Why or why not? You may not need a balla roll, but don't you kind of owe it to your skill level to play higher? (I really hate asking this question because I think it takes the focus of your post, hopefully it can be tied in somehow.)
Mpethy explained his situation in the chat thread awhile ago. Setsy and apd should be ashamed of yourselves. Black friday duhhhhh.
On forthcoming post on showing.
In some games I never show. When I'm showing I only show good hands, but I only show one out of three times when 'I have it'. Because when I show I always 'have it', fish make an assumption that when 'I have it' I always show. Thus when I don't show they assume that I was bluffing.
This is just self-tought-noobs thoughts, it will be interesting to read what do better players think of it.
In some games I never show. When I'm showing I only show good hands, but I only show one out of three times when 'I have it'. Because when I show I always 'have it', fish make an assumption that when 'I have it' I always show. Thus when I don't show they assume that I was bluffing.
This is just self-tought-noobs thoughts, it will be interesting to read what do better players think of it.
You have a winning image; deal with it:
A few weeks ago, a guy my age sat down at the table two seats to my left. I said “hi,” and then went back to watching the game. I didn't play any hands for the next 10 or so. I was just sitting there sipping coffee, watching. After an orbit or an orbit and a half of folding, the guy turns to me and says, “so, how long have you been playing for a living?” I said, “uh, live, only a few months. But I haven't played a hand since you sat—how could you have known?” He said, “it's obvious—you are just sitting there, but you look like you are in charge.”
A few weeks before that, a drunk guy sat down at my table two seats to my right. I played a couple of pots in that time, nothing significant. Around the end of his third orbit at the table, the drunk and the guy to my right got into a conversation about keeping track of other players' actions after the drunk called a player's winning hand. The guy to my immediate right says something like, “well, this is $1/$2, you don't have to worry about people being able to do that.” The drunk guy says, “wrong. That guy on your left can tell you every action every player at the table has made in the last orbit.” He looks at me and says “right?” I denied it, but the drunk just laughed and said, “yeah, ok, I shouldn't have blown your cover. Sorry.”
Not bragging, there is a lesson here it took me these two dramatic episodes to learn: Almost everybody at your table has you pegged as a winning player. They see you riffling chips. They see you expertly cut out that $50 bet. They see your card cap and how you have a routine for looking at your cards in turn, capping them if you're going to play, and then making your bet. They can even tell just by looking at you whether you seem comfortable at the table. I get asked out of the blue 3 times a week, minimum, whether I am a local (this is the clever way that vacationers try to trap you into admitting you're a pro ), or outright whether I'm a pro player. (Do what you want, I won't lie about it).
Your job is to adjust correctly to it. As I said, I won't lie about what I do for a living, so it is fairly common for me to be playing a session where my end of the table knows that I coach and play for a living. It increases my fold equity dramatically, and against most players, it narrows their ranges against me to make a bet. Every now and then, someone will want to make a play on me because they want to outplay the pro—I even had one guy whip out the Rounder's quote: “Ha! Look at that. I got ****. I bluffed the big ringer.”
Assume people will play differently against you than they will against the other people at the table, because most of them really do notice that you know what you're doing. The reason for this is simple:
A few weeks ago, a guy my age sat down at the table two seats to my left. I said “hi,” and then went back to watching the game. I didn't play any hands for the next 10 or so. I was just sitting there sipping coffee, watching. After an orbit or an orbit and a half of folding, the guy turns to me and says, “so, how long have you been playing for a living?” I said, “uh, live, only a few months. But I haven't played a hand since you sat—how could you have known?” He said, “it's obvious—you are just sitting there, but you look like you are in charge.”
A few weeks before that, a drunk guy sat down at my table two seats to my right. I played a couple of pots in that time, nothing significant. Around the end of his third orbit at the table, the drunk and the guy to my right got into a conversation about keeping track of other players' actions after the drunk called a player's winning hand. The guy to my immediate right says something like, “well, this is $1/$2, you don't have to worry about people being able to do that.” The drunk guy says, “wrong. That guy on your left can tell you every action every player at the table has made in the last orbit.” He looks at me and says “right?” I denied it, but the drunk just laughed and said, “yeah, ok, I shouldn't have blown your cover. Sorry.”
Not bragging, there is a lesson here it took me these two dramatic episodes to learn: Almost everybody at your table has you pegged as a winning player. They see you riffling chips. They see you expertly cut out that $50 bet. They see your card cap and how you have a routine for looking at your cards in turn, capping them if you're going to play, and then making your bet. They can even tell just by looking at you whether you seem comfortable at the table. I get asked out of the blue 3 times a week, minimum, whether I am a local (this is the clever way that vacationers try to trap you into admitting you're a pro ), or outright whether I'm a pro player. (Do what you want, I won't lie about it).
Your job is to adjust correctly to it. As I said, I won't lie about what I do for a living, so it is fairly common for me to be playing a session where my end of the table knows that I coach and play for a living. It increases my fold equity dramatically, and against most players, it narrows their ranges against me to make a bet. Every now and then, someone will want to make a play on me because they want to outplay the pro—I even had one guy whip out the Rounder's quote: “Ha! Look at that. I got ****. I bluffed the big ringer.”
Assume people will play differently against you than they will against the other people at the table, because most of them really do notice that you know what you're doing. The reason for this is simple:
There hasn't been one time when I went to Vegas where someone did not ask me, "So, do you live here," which I do not. In fact one time on our way out I stopped by Mandalay Bay with my wife and decided to play another hour before we had to leave. I bet her that I would get asked if I lived in Vegas. Sure 'nuff, it happened. From this thread I now have a little more insight into why the question is being asked. The last time it happened instead of saying, "I'm just visiting...," I played along with it as an experiment. I told him I do in fact live in Vegas and I do play pro. My buddy was sitting to the left of me and was having a hard time holding his laughter in. I was experimenting with it though. I wanted to see how he would react. I chatted it up with the guy and I treated him real kind and he told me about his crappy life as a teacher and how he wished he had the balls to do what I do. I then began to 3bet him. Fold. Fold. Fold. And fold some more. If he limped in and I raised... F >O >L> D. Did not matter what I had. I had so much FE it was not even funny. It made me realize that playing with a winning image is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you adjust. In fact it made it easier. Is everyone going to make it that easy? No, but you will run into the guy who will make it that easy. A couple of weeks ago I did the same thing to an old timer. Chatted it up, stacked him once, and just kept betting him off pots. On the way out he told me how much of a pleasure it was playing with me. He knew I was a serious, winning player, and he liked it.
I want to add to this image concept... Treat others respect and have fun with them. There are two winning images... The guy who gets a long with all and is feared, but respected and approachable... and the guy with a winning image who is feared, but not respected and people think he is a plain ole' jack a**. I know a couple of each and I can see how people respond to those players. It's night and day. Be the guy who will chat it up a little even though they know you are a serious player. The people like that guy and they know they are probably going to lose to that guy... BUT THEY DONT MIND!
That revelation I had... “well, this is $1/$2, you don't have to worry about people being able to do that.” Tell me we all haven't said something like that. I see it everyday here. It's 1/2 people don't do X at 1/2. It probably is true people don't 4bet 87sooted some high percentage of the time, but to say people at this level no matter how good or bad are not thinking is false. They may not be thinking like us, but they are thinking. About a month ago I am playing a home game with some of the worst players. I had the same auto-pilot thinking for this game which was, "people at this level don't think about X." I get into the pot with the worst player not only at this table but probably any table that is running in the city at that moment. She wins the hand and then makes a comment, "I called because usually when you play against me and you have it you do X, Y and Z." Me > but with out an open mouth. My light bulb turned on so fast and bright that the bulb filament blew and I had to replace it. Got me one of those new energy saving bulbs. I will try to never auto-pilot and say that "this never happens at 1/2" again. I might not understand what bad players are thinking, but they are thinking.
Most of the “fish” are smarter than you.
So after I answered the guy who asked me how long I had been playing professionally, he and I got into a nice conversation, and he turned out to be a great guy. He is a mover and shaker in Democratic politics in his state, went to Harvard undergrad and Harvard law, and his hobby is researching and writing a history of FDR's presidency.
He was a terrible poker player. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't the smartest guy in the room, or that he turned off his brain to play poker. He was still dazzlingly smart, and proved it with his powers of observation. His poker leak was simply that he didn't know what to apply all of that brain power to thinking about. If he did know what to think about, he'd quickly learn to crush any game he chose to play.
Recently, the consumer electronics show was in Vegas. The average quality of the games went up significantly—not because all the electronics geeks were terrific poker players, just that they were way above average in intelligence, and, everything else being equal, a smart novice will make fewer and smaller mistakes than a less smart novice.
While the show was in town, I kept telling the dealer to enforce the English only rule when those guys got to talking about cloud networks and code and all sorts of stuff that sounded like ancient Sumerian to me.
Most tourists who come to Vegas to play poker are smart, above average income, white collar guys who, allowing for their youth, are experts in their field. Their field happens not to be poker. In fact, we are fortunate that:
So after I answered the guy who asked me how long I had been playing professionally, he and I got into a nice conversation, and he turned out to be a great guy. He is a mover and shaker in Democratic politics in his state, went to Harvard undergrad and Harvard law, and his hobby is researching and writing a history of FDR's presidency.
He was a terrible poker player. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't the smartest guy in the room, or that he turned off his brain to play poker. He was still dazzlingly smart, and proved it with his powers of observation. His poker leak was simply that he didn't know what to apply all of that brain power to thinking about. If he did know what to think about, he'd quickly learn to crush any game he chose to play.
Recently, the consumer electronics show was in Vegas. The average quality of the games went up significantly—not because all the electronics geeks were terrific poker players, just that they were way above average in intelligence, and, everything else being equal, a smart novice will make fewer and smaller mistakes than a less smart novice.
While the show was in town, I kept telling the dealer to enforce the English only rule when those guys got to talking about cloud networks and code and all sorts of stuff that sounded like ancient Sumerian to me.
Most tourists who come to Vegas to play poker are smart, above average income, white collar guys who, allowing for their youth, are experts in their field. Their field happens not to be poker. In fact, we are fortunate that:
This does not mean we can't beat them, it just means the guy who you are calling a fish could very well be the CEO of a fortune 500 company. The one advantage we have over them is that we possibly take our profession/hobby/fun a little more serious and just as much as they studied and worked to get to where they are at, we did the same for poker. Could you imagine what they could accomplish though if they put in the same effort in poker that we did. Stuff it took me a year to learn they could probably learn in a matter of months.
All of that leads to mpethy's next section of the why are they playing.
Recreational players play poker for different reasons than we do.
If you haven't read “The Psychology of Poker,” by Alan Schoonamaker a half dozen times, then you have a major leak in your game. This book is the first and last word on the psychology behind different playing styles. Understanding its content is a major step toward improving the way you play against recreational poker players.
The fact of the matter is that most people who play recreationally these days have a clue. It's very rare today in Vegas to find someone at the table who has never played before, or who is drunkenly spewing off chips in stack size increments. The most commonly consumed beverage at my tables recently is Red Bull, with green tea or water being a close second. The mistakes people make are more marginal than they were a year ago when I was here auditioning for life as a live grinder, and the mistakes they were making a year ago were more marginal than they were in the 4 years before that, when I was coming to town annually for poker vacations.
That's not to say the games are hard. They are not. In fact, they are still pretty easy. What I think of as ABC poker still gets the money. But the average player is much better and makes smaller mistakes on average. Against these better players, you have to look to their psychology and understand why they are playing in order to understand the type of mistakes they are prone to make in order to maximize your earn against them.
In future posts in this thread, I'll be addressing a variety of situations where I think ABC poker is insufficient to maximize your earn in today's Vegas strip games. I'll be discussing ABCD poker—nothing terribly complex, but adding an additional element to your ABC game.
In addition, I'll be answering your questions, so if you have a situation you want me to address, feel free to post a request ITT.
If you haven't read “The Psychology of Poker,” by Alan Schoonamaker a half dozen times, then you have a major leak in your game. This book is the first and last word on the psychology behind different playing styles. Understanding its content is a major step toward improving the way you play against recreational poker players.
The fact of the matter is that most people who play recreationally these days have a clue. It's very rare today in Vegas to find someone at the table who has never played before, or who is drunkenly spewing off chips in stack size increments. The most commonly consumed beverage at my tables recently is Red Bull, with green tea or water being a close second. The mistakes people make are more marginal than they were a year ago when I was here auditioning for life as a live grinder, and the mistakes they were making a year ago were more marginal than they were in the 4 years before that, when I was coming to town annually for poker vacations.
That's not to say the games are hard. They are not. In fact, they are still pretty easy. What I think of as ABC poker still gets the money. But the average player is much better and makes smaller mistakes on average. Against these better players, you have to look to their psychology and understand why they are playing in order to understand the type of mistakes they are prone to make in order to maximize your earn against them.
In future posts in this thread, I'll be addressing a variety of situations where I think ABC poker is insufficient to maximize your earn in today's Vegas strip games. I'll be discussing ABCD poker—nothing terribly complex, but adding an additional element to your ABC game.
In addition, I'll be answering your questions, so if you have a situation you want me to address, feel free to post a request ITT.
When you understand why they are playing you can start to adjust. Just like our winning image where the "fish" adjust to us (they know the reason we play is because we take the game serious for whatever reason) we need to also be adjusting to them. Whether that means being more chatty with them, adjusting to their reason for being at the casino -maybe to gamble - and opening our range a little, both, or whatever else.
I can't wait to see mpethy's continuation of this post and hopefully he answers some of the questions above. This thread is already in the Best of LLSNL thread and will live there for-ev-er.
That being said, not ashamed at all. Given that mpethy coaches and given that most half-decent jobs would pay someone of his intelligence way more than he could possibly make at 1/2, I was legitimately interested in why he chose to spend his time at 1/2 as opposed to say coach those hours or get a job to build a roll, etc. I was trying to see if he was doing it for some educational purpose a la 'I am playing there so that when i coach 1/2 players I want to be able to tell them I play in those games and know the tendencies of their opponents'.
I have read a lot of mpethy's old threads on the micro forum and always enjoyed them, and under a different SN played in some of the games on FT with him. My sense from his posts and his play was that his was a very solid, tight technical style designed to grind out profits over over a large sample with technically correct, unimaginative play that is scalable to multitabling.
The other direction I was going with my questions is to see if he thought what he was writing was largely applicable to bigger games/if he had thought through adjustments he would make deeper/against better opponents that I could learn from, or if he was targeting folks playing typical 1/2 opponents, which is very helpful to a lot of you but doesn't apply to me, and if that were the case I was going to bow out of the thread.
So bottom line is I have legitimate and to me constructive reasons for asking what I did and meant to offense by my questions. Peace.
He used to be a lawyer the dude is smart as hell. Read his well, he is above average smarts. When he speaks I listen,period.
I don't 3bet didn't think I have to, but now my whole perspective has changed.
Imo if anything is applicable to 1/2 then surely my 3/5 or 2/5 game it should work no problem.
I don't 3bet didn't think I have to, but now my whole perspective has changed.
Imo if anything is applicable to 1/2 then surely my 3/5 or 2/5 game it should work no problem.
He used to be a lawyer the dude is smart as hell. Read his well, he is above average smarts. When he speaks I listen,period.
I don't 3bet didn't think I have to, but now my whole perspective has changed.
Imo if anything is applicable to 1/2 then surely my 3/5 or 2/5 game it should work no problem.
I don't 3bet didn't think I have to, but now my whole perspective has changed.
Imo if anything is applicable to 1/2 then surely my 3/5 or 2/5 game it should work no problem.
If you can 3bet at 1/2 why wouldn't it work with higher levels?
Edit we shouldn't be looking at 1/2 or 2/5, we should be looking at as a capped buyin game/strategy.
Bart Hansen speaks about image (winning/losing) in an all-together sense.
its just semantics, though. what you are saying has merit, just is different.
he's talking about when you are winning (chips, not Galfond bucks) in a particular session, youre percieved image can allow you to:
1] get away with more 2] value bet thinner 3] play OOP better
4] semi bluff more effectively 5] and the list goes on.
They will be more likely to make mistakes, and you will be more likely to be able to play correctly as a result of this illusion. (superstition?)
Bobby Hoff talked about the same thing in the epic Harrington interview.
you can take AK and beat AA, and it makes ppl fear you for some reason.
its not logical how ppls psychology works in this instance, but if you show the winning hand over and over, and it doesnt matter how you got there, ppl will play worse vs. you;
and it's the reverse; if you havent won a pot all night, you wont be able to bluff at all. someone will call you down because you're 'so unlucky'.
again, this doesnt make any sense, and we prolly dont think this way, but most ppl do, and its important to be aware of this fact, when figuring out what our image is at the moment, and how to take advantage of it.
as far as having an image of a 'pro' or a serious player;?
Mike Caro talked about having a care free image being a plus. (words of wisdom)
remember that its a game!!!
goof off instead of having solemn strat discussions.
that will help.
it is avoidable.
the players that really are good, and don't just appear to be good (serious 'pros'), actually drive the action, and get the game going, not kill the action.
I had the day time nit-regs at Bellago in the 500 cap game 100% convinced i was a trust funder who always got lucky, and has no respect for money because I
1] played recklessly vs. them, cuz that was
the correct adjustment, and
2] they saw me raise Q2s.
3] I dressed well/ nice watch.
4] I didnt talk poker.
(@100 hours last year or so)
even in my own player pool at home, i try to keep a care free attitude, and goof off, joke around (not too much). even if they know who i am, i'm not spawning a story that, as you claim, stifles your action.
ive had a good online player complain to me that he doesnt get action because they 'know who he is", ie. how good he is. LOL. maybe it's because he sits there like a bump on a log, and cant even say 'hi'?
they could prolly care less how 'good' he is.
If im on tilt, and start steaming, i quit in rapid order.
a real 'pro' is someone who plays games for a living.
that means playing the game, and having it be a game. have fun with it, and dont treat it in public as what it really is to you, >>> something that youre dead serious about. dont betray that to your villians.
keep it under your hat.
its just semantics, though. what you are saying has merit, just is different.
he's talking about when you are winning (chips, not Galfond bucks) in a particular session, youre percieved image can allow you to:
1] get away with more 2] value bet thinner 3] play OOP better
4] semi bluff more effectively 5] and the list goes on.
They will be more likely to make mistakes, and you will be more likely to be able to play correctly as a result of this illusion. (superstition?)
Bobby Hoff talked about the same thing in the epic Harrington interview.
you can take AK and beat AA, and it makes ppl fear you for some reason.
its not logical how ppls psychology works in this instance, but if you show the winning hand over and over, and it doesnt matter how you got there, ppl will play worse vs. you;
and it's the reverse; if you havent won a pot all night, you wont be able to bluff at all. someone will call you down because you're 'so unlucky'.
again, this doesnt make any sense, and we prolly dont think this way, but most ppl do, and its important to be aware of this fact, when figuring out what our image is at the moment, and how to take advantage of it.
as far as having an image of a 'pro' or a serious player;?
Mike Caro talked about having a care free image being a plus. (words of wisdom)
remember that its a game!!!
goof off instead of having solemn strat discussions.
that will help.
it is avoidable.
the players that really are good, and don't just appear to be good (serious 'pros'), actually drive the action, and get the game going, not kill the action.
I had the day time nit-regs at Bellago in the 500 cap game 100% convinced i was a trust funder who always got lucky, and has no respect for money because I
1] played recklessly vs. them, cuz that was
the correct adjustment, and
2] they saw me raise Q2s.
3] I dressed well/ nice watch.
4] I didnt talk poker.
(@100 hours last year or so)
even in my own player pool at home, i try to keep a care free attitude, and goof off, joke around (not too much). even if they know who i am, i'm not spawning a story that, as you claim, stifles your action.
ive had a good online player complain to me that he doesnt get action because they 'know who he is", ie. how good he is. LOL. maybe it's because he sits there like a bump on a log, and cant even say 'hi'?
they could prolly care less how 'good' he is.
If im on tilt, and start steaming, i quit in rapid order.
a real 'pro' is someone who plays games for a living.
that means playing the game, and having it be a game. have fun with it, and dont treat it in public as what it really is to you, >>> something that youre dead serious about. dont betray that to your villians.
keep it under your hat.
What do we make of two images I saw recently?
1- Guy takes a long time to make decisions. Table teases him about needing "the clock." A raise, some callers (including "rain delay"), young kid reraises big with a short stack to $75 (raise was around 10). Folds to "rain delay" and he puts the short stack in for his remaining $20 with a minraise to get the players between him out for a HU pot. Shorty felts AKs and "rain delay" wins with 99. Shorty gets up and just berates "rain delay" for his awful call with 99. And, further berates the raise. He looks baffled and can't stop being a complete douche....Hellmuth style. What was an otherwise nice kid just did what to his image?
2) Now, what is MY image? Same game. I sit in seat 4 down on the end with Shorty the Kid. Earlier in the session a wild and completely reckless player is going bananas both pre and post flop. Obv, I am waiting my time to get in a pot with him, but positionally, it's not easy. 4 players enter a pot, me included but not Cpt. Reckless. I am in position and raise limpers with AQs. Board flops Khi two suits, not mine. Checks around. Turn checks around. River completes flush, and it checks around. Cpt. Reckless shouts, "And, the pot goes to Seat 4!" He was shocked I didn't win the pot after I mucked to a middle pair hand flipping it's cards over.
Is my image nitty or of a winning player? (I'm actually curious because I need to know how to adjust vs Cpt Reckless in the future....or if it even means anything. I interpreted it at the time as very nitty to the point of being action killing.)
1- Guy takes a long time to make decisions. Table teases him about needing "the clock." A raise, some callers (including "rain delay"), young kid reraises big with a short stack to $75 (raise was around 10). Folds to "rain delay" and he puts the short stack in for his remaining $20 with a minraise to get the players between him out for a HU pot. Shorty felts AKs and "rain delay" wins with 99. Shorty gets up and just berates "rain delay" for his awful call with 99. And, further berates the raise. He looks baffled and can't stop being a complete douche....Hellmuth style. What was an otherwise nice kid just did what to his image?
2) Now, what is MY image? Same game. I sit in seat 4 down on the end with Shorty the Kid. Earlier in the session a wild and completely reckless player is going bananas both pre and post flop. Obv, I am waiting my time to get in a pot with him, but positionally, it's not easy. 4 players enter a pot, me included but not Cpt. Reckless. I am in position and raise limpers with AQs. Board flops Khi two suits, not mine. Checks around. Turn checks around. River completes flush, and it checks around. Cpt. Reckless shouts, "And, the pot goes to Seat 4!" He was shocked I didn't win the pot after I mucked to a middle pair hand flipping it's cards over.
Is my image nitty or of a winning player? (I'm actually curious because I need to know how to adjust vs Cpt Reckless in the future....or if it even means anything. I interpreted it at the time as very nitty to the point of being action killing.)
Mpethy - great post - I read the first part, skimmed the second and plan on coming back tomorrow and reading the rest carefully (too tired now).
A couple of questions (forgive me if they are too forward, no offense intended):
1. Why would anyone think that someone playing 1/2NL is a pro per your story?
2. Given all your technical knowledge of the game, why are you playing 1/2 and not 5/10? Is it BR? Seems like a waste of your time unless you are trying to collect data/do some kind of an experiment/etc.
A couple of questions (forgive me if they are too forward, no offense intended):
1. Why would anyone think that someone playing 1/2NL is a pro per your story?
2. Given all your technical knowledge of the game, why are you playing 1/2 and not 5/10? Is it BR? Seems like a waste of your time unless you are trying to collect data/do some kind of an experiment/etc.
That being said, not ashamed at all. Given that mpethy coaches and given that most half-decent jobs would pay someone of his intelligence way more than he could possibly make at 1/2, I was legitimately interested in why he chose to spend his time at 1/2 as opposed to say coach those hours or get a job to build a roll, etc. I was trying to see if he was doing it for some educational purpose a la 'I am playing there so that when i coach 1/2 players I want to be able to tell them I play in those games and know the tendencies of their opponents'.
I have read a lot of mpethy's old threads on the micro forum and always enjoyed them, and under a different SN played in some of the games on FT with him. My sense from his posts and his play was that his was a very solid, tight technical style designed to grind out profits over over a large sample with technically correct, unimaginative play that is scalable to multitabling.
The other direction I was going with my questions is to see if he thought what he was writing was largely applicable to bigger games/if he had thought through adjustments he would make deeper/against better opponents that I could learn from, or if he was targeting folks playing typical 1/2 opponents, which is very helpful to a lot of you but doesn't apply to me, and if that were the case I was going to bow out of the thread.
So bottom line is I have legitimate and to me constructive reasons for asking what I did and meant to offense by my questions. Peace.
I have read a lot of mpethy's old threads on the micro forum and always enjoyed them, and under a different SN played in some of the games on FT with him. My sense from his posts and his play was that his was a very solid, tight technical style designed to grind out profits over over a large sample with technically correct, unimaginative play that is scalable to multitabling.
The other direction I was going with my questions is to see if he thought what he was writing was largely applicable to bigger games/if he had thought through adjustments he would make deeper/against better opponents that I could learn from, or if he was targeting folks playing typical 1/2 opponents, which is very helpful to a lot of you but doesn't apply to me, and if that were the case I was going to bow out of the thread.
So bottom line is I have legitimate and to me constructive reasons for asking what I did and meant to offense by my questions. Peace.
I agree your questions are 100% legit, and I didn't take any offense at all. Well, I was mildly insulted by the "unimaginative" bit, but since I went out of my way to cultivate and exploit that image, I guess I shouldn't be.
I was a lawyer until 2007 or so, and I burned out on it. My wife and I were doing ok, not great, but ok, and with our daughter grown and out of the house, we didn't really need all the money, so I was free to quit with no plan. Between '07 and '09 I backed into coaching and playing for a living, which I did until Black Friday. On Black friday, I was in the process of getting our Vegas house, paying a tax bill that was way bigger than I had estimated, and getting ready to jump into life as a live grinder. I had a big chunk of my liquidity on FT, and a lot of the remainder had gone to the house and the taxes. So on April 15th I went from having decent liquid life and poker rolls to having no poker roll and a small liquid life roll.
I play 1/2 because it is all I can afford to play without dipping into sources of funds I'm not willing to dip into. By any reasonable standard of bank roll management, I'm not even rolled for 1/2.
