Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Micro-Small Stakes PL/NL Discussions regarding micro-small stakes pot and no-limit hold'em (up to and including 1-2)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-30-2020, 04:29 AM   #26
Ceres
journeyman
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Re: Thought Experiment

Hmm, I'm being swayed by the over-check crowd.

Villain has a significant nuts advantage. If he's under-betting then we get to over-realise IP with a free turn card by checking.

Is that the exploit? They lose EV by not capitalising with their weaker hands while they're ahead, and we exploit that by forcing them into difficult turn spots where their range becomes much more fit/fold. Whereas by betting we're shooting at a deceptively polarised range, when we could just check and see the next card.
Ceres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 04:56 AM   #27
Bolognie1
journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 370
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crab Cakes View Post
Also is this board a range bet from SB? I would think no given we have more sets and 2p.
I'd say so. I don't have much experience with 200BB effective mechanics, but assuming lower rake than the lowest micros, SB should have as much 66 as CO as I understand, and may even have some 44 which is a weak set anyway. SB has a significant edge with AA, so it's very difficult to say CO has a nut advantage but even so, it would be hard to use 3-6 combos of weak sets to refute the advantage of fds, AA and Ax better kicker in general.

I mean, what is CO to continue with that scares you as the SB player?

Edit: maybe I'm forgetting how much wider you're meant to play when deep at the big boy stakes though lol.
Bolognie1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 05:14 AM   #28
dubakkur2
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 3,098
Re: Thought Experiment

that board is not for lame ass range cbet from SB pov
and secondly there are not enough reads - just a hand waving statement - overchecks
and thirdly 200BB deep - lot of these dynamics change

you are already IP which is a big expoit considering equity realization and outdrawing prospects

Quote:
And instead he checks more often than he should. Now how do we go about exploiting this Small Blind that over checks on the flop?
@100bb I stab OTF with 1/2 pot bets on boards SB range whiffs when SB checks
dubakkur2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 05:26 AM   #29
jeccross
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,811
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by dubakkur2 View Post

@100bb I stab OTF with 1/2 pot bets on boards SB range whiffs when SB checks
I agree, but that is making an additional assumption that he is not balanced, which was not part of the question.
jeccross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 05:32 AM   #30
Mid or Feed
newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 34
Re: Thought Experiment

In my pool of players, z10, I think people dont have a balanced check range, maybe just in very dry uncoordinated boards they check strong hands, therefore I will simply bet bet bet.
Mid or Feed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 12:29 PM   #31
DooDooPoker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 8,123
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceres View Post
Hmm, I'm being swayed by the over-check crowd.

Villain has a significant nuts advantage. If he's under-betting then we get to over-realise IP with a free turn card by checking.

Is that the exploit? They lose EV by not capitalising with their weaker hands while they're ahead, and we exploit that by forcing them into difficult turn spots where their range becomes much more fit/fold. Whereas by betting we're shooting at a deceptively polarised range, when we could just check and see the next card.
Bingo! This the main point - the stuff about deceptively polarized ranges isn't accurate because we don't know anything about what his checks mean.

If all we know is that he is checking too much but we don't know if his checks are strong or weak, then we can still exploit him.

We do this by understanding basic poker theory.

1) Since his checks do not convey any information - we should assume SB is uncapped. Do we bet more or less vs uncapped ranges?

2) Does the turn card benefit the OOP player or IP player more? Of course the IP player because he will over realize equity by seeing what the OOP player does first.

3) If our check back range increases as an exploit - what happens to our bet sizing? We would bet less often, which means we are betting more polarized, which means we use big sizing.

4) What type of hands should we bluff with? We want to unblock hands that cannot withstand multiple barrels or a flop bet. So we want to unblock TT-KK.

Our best bluff candidates would be 4x/6x hands/87s type hands.

Anyways I thought this was a cool thought provoking idea. The fact that we can exploit a person without knowing his exact ranges and just his frequencies.
DooDooPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 12:31 PM   #32
DooDooPoker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 8,123
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by dubakkur2 View Post
that board is not for lame ass range cbet from SB pov
and secondly there are not enough reads - just a hand waving statement - overchecks
and thirdly 200BB deep - lot of these dynamics change


you are already IP which is a big expoit considering equity realization and outdrawing prospects



@100bb I stab OTF with 1/2 pot bets on boards SB range whiffs when SB checks
It is pretty much a range cbet at 200BB ranges.

No you don't need "reads" to deduce conclusions.
DooDooPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 12:36 PM   #33
newguyhere
grinder
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 691
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by DooDooPoker View Post
Anyways I thought this was a cool thought provoking idea. The fact that we can exploit a person without knowing his exact ranges and just his frequencies.
Sure, but in reality, if you know one you should know the other.
newguyhere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 02:14 PM   #34
jeccross
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,811
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by DooDooPoker View Post
Bingo! This the main point - the stuff about deceptively polarized ranges isn't accurate because we don't know anything about what his checks mean.
Errr, this was basically what I said when you disagreed with me...
jeccross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 02:15 PM   #35
its_snowing
newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 36
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeccross View Post
Errr, this was basically what I said when you disagreed with me...
Same...hahaha
its_snowing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 02:19 PM   #36
DooDooPoker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 8,123
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeccross View Post
Errr, this was basically what I said when you disagreed with me...
Your first part was correct but then you said you didn't know how we could exploit this further. We are checking back much more than we would at equilibrium if he checks more often than he should.
DooDooPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 03:23 PM   #37
whitemares
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,044
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crab Cakes View Post
If hes balanced in his checking range I would say there is no exploit. Simply you gain ev by being able to check back/bluff with some hands that you would normