good post wazz. watch out for full inbox by microgrinders now

Nothing special, but this just occurred to me a while back (consciously, the whole thought process, obv not something I've just learned).

When I first started playing poker, I bluffed for fun.
Then, I started to bluff, because that was the only way I could win.
Then, I started bluffing, when I thought my villain couldn't have anything too good.
Then, I realized, it's not enough to know the villain doesn't have the nuts. It also needs to make sense for you to have a hand.

As a novice, you may often get caught bluffing, when you think you've made a great read, say on the river. You figure how he's betting seems like he has a mediocre hand, and if you raise, there's no way he can call. Then when he calls, you berate him and note him as a calling station. What you need to realize is, that even if it seems impossible for villain to have the nuts, in order to be able to bluff him, you need to be able to have the nuts.

Good thread, very nice posts wazz ggarj and jackten.

Since ggarj suggested I add it to the digest earlier, here's a link to a heavily poker themed 6k word short story I posted a few weeks ago: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/38...ntent-1120436/. There's no strat content in it, except maybe as a cautionary tale of what not to do when you've built up a big br.

great thread,

many thanks!

great thread

where do you go when there's a zombie outbreak?

costco - they have years of supplies of food and stuff and plus zombies have to have a membership to get in

Excellent bump. ty

Would love to see more theory threads bumped

This concept is only true when winnings should be higher as rakeback.

For me rakeback is every time much higher, cause of the very high percentage that it overcomes pretty big loses.

When you are playing be oder even winning then the rakeback is the most income imo.

On stars and co the rb is ridiculuos low so your theory there is very true.

On ipoker for me for example its otherwise. Higher volume = more money, lower tables= more time for descisions/should result in higher winrate but you would need to play much more hours a day to achieve same hourly as with more tables just abc.

The point is not in the comparison of static hourly winrates, though I feel that multitablers' hourlies are not much bigger than oligotablers', besides, they're not much different at different sites (more precisely, the best place to play is different for different personalities, but on average sites are on par) as otherwise regs would partially move to a place where they're bigger, i.e. I assume that the poker market is almost arbitrage-free: if e.g. more regs migrated from Stars to iPoker, then Stars would become fishier and more beatable pre-RB; or conversely, if Stars lowered rake, then some iPoker regs would move there, making iPoker fishier and more profitable to play on than before too.

The point is that oligotablers have a greater potential of improvement and achieving higher hourly winrates in the future as they learn.

Nice thread!

I have a question about your UTG range. What exactly do you mean when you say JTT9ss? Do you mean JTT9, QJJT, KQQJ and AKKQ? And TT98+. Does that mean TT98, JJT9, QQJT, KKQJ and AAKQ? And T988+ I assume includes JT99, QJTT, KQJJ and AKQQ? I think I have it right but I'd like to be sure.

I more confused about QQ98+. Is It just the 98 side cards that we're increasing? For example, QQT9, QQJT etc?

After typing all of this I think I have it right but I'm going to post it anyways.
Thanks again for this.

The hand has to be JTT9, not some other combination. It must be single suited, meaning that the JT, J9 or T9 cards will be suited, remainder of hand will be rainbow. TT can't be suited

I meant JTT9ss+.