Black Friday also wrecked the coaching business, as it took the vast majority of Americans out of the potential customer base. After BF, everybody canceled, even the Europeans, and I was too soul crushed to take on the few people who contacted me. It has come back some, but at a greatly diminished volume that does not amount to full time work like it did in '09 and '10, when I was coaching 30-40 hours a week. I think I did 18 hours last week. If I had booked only 18 hours of coaching in a week in '10 or early '11, I would have been in a panic, lol. But in the post-BF world, last week was a good week.
The thing is, you have to play the hand with discipline. You're bluffing. You expected a fold. Common sense tells us if he calls, he's at the top of his range, and we should give up if we don't crush the flop instead of shoveling in good money after bad. Crushing the flop, BTW, probably also means seeing an ace on the flop. I believe I'd turn in my card capper and take up knitting if I ever failed to c-bet air on an ace high flop in a 3 bet pot.
I'm assuming you're advocating the light 3 bet for value only. This would mean you agree with the prevailing view that there's no need to balance your 3-betting range at live-low-stakes. If this is the case, then 3 betting light is not really an essential betting strategy, given how "thin" its value. Just to give me an idea, what, on average, would your light 3 betting frequency be during a 1/2 session? Do you sometimes not 3 bet light at all, for instance?
light value
semi-bluff
bluff
The only reason for this is because of the player pool. The player pool calls way too many 3 bets. In fact, I rarely see a fold to a 3 bet, and when I do, I make a careful note of that player's ability to fold. For most players in the player pool, their range to make an initial raise consists entirely of hands that they think are too good to ever fold to a 3 bet. So they never do. So you can get thin value from them.
The spots in which we can 3 bet our semi-bluffing ranges and bluffing ranges will be few and far between.
My favorite situation in live play is to have the jesus seat on a decent lag. I wait until we are in late position (or middle sometimes), and I 3 bet him relentlessly with my semi-bluffing range. The fact that he is decent means he knows that it is usually a big mistake to flat a c-bet OOP, and that he has a wide enough stealing range that he needs to fold most of it; it also means that he is not good enough to fight back with light 4 bets.
@mpethy
1) How does position fare wrt the types of 3bet? Are you more likely to employ a bluff 3bet from the blinds while other types of 3bet in position?
2) Would limp/3betting be less or more credible than cold 3betting? My initial reaction would be to mostly give a limp/3better credit for AA, KK and (depending on the size of the 3bet) possibly AK
1) How does position fare wrt the types of 3bet? Are you more likely to employ a bluff 3bet from the blinds while other types of 3bet in position?
2) Would limp/3betting be less or more credible than cold 3betting? My initial reaction would be to mostly give a limp/3better credit for AA, KK and (depending on the size of the 3bet) possibly AK
From a range perspective, I would say: My range to 3 bet when in position is usually polarized and weighted toward semi-bluffs roughly 3 to 2. My range to 3 bet from the blinds is polarized, and roughly equally weighted between semi-bluffs and value hands.
I don't aim for these proportions, and they are only rough estimates, anyway. I think they are the natural result of looking at a button stealer and going, "meh; he'll probably call often enough that I don't have a lot of fold equity, especially if my frequency gets out of hand," and pegging him as a "sometimes calls," guy. Whereas I look at the same decent+ player when I am OTB and he opens from the hijack or the CO and I think, "heh, he can't call OOP with the vast majority of trash he is opening, and he knows it," and I just naturally have more opportunities to 3 bet him.
Somebody asked about stack size. Unless I say otherwise, I am thinking of 100 to 150bb stacks that are common on the strip. I usually only 3 bet short stackers for light value. If i ran across a technically proficient short stacker, a. it'd be the first time; and, b. I'd go into poker stove mode.
You didn't discuss stack depth at all in your 3-bet discussion. I know your background is online (= mostly 100bbs) and you are a data driven guy (again, your data being probably mostly 100bb data), but have you thought through 3-betting adjustments IP/OOP with stacks of 150bbs? 200bbs+? Maybe that's ABCDE, but would be curious on your thoughts =).
Interesting 3betting post. I like your spin on it. I cut aand pasted it to my word doc : )
So...
Is 'light value' a Merge?Yes
Is 'Semi-bluff range' Polarizing? Yes
Is 'bluff range' sort of a 'deep' pole to the bluff side against people who 'always' (70%+ F3BET) fold to a 3bet? Sort of like labeling someone able to be 3bet with ATC? I just consider ATC additional cards in a polarized range. The key thing to remember about players who fold to 3 bet 70%+ is that the only two serious mistakes you can make against them is to 3 bet a hand as a semi-bluff that you could profitably call with (we call this cannibalizing your calling range) and building a big pot post flop with air.
See...I pretty much use these exact concepts although I break it up to Polarizing, Merging and 3betting 'ATC'....in your opinion am I on or off in my classifications?
Like if someone is raising wide from LP and often calling a 3bet, I'll Merge from the blinds by opening up the top of my value range and 3betting AJ, KQ etc and expect to get called light and possibly get 3 streets of value vs hands like QJ, QT, AT, JT etc...Is that the same as your 'Light Value?
If I'm IP and someone 'usually folds' to a 3bet...I'll use your 'semi-bluff' range hands like A5, K5 and T5 to 3bet light. I tend to use these to polarize my 3betting range incase I ever get to showdown they can see I 3bet light so I get value on my big hands liek AA, KK, AK later on. If I'm 4bet I'm polarized so my decision is easy and I can fold in this case cause its my bluff side of the range. Also if I'm called (the player will 'sometime' call as we know) I have a possible over to a hand that calls a 3bet OOP (77-QQ etc) and FD possibilities which opens up the chance to semi-bluff with outs and get some FE...is this right? The same thiking as you or am I off?
Your 'Bluff range' I think of as ATC sort of. Label a guy ATC and pop him any time he raises and I'm in position pn him. I do it cause I know he's weak and always folds to a 3bet cause he assumes you have AA. Problem is...as you pointed out in the top of your post...the fish aren't always stupid. They realize you're 3betting every time they open and adjust. The trick is to figure out how they are adjusting and adjust back. I'll admit I rarely 3bet ATC in 1-2NL, but I don't mind polarizing with A5, K5 and T5 from position...is this correct or no?
ALSO...I change my approach a lot depending on if I'm in or out of position on the original raiser...your post didnt mention position at all (or if it did I missed it sorry) Do you have any suggestions for that?
Sorry if that's too many questions. Your post was awesome
- DA -
So...
Is 'light value' a Merge?Yes
Is 'Semi-bluff range' Polarizing? Yes
Is 'bluff range' sort of a 'deep' pole to the bluff side against people who 'always' (70%+ F3BET) fold to a 3bet? Sort of like labeling someone able to be 3bet with ATC? I just consider ATC additional cards in a polarized range. The key thing to remember about players who fold to 3 bet 70%+ is that the only two serious mistakes you can make against them is to 3 bet a hand as a semi-bluff that you could profitably call with (we call this cannibalizing your calling range) and building a big pot post flop with air.
See...I pretty much use these exact concepts although I break it up to Polarizing, Merging and 3betting 'ATC'....in your opinion am I on or off in my classifications?
Like if someone is raising wide from LP and often calling a 3bet, I'll Merge from the blinds by opening up the top of my value range and 3betting AJ, KQ etc and expect to get called light and possibly get 3 streets of value vs hands like QJ, QT, AT, JT etc...Is that the same as your 'Light Value?
If I'm IP and someone 'usually folds' to a 3bet...I'll use your 'semi-bluff' range hands like A5, K5 and T5 to 3bet light. I tend to use these to polarize my 3betting range incase I ever get to showdown they can see I 3bet light so I get value on my big hands liek AA, KK, AK later on. If I'm 4bet I'm polarized so my decision is easy and I can fold in this case cause its my bluff side of the range. Also if I'm called (the player will 'sometime' call as we know) I have a possible over to a hand that calls a 3bet OOP (77-QQ etc) and FD possibilities which opens up the chance to semi-bluff with outs and get some FE...is this right? The same thiking as you or am I off?
Your 'Bluff range' I think of as ATC sort of. Label a guy ATC and pop him any time he raises and I'm in position pn him. I do it cause I know he's weak and always folds to a 3bet cause he assumes you have AA. Problem is...as you pointed out in the top of your post...the fish aren't always stupid. They realize you're 3betting every time they open and adjust. The trick is to figure out how they are adjusting and adjust back. I'll admit I rarely 3bet ATC in 1-2NL, but I don't mind polarizing with A5, K5 and T5 from position...is this correct or no?
ALSO...I change my approach a lot depending on if I'm in or out of position on the original raiser...your post didnt mention position at all (or if it did I missed it sorry) Do you have any suggestions for that?
Sorry if that's too many questions. Your post was awesome
- DA -
I had so much FE it was not even funny. It made me realize that playing with a winning image is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you adjust. In fact it made it easier. Is everyone going to make it that easy? No, but you will run into the guy who will make it that easy.
That revelation I had... “well, this is $1/$2, you don't have to worry about people being able to do that.” Tell me we all haven't said something like that. I see it everyday here. It's 1/2 people don't do X at 1/2. It probably is true people don't 4bet 87sooted some high percentage of the time, but to say people at this level no matter how good or bad are not thinking is false. They may not be thinking like us, but they are thinking.
That revelation I had... “well, this is $1/$2, you don't have to worry about people being able to do that.” Tell me we all haven't said something like that. I see it everyday here. It's 1/2 people don't do X at 1/2. It probably is true people don't 4bet 87sooted some high percentage of the time, but to say people at this level no matter how good or bad are not thinking is false. They may not be thinking like us, but they are thinking.
They may not be thinking like us, but they are thinking
The GENERAL implication is "Players at this level suck, they just play their hand, so anything past ABC Level-2 analysis is worthless". This is false, and will cost us money. They do apply thinking, but it may not be related specifically to hand ranges. The guy who folded to you every time you raised him because he knew you were a pro was thinking "I have limited amount of money, I know this guy is an awesome pro so he either has the nuts or he'll figure out a way to bluff me anyway, let me just minimize my losses against him and look to try to make money against other people" combined "I enjoy socializing with this guy and there's positive value to being able to sit next to him and talk about poker, so I don't want to get felted on my only buy-in by him, so I'll fold to his raise". It may not have been thinking about your hand range, but it WAS thinking; and once you figured out what he was thinking, you adjusted, changed your play, and won. It was, in it's own weird way, Level 3; his Level 2 analysis (What Do I Think He Has? ZOMG HE IS A NICE GUY AND A PRO, SO HE WOULD ONLY RAISE ME WITH A MONSTER), so you went to Level 3 (Since he thinks I am an awesome pro and always have hands, he'll fold to every raise of mine).
The SPECIFIC implication of the statement above is that, specifically when it comes to [Poker Concept X] isn't very important at LLSNL because the area of the game that it's looking to exploit some potential edge isn't very likely. For example, the other thread in this forum that was discussing the idea that, when building a 3betting light range, that certain hands (A5s) have a little extra value for their ability to also 5bet semi-bluff as opposed to others (87s). At LLSNL, this situation only will come up against very specific (very good, aggressive but disciplined, and deep-stacked) villains, so when playing all other villains, don't think about it.
It doesn't mean don't think about what all other villains are thinking, just don't think about the specific concept when figuring out the way to exploit other villains. The example I will end with is to think about the Villains who obsess about the BBJ. Imagine there was a HUGE BBJ at the casino you play, but it's ONLY for Quad 5s or below being beat (I know, weird conditions) by higher Quads. Despite the rarity, some fish think that any hand that can make a BBJ is worth playing since ZOMG 40% of $500,000!
So now you'll get some nits who are going to flat 3bets with a range of 22-55, JJ-QQ, AKs (presuming they're going to raise with KK+). Yeah, it's ******ed as all hell approach by them, but it is a type of thinking . Once you know that's their approach, adjust and exploit.
Seems simple enough, but I'll be the first to admit that it's not nearly as easy at a table as it is on this board.
Really great post, my one comment is in regards to 3-betting, a lot of our "value" 3-bets we actually don't really want a call. If we 3b AJ against any reasonable raise/calling range we're not exactly doing that fantastic. Maybe we have 55% equity? But when you combine that with all the times he folds and we get a free 3 (sometimes 4-5 at live poker) big blinds with the times he calls and our super slight hand edge and playing a bigger pot where we'll make better decisions it becomes a no-brainer 3-bet. That's actually one of the things I had trouble with not just switching to live poker but even in adapting to really good online players. I think at the very basic level it is good advice to tell someone to always know what kind of bet you're making whether it's value or bluff or w/e, but if we're going to talk about beyond ABC we have to realize that it's not really necessary for each bet to be one or the other and that the ev of the play is the sum of all it accomplishes.
I think people do this intuitively a lot for example when they open 99 get flatted IP and get J73r board. Most people cbet here. We have the best hand most of the time, and we don't particularly want to get called. But there is a combination of our fold equity, them calling with worse, and assuming they're not bluffing enough for us to ch/c down it denies them the ability to bluff. I think people intuitively know this, but then they throw it out the window when it comes to preflop.
I think people do this intuitively a lot for example when they open 99 get flatted IP and get J73r board. Most people cbet here. We have the best hand most of the time, and we don't particularly want to get called. But there is a combination of our fold equity, them calling with worse, and assuming they're not bluffing enough for us to ch/c down it denies them the ability to bluff. I think people intuitively know this, but then they throw it out the window when it comes to preflop.
