Awesome

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions

Great post.

I hate to show. I've always thought there were only 4 reasons to ever show:

1) When you have the best hand and are called
2) When you were bluffing and weren’t called
3) When you catch someone bluffing
4) When you catch someone’s bluffcatcher with a merge

Now I can add #5 = Conditioning the table/player

Thanks again man. Good stuff

Meaningless merit.

Great stuff. A few counters/add-ons/questions - didn't feel like turning it into 15 quotes of yours. The general point, and you stress is, is that one should be trying to manipulate the image AWAY from what your playing style is. So for a tighter player like me, it's about being a loose-aggro-tard, and for a more aggressive player, it's looking for ways to seem like a nit. You're right on point and if there was a reputation system on 2p2 I'd throw all the points I had to your post.

In regards to button play when it folds to you - there's a ton of value to folding WHILE NOTING YOU ARE BEING RESPECTFUL TO THE CONCEPT OF LETTING THEM CHOP. Heck, even if you have rags that you were going to fold anyway, stop, contemplate a raise, and then say "Nah, I won't be a jerk, I'll let you guys chop". The bonus of being a well-liked player, a social, friendly guy. People always want to know "tricks" to be seen as social b/c so many people on this board are not exactly blessed with, shall we say, "social skills". Well, I just gave you one. If you've got a hand that you would fold anyway on the button, pretend like you're folding JJ out of respect for the blinds chopping. For reasons that amaze me, people somehow think not chopping, and even "chop-blocking" on the button is so amazingly disrespectful that they actually VALUE a guy on the button who doesn't chop-block.

The combo draw show is the single best one to ruin a tight/nitty image. And it works even better with combo pair/flush or pair/straight draws than with standard OESFD. It works in both situations, but a lot of donks won't be nearly as offended with you shoving 87s on a A96ss board as opposed to shoving 87s on an AK7ss board; somehow they see this as you shoving with a flush draw, or shoving with bottom pair, but they have no awareness that you're actually ahead (though still basically a flip). Don't know why, but I guess the donks "get" the OESFD semi-bluff moreso than the pair-flush draw combo.

Bonus points for saying something dumb about gambling if you're called. If I get called by AQ with the combo draw, I'll show my hand instantly and say something like "Okay, let's have a gamble!" or "Should be fun, good luck!"...something that reinforces the GAMBLE aspect of it. If you really want to be a jerk for whatever reason, say something obnoxious like blurt out "GAMBOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL!!!!" when you flip.

Finally, you point out the idea that we are better than them, and thus showing cards isn't horrible if we get information from them - one area where this concept can be used, you don't talk about it but it's illustrative - if there's a player who you actually do want to make sure you get some information out of, and there's a spot where he says "Will you show?", a good answer, presuming you actually want to get information from HIM as to what he was thinking about showing, is to deadpan answer "My rule is that I'll show if you show; it's the only fair way". First, this goes back to being "respectful" about the game of poker - somehow this statement implies you are a good, upstanding poker player who isn't disrespecting the game (he called me with J-high! he called me with J-HIGH!!!!), second, he may agree. You have to show if he shows (well you don't HAVE to but not showing is completely ridiculous), and the problem is that, at least for that session, you kind of have to do that for other players who you may not need the infomation, but the spots where you've got a villain trying to soul-read you and wants to know if you'll show don't happen that often in any one session, so being "caught" by your "self-imposed rule" rarely hapepns, and I included in the spoiler a funny story of the one and only time someone "invoked" the rule later in the night.

Once again, in general, awesome posts; I just hope I'm actually adding on some useful stuff as further examples or applications of principles you are talking about.

I would have told the guy he has to pay to see that one. That was a bad show imo.

I like this. I struggle with how to answer "will you show if I fold?" Most of the time, I don't answer, as I have a pretty firmly ingrained habit of staring off at the TV when I am all in to avoid doing anything the villain will interpret as a tell.

When I do answer, I usually use the table talk to try to influence his decision in one way or the other. I guess maybe five or six times I have said, "I can't show, I have a rule against showing my bluffs," with (so far!) complete success in getting the call or fold I wanted.

