Very good post imo. And nice follow up by bozzer.

I love getting it in versus short stacks / fish when I feel that I am at least just slightly ahead of their range. If you're properly rolled you will win a lot this way.

OP's point is self-evidently correct. Anyone who says otherwise is missing the whole point of cash v. tourney poker.

BUT

I would say that understanding the concept that you should push every edge is not the same as actually being able to do it. Indeed, it is not even the same as being able to identify these spots in the first place. After all, you can only exploit an edge you can actually see!

I think the process of identifying and exploiting edges is a skill that increases as you get better (that is to say, it develops as all your other skills do).

So, when micro players pass up a thin EV edge, they are simply showing a lack of sharpness in their game, like the million other faults they have. I don't consider missing out on thin EV edges as any more or less a mistake than not valuebetting the river or failing to play 3b pots correctly or whatever. It's all a part of the same whole.

If this weren't true, then why is the standard advice to 50NL players "play your big hands for value, fold to a lot of aggression" whereas for 600NL players it's "light 4b and merge your ranges and squeeze light and shove over cbets and work limp/rereaise into your game etc. etc"? All this is about pushing the edges you have the skill to identify and exploit.

Nice one chomp. I agree totally. It's hard to learn where these small edges are, because the variance in these situations is often very large and the long terms rewards are small. For example when the pot is small and an unknown raises and threatenes with RIO/allin. Often when hero can probably continue profitably when he plays correctly, we get the 'better spot' remark. These remarks are really 'I can't identify this as profitable, calling might be a big mistake, folding is at worst a small one'. That's a correct analysis imo, but it's too bad that it's often implied that we can give up value, because the profit is not big enough.

Yes and no Chomp. Raising and betting ranges in uNL and also in SSNL for that matter are actually very narrow, so once most villians wake up, you're usually toast unless you think you really can push them of TP+.

Against such players you can start pushing them around small ball style, lots of pf raising and post flop aggression for small amounts (15-30bb at most) and show a nice steady stream of profit.

Now a way to counter this is to fight fire with fire .. since the small amount lag is used to tags having it when they wake up, he'll fold most hands when betting escalates over the 30bb size or so ....

This in turn forces range of the 30bb lag up even more so you end up playing a lot of flips for stack etc, but jumping from stage 1 (the 30bb lag) to MSNL aggro might be suicide at uNL and SSNL, since they always have it and practically never bluff.


So it is not necesarry a skill uNL'er do not posses, since gamecondition dictate not playing like that. So uNL is valuebet the fish and small ball the tags for the most part (tho once in a while a 100bb bluff opportunity does show up .. shoving turns and rivers vs thinking players at times can be good, it is just rare)

I think chomp meant to say there are a lot of ways to play (some examples that might not be the best) that can gain you an edge. A good player will look for all the small edges and take them instead of waiting for obvious and easy plays and avoid the rest.

Well some good players just play suboptimally but compensate by playing twice as many tables

Good post mvdgaag, I think it will help to ensure that people use the right words to describe what they really mean. Instead of saying "look for a better spot" I think most of the time they might actually be meaning to say something like "I'm not sure whether I'm ahead here", which is actually a different topic altogether.

"look for a better spot" = passing up an advantage you know you have.
"I'm not sure whether I'm ahead here" = not knowing whether you actually DO have an advantage.

Why should I gamble(even if i'm a slight favourite like 51-49)? You can't compear poker with chess or golf, where the better player will win 99% of the games. Losing 4 coinflips in a row is not bad luck, you could prevent this. Luck will allways remain in poker, we are fighting against it, but we are powerless against it. The only thing we can do, to play every single hand correctly, avoid tilt, and keep br management.
Good luck everyone!

lol... so true. Imagine playing all those tables optimally

I'm not sure if I fully agree/understand/have my ideas on this fully fleshed out.

Obviously I can see the argument for not folding a slim +EV edge (coinflip) vs waiting for another hand. But consider another EV decison -an intra-hand choice:

e.g. we can get AI pflop with say AQs which is slightly ahead of villians range for the purposes here or we have a read that he felt any TP we can call and get AI with a higher EV situation on flop+.

Essentially I'm saying it is sometimes good to pass up a smaller edge earlier in the hand to get more monies on l8er more expensive streets. You want to maximise your EV over whole hand than than on each street decision.

Good addition to the thread. I'll think aloud along with you. When you are in a hand your job is to make descisions that maximize your EV for the hand as a whole. So, even if you are ahead it doesnt mean you should push all in immedately - even if that is +EV. You think ahead and find that it is much more likely that villain will commit and stack off on the turn than the flop, so you check or call instead of bet or raise. You made the descision you believed had the highest expected value.

Facing an all in from a shortstack is essentially the same thing. Your job is to chose the option that wins you money. Only difference is now our options are very limited and we dont have to engage in multi-street thinking - we simply have to choose between fold or call.

I've been trying really hard to think of a good way to articulate why the OP is flawed, which it is. I have not read all the responces, so if this has been said before then I appologize.

Basically, the reason we wait for a better spot is because defining opponents ranges is HARD.

Giving examples like "I have 22... he 100% has AK, and I am a small favourite, so this is why waiting for a better spot doesnt work" is a dumb argument, because other than 2x there isnt a better spot for 22.

If we know that our fishy villian doesnt have a great grasp of hand strengths, then why would we put ourselves in a position where our equity is only marginally positive? Ace-Queen would be a good example of a hand where this occurs:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 50.040% 45.83% 04.21% 1619797488 148729326.00 { AQs, AQo }
Hand 1: 49.960% 45.75% 04.21% 1616939316 148729326.00 { 22+, ATs+, KQs, ATo+, KQo }


If we waited for a 'better spot' (lets say JJ, a hand which is of similar strength to AQ) then...:

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 63.018% 62.44% 00.57% 930219576 8560950.00 { JJ }
Hand 1: 36.982% 36.41% 00.57% 542363004 8560950.00 { 22+, ATs+, KQs, ATo+, KQo }


Now I think that these hands illustrate the point well, but I also realise that these examples are highly flawed because they dont consider situations, images, stacks, pot-odds, history etc....


The point is, most villians will not alter their ranges regardless of many factors, but we CAN alter our ranges because hopefully we are better. If they are going to put their money in anyway we should wait untill we have a hand at the TOP of their range as opposed to something in the middle, because then we are able to force mostly +EV situations.

When I say "I want to wait for a better spot", I am saying "I want to wait untill I am more sure that I will be a favourite in this hand" because DEFINING RANGES IS HARD.

scallop, all the discussion in this thread is at a very theoretical level - if we KNOW we have a small edge, we should take it (barring the exceptions outlined in the OP and my reply).

IN PRACTICE, yes being sure that an apparently marginal spot is +EV is hard and it depends on a lot of factors. But if you THINK it is +EV across the whole range of expections it could have you should still take it. Part of what goes into that is your confidence in likelihood of each scenario.

But a lot of people aren't clear on the first point it seems.

Yes, good point, I agree. Luckilly it's not at all conflicting with my OP when we define the EV of an action as the average expected profit when the hand is over. So it will include (reverse) implied odds, deception, etc.

Has someone mentioned the bank roll requirements to take a 51:49 flip 600 BB deep? There is no way a 30 BI bank roll could sustain the variance of that game. (I think).

Unless you have unlimited recourses I think passing up that edge would not be a significant error and may even be correct.

the stacks don't matter if the 30 buyins are also 600 BB buyins. There will be more variance if you flip in any slight +EV situation compared to folding, but I think flipping is standard if I think it's profitable and will almost never pass. Also you will find good EV situations as well, reducing your average variance. It's not like we're exchanging the good EV situations for lots of small EV situations, they do not overlap.

I haven't had more than 10 buyin swings so far (lucky me) and I guesstimate the average up/downswing is 2 to 4 buyins playing like this.

The point is that there is no resonable bank roll that could sustain the variance of a 49:51 game. Think of a strong player that can beat 200/400 for 2 BB/100, should he sit in with a 1 BI roll even if he had an edge? Its also a +EV prop ...

Thats because most of your monbnies does not go in on coinflips

[edit to say] the real EV of taking coinflips should be that it brings more money to the table when facing a weak opponent [/edit]

I think we understand eachother, but I'd like to point out anyways that there is no such thing as a 49:51 game. On average the edges will be bigger.

You are simply talking about playing outside your comfort zone.

Example:
You are playing live heads up. Villain open pushes, and flips over his cards - AQ (villain is Grimstarr). You peek at your cards - 55. So you know 100% that you are a favorite to win the hand, but only marginally so.

Now, I think that any self-respecting poker player should consider calling this - as long as the amount in question is something you can afford to lose. Note that I am not talking about BBs, but dollar amount. I think many people who usually play 5nl, but dont live in a third world country, feel that they can afford to lose $30 here.

However, if we were 600bb deep, and if I felt that I had a solid edge over villain postflop, and if the buyin was capped at 100bb, and if the dollar sum was significant to me, I would fold without thinking much about it - because if I lose this coinflip, it would be very difficult for me to get back in such a potentially very profitable situation. Calling is +EV, but folding is more +EV.

If it was uncapped, and my pockets were deep - snapcall.

And of course, if it was 100bb it would be an easy call every time as well.

This is a good post and has generated allot of discussion mvdgaag. I think we had discussed this point in a previous post.

What I would say is generally +EV is all - no matter how small. Under certain circumstances, such as: playing beyond our means against fish, playing against a rat holer fish and not being able to sufficiently identify our EV as either + or - are situations where we can consider passing up marginal +EV opportunities.

The problem I have with marginal situations is it sometimes takes some wishful thinking to conclude we are +EV and make a call where we should reflect more on the villains range. Often I see things in posts along the lines of 'i thought the villain was on tilt' or 'i had seen the villain show down 2nd pair'. These are often single examples of play that suddenly increase a justification to bump our equity in marginal situations. If a villain continues to shove a ton of flops and swears how he always gets out drawn in the chat box then I think it's fair to conclude he is on tilt. If the villain continually shows down 2nd/3rd pair in large pots then we can conclude he goes with anything. I think we often exaggerate our EV either way according to results and it is can only improve us if we can reflect on a hand fairly without taking into account the result.

it's fine to acknowledge the theory behind this but in practice i don't understand the rant, particularly since you've directed it at microstakes players.

1. most people playing unl are doing so to get to higher stakes.

2. repeatedly taking 51:49 edges is going to lead to extreme variance. to simply say 'stop tilting' is unreasonable because as long as you're human you are going to be psychologically affected by swings and repeatedly losing in extremely thin spots is going to make you play significantly worse; i think this is especially true for unl players who on the whole are naturally going to have had less experience dealing with stress in poker.

3. longterm this mentality could very well stop you from rising in stakes as quickly as you might have otherwise, since such a high variance style is going to need a lot more time and # of hands to see the results -- time that most unl players aren't going to have.

yeh, with a ridiculous number of buyins and unlimited time available to play this might be good thinking. but for those who want to make the most money they can in the time they have to play poker, getting through the micros can be done easily by taking very significant edges without the same level of stress, demotivation and self-doubt that's associated with swings.

Of course you should take a small edge if you have it. Period. Ok maybe there are a few exceptions....but that is what this is all about. Pushing edges. And in cash games if you lose on your small edge you rebuy. In tournaments you can't do that which is why you may pass up small edges.





Did you even read the OP. Even if you take the small edge and lose you rebuy and you'll stay get the larger edges later....but over time the small edge will make you money also.



Now I'm not sure if you're trolling or genuinely don't understand. In a 51-49 edge you will win 51% of the time....that's fact and it's also fact that you will make some money from this....so it is a profitable situation. Why do you want to pass up a situation where you make money. (And don't say for a better spot later....that's the whole point: you can make money now and still have the better spot later regardless of what happens now.)

what happens when u get to the higher stakes? u going to start taking those 51/49?

so when u get to the higher stakes u decide to start 51/49in' it ... without tilting? having a disregard for $$ at lower stakes is easier to do now ... and later when you move up...

this is false thinking cuz for every 1 buyin you lose in reality the next time u win that one/have an extra TWO% now weighted towards you. i understand poker isn't cumulative, but it is with 1% over a lot of hands as stated by someone above.



honestly my only issue with it...in practice...is as a uNL player it's close to impossible to determine those situations short of PF AI situations like TT vs AK, etc. so in essence u make a ton of mistakes turning ur +EV situation into a major losing one.

i don't have pstove on me...

That's a real good point. I'm not sure what to do after reading this thread. Good arguments can be made for both sides as we've seen. Historically, I've been a TAG, but I'm starting to transition into a LAG.

A number of times today I would raise in EP with like 22, A10, 99, AJ, etc. Then, some player with bad stats would push for like 20 more. Much of the time it felt like I was racing, but I've always thought that I should wait until later when I can outplay them postflop. I look to avoid all-in races pre because I don't wanna give the fish money in a race. Now, I'm a little worried I might be doing this...

I have a solid bankroll and can afford to race more pre, but I'm not sure that's the most +EV. What to do....

don't think it's as black and white as that. i mean, yeh, generally the edge you have is going to decrease as you rise in stakes which will force you to push smaller edges, but not to a 51/49 extent.

no.

don't really get what you mean by this. no it isn't cumulative...but it is?

i just think the negative effect the extreme swings would have on you psychologically would negate the extra ev you try to take by playing this style, and then some.