Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadoula8
Do elaborate.
Complacency is basically when one becomes satisfied with one's own progress, which results in non learning; this trait is particularly not useful as a poker player, particularly in today's playing environment.
To most of your disagreements with the so called gto players:
I don't think you have solved poker. You may have found a great way to stack bad players, but I don't think you'd perform well in tough games. Maybe I'm wrong about this.
Your essays on preadjusting and the levels may be in fact correct, provided that your opponent isn't good enough to see through your deceptive style. Let's talk about ev:
there are two ways to preadjust on the first round of betting:
a) fold hands that would be profitable to play vs worse opponents.
b) play hands that would be unprofitable to play vs tougher opponents.
can we agree on this? If yes:
In both situations, if you're wrong, or if you're incorrectly adjusting, then you will surely be losing ev.
In both situations, if you're right and if you're correctly adjusting, then you will surely be gaining ev.
I think we can agree here.
However, the place where we begin to disagree is on that of counter exploitation. You don't give your opponent's much credit for being any good at counter exploitation. I believe that in today's poker environment, having good preflop ranges is necessary to maintain a minimum ev. Thus our strategies are different from the very beginning of the hand with the first action we take. I think that this is why we disagree so often. You have hands in your actual range that are not in mine. I think that some of those hands in your actual range are in fact unprofitable, not necessarily in every game textur, which is why I will not be convinced to open raise 64o three handed on the button as part of my default strategy. It's not because of cognitive dissonance. It's about profitability. You may pass this off as me being afraid of playing this hand because of cognitive dissonance if you like, but you must acknowledge that these two statements are not contradictory:
a) I don't raise 64o three handed on the button as default.
b) I raise 64o three handed on the button in certain circumstances.
While this particular hand may be in my actual range vs player y, it's not in my range vs an unknown player.
Then as I gain information on a particular opponent, I'm constantly adjusting my strategy not just between hands, but during the hand.
The catch here is that I don't just get dealt any hand and think like this:
"I'm just gonna out play this guy this hand."
Because I think that's a recipe for disaster, it's basically using this cliche as your guide through a hand of poker:
"Fake it till you make it."
In poker? You get two cards and you can play em any way you want to. Once you pay your blinds, you're entitled to play however you want. So this cliche isn't as hurtful as it can be in different settings. For example, I lift lots of heavy things. It happens to be what I'm good at. Furnaces? Condensers? Couches? Refridgerators? Yup. I got that. If I didn't have it when I said I did? People would get hurt by falling objects. Thus faking it till I make it isn't really an option for me. I make calculating moves in poker and life.
-----
All that said, You own the cards in your hand, temporarily. Play em however you want. Nobody gets hurt and you get to play a game that you presumably enjoy.