Definitely going to try to remember to use your line, NH.

Mpethy.- thank you for addressing my questions. I am also very sorry about what happened. I have also always enjoyed your posts and think you give a ton to the community here which I appreciate, especially since most other coaches only drop short one-liners here with a clear intent of using the teasers to generate business without giving away much analysis, if any for free.

By unimaginative I meant that your style came across as a bit to tight and too 'standardized ' vs. what could be optimal with good postflop skills playing one table live when you have time to think things through. My sample with you was small plus I was a lot worse back then, so it's quite possible that my impression was off. That being said what I know of your game is something that is more ideally suited for beating weak LLNL games rather than tougher 5/10NL+ line-ups centered around 1-2 fish and a bunch of solid/good regs, but that is exactly what makes it perfect level of advice for this forum.

On your points about 3-betting deep I think position starts to matter far more than you addressed. If we are BTN and the wide open is co then you are spot on. However, if they are BTN and we are BB and they are solid postflop, I am now afraid to 3-bet hands like AXs oop as it becomes too tough postflop oop deep vs. Reasonably competent players. Maybe it's a leak, I dunno. Thanks for your thoughts.

Ha, wow, mad props for your ability to slide the knife in with a friendly grin.

Good post, though 3betting a late-hijack raiser with AJo is standard tag IMO.

I think when showing cards, you need to have solid table talk as well. Just showing cards really doesn't change/establish your image imo. (Unless ofc it's just some ridiculous bluffs).
Not to mention people can think you're being their "friend" by showing cards.

Young kid sitting to my right; we get in a huge pot and I've shown him my hand a few times earlier after he folded to my c-bets or raises. (Showed a set once and an overpair once) anyway we get to the river and I have KK on a board with a flush possibility but nothing else scary and he bombs river. I'm sigh tanking and he says "you really should fold". He says "what do you have?" I sigh and say "Oh you know what I have" then show him my hand. He then shows me his hand (Had the nut flush). So I insta muck and say nice hand!

I laughed quite a bit, well said. I a m going to take my wife's frequent advice and stop digging myself any deeper. Thanks again for your contributions.

Nice post. I've been off live poker for about two-months now. This kind of discussions always excite me. Now I'm back to action again, and using a lot of what's been discussed here, quite successfully.

No matter what, playing LAG poker is so much more enjoyable than waiting for value hands all along... And once you have an "excuse" for it by being really profitable, it's 10 times better.

Thank you all guys

Thanks for this thread. I'd been on a bit of a downswing and was reacting by ruthlessly making myself play ABC to get rid of FPS. This thread re-affirmed my long-standing belief that we can be a bit more creative if we can articulate to ourselves why we are doing it, what our expected response is, and what our plan is for the rest of the hand.

Last night I was at an interesting table with two winning regs who were deep-stacked with me, all three of us in a clump in the 2, 3, and 4 seats. Both of them are a bit too loose, but basically solid and win mostly due to being much less risk averse than the LP PF/WT post average, but taking fewer/less massively -EV lines than the maniacs.

Sitting there card dead, I started analyzing the situation, and decided that with my image either of them might be ripe for a semi-bluff 3-bet as described ITT. As it turns out, my best opportunity came when one opened and the other called, which gave me a good opportunity to squeeze with A9o. As a classic squeeze, I probably would have recognized this opportunity without this thread, but having thought it all through in advance due to this thread was a big advantage.

Thanks.

I have a maniac image a lot because I frequently show up with crap in raised pots, but the regs see me as a winner because when I frequently cash out a 4 BI stack or bigger so I must be doing something right. And I'm usually wearing my Stars hat so I don't even try to hide the fact that I play for a living. People see me as super aggressive so they usually check to me to try to trap me. This is what I want, because I get to decide how big the pot is going to be when I'm in position. And if no one has anything I usually win the pot.

Wow, disagree. I mean I play with some doctors and lawyers and whatnot but there's no way the average player is "smarter than me," whatever that means.

I agree.

I disagree. A lot of live players have very obvious bet-size tells when it comes to pre-flop hand strength. Also, live players have no idea how to adjust to light 3-betting because they almost never have to deal with it. A lot of live players only 3-bet AA/KK and just call with AK/QQ. They don't know what to do against it. A lot of them call and try to hit a big flop to stack my big pair, but when we both miss and I have something like Q5s I've just stolen another pot. And they almost never 4-bet, so I can get away with all sorts of crap sometimes.

My question is with the "I show if you show" rule from FlatTire. When do you set this up? And, do you run it for the length of your session for anyone that shows you cards? Or, are you only showing when they specifically ask? Your initial story made me think the latter, but the spoiler made me think you sort of have established this as an ongoing rule for as long as you are sitting at the table.

Thanks to mpethy, again, I am getting a ton from this discussion.

Great thread, thank you.
Some quick thoughts:

On 3betting light live
-I think it is very important to stress that although the 3bet may only be worth 1-4bbs in the long run, it is still a profitable play and should not be avoided. I think many live low stakes guys will read that and think, "ok it hardly will help my winrate and it's risky, I am not gonna bother" when in reality we need to be doing anything we can to increase our winrate even if it is a little dangerous.
-Along the same line, when you say "because even one error in a small sample will wreck your light 3 betting win rate and it will take a long time to recover" I think it is important to note that although you may have made a mistake that does indeed wreck your light 3betting winrate, you also had an opportunity to learn something. You may learn something that helps you against only that player or you may learn somethig that will help you 3 bet better in general-which would really help your long term winrate.
-In sum: go ahead, 3bet, see what happens

On image:
-many people have already noted that you can do things to offset the image of a winning player; but in reality, it doesnt matter what your image is as long as you recognize it, realize how different player types will react to it, and then exploit them(easier said then done, I know).

On showing cards for fun and profit:
-I think this is a really fine line and for most people, I wouldnt recommend showing cards at all
-the standard spots example is my least favorite. the reaosn i really disagree with this, especially at 1/2, is that there is likely to be at least one player at the table who doesnt agree that you are making a standard play. for example, lets say the biggest fish at the table is one who has you pegged as a winning player, he isnt really there to win, he is there to have a good time but who really enjoys losing money? So maybe this guy loves to limp/reraise all his big pairs UTG but he sees you raising them and showing and he already knows that you are better than he is so all of the sudden this big fish is less fishy. The button example is another example where you may be inadvertantly educating some of the bad regs, I can think of many people who still would argue that A8o isnt a raising hand, even on the button, why show them that you think it is?

In any event, this is bound to be a great thread so thanks again for starting it. I can't wait for the: Yes, you CAN steal from the button at live low stakes topic. I'd like to suggest one more topic if you dont mind: Bet Sizing, I think a lot of my edge in LLSNL comes from chosing better bet sizes than my opponents.

"Most of the fish are smarter than you," was a little bit of exaggeration to emphasize the fact that here in Vegas, the average recreational player is a college educated, white collar guy who is, allowing for youth, fairly accomplished in his field, which is usually something technical like IT, or programming, or engineering. They're smart guys, overall, who happen to have not put as much study into mastering poker as 2+2ers have.



I agree.

I agree, but if your statement is true, and I think it largely is, that

it seems we have some problems with c-betting against their range. FWIW, I usually assume that most weak/tight players are calling with JJ, QQ, AK and AQ (if I have reason to put AQ and JJ in his raising range--it's a cusp hand for weat/tight players, imo).

I'd be interested to hear you discuss your c-betting plans in a general way.

Yeah, the never 4 betting (except AA and usually KK) is key, and I mentioned it in my post. Agree 100%

TY for posting, good stuff.

I am going to note, however, that your post comes from the perspective of a highly experienced and highly skilled winning player who was beating up pretty well on the really tough online games at least as high as $400, right? And that 2/5 live is FAR below the level of live games you would have an edge in.

I am going to remind everybody else that the best players, the best hand readers, like Sabr42, can correctly identify as marginally profitable situations that a lesser skill set, say for instance, mine, (right, setsy?) would find marginally unprofitable.

I always advocate taking baby steps when adding a new dimension to our game, and I think that it is particularly necessary in a spot that yields big pots and thin margins.

My advocacy of a general reluctance to 3 bet light is a recognition of the fact that we need folks to fold sometimes to make a profit from our semi-bluffing hands, and that a lot of players' raising ranges are simply too strong to yield the folding frequency we need to make a profit.

I don't think we should be going crazy 3 betting 12% or something. I think we should find players who are exploitable, and exploit them. But I don't see a lot of profit in light 3 betting a player whose range to open raise is JJ and AK+ and who would have a fold to 3 bet approaching 0%, and there are plenty of those guys out there.

My 3 bet stat for live play is probably a hair lower than it was online. Online, I was at 4% overall, maybe 6% from the blinds. Positionally, it broke down as:

EP: 1%
MP2%
LP2%
Button:6%
Blinds:6%

My guess is that I'm down to maybe 3% , mainly by being down at something like 4 or 5% in the blinds.

Sabr, you care to estimate your 3 bet stat?

Agree 100%





I was planning to do this.

I just used up all my free time responding to Sabr; I'll get the stealing post up tomorrow.

WRT the topic of 3 betting (and bet sizing), how does the fact that preflop raise sizes tend to be bigger in live games impact your 3 betting? My take on it that since raise sizes tend to be bigger, 3 bets do tend to get a lot of respect (especially if you have a tight image), but they also have to be successful a very high percentage of the time b/c we're putting a big part of our stack at risk...

Seem like an accurate summary?

Not quite. The percentage of our stack we are putting at risk does not affect the required frequency of success. It DOES increase the variance.

Also, as Sabr42 pointed out, lots of people have ridiculously obvious bet sizing tells. I meant to mention this, and forgot. But if you see a guy raise to $12 in EP in one orbit, and then in the next he raises to $7, ordinarily you should believe him the second time that he is on the bottom of his range and go ahead and 3 bet him if you pick up an OK semi-bluffing hand.

The guys that are raising to $12 or more are on such a tight range to raise that I usually don't 3 bet them at all. Maybe Sabr42 would consider that a leak, I dunno, but I consider it an appropriate evaluation of the absence of the required FE.

There are exceptions to my not 3 betting the guys who make big raises, but they are pretty rare.

Short answer: I use it when the damage from showing the hand is minimal (because most or all of the other players at the table either do not pay attention to such matters or they are the types who end up using such information poorly, illogically, or ******edly). Yeah, techincally I balance the damage done to me by my showing versus the information I gain from seeing his hand, but in all honestly the damage is so little that the benefit doesn't really matter - if damage is 0, benefit just needs to be .1% increase in EV.

And, as I'll discuss in the longer answer (keeping reading), the vast majority of the time, I'm at tables where damage is low. My using the rule is my default, I need circumstances to not do it, and such circumstances are rare. Once I mention it to the table that night, I never deviate. If I ever felt I needed to no longer have the rule out there, I would tell the entire table (or table change). And lastly, in the circumstance where I do feel it's NOT beneficial to show, and I haven't during this day's session, the situation for me to explain my rule hasn't come up, once I answer the question "show if I fold?" differently, I don't deviate from THAT attitude for the entire night.

It is possible for there to be some contradiction over enough days where some I didn't apply rule and some I did, but that's rare since most of the days are rule-applying days, so if the rare circumstance shows up where I don't say that's my rule, I can just explain with the justification "I'm trying something new tonight" if someone points out that three days ago I told everyone I follow a rule for show if fold questions.

As for how to do it? Just make sure to always explain it the same way:
Villain: Such a big bet....will you show if I fold?
Me: My answer to that question is always the same sir - if you fold and show your hand, I promise I will also show my hand. It's the only fair way".

Sometimes villain will try to continue with some form of further inquiry, the point is just stress this is how you always do it, it's just a little quirk you believe in and that it makes sense because it's entirely fair - I shouldn't have to give up information and get nothing in return while you benefit - now we're both giving up the same thing!





Now, long answer that includes some side points. Feel free to ignroe:

I'll be honest, the situations where I really do not want to show my hands are very few and far between because I am VERY aggressive in table changing and finding the loose, donk filled action table. I also am generally very good at keeping my image loose/social/donkey/fun-loving gambool guy, which runs counter to my default style of relative nittiness; this would seem to mean that it would hurt my EV if I'm showing only hands from strong-equity draws up through the stone cold nuts, but I've found that the damage is mitigated by the other image-ruining things I do, plus some of the times I have a "big hand", it involves hands that donks' associate with loose-crazy-aggro play (x/r huge with mosnter combo-draws for example)

In general - it's a great little thing to say. First, it's ALWAYS your answer, so any little information they want to get from your reaction and response to the inquiry. Second, most players at the table will find it fairly respectful, especially if you explain it after the hand is over while the next one is being dealt - "Hey, I think its unfair I have to show my hand and let you guys figure out how I play if I'm not going to gain any information either; this is a fair trade, I find out what you were thinking of calling me with and you find out what I bet with - although we both kind of lose because now others know too [fake a laugh here]". Often the table will discuss my "rule", and also people will give their own answers as to what they say when someone asks if they show.

This is good for the game; social and fun tables are way +EV. Although be ready for the same tired joke, some crafty donk will say "so if you make a big bet, all I have to do is show you my hand and you'll show yours?", and laugh about how he should fold his BB face-up then, since it's rags anyway....so I have to laugh as if I've never heard that before, and then say "Well okay, you have to show a hand that's actually a reasonable hand to call with, no tanking with 72o and then showing it to get me to show my kings!" Annoying to have to say every time, but it makes the donk feel like he's hilariously clever.

The other thing is that there is a small subset of donk villains who get flustered with such a line. It's typically the "selfish" donks - the ones who try to get others to straddle but never straddle themselves, the ones who refuse to sit down 5 or 6-handed but happily sit down as the 9th player. The ones who begin to muck their cards as if they're chopping when in the blinds but button hasn't acted yet (to try to peer pressure button into folding), and then hem and haw and moan about the button's raise. They know every angle in the book, and will try every one of them (despite the fact that 99% of them don't work) AND ALSO COMPLAIN WHEN OTHERS DO IT THEM.

For these people, it's amazing how the response is so unusual a line that it flusters them. In general, these people don't show, and if you ask them they'll say something snarky like "I can't help guys try to figure out how to put me on a hand, that's your job!", so my statement, which kind of is similar because it references the villain deciding to show, they'll go into their natural snark-comment-making mode about how they don't show because it's too important to their game and they're so good they don't want bad players to figure it out and blah blah blah....but since they said that line RIGHT after I said "I'll show if you show as well", it comes across as "I, selfish villain, want FTS to show your hand to help me out, but believe I should not help out FTS". Makes them appear selfish to everyone, and that can fluster them. Yeah, it's not that frequent, but it's happened enough times that it's noteworthy and funny to watch them squirm when they realize they got called out, kind-of.

Once I say it once, I never deviate, if the guy truly does fold in a tough spot and shows his hand, I show mine. Yeah I COULD be a dick, but that's just not me. Between just my own desires never to do such a dick move, and the fact that such a move would make the table so angry and grumpy and that's not a good table to be at in general. If for some reason I think I have to stop showing, I'd say so to the table, but honestly, it's never come up because the MOST I've ever had to show because the other guy showed as well was 3 times in one night - first time when I invoked the rule, and twice later by some other idiot who was a classic "ZOMG I MUST KNOW YOUR HAND OR ELSE I WILL NEVER SLEEP AT NIGHT" type soul-reader. So it's not exactly like it comes up THAT often.


If you've read this long, first - why...second, thank you. You deserve a prize. The prize is that I'll refer you to my handy-dandy guide to live poker, an epic thread in the B&M that's been described as a "mangum opus" by other people on this board. Yes, it's a shameless plug made for people to read a post of mine because it boosts my ego. The way I see it is that it's entirely reasonable for me to be so zealously pimping out my post as if it's the greatest thing ever for one reason only - by admitting that I'm being ridiculously absurd in always referring to the guide, I'm also accepting that people can mock me for it as well. It's like Manny being Manny.

People tend to call 3-bets on average more IP than OOP (although a number of LLNL players don't and call too much with weak hands OOP, which is an easily exploitable leak), so our fold equity when 3-betting OOP is lower, all else (player/image/cards/history) equal when we are IP - on average.

Oh, I agree. I'm not advocating 3-betting light vs a nit who only opens TT+ and AK.

Your prime target for light 3-betting is a player who opens a reasonable range, and makes "pot sweetener" raises with hands like mid pairs and suited drawing hands. Example, if two players limp and another player raises to $15 (at $2/5), he has something like 88 or QTs. This is the guy to 3-bet light and c-bet on the flop because his range is capped pre-flop. And I generally only choose to 3-bet hands that are too crappy to call. I generally don't 3-bet hands like T9s because they flop too well in multi-way pots. That's not to say I'd never 3-bet T9s (I think there are spots do it, like deep and in position).

Nice.

I mentioned this in one of my responses and referred to it as cannibalizing your calling range. Very key, definitely deserves to be emphasized.

Mainly when I go to play, I just grind, but T9s always makes me happy. Such a cool hand to play.

mpethy.
does what you call having a 'winning image', as you use that phrase, mean that one is good at poker?? you seem to be implying this?
does being 'good' at poker make one a winner? and thereby adopt this 'image' you speak of?

it seems to me there are some logic fails going on here, so just wondering.
everyone knows that the 10th best player in the world can be a loser if he/she plays against the 9 best.
Conversely, one can be a 'winner' at 1/2, or even 2/5 in Vegas and still be bad at poker, just better at it than the tourists (describes most Vegas grinder-regs, IMO).
Also, having a 'winning image' doesnt mean much at 1/2.
they could prolly care less who you are, who you think you are, what you have, how many hands youve played, or what kind of 'image' you have.

i addressed it earlier, but what the poker literature up to this point has called a 'winning image' is totally different than what youre talking about (a fancy way to describe what happens when you kill your own action by being a pedant at the table?). its just a difference of semantics, i guess, but it's confusing.
I'll go with Bobby Hoffs' definition, thank you. (Bart Hansen, same definition)

I thought I made this very plain. Let me try again. If you are a winning player, the other players at the table will be able to identify you as such even if you have played very few hands, or are not up much at the moment. The other players at the table, at least somewhere between some and most of them, notice your demeanor at the table. So if you are sitting there carefully watching the action while riffling chips, it's pretty certain some of the players at the table have noticed that you're paying close attention. They may simply notice that you look comfortable at the poker table.



Sure, a "good" is relative. If I am the best player at my 1/2 table, the other players will have tagged me as the good player, and will try to adjust. This is true even if, skill-wise, if I walked over to the 2/5 table, those guys would correctly identify me as dead money.

I don't know about you, but as I said in the OP, I get asked if I play professionally most nights I play. That means, most nights, there is at least one person at the table that notices that I appear to be relatively skilled.

So if I get asked by one person at the table, it is quite reasonable to assume that others have noticed the things that prompted the inquirer to ask.

Um, no, and JFC did you even bother to read the OP? There is nothing in the OP about being pedantic at the table and killing my own action. The examples I used were particularly observant recreational players who were able to peg me as a pro just by watching me watch the action.

Really, what is it about this forum that collects people who enjoy taking cheap shots?

Go with whoever's definition you like. I could give a ****. The moral of the image part of the OP is basically:

1. The players at the table are generally pretty smart guys
2. Who, if you are good at poker and an experienced player, notice that, but
3. Will adjust sub-optimally because of their inexperience.