No, the best way to improve at poker is to assume that everything you are doing is correct and that there are no better players. Then tell these players who think they are better than you why they are not.

No, I agree with your post. Although agree with lawdude, and am inclined to look at computer analysis, and long-term statistical anaysis of similar problems to weigh it. I also think there are a lot of sophisticated plays that are potentially above my head.

For example, JL's straddle in 3-handed game proposal. I do not really know if that's EV or not. I think it can be exploited, but I don't know. I'd speculate, but I'd rather weigh in and look at what computer simulation say about the situation, and I have no assumption about JL's playing ability.

Or you could just play and see what happens. If you get crushed at least our learned something.

I've played in lots of tough games and lots of games With players better than me. I learned a lot

Yes well I wouldn't want to insult you and say, "oh gee lets play for nickels". I'd wear a grandmother's whig though, which might add to the amusement. But, I think I'm going to talk to my computer instead and see if it talks back. Stranger things have happened. It is possible.

The other problem is that online there are no straddles, and I'm not out west. I don't even play online.

fwiw though I did straddle after the last guy straddled last time it came up. Straddlenostic.

Some sites allow it

If you don't mind my asking, where?

PV, I strongly dislike the flop check for reasons others have elaborated. That said, I think folding river is good here given your flop/turn line. I would call a lot of rivers, but I think this river fold is correct given that the 7 connects with a lot of the weird gutshot draws that he would stab with on the flop/turn. I think it's far more likely that this guy has something like 78/85/75/35/97 than he has naked overs that don't 3bet preflop and then spazz bet both flop and turn.

i think the same as you; however, there are many different ways to win at poker. it's very possible the person in question is far better than i am postflop and has a highly balanced game that i can't extrapolate about from 1 hand.

i know for me, it makes sense to stick with a game that involves being highly selected up front. adding hands like a2s so they can hit low boards, ostensibly b/c i've seen a crusher do it, is almost surely going to end up hurting more than it helps. there are a few hands i'd rarely raise (black or red low suited connectors or of a specific suit, again b/c it only takes 1 of those views to be stuck in people's heads, at least those who i'd want to notice).

so if somebody is adding A2s to their 9handed UTG game, without any other information, i'll certainly consider it in terms of adding it in the back of my mind to "ways to win"; however, for me, i'm going to ignore it as it pertains to my game b/c that's not something i can incorporate individually. i'd need to understand all of the logic behind it and how it meshes with this crusher's game, something i can't get from 1 hand.

EDIT: Also, EXTREMELY good players can succeed with a high win rate in spite of themselves. the #1 trait that i've seen in common across all extremely good players is that they're too loose preflop. you can say "it works for them so it may be right" but in reality it's more likely that if they pulled back juuuuust a bit on the pf selectivity criteria, they'd do even better. sure, maybe i'm wrong here and that each hand they add is marginally positive and there are no hands they lose money with that they choose to play; however, that's probably not the case. yes, there may be hands THEY can play that all others lose money with in a given position, but more than likely they just lose way less money with it and instead earn more with other hands so you can't properly tease out this distinction without a SH*TTON of data.

I think weight has to be put into the statistical analysis of millions of hands by Stox (though he turned out to be a scoundrel).

You think no one has ever taken a look in the ten years the book has been out? Or that the games haven't changed since then?

The ranges were too tight

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I must wonder:

Why did they not publish their statistical findings on what the correct ranges are?

I am open to your thinking. I am merely shopping for the best evidence I can find. What should I weigh more heavily than Stox at this current juncture? You are correct that it is ten years old now.

Also, sorry for the pre-flop derail.

They published what they believed to be correct, and later, better ranges were discovered.

What poker media would you recommend to find the ranges that were discovered? Is it just unpublished? It's entirely possible since it's 10 years ago. Also, Stox only published a few players with their rates who of course had variations in their play. I simply haven't found what's better yet.

If you are interested in the Stox book, you should probably start by looking for one of the threads on it

you think it's more likely the ranges are wrong out of deception than just the ranges were done wrong?

There's probably a preflop chart stickied in the low limit section that's better than Stox'.

A couple of points on this:

1. A lot of folks here take the position "learn the right way so you don't have to re-learn later", but I don't think there's anything wrong with a lower limit player erring on the side of tightness. For one thing, her opponents are not going to be able to take advantage of her not having enough 3's and 2's in her range anyway. And for another thing, the reality is that most people have psychological factors that they need to control that will push them towards being overly loose anyway, so playing overly tight and learning self control seems to me to be just as important a skill as any strategic factor. And that brings me to 2.....

2. I've mentioned this before in discussions with DD in other threads, but it's entirely possible that even top live players' pre-flop ranges are going to be too loose. Consider the following factors: (a) they are likely to have the same issues with boredom, impatience, etc., as any other player does; (b) they are likely to have a larger ego regarding their skill than other players do, which will likely lead them to seek out marginal spots because they think they can outplay opponents; and (c) live poker, unlike online poker, does not provide you with the type of feedback that would establish that a play is mathematically -EV over a large sample of hands. Nobody tracks their live play like that.

And I do remember, pre-BF when I played a lot online, both that my database indicated that various hands were -EV that people play live, and further that the best online players played tighter, especially in early position, than what I would consider some of the top mid-stakes live players in LA do now. They weren't TAGs, but they were LAGTAGs, or maybe LAGs in position and TAGs out of position. And it's entirely possible that one reason for that is because those players had databases telling them that some of the hands that top live players like to play, because they don't want to fold, were actually -EV to play in that position.

In any event, I didn't mind OP's raise of A4 suited here. But move it back a position or two and I might....

Yes, we did have databases telling us that certain hands are -EV from certain positions, but there are many factors as to WHY they were -EV online but not necessarily so live.

1. The most obvious reason is that online FR games were tighter and more punishing overall. When you are more likely to get 3-bet and see a flop 2-3 handed when you open, you should naturally tighten up your opening range. This should apply to tough live games as well, which is why I think LoL's request for an accurate preflop range is ludicrous. There is no global hand chart for all players against all oppositions. It needs to vary based on how well you play and how well your opponents play.

2. Online players could easily multi-table. I would always have 8-10 tables of 3-6 to 5-10 open. If I'm opening 10-15% UTG then I'm playing too many hands to effectively keep track of them all. This is going to result in these hands which may be profitable while single-tabling become losers when multi-tabling.

3. Our opponents' poor note-taking abilities would cause them to take awful lines. I'll take myself as an example. I'd open 7% UTG (AQo+, AJs+, 88+) and ~50% on the button with a nice sliding scale in between. If someone sees me open BTN with K3s and win with it, they'll take a note like "this donkey raises K3s". Since they'll never take note of what I've opened with in various positions, and only keep notes on that one single hand, they are now geared to confidently 3-bet me with KJo in MP vs my UTG open. Of course, if we now start opening KT UTG, they would be playing correctly with their single dumb note.

Boredom also certainly factors in as mentioned. I'd have no problem folding AJo UTG online since there are 8 other tables and I'm actively involved in 2-3 other pots at any given time. But I'll be damned if I'm folding AJo UTG in a live game.

I think this is a really good thread and a really good hand to post. To be honest I would have probably checked flop intending to call and then folded for the two bets.

I fully agree with uphillbothways in pretty much all his posts. Rodeo those guys may be crushers but sometimes people still play too many hands in spots and crush in spite of this. I do not think A2s can be profitable utg in any semi tough 9 handed game.

I'm not sure why you're assuming that the crusher is opening A2s UTG in a semi tough 9 handed game. I'm saying that what I got from UpHillBothWays's post was, "opening A2s from UTG in a 9 handed game under any circumstances is bad." I disagree with that leap in logic.

When I used to watch your videos on DC, I would occasionally see you make a play that wasn't something that I was currently doing. Since you were better than me at LHE then, I sought to understand why you were doing it instead of immediately dismissing it.

Thanks for your videos, btw. You did a session review of one of my sessions and it helped improve my play greatly. I appreciate that.

I actually watched that fairly recently.

Ohhhhhhh sick burn!

We may be arguing semantics / be closer that I first thought on how we view this. I was just trying to say that yes I agree when a crusher does something we don't do we should consider that it is right and we just don't know why. But sometimes they make errors also. That's why it can be tough to learn poker by emulation.

Thanks for the comments the good old days of video making were fun.

rodeo:

there's almost always extremely rare/concocted exceptions to any given play. for the vast vast vast majority of players the vast vast vast majority of the time, opening A2s here was too loose imo and opening A2s utg in a standard 9handed mid limit game is way too loose.

how loose was the open in this thread? not terrible, but worth noting in a post, which is why i did so.

also, i apologize for starting a huge pf thread lol. i definitely didn't mean to, just wanted to voice the thought that pf here was too loose, esp given a great player in the bb and loose/tricky players behind.

DD-> right. it's very hard to learn by emulation. and something can be "right" for some people but not "right" for others. it just depends on what your game is. i can be fairly confident in the statement that for anybody reading this thread, opening A2s in a 9handed mid limit game utg is far too loose. here, it's probably passable for some, but still i'd just err on folding it.

interested in your thoughts on betting vs. checking this board vs. these opponents? i'd have preferred bet and call a raise back, folding for 2 back. i can see some merits in checking, but i think overall with this hand and where it falls in our range, betting seems better.

that point was brought up by somebody to refute part of my post.

My point is that the open in this hand is not too loose because even if it's borderline it makes your range connect with more boards and makes it easier to play your range well. That being said, I think you'll win money with this hand in a vast majority of live lineups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk