Thanks for joining us ITT. Very edifying, and not just because my suspicion of how you play it differently was borne out.

Do you find that premiums have more reciprocal differentiation in no-limit, as discussed above? I would think that is the case for live-low stakes, at any rate, though perhaps not as much at higher stakes and/or online, where standard lines are more prevalent.

he might write a bunch of nonsense but nowhere near your stratosphere of nonsense spitting.

Hi Garick,

I think the whole idea of trying equate reciprocal value to starting hands breaks down at no-limit.

Tommy

Hi Tommy, thanks for helping us out of our speculation session!

Would you say reciprocity occurs for postflop hands in no-limit? Particularly deep-stacked there are clearly some major differences between how different players play the same hand postflop but maybe it is more to do with skill/reading ability than the exact hand and so there isn't such a thing as "the hand with most reciprocity"?

Tommy Angelo posting in llsnl in 2016. So great haha. Thanks for popping in and clarifying Tommy!

I've been playing poker all weekend, so it was nice to come back & find that Tommy had cleared up the mystery.

What has never been a mystery is the fact that the article & the book have been an added catalyst in my quest to improve my game & play every session to the best of my ability. After getting home last night, I happened to look at a website I visit & saw an article entitled "How to Win at Texas NLHE - Every Time."

It went into Learn the Basics, Learn Advanced Concepts, Apply Your Skills & Continue the Learning Process.

Well IMO, there is a way that any poker player, no matter what their skill level, can win in every session they play right now. It starts with subscribing to, and practicing, the section on 'Quitting Reciprocality.' Tommy states: "..... one day I realized that every session of cash-game poker I ever play will end on a quit, so I really should continue forever to work on getting better at quitting, and a few years later I realized that if I wanted to quit well every session, then I'd have to be sharp at the very end of every session, since that's always when the quitting happens, and a few years after that I realized that no action is an island, that everyone else's sessions always end on a quit too, and that the real reason there is money to be made by quitting well is because sometimes my opponents don't. Reciprocality.

The reason, IMO, that the bold part of that quote is most important, is because any player at any level of expertise, can practice the other sections of the article to their best ability. Once they are no longer doing so, they're no longer playing their A game and it's time to quit. The article is a "7-Step Program" to maximizing your win rate at your currently level of expertise.

If I play my A game for 5 hours winning substantially more than average & sit there until I am playing my B game [which is not substantially better than the majority of players at the table] before I finally get up [but still winning substantially], I haven't played that session to the best of my ability.

I've learned how to get up, so, there's no excuse for me to fall into that trap again. No more: winning $X and then feeling your energy drain off, but stickin' it out until your winnings are now $X - 10% and then standing up. Once the focus starts to go, I go!

I also haven't found a way that you can spend 10 minutes reading something on poker strategy before a session & increase your skill level to a measurable degree. Not unless it's something given to you by a coach that you're paying $$$$ for & knows where you're at in your progress. Or, you get lucky & stumble across something. Not like this article does for me.

For me, it works like the 'locker room huddle' before a game to get fired up. And it's worked. It's enkindled my pursuit to improve my game using the 'inchworm method.'

The article puts so much of the mental aspects about the game in it's proper perspective. It keeps me in check! Thanks Tommy
http://tommyangelo.com/articles/reciprocality/


P.S. If we ever cross paths, expect me to ask you to autograph my book. That is, if I have my backpack with me that I take to the casino. I sometimes read a section during lunch/dinner.

I could certainly learn to quit better

I agree & disagree. When I was putting Tommy's quote on AA in perspective, I was envisioning two players of similar expertise. This weekend I watched recreational players call down with AA on boards that I would have released long ago. Even paying an outrageous price otr. Not just the board, but the way the betting went down & the opponents clearly dictated a fold with the AA. Unskilled players have blinders on & you can win much more than they can no matter what two cards you compare Ev rates with.

So, if that unskilled player who won't release AA when the action/board dictates, won't you win even more when you compare your +Ev rate with QJs vs. his?

Now, say we relocate Garick to Florida. Give him a month to become accustomed to the games/players there & then force him to play 2/5 NL at the same table with squid face until they've both had AA 200 times while the other paid to see the flop. How much difference do you think there will be in their net Ev? How much difference do you think their loses would be when they are the one not holding AA?

Maybe one is better than the other. Well, it's impractical to believe their skill level is perfectly equal, however, I'm sure that under the same circumstances with me vs. an unskilled player I described, that my Ev rate would be much higher than that between Garick & squid face.

Now think of the unskilled player who pays $4 more in the big blind in a 1/2 NL game with K7 with 2 players having called the raise & one limper left to call. If that player is always willing to pay $4 more with that hand & I am always willing to fold it, will I ever be able to make more more with my AA vs. his AA over what I am going to save folding my K7s pre-flop?

I can just imagine his loses when he catches his flush ott & another spade comes on the river. Or ever worse, when he's up against the nut flush & just can't believe it's possible. Or the flop comes J77 & he thinks he's the 'golden boy.' He is either going to bet too much otf & force everyone out, or, have someone catch up and lose big, because he won't believe it. And lose much more than what he wins when he has the best hand otr because he's OOP.

1/2NL is full of players like this. It's also full of players who whine & moan & bitch & complain when these players win.........because they don't have the bankroll to withstand the variance.......so, they go on tilt.

Last night there was this Asian, about 27 years old on my right. The only place I'd allow him to be...... The Asian puts one of those 'unskilled players' all-in ott when he hits his flush. The unskilled player was runnin' like gold & couldn't miss. He'd tapped into the Asian's stack twice already.

The unskilled player called a little over $100 to see the river card with nuttin' but the A. So, he had 7 outs - ~5.29:1 dog [going with 44 unseen cards] & he's getting about 2.5:1 on his money.....he catches the spade otr.

The Asian says nothing more than "Wow....pause.........nice hand." Not "Nice catch" as in NICE CATCH U FREAKIN' FISH" but just "Nice hand, sir" kinda' tone. Proceeds to pull more money out his pocket.

That is a sign of a skilled player. A sign of an extremely skilled player at a 1/2NL table. Which is why you'll always find him on my right.

He wanted the guy to call. The "wow" was only an expression of how long this fish has been runnin' lucky. That Asian Reg is never more than 3 seats max to my right

I think the best way to apply the reciprocality principle is this:

If you take the same action with a hand in a spot as a fish would take with that hand in that spot, taking that action is not part of your edge. For example, if you limp with 77 on the button to setmine, you're not gaining an edge with 77 preflop, and probably not postflop except in the rare cases that you end up folding a set or eke out some thin value.

EDIT: And this ought to be obvious, but people sometimes get confused by the fact that they are dragging big pots by doing certain things, which makes them think that those things that lead to the big pots must be important to their strategy. Like people in this forum frequently claim that "most of your winnings are accounted for by AA," which might be true in some narrow sense, but it doesn't mean playing AA well is foundational to your strategy. Everyone wins lots of money with AA because it's so strong. The credit for winning a big pot with AA usually belongs to AA, not to you. Don't try to steal its rightful credit.

Pretty Awesome Tommy came and cleared that up

FYP

Perhaps there is other "nonsense" you misunderstand?

Grunching here, but how is this not a math issue? Our considerations for playing hands like Q10 should be the usual - position, stacks etc.

Are you saying we should be doing other things with 77 on the button to "gain an edge"?

The correction you made is accurate but it doesn't change my point. If we replaced every hand Tommy was dealt AA-QQ with QT and did the same for his opponents, would his winrate be smaller or larger than the original winrate? The difference between his winrate and his opponent's winrate would possibly be larger in the sample where QT acts as a replacement but that isn't what the OP is saying. In any case this is moot since he already came in and said this wasn't meant to apply to no limit.

The mum poker version where you didn't tell that you folded it was better IMO.

Can't a winning player count on the fact that he will, in the long-run, have a much higher +Ev than a fish with any hand he is dealt? Whether it's because it's folded pre or played more intelligently.

There is a winning player, whom I don't understand how he is, that I try to follow & get on his table. He doesn't pay much attention when he's in a hand & sometimes brings a book to read. Yet he is very tricky. I have been slowly acquiring info on him & I hope my short story of notes in my session logger becomes a novella. Not because I want to play like him, but because I want to be able to know exactly where he's at, which is going to come [I think] primarily from his bet sizing.

That's a player worth doing a reciprocal analysis of. Maybe he's just been running hot for 6 weeks, turning $200 into $700 + time and again. But I'm lookin' forward to the opportunity to stack him.........or get felted.

:-)

No problem!

You answered your question the same way I would.

t

There's a lot of spots where you can raise 77 profitably. If not, then you shouldn't expect to gain much of an edge from 77, except by playing your sets a little better than the villains play theirs.

Maybe I was reading too much into what message Tommy was trying to convey. To me, it's not the hand itself, it's the way it's played that makes the difference by different players that makes the difference.

I had envisioned Tommy having at some point, came to the conclusion that this is the group of hands that I make more money with compared to others. Then at some point in his career concluded QT was the most profitable within that group.

So, it doesn't matter if it's QT. It might very well be a group of hands in NL that cannot be narrowed down to 1 or 2 hands. And when I was thinking of this, I was considering it in the context that "all other things being equal."

Table dynamics are not static. However, the players at the table are going to play their hands the same way they would have yesterday under the current table dynamics, void any revelation they came upon overnight.

Lastly, there is so much more in the article that has been a helluva' lot more beneficial to me than the QT mystery. However, I'm glad my post got a discussion going. Maybe, if someone finds something in it that they really like, they can start a thread about that part of the article.

http://tommyangelo.com/articles/reciprocality/

Again, if you re-read that section, QTo is not cited as the hand that makes the most profit, or even the most profitable compared to other player's profits, but the most reciprocal profit. If Tommy were folding QTo every single time it was dealt to him (not that I think that he would call this optimal) he would have an expectation of -0.1334bb per occurrence. If an l/p fish always calls with it and calls bets post flop with weak TPs/MPs/draws often, he might have an expectation of -7bb/occurrence. That's a reciprocal profit of 6.86bb per time Tommy gets QTo, even though it is an overall money loser for him.

I agree 100% Garick. I obviously Have trouble conveying what I'm thinking into words

@Garick: The way I was looking @ reciprocal profit was for instance, will U win more $ opening OTB & V playing QT suited in the Sb & BB folds. Say flop comes T HIGH. & U have KTs in another suit & both of U have bdfd & Ur hand is best otr. The ? Is who wins the most money? U or V when riles are reversed.

I was also thinking there were so many more ways to win with QT opening otb if U don't over reach against the wrong Vs when U miss the flop.

Sure, I fully agree. I just don't want to see anyone get too excited about QTo like it's some kind of magic hand, as long as you can unlock its secrets.

Some of it's value comes from being a stealing hand with equity and/or ahead of LP's calling ranges out of the blinds at least enough to make money on it in position, but most of it's reciprocal value lies in not making the mistake the fish are and considering it "just like any other broadway hand."

The key isn't a hand or group of hands it is all the other reciprocal advantages that Tommy talks about that allow him to play any given hand better than his average opponent: Tilting less frequently and less badly, giving out less information while collecting more, knowing better what to do with that information and quitting better than his opponents so he spends more time playing his A-game then they do theirs.