Showing Cards for Fun and Profit
First, let me acknowledge the soundness, from an ABC poker standpoint, of never showing cards. When you show cards, you are giving away information that the other players at the table might be able to use. If you are not the best or at least one of the top three players at the table, you're probably better off not showing at all.
However, from an ABCD standpoint, picking your spots to show cards can help you manipulate your image.
First, it is worth noting that showing cards is "unprofessional." People generally consider it a bad idea, even if they don't exactly know why, or even if they don't know exactly what to do with the information. So the simple act of showing your cards serves to suggest to the rest of the table that you are acting in an apparently sub-optimal way--that you are being somewhat casual about the game.
This is an important message you can send to help offset the winning image I discussed in the OP. When I show cards for the purpose of offsetting a winning image, I will usually show my cards in ALL standard spots. The good thing about showing standard spots is that you're not really giving away information, although it appears that you are. So if I raise in EP with a premium pocket pair, get called by one guy, c-bet the flop and he folds, I will flip over my aces and say, "no, there is a house rule you have to stack off when I have aces." I mean, does anybody at the table really think AA is not in my raising range? They really don't learn anything when i show.
Meanwhile, showing and joking about the guy's good fold makes him feel good about the way he played the hand, and confirms him in his read that he needs to respect my c-bets.
If, two orbits later, I raise with AK and everybody folds, I'll flip them over and say, "man, you guys have me pegged, huh?"
Meanwhile, in between, I will be raising the bottom of my range, too, if I get dealt those hands, and I don't show those.
Another situation where I frequently show my cards is when I am on the button and it is folded to me. My stealing strategy is a little weird, because everybody wants to chop the blinds when it folds around, and if it is folded to the button, the blinds have their hopes up for a chop. So early in a session, I will fold the bottom of my stealing range with a sigh and a "go ahead and chop if you like, guys." I'll do and say similar stuff when I am folding a hand I would not normally steal with. Having established an image as someone who respects the chop, I'll then start my normal stealing game, and I will always show if I get dealt the top of my stealing range. So if it folds around to me and I have A8o, I'll go, "sorry guys, $7." They normally fold to the first steal, and I'll flip over the hand and say, "I just caught a hand I couldn't fold." If I get called with a hand like A8 and I brick the flop and lose the hand, I'll muck face up and say, "that'll teach me to try and steal with trash."
(Meh, this is starting to also sound like "Table Talk for Fun and Profit," too.)
There is a third situation in which i will show my cards, and that is when I raise a bet while holding a combo draw, and the other player folds. I will always flip over my hand and say something like, "good fold, I had a monster draw." (In this specific situation, I believe that the table talk "good fold," is crucial to the success of the play. The guy just folded a made hand to a draw (most likely). If you just show without saying anything, it'll look like you are showing him up. By adding in the complimentary "good fold," you remove some of the sting he is feeling for having folded the best hand [and if he thinks he made a bad fold, it also means he will think of you as an aggrotard who overvalues the combo draw]).
My rationale for showing aggressive play with draws is because most players at the table do not think that it is a good play, because they don't understand how to add pot and fold equity. They certainly do understand that you had a lot of outs, and may even understand that you were a slight favorite, but they don't understand that when you are a 53/47 favorite with a combo draw, your profit from playing them aggressively is significantly higher than your pot equity. To them, raising a combo draw is a recklessly aggressive play akin to getting AK all in preflop for 100bb.
Since my raising range is somewhat weighted toward value, I prefer to have less fold equity.
These are spots where I am giving away information without getting any in return. What I am trying to do is manipulate my image in a controlled way to achieve a specific result. If I am catching big hands and not getting paid, as in the first example, then it is time to change gears and lag it up some. By showing the big hands, I increase my FE some with the rest of my range.
In the stealing situation, I am again giving away information in an effort to increase my FE. In the combo draw scenario, I am trying to reduce my FE for later raises with my strong raising range.
One of the main reasons you should be willing to show cards is when the other guy will show his cards in return. This usually occurs when there is an all in. I ALWAYS flip my cards over all in the instant I am sure that the action has concluded. The vast majority of the time, this succeeds in pressuring the other player to turn over his cards. This, to me, is a very +EV exchange; I am the better player, I should be able to use the exchange of information more effectively than the other player. I would say that immediately exposing my cards when all in gets the other guy to show 80% of his losing hands. Even with the failure of 100% information in exchange for always showing, I still believe I can profit from the somewhat lopsided exchange.
The classic strategy behind showing cards is to show opposite your image. If you want to increase your FE, show your strong hands. If you want to decrease your FE, show your bluffs. I am more or less doing nothing more than that, but I am doing it in a situationally nuanced way. I want FE on my steals, so I show good cards. I want less FE on my raises, so I show my draws. If the deck has given me an image, I will show to reinforce that image and then change gears. It's pretty simple stuff to execute.
There are other times I show cards, some of them are pretty unpleasant to contemplate, because most of them involve needling a player to put them on tilt. FWIW, I don't pick players at random to needle. I usually pick on people who come across as a jerk in one way or another.
A few nights ago, there was this young gun sitting at my table, looking, imo, pretty ridiculous. He was dressed for clubbing, he had his hair all spiked and moussed, and he had some pretty gaudy gold chains around his neck and wrists. A pair of Oakleys completed the d'bag look.
I put aside my baser impulses and ignored him after having a brief chuckle when he first sat. Later, I limped along with J9o in the HJ and he raised from the button. when all limpers folded, he showed J7s. I was a little amused and irritated, so I said "That play was almost as slick as you are, shades. Can I have your autograph?"
Next orbit, I raised first in with JTs, and he 3 bet me. I turbo shoved (he had a 60bb stack) and he folded. I showed the JTs and said, "I give lessons, shades, if you can afford them."
Two hands later, I got AK, raised first in, he shoved, and I snap called and MHIG v K6o.
(Moral of the story: If you declare war on someone, win the effing war).
The last situation I can think of when I show my cards is when I chop in the blinds. I do it for two reasons: First, it is an easy and free way of increasing the frequency I show cards without giving away any useful information. Since I am always trying to look more casual than I am at the table, this helps a lot. Second, on the rare occasion where you chop with a strong hand, it relaxes the table. Everybody gets to talking about big hands they have chopped and such like. If you chop a premium pocket pair and muck it face up, you just became a "Good Sport," in the eyes of everyone at the table, and this can be very valuable in offsetting the negatives of having a winning image.
Next up: Yes, you CAN steal from the button at live low stakes.
First, let me acknowledge the soundness, from an ABC poker standpoint, of never showing cards. When you show cards, you are giving away information that the other players at the table might be able to use. If you are not the best or at least one of the top three players at the table, you're probably better off not showing at all.
However, from an ABCD standpoint, picking your spots to show cards can help you manipulate your image.
First, it is worth noting that showing cards is "unprofessional." People generally consider it a bad idea, even if they don't exactly know why, or even if they don't know exactly what to do with the information. So the simple act of showing your cards serves to suggest to the rest of the table that you are acting in an apparently sub-optimal way--that you are being somewhat casual about the game.
This is an important message you can send to help offset the winning image I discussed in the OP. When I show cards for the purpose of offsetting a winning image, I will usually show my cards in ALL standard spots. The good thing about showing standard spots is that you're not really giving away information, although it appears that you are. So if I raise in EP with a premium pocket pair, get called by one guy, c-bet the flop and he folds, I will flip over my aces and say, "no, there is a house rule you have to stack off when I have aces." I mean, does anybody at the table really think AA is not in my raising range? They really don't learn anything when i show.
Meanwhile, showing and joking about the guy's good fold makes him feel good about the way he played the hand, and confirms him in his read that he needs to respect my c-bets.
If, two orbits later, I raise with AK and everybody folds, I'll flip them over and say, "man, you guys have me pegged, huh?"
Meanwhile, in between, I will be raising the bottom of my range, too, if I get dealt those hands, and I don't show those.
Another situation where I frequently show my cards is when I am on the button and it is folded to me. My stealing strategy is a little weird, because everybody wants to chop the blinds when it folds around, and if it is folded to the button, the blinds have their hopes up for a chop. So early in a session, I will fold the bottom of my stealing range with a sigh and a "go ahead and chop if you like, guys." I'll do and say similar stuff when I am folding a hand I would not normally steal with. Having established an image as someone who respects the chop, I'll then start my normal stealing game, and I will always show if I get dealt the top of my stealing range. So if it folds around to me and I have A8o, I'll go, "sorry guys, $7." They normally fold to the first steal, and I'll flip over the hand and say, "I just caught a hand I couldn't fold." If I get called with a hand like A8 and I brick the flop and lose the hand, I'll muck face up and say, "that'll teach me to try and steal with trash."
(Meh, this is starting to also sound like "Table Talk for Fun and Profit," too.)
There is a third situation in which i will show my cards, and that is when I raise a bet while holding a combo draw, and the other player folds. I will always flip over my hand and say something like, "good fold, I had a monster draw." (In this specific situation, I believe that the table talk "good fold," is crucial to the success of the play. The guy just folded a made hand to a draw (most likely). If you just show without saying anything, it'll look like you are showing him up. By adding in the complimentary "good fold," you remove some of the sting he is feeling for having folded the best hand [and if he thinks he made a bad fold, it also means he will think of you as an aggrotard who overvalues the combo draw]).
My rationale for showing aggressive play with draws is because most players at the table do not think that it is a good play, because they don't understand how to add pot and fold equity. They certainly do understand that you had a lot of outs, and may even understand that you were a slight favorite, but they don't understand that when you are a 53/47 favorite with a combo draw, your profit from playing them aggressively is significantly higher than your pot equity. To them, raising a combo draw is a recklessly aggressive play akin to getting AK all in preflop for 100bb.
Since my raising range is somewhat weighted toward value, I prefer to have less fold equity.
These are spots where I am giving away information without getting any in return. What I am trying to do is manipulate my image in a controlled way to achieve a specific result. If I am catching big hands and not getting paid, as in the first example, then it is time to change gears and lag it up some. By showing the big hands, I increase my FE some with the rest of my range.
In the stealing situation, I am again giving away information in an effort to increase my FE. In the combo draw scenario, I am trying to reduce my FE for later raises with my strong raising range.
One of the main reasons you should be willing to show cards is when the other guy will show his cards in return. This usually occurs when there is an all in. I ALWAYS flip my cards over all in the instant I am sure that the action has concluded. The vast majority of the time, this succeeds in pressuring the other player to turn over his cards. This, to me, is a very +EV exchange; I am the better player, I should be able to use the exchange of information more effectively than the other player. I would say that immediately exposing my cards when all in gets the other guy to show 80% of his losing hands. Even with the failure of 100% information in exchange for always showing, I still believe I can profit from the somewhat lopsided exchange.
The classic strategy behind showing cards is to show opposite your image. If you want to increase your FE, show your strong hands. If you want to decrease your FE, show your bluffs. I am more or less doing nothing more than that, but I am doing it in a situationally nuanced way. I want FE on my steals, so I show good cards. I want less FE on my raises, so I show my draws. If the deck has given me an image, I will show to reinforce that image and then change gears. It's pretty simple stuff to execute.
There are other times I show cards, some of them are pretty unpleasant to contemplate, because most of them involve needling a player to put them on tilt. FWIW, I don't pick players at random to needle. I usually pick on people who come across as a jerk in one way or another.
A few nights ago, there was this young gun sitting at my table, looking, imo, pretty ridiculous. He was dressed for clubbing, he had his hair all spiked and moussed, and he had some pretty gaudy gold chains around his neck and wrists. A pair of Oakleys completed the d'bag look.
I put aside my baser impulses and ignored him after having a brief chuckle when he first sat. Later, I limped along with J9o in the HJ and he raised from the button. when all limpers folded, he showed J7s. I was a little amused and irritated, so I said "That play was almost as slick as you are, shades. Can I have your autograph?"
Next orbit, I raised first in with JTs, and he 3 bet me. I turbo shoved (he had a 60bb stack) and he folded. I showed the JTs and said, "I give lessons, shades, if you can afford them."
Two hands later, I got AK, raised first in, he shoved, and I snap called and MHIG v K6o.
(Moral of the story: If you declare war on someone, win the effing war).
The last situation I can think of when I show my cards is when I chop in the blinds. I do it for two reasons: First, it is an easy and free way of increasing the frequency I show cards without giving away any useful information. Since I am always trying to look more casual than I am at the table, this helps a lot. Second, on the rare occasion where you chop with a strong hand, it relaxes the table. Everybody gets to talking about big hands they have chopped and such like. If you chop a premium pocket pair and muck it face up, you just became a "Good Sport," in the eyes of everyone at the table, and this can be very valuable in offsetting the negatives of having a winning image.
Next up: Yes, you CAN steal from the button at live low stakes.
I think people do this intuitively a lot for example when they open 99 get flatted IP and get J73r board. Most people cbet here. We have the best hand most of the time, and we don't particularly want to get called. But there is a combination of our fold equity, them calling with worse, and assuming they're not bluffing enough for us to ch/c down it denies them the ability to bluff. I think people intuitively know this, but then they throw it out the window when it comes to preflop.
I like to think about the 99 bet you described as the "I'm good way more times than not here, so I just want to end it now with this c-bet, but if called, that's fine provided I can get to showdown cheaply".
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE