Smoke a doob, sit back, take a deep breath and relax. Something has just gotten you all worked up.

A. Its easy to find the +EV spots. Whats not easy is making sure ALL the stars are in line before making the "expert" move.

B. I know its been said a million times, but it really IS true. If it were even remotely easy for people to study, learn proper bet lines, read a few hands, and peruse thru Caros book of "tells", then every swinging pee pee between both shores would be quitting their jobs and cluttering up our tables. It HAS to be hard. It has to be frustrating, it has to seem rigged etc. for them to play us each day as well as for us to make such a decent hourly wage at it. And this is in a time where making good money per hour is at a supreme premium. Jobs are hard to get, and harder even to keep from what i hear. Every decent paying job worker is getting hammered with nitpicking **** like never before. So the ability to make cash at this is an AWESOME thing and destined to be even more awesome in the near future as so many businesses cut back on extra help etc. Pharmacists even used to have 2 techs a lot of the time. Now they work their asses off like blue collar assembly line workers with about 1/2 tech per work week.

Its tough out there in the real world these days. And i hope like hell that "winning" at poker remains a mutha F.....er so the diehard players can play alone with the recreational players most of the time. And unless it is taht tough, then we will have to share the fish with a bazillion young smart guys. Im hoping the young smart guys say **** on this, and go get a finance job on wall street.

I might have gone on the wrong tangent, lol. but anyhow, finding the EV edges must be hard as well. AGain, otherwise it would be easy and crowds of young studious players would be in front of us waiting for a seta.

Lol at smoke a doob and relax.

Exactly what I'm doin right now.

Here's the problem summarized. People play poker for lots of reasons. When I read this, I see someone who wants to make "sick" plays for big money. That's the gambler speaking when you write, "I will ship $200-$500 on a bluff line if I feel like it." Not when the conditions are right. Not when I have a high chance to succeed.

There's no problem with playing for any of these reasons. However, the score in poker is kept with money. There are going to be times that playing like oldmanpoker is the optimal play for making the most money. There are going to be times where being a 3 barreling LAG is the optimal play. The player that is only concerned about making the optimal play should care less if he's playing only 7% of hands. Nor is that player overly excited that they're running a 3 street bluff if that is the right move.

The other answer is that significant bluffing opportunities don't come up every hand or every orbit. Let's say you're playing 20% of hands. You'll want to be winning maybe 40-45% of those hands. In an hour, that means you'll win 2-3 hands an hour. To make sure you aren't unbalanced, that suggests that you'll be making about 1 bluff per hour. Since only 30% of those you'll get to the river, you'll be at most making a significant bluff once every 3-4 hours.

We can argue about the numbers, but the point is that "sick" bluffs are never going to be majority of your winnings. Value betting, getting out of hands quickly when beat, having position etc. are going to be the backbone of your winnings. Bluff plays are going to be frosting on the cake.

As for AQ, raise or fold, don't call. If you don't want to raise it, you shouldn't be calling with it either. Actually, most starting hands work that way in a 100BB game.

i can't believe how timely your posts are for me, Princess. last night i spewed $350 (just over 1 BI at 1/2 in my game) making completely numb-skulled RIVER bluffs.

i rarely bluff. i even more rarely bluff OTR. in fact i can count on my fingers the number of times i've bluffed into a large pot OTR, and for good reason obviously.

but last night i found myself at a tight table, which is rare for me. naturally i focused all my thoughts on how to exploit the table's tendencies. i knew that they won't pay my good hands off without having a good made hand themselves, so if i just bet for value all the time, we'll all just be playing bingo poker and seeing who has the better kicker.

so the way to generate value in this game is to bluff for reasonable amounts in the right spots, play LAGier than your opponents, setup a LAG image, and thus get action when you have a hand you can bet big with.

but i went about it all the wrong way. i don't know what i was thinking. it was something about knowing i could only win the pot by bluffing that caused me to spew in these two spots.

anyway, i'm rambling, but i'm glad to know other, better players are also learning about the right spots to bluff and exploiting SF players. i was also slightly life tilted yesterday: poker is hard enough to make work if we're always playing our A game, what with the effects of variance, etc. yesterday for half the night i think i was playing my D game lol. but this thread has reminded me it's all a learning process.

in all honesty, i have had so little experience playing tight tables compared to loose ones, that i can be expected to start from a fairly newbish level of play in those games.

by call you mean limp? i will often flat a raise with AQ rather than 3bet or fold it, depending on the table and the raiser.

Overall good post, but I wanted to talk about this comment a bit. I know you are referencing a specific player, for a straightforward player like this you should be able to get an edge vs. him in showdown and non-showdown situations alike. By adjusting properly you should be able to get maximum value out of his mediocre-good hands when you're strong, get out of his way when he is strong, and bluff him out when you both have air. One skill I have learned online is how to get value out of regs when they play their hands face up. You can't get nearly as much value out of regs as you can fish with your strong hands, but you definitely can beat them in showdown pots as well as non-showdown.

Very interesting topic, thanks everyone who posted.

It made me wonder lol, when you were describing that DR Maurice, I recognized myself in his playstyle. And I realized that my game is actually quite easy to exploit and in fact some regs are already doing that.

PrincessAzula, I totally understand what you're talking about. From reading posts on this LLSNL forum, I feel almost every regular poster is only a decent reg. I like to think of myself as a good reg, however almost every single session I play I realize I made at least one mistake. It's extremely rare that I can play a session and tell myself, "I honestly don't think I made a single mistake today."

I think the biggest difference between DR and GRs is how they handle marginal spots. Marginal spots can be uncomfortable and scary, but sometimes the right decision is to call a large bet w/ a marginal hand, or get all in when you DON'T have anything close to the nuts. I've heard posts here such as "don't agonize yourself in this spot by avoiding it by just folding preflop or on the flop. The key to beating this game is wait till you have a strong hand and valuetown the fish."

Your winrate will be higher when you are making the right decisions in marginal spots rather than having the above attitude and folding. In other words, playing like a NIT and avoiding taking chances is less than optimal.

Btw, the example you posted with the JJ, that is a really easy flop call, but only because of the size of the bet. If it were like a pot sized bet, its a fold on the flop.

A lot of interesting ideas here ITT.
Stuff I think about, but a different angle.

I think image, though overrated is a factor you can't not include in this analysis. It's integral, and winning the image war vs. a player of similar skill level can give you a boost over that player, so that you are beating them.
It's like when you're looking in the wrong places for edges, or like using the wrong tool for the particular context that you are in, at that moment, in that hand.
You can use a hammer to tighten a bolt, but you might strip the threads, but you'll get it somewhat tight; not enough though.
But it kinda does the job (not)
you can use a wrench to drive a nail, too.
My point is that in order to be thst GR that your talking about, you have to master all the tools in your kit.
But it's the context that dictates the tools you are going to select.
You want to be able to play different ways to suit your image vs that particular villian.
Knowing how your villians view you is essential to choosing the right approach.
It makes up as much of the context as you want it to.
Some ppl think I'm the biggest nit, while others think I'm a total maniac, and they're both right, and wrong at the same time. Because 'my' game is whatever I'm being offered by my opponents at that moment, as I adjust my strategy to their tendancies.
The other day this guy tells me that cuz I bluffed him out of a pot once, he's never folding to me ever, so essentially I never have to bluff him again, and it's like having a gold claim.
Just now in the middle of this post from my phone a guy I have 5 years of history moved on on me 200bb as a 3 bet PF w QQ, because I raised to 12x preflop w AA.
I've had to work for that.
Of course the board comes out KT96J
and what do I beat??

^^^^
sorry, interrupted there.
so, i was just saying that knowing what your image is to another player, which is actually level 3 thinking (?), is a crucial element in the picture that makes your game profitable vs. villians.
A play may be a fine play, considering the image YOU would have of yourself, which is sometimes
what we expect to have, for some reason?
a lot of the times, our image in Villians mind is very different than we might imagine.
It's actually hard to get inside a donks head, and figure out how they tick, how they are exploited, how dangerous they can be, ect..
i think a lot of good players have a hard time with this, playing down to their oppositions level.
sometimes, you think you must have a tight image, when you are playing tight , but they don't understand your play, so put you on the FOS list for no real reason. your correct aggressive play alone can set them off.
If you want to make the plays that are of a GR, and are maximizing every edge, just remember that knowing exactly when, and against whom you can make the play is everything, otherwise it really becomes a garbage play, and now youre worse than they are in a way.
another thing i've noticed about image is that it's really nothing, it's in ppls minds, so.
make it do for you what you want it to, not the other way around.
don't get pushed around by others image, OR your own.
donks are the ones that fall for the "bushleague psyche out s@#*y%", like Jesus Quintana sez.
I see it all the time, they talk themselves into believing something about the strenghth of your hand based on some arbitrary thing, that has nothing to do with the fundementals of the game.
they decide that they can move in on you, because how you handled your chips, or some nonsense, and get you to fold.
a lot of times in responding to a hand in the forum, i get lost, because my image is prob so different than heros that i'm just thinking totally differently.
I have an image, a lot of the time where i'm check raising the turn all in on a paired board w/ a King on it, w/ 99 and i'm good.
so the lines i'm going to take are different,
I get called down in 200bb pots routinely by middle, even bottom pair.
I still try to think about the hand from heros perspective, and puzzle it out, but
it makes me realize that image is way more an integral part of the game, and your decision making than ppl think.
it's about keeping it in perspective, and making it work for you.
they don't see what you fold, so you can be playing very differently than ppl think, if you just occasionally do the odd play.
if your obv a setminer, you still get action, but ppl are'nt willing to pay you off w/ really marginal holdings.
just don't be so obvious about it.

have'nt read 'theory of poker' in a while, but i think it covers all this??

I think most DR's get all of that, and do all of that.

It seems that the truly advanced players, when they put in >150bbs, have a range that includes air (in the right circumstances).

A DR's range, when they put in >150bbs, never contains air, even though circumstances arise where it is correct to put in 150bbs with air.

I was referring more to that difference.

this is what i was trying to say in my post a few posts back about metagame and how it always changes and how i shouldnt make that a dominant reason for any move in the low stakes.

Im doing good right now, with that thought and after reading some things i think im on my way to plugging another leak.

ya, when i think back to just a year ago,
i thought i'm working hard on my game,
was relentlessly looking for leaks.
still, i had glaring leaks that i was mostly oblivious to, right under my nose.
why did'nt i see them??
i thought i was too smart, thats why.
for example, i thought hero-calling someone w/ no bluff range was a clever play.
I was trying to make my opponents into animals that they are'nt;
giving them too much credit, and missing easy laydowns, that now are automatic.
massive leak, but at the time, had convinced myself that it's profitable,
cuz thats what 'good' players do, hero-call?

context, context, context.

Very very true.

Imagine a decent daily grinder who can lay down hands when enough evidence he is behind.

Take a drawing hand containing As and c/c twice on a 2 spade board and then spade hits river. Check and villain say bets $130 into $200 and shove another $400 on top. As long as the stars line up (hero image, villain current emotional state, and on and on) and hero can put the chips in without having bluff written on his forehead, then this is like 97% success rate. Every now and then villain calls with K flush but we have even that fold quite a bit if they know we are solid / winner etc. Grinders dont like paying off good daily winners. They feel better folding, thinking they came away with the edge by doing so.

(dont do it til you know they can make pretty good sized folds though + they know you as a player who usually pulls down teh big pots when the big money goes in). All the mental things have to be in order for players to fold flushes.
If you are not a crusher in the game, then dont attempt it.)

at the end of the day,
the 'advanced players'
are the ones who cash out the most at the cage,
not the ones making X,Y, or Z plays.

I don't care how they do it.

Winning players cash out at the cage.

The DR's I'm talking about are winners. But they skip certain +EV plays that GR's don't. Thus GR's cash out more than DR's.

And they learn tactics necessary to beat high/mid stakes, where SF isn't enough.

GR has 150bb bluff lines that are +EV in his/her play book, whereas DR doesn't.

I'm not really talking about general ideas for playing +EV and leakfinding. I'm specifically looking how/when/where to incorporate these large bluff lines and the exercise in the video I was taking about in the OP.

sorry, (another) tangent:

just thought of this analogy, though prob lost on all
(besides SeeThomasHowl"):

There used to be no competitive surfing (as in, waves).
no professional surfing.
ppl did it for the obvious reasons.
the ultimate form of leisure.
the sport of kings, right?

then someone wanted to figure out a way to pay for thier bananas,
besides shaping, and repairing boards,
and surfing competitions were born.

in the beginning, they had a weird format for judging.
you scored points for every move, every trick.
floater, 5 points; sick bottom turn, 3 points,
you get the idea.

what happened to the way ppl surfed??

well, obv, the pros started becoming huge spazzes in thier style of surfing.
the more moves, the more points.
so naturally, soul surfing went out the window,
and it became a race to be the busiest surfer.

but what happened to the non-pros style of surfing?
they copied it, for no real reason, but because they thought thats what 'advanced' surfing was, and thats what they strove for.
surfing attracts those who love a challenge. it was'nt making them any $, obv.

sure, the pros were technically better, but only a handful were able to make the spazz style look good.
later, judging criteria changed in contests, as they recognized the almost destructive influence of the point system.
still, the impact that this weird glitch in history has had lingers at breaks everywhere.
the guy who is hands down the 'best is santa cruz's' style is so ugly, it hurts me to watch. technically impressive, though.

what does this have to do w/ poker??

to me, it's about 'what is good surfing??' really>
what is 'good poker??' really??
maybe it's not what we think it is.
it's a very deceptive(mysterious) game, so maybe we have'nt figured anything out yet?
it's certainly a possibility?

now, when you look back to that period of time in Hawaii, when pro surfing took off, and you notice who is regarded now as being the best back then, it's not just the few top pros, but the soul surfers, who refused to alter their style, and did'nt get the big attention at the time.
Jock Sutherland comes to mind.
dude has a surf spot named after him.
and Buttons, the guy is a freak of nature,
but way under the radar.

some of the best cash players out there you have never heard of,
because they are seldom, or never on TV.

I've stayed out of this until now because I feel it is very similar to ILCD's yesterday and the question is some vague question when specifics are what matter. I really enjoy Stampler's posts ITT but I'm not sure how much value they have towards improving your game. They are just interesting musing for people who like poker. Mine is probably similar, although probably not even interesting.

Regarding your post about big bluffs. I can't help but feel you are looking at it wrong. Like there are pre-determined spots you should be aiming to bluff 150bb. I know PA is a good, thinking poster so I'm kind of surprised.

These things are so situational that you can't ration them in to your play. It ALWAYS depends on table conditions. For example, I could spout of something about when villains range is capped and you can rep lots of nuttish hands and have plenty left behind and blah, blah but if said villain snap calls with one pair then this is irrelevant.


This is going to sound patronizing but the answer in this particular spot is amazingly simple. The time for a big bluff is when you estimate your opponent will fold enough for the bluff to be profitable. Estimating that situation is about reading people, not just for their actual hand strength and/or strength of their range, but for their level of thinking about the game, comfort level at the stakes, view on you, emotional state at the time etc etc.

In some cases you need a tight image, sometimes you have to credibly rep a strong range, sometimes just repping ONE strong hand will do and other you just need to bet enough to scare them. It is identifying how different people will react that matters, not pre-prescribed spots.

Since u mentioned large bluff lines etc, (and i mentioned a bluff as well) i dont think that this is the major portion of the expert play. Yes it pads winrate, but i think the item which is better utilized by the best players are the timing of plays with image etc.

Like i have had people say, "dude, why do they pay you off like they do?" And actually it is true they do, but its an illusion obviously. As i have said before that big bluffs can happen when all stars line up correctly. AND, after a few big bets etc. now we know the table is about sick of my crap right? So now they call 3 streets allin only to look at a somewhat thin 3 brrl allin. Then by illusion, they figure i had a strong hand on every previous hand that i bet hard on. And of course i verbally compound it by saying something like, "yeah, i had quad fours on that other hand", thereby drilling home that fact that you should fold when i bet big. Id rather have villains who will fold all day long over the ones that will call. So i train them the best i can to fold at my direction.

Yes, that sounds 100% in line with the logic of a GR.

I mean, my OP was just about me sharing what I thought was an excellent, and necessary, preperation for learning and taking huge bluff lines.

The video was about doing our homework on villains. Once we have like 8k hands on some reg, we can go back and look at the HHs to see how s/he plays. We can see how they play their monsters, and how they play their small value hands. We can see when they take bet/fold lines, ect.

Now, we *might* find that this reg has some exploitablities, which *may* include susceptibility to large bluff lines.

In the video, the point was made that if a hero is looking to take bluff lines, s/he should come to the table prepared (homework) in this sense, knowing who can be bluffed, where they can be bluffed, and why they can be bluffed. As you put it, knowing when all the stars align. This is helped through imagining ideal scenarios.

I thought the video was making a really good point because in the exercise it forces the hero to do his/her homework ahead of time when using an advanced bluff line, rather than just winging it at the time, which may go astray for obvious reasons.

But in standard LLSNL style the thread went on a huge tangent, which was probably 100% by fault.

Just sayin, by
copy catting a 'coach' on a DC vid
you are defacto ignoring th context of
your experimental play.
The surfing analogy applies.
FPS.
I think mindset is crucial to improving, yet it gets overlooked when ppl want to improve.
You can be technically the best player, but if your mindset is off,
you will be a losing player.

It happens to talented players.

Myself, I've gotten caught up in trying to play a GR game,
while forgettng that I'm trying to make $,
and my mindset was backwards.
Still working on it.

Let's look at the elements in this. First, the play is absolutely consistent with a FD. It goes c/c the whole way. Second, the river bet is a feeler bet. It is only about 1/2 of the pot. Third, there's a lot behind. The pot is now $860 and the villain is only getting 2:1 on his money. To call, he has to believe the villain doesn't have a flush 1/3 of the time. Finally, Hero knows that the villain is not sitting on the nuts.

That's what ANL means by having everything line up.

Now take a 100BB game. There's a raise to 5BB and you and 3 others call. Villain makes a 15BB bet and everyone folds but you. On the turn, the villain bets 40BB and you call again. On the river, the pot is 130 BB and there is only 40BB behind. He bets 20BB and you shove. The pot is 170 and he only has to call 20BB. He only has to be right 11% of the time to call. Guess what, he knows he'll be good that often and calls.

Or take the case where you've taken the lead pf and bet it down. On the river, he doesn't believe you have a flush so he calls with his set.

Or you have a level 1 thinker that is never folding TP no matter what the board is.

Going from decent to great means planning the hand in advance each and every time. You know what you want to see, what are doing when you see it and why on the flop. You've anticipated peoples' reactions and know what you'll do if they act a certain way.

For me, it is less saying, "I going to make a sick bluff on this guy in the next 15 minutes," but more of, "Hey, this looks like a good opportunity to take this pot with the texture of the play." It might happen 6 times in a session, it might not happen at all. But I don't force it.

This thread is getting out of hand.

First off the average 2+2'er should be a good reg. If not more hours are needed your almost there.

Ok I'm going to compare my gameplan with a DR. Since we all came to an agreement that we don't see GR.

A decent reg pretty much has the same raising range as me. Standard 88+,AJo+, AJs+. Ok so they read a book, meh at best.
Preflop they never switch gears, they don't have a bluff raising range. I like to bluff raise from the sb or button. Ok what is a bluff raise? Its a raise to pick up dead money in the limp fest we play in. I usually pick hands on the top of my folding range. That we still have showdown value with.

Big difference in preflop strategy.

Ok limping, my limp range is tighter then a decent reg I want to be in position as well. My limp range is 65o+,65s+, 97s+. By playing more connected and one gapper hands. I don't get myself in a lot of straight over straight.

Postflop I won't even compare. I'm clearly way better postflop then any DR. I say most GR/internet players are better postflop then myself.

Stackoff range: I pay close attention to this. I play for a living so there is no to press the issue with TPTK or 2 pair. I make sure my stackoff range is higher then my opponents. So when I get the money in I'm usually good 75% of the time.

The last but surely not the least. Picking your battles, see a DR picks his battles to. But he goes about it the wrong way. He will l/c, play oop vs the fish. A GR picks his battles also but in position. Nothing fancy I call it "My back to the wall strategy when I'm going to war". You want to see everything in front of you.


So you see I disagree with people saying LLSNL are DR at best. I feel the info on this site can have you at a GR at the least.

I'm not really sure why people post the things they do. I think many of the posters assume most other posters are donks. Because frequently I read a response, and I think, "Okay, I agree with every thing you said, but why did you say it?"

I guess most poster just think I'm an idiot. I go out of my way a lot of the time to condition my remarks, which usually leads to my tl;dr types of posts. I do this so I don't get "corrected". But sometimes I just get tired of having to condition everything, and wish it could be assumed.

Why do so many posters seem to assume other posters are donks? I don't see this on the training site forums.

Stampler, I'm 100% sure, is a big winner at his game. I'm sure he is a great poker player and has a ton of success at the game he plays. But I don't understand why he wrote this:

Did I give the impression that this is what I was doing? My posts were about doing the homework to learn about the types of spots that are +EV to bluff. To form an opinion about a spot that is +EV, and to post the spot on a forum. Not to actually take some line in a real game for real money.

There wasn't even anything for me to mimic. I was just complementing a video on a good exercise which encouraged the viewer to do their homework, to attempt to define a good spot to bluff against a known specific villain, and share it with others to see what they thought.

By making it an exercise, we are not taking the line in an actual game...

Maybe that wasn't directed to me exactly? Or maybe it was just a general comment. I don't know. But I find myself in this strange position:

I agree with Stampler: I think it is a bad idea to copy-cat the play presented in a video. But I don't know why he said that to me. Maybe I'm just over-thinking this? Maybe he was just making a point that wasn't a direct response to me? I just honestly don't know. Maybe I just suck at forum posting.

And then earlier I made the comment that I will take a $200-$500 bluff line if I feel like it. But I forgot to condition the statement by saying, "I will take a $200-$500 bluff line if I feel like it, if the circumstances are right." I was comparing how I felt when playing $5-10.

That mistake go me called out by Venice. So I was thinking, should I tell Venice that I meant if the conditions were right, or should I just let it go.

I ended up saying to myself, "Look, if I'm going to say something on LLSNL, I have to condition all of my statements. I have to include, "if the conditions are right." Otherwise people are going to respond negatively. They must just see so many bad posts that they are going to assume I are bad."

But now I feel that just takes too long.

So, that's why, when I make my posts I always including all of these extra remarks and statements for example in my previous post, and make things tl'dr.

I just don't understand why everyone seems to assume that I am an idiot. Maybe I am an idiot.

I do have to say that ANL's posts where the most substantive and relevant, because he came the closest to actually undertaking the exercise I gave in OP.

@Calidonks, when I talk about DR's, I'm talking about winning players who do the things you are talking about: punishing limpers, ect. To me the difference is the ability to take 150bb-air-bluff-lines. How many reg posters here are able to do that?

Back to general (no longer Calidonks)

It's easy to revert to: Well, if the conditions were right, I'd do it. But do we really know when the conditions are right? Do we really have the talent/understanding to carry out the lines when they show up? Or are we taking the safe road and waiting for easier spots? Are we really taking the lines, or are with content with our current +WR and level?

I know I haven't figured it all out yet. Sure, I can lecture some noob about how you have to have a solid read, a believable line, FE, ect. But pointing out the trivial is far different that having the play in my playbook, and actually using it in a +EV way.

When do we put away all of the assumptions/lecturing and actually do the brainstorming necessary to get sick and move up?

Sorry, PA, if I come of a little rough around the edges.
No offense intended at all.
Your threads are on t top of my list, actually believe it or not.
I like them because they address ideas in thier raw forms,
and exactly because they are 'vague'
i can see how my words could come off directed at you, but, honestly,
I'm talking about myself most of all.
I've lit so much $ on fire on FPS, trying to impress myself, under the pretext that I was trying to step it up a notch, and be a GR, instead of a DR.
There is a way to do it, I'm convinced,
but of course, one will stumble at first,
and there's always adversity, I don't think it can be permenantly warded off.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Anyways, this thread just hit home to me, and I think I said as much in my first response.
I think about these topics,
because they have to do w some of my biggest leaks.
There was a while there where I couldt get off of FPS,
no matter how hard I tried, Its like I couldn't control myself.
I didn't get the whole picture, and my mindset was not allowing me to see it.

Sorry again if I sound harsh,
it's just the way I am, my background.
Kinda ruthless, I'll admit.