Let's Have a Discussion about Open-Raise Sizes - Page 4 - High Stakes Poker Pot Limit and No Limit

Two Plus Two Forums Archived Forums Strategy High Stakes PL/NL

Let's Have a Discussion about Open-Raise Sizes

...

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

03-07-2008 , 01:59 AM

#76

ike

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,635

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycballer

i challenge you to name 1

I name me.

03-07-2008 , 02:08 AM

#77

muttiah

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 25,029

Actually I agree with bobbo. It took me a while to figure it out, but it def makes more sense for LAGs to raise bigger than tight players.

03-07-2008 , 02:37 AM

#78

fsuplayer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,371

nyc i hope you have a better argument than, 'it works for me!'.

and you have no ****ing clue wtf you are talking about concerning mdma. he has a ton of GREAT students and I would certainly put money on him vs you given the opportunity.

03-07-2008 , 04:14 AM

#79

TheQuietAnarchist

Formerly xorbie

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 22,826

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bryce

Actually, the GTO angle here is to actually raise less, as your opponent is less inclined to join pots as the overall quality of your raising range improves. Raising whatever amount with tight ranges is an (extremely common) exploitive angle in NL which basically amounts to "he can have the small pots, I will just wait for him to mess up in the big pots." Against an opponent who plays equally well as you in the big pots you would lose with such a strategy.

You keep making the same point, I'm trying to make a different point. You can't just look at hands on a 0 <---> 100 hand strength scale. The whole beauty of poker is that hand strength changes so dramatically as more cards are dealt. AA is the nuts pre, but postflop it is frequently middle of the pack.

For example, if I know you have AA only and you minraise the button, I can actually profitably call 22-KK. On any xyz flop where none of the cards is an A, 1/6 of my hand range is sets, so I can easily bet the flop with 1/2 of my hands (sets and 2x as many bluffs) and you have to fold, since I will be shrinking my bluffing range as we proceed to turn/river. This is a pretty common flop texture and even on other flops I obv still win sometimes so the 3:1 odds you give me actually make me +EV and thus you would want to raise more to force me to fold.

What it comes down to is that the point of your hand range at which you are "strongest" is not the point at which you are "tightest" (in the sense of raising a smaller range of hands). From one perspective, the "strongest" raising range is 100% of hands, because you always have the nuts in your range on any flop.

My intuition is that you should always be looking to raise wider as stacks get deeper and that as soon as they hit a certain point and you are raising 100% of your hands you start raising your bet size once you get even deeper to make villain fold more and more hands. I'm going to say with some confidence that the GT optimal strat for a villain at this point is always going to be to 3bet their entire hand range and hope you fold, but I'll have to think about it.

Thankfully nobody plays GT optimal and so its no prob.

Last edited by TheQuietAnarchist; 03-07-2008 at 04:25 AM.

03-07-2008 , 04:57 AM

#80

TheQuietAnarchist

Formerly xorbie

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 22,826

Can't edit again but that second to last paragraph it should say "3bet their entire hand range that they plan on continuing with". I'm less sure about this though, I think it's possible to either call your whole range or just 3bet a fairly balanced range and leave a balanced range behind so you can burn less $ preflop but it's tough to say.

03-07-2008 , 06:06 AM

#81

MilkMan

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,169

Quote:

Originally Posted by fsuplayer

mdma forumtilts like no one else, wonder if he could keep it together at the tables

03-07-2008 , 06:24 AM

#82

Rhaegar

banned

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 512

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bryce

With exploitative play we can certainly fabricate scenarios, and very real scenarios at that, where a strategy with a smaller opening raise size will be more profitable than raising to a large size. Without getting into outright game theory, however, let's think of this in the context that we're playing against an opponent who isn't a dunce and will play well against both a 3x and 5x raise with stacks of 300bb.

Technically, this sort of randomization only means that you're decreasing your raise size some of the time, you're not changing your distribution. You have the same range when you raise to 3x and 6x in your example, so it has no impact on your opponent's ability to assign a value to your hand range (of course, it may confuse him in actuality, but let's say that's a moot point). Randomizing your range is only effective when you're balancing your range in a random manner. For example, if you always wanted to make a larger raise size with aces, but also snuck some trashy hands in there as well. In this scenario your distribution isn't changing.

It's counterintuitive, but it's correct. Whenever you are making a larger raise the GTO strategy will involve you bluffing with a larger range of hands than if you were making a smaller raise. For example, say you were in a particular scenario where you had the nuts 20% of the time and your strategy was to bet half pot, laying your opponent 3:1. The GTO strategy is to bluff 25% of the time that you bet, or 6.6% of the time overall. If you bet pot with the nuts here, laying 2:1 then you'd bluff 33% of the time that you bet, or about 10% of the time overall.

The reason this is counterintuitive to most, I imagine, is that it seems like by wagering less chips you can afford to play more hands, as you'll lose less with your poor hands. Remember, however, that your opponent is in the same shoes if you make a larger raise size with a wider range. Now he wants to play more hands, but will lose much more with his weaker hands.

This is totally not true for preflop and your reasoning is wrong. We derive our conclusion that we should have a higher bluffing percentage for a higher bet ammount by looking at our opponents EV of calling. There is no real link between that situation (which involves pretty much only winning hands and dead hands with no betting left) and preflop play on the button, where every hand is a semibluff with 3 remaining streets and position and has to take into account the need to balance the range against a reraise. What every good player knows is that a smaller raise with a wider range is the best option, but I won't bother trying to prove it. Try to construct several different ranges and look at the EV for your whole range against different counter strategies and see for yourself.

03-07-2008 , 06:32 AM

#83

Rhaegar

banned

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 512

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bryce

Actually, it's the same thing. Equity (real equity, and how often) and the value of the game apply for both pre-flop play and the river. The only difference is that with pre-flop play your equity and the correct betting strategy become ridiculously complex. To solve that you would have to solve the entirety of NL Hold'em for a Nash Equilibrium (GTO) strategy.

This is correct as well. As you remove players from the pot the quality of your distribution increases, and therefor your range and bet size also increase in a GTO scenario. I think Chen and a few others recommend a min-raise UTG and pot from the button. The results against a perfect opponent would certainly be non-trivial, but in the real world one issue that would come up is that most people would have no idea of what your actions represent, and might take a wide range of responses that would make it difficult for you to play a strong, exploitive game.

And Chen was totally wrong here; his reasoning was that he wanted to make BB indifferent to calling, hence miniraising UTG. Which is awfully stupid and irrelevant to real poker, as the one defending the blinds is actually the button and your hand range + bet sizing is designed to make the button indifferent to calling with a wide range and not the big blind.

03-07-2008 , 08:10 AM

#84

Rhaegar

banned

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 512

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycballer

first, u don't understand why math can never solve HU NL because you dont even play lol. You are in no position to argue this if you don't play the game. and you are correct i do not understand the first thing of game theory and it doesnt matter in the slightest

Every 2 player game with zero-sum expectation for both players has an optimal strategy, meaning that no strategy used against it will produce a profit. This is totally valid for HU NL Holdem. Multiplayer its a little different though as you have to consider your strategy against the combination of the other players strategies and this might make it so that its possible to be playing optimally and be actually losing.

Youre obviously not a math type of player, but you're wasting your time, trying to prove that math or game theory doesnt apply to whatever poker situation as it always will.

03-07-2008 , 08:30 AM

#85

Ansky

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 17,523

I'd bet like 50k that nycballer takes mdma to town if they played HU for a very long period of time.

03-07-2008 , 08:33 AM

#86

Ansky

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 17,523

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRANTZ

nycballer, i guarantee you that if we took a lineup of the top NL players and both you and MDMA played them, he would fare significantly better than you right out of the gate (whether it's a tough 6handed game or a tough HU match).

you clearly don't understand math or game theory well enough and are just dismissing it because you're too lazy to think about it and your results against fish pacify you to the point where you don't need to think about it.

You are making this claim with absolutely no knowledge of nyc's results or game, i disagree entirely.

Last edited by Ansky; 03-07-2008 at 09:01 AM.

03-07-2008 , 08:34 AM

#87

Ansky

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 17,523

Quote:

Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK

NYC I'm going into school tomorrow to hand in my Game Theory to Roger Myerson who won a nobel about 4 months back. Shall I ask him whether there is a GTO way to play NLH HU? Let's put a large sum of money on the line OK? I'm 100% serious, put up or shut up. And don't come out with some lame line like how Myerson can't answer cos he's never played poker. Just put up or stfu, kindly.

What is it with the jew crew in this thread? Who gives a **** what this guy says.

This post reminds me of 1st grade, my dad is smarter than your dad type rhetoric.

edit: im part of the jew crew, no racist ban please.

03-07-2008 , 08:40 AM

#88

Ansky

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 17,523

To clarify, I don't really agree that there is no way to think game theory optimal for HUNL, but I just think that ppl who are attacking NYC's game based on his posts is just like the classic 2+2 flaw. Just because you post good doesn't mean you play good, just because you post bad doesn't mean you play bad.

Last edited by Ansky; 03-07-2008 at 08:59 AM. Reason: nvm

03-07-2008 , 08:49 AM

#89

stealthmunk

Guest

Posts: n/a

Seems like only answer to the HUNL GTO debate is a NYCBALLER v MDMA hu4rollz. After NYCBALLER ravages, he moves on to the jew crew, and if he conquers both, the Nash Equilibrium is successfully disproved.

03-07-2008 , 09:11 AM

#90

BobboFitos

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 72,763

Quote:

Originally Posted by xorbie

This just isn't true. The problem is that this attempts to portray the hands as having a linear "value", but this clearly isn't the way hands are meant to be analyzed. Q5o being a preflop favorite over 78s doesn't make it better, because Q5o doesn't often improve drastically in value on the flop/turn/river, whereas 78s can. This gives you a degree of flexibility post flop than someone with a very tight range can possess.

If your range is very tight, you want to raise bigger so that you can at least have a pretty large part of your tight range to be "bluffs" which can actually get a hand to fold.

No, you're looking at this in the wrong light. Clearly 87s is better then Q5o, I am not saying that.

03-07-2008 , 09:14 AM

#91

BobboFitos

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 72,763

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ansky

I'd bet like 50k that nycballer takes mdma to town if they played HU for a very long period of time.

yeah, i dont want to get too much into this, as i like mdma's posts alot and so forth, but i actually agree w/ nyc a little more here and would bet on his side and pretty thrilled to get even odds while doing so.

03-07-2008 , 10:11 AM

#92

MDMA

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,079

What is this, everybody suddenly knows me and think I suck :/

03-07-2008 , 11:38 AM

#93

nycballer

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,767

o where to start, here goes......

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRANTZ

would love to arrange the first one and put money on it or how about I just play MDMA HU myself? I would love a 4 table 10/20 HU 30k freezeout something around there, if he wants bigger action that would be possible!

the 2nd one, fish don't play me, good players don't playme, I don't get action these days from anyone at my level(10/20)

next,

Quote:

PartyGirlUK NYC I'm going into school tomorrow to hand in my Game Theory to Roger Myerson who won a nobel about 4 months back. Shall I ask him whether there is a GTO way to play NLH HU? Let's put a large sum of money on the line OK? I'm 100% serious, put up or shut up. And don't come out with some lame line like how Myerson can't answer cos he's never played poker. Just put up or stfu, kindly.

I'll bet he can't come up with this "GTO" method and that I could easily beat him at HU NL without understanding the most basic gto theory

and on,

Quote:

ike I name me.

I'm suprised a good player would get coaching from a railbird, but anyway if you'd like to play, come on down! I never refuse action at my stakes but u are one level above me i'm afraid(25/50+)

and on,

Quote:

fsuplayer
nyc i hope you have a better argument than, 'it works for me!'.

and you have no ****ing clue wtf you are talking about concerning mdma. he has a ton of GREAT students and I would certainly put money on him vs you given the opportunity.

I said more than it works for me, u just glossed over it. And I would not only love to bet on me vs him but im willing to lay odds! Let's get him backers and make this happen.

and on,

Quote:

MDMA
What is this, everybody suddenly knows me and think I suck

Comes with the territory when you've NEVER PLAYED THE GAME LOL. Please respond to my nfl coordinator analogy. i'll repost here for your convienence: This is like saying that because I can properly break down a play on game film that I am qualified to be a coordinator in the nfl.

also, ansky and sm thanks for possibly derailing the easiest money i could ever make with a big HU match with mdma!

also, ike you said there are many many players that MDMA has coached that are much better than me, hope you will back up that statement with cash, lets see the list

03-07-2008 , 11:51 AM

#94

Sponger.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 20,593

Quote:

Originally Posted by aejones

4x utg and minraise the button and thank me later

I think I'm also going to make it 3.3x UTG+1 and 2.7x from the CO

03-07-2008 , 11:55 AM

#95

MDMA

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,079

Honestly you are just getting annoying. I play the game for hours each day, too bad you are too ******ed to have realized this by now. Being a coach in poker is NOT like being a coach in sports; either you are good at the game or you are not, there is no "I know how to but I can't do it" in actually playing the game, since no PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES IS REQUIRED. I make decisions ALL DAY for my students, can you find how that is in ANY way different compared to actually playing, IF we disregard the whole dealing with swings/psyche etc parts, which are not actually related to the actual playing mechanics.

Quote:

NEVER PLAYED THE GAME LOL

Stuff like this just makes you completely ******ed not knowing me and HOW I coach.

Thus, your analogy to NFL coordinator is pointless and plain wrong; there is required PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES to be a good football player; these requirements does not exist in a game that has nothing to with physical condition (except perhaps endurance for long live games or whatever, but that is still not the issue).

I'm just laughing at you calling me a railbird, it's really ridiculous, I can guarantee you (just by reading your posts in this thread) that I have much better understanding of poker than you have, and I would think I am a better player as well, although of course this cannot be proven, which isn't what this is about anyway.

03-07-2008 , 12:08 PM

#96

Christophers

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,516

nyc, who are you on FTP?

03-07-2008 , 12:12 PM

#97

PartyGirlUK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 23,530

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ansky

I didn't say anything about his game, no idea how good he is, or whether he'd take MDMA HU, but he's just stating something 100% mathematically wrong as fact, and I'm looking for the chance to make some free money if he's really as confident in his beliefs as he says he is. That is all/

03-07-2008 , 12:21 PM

#98

BobboFitos

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 72,763

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDMA

What is this, everybody suddenly knows me and think I suck :/

??? I dont think anyone thinks you suck. Most think you're really good, imo. nyc though is really good and people saying he would get destroyed are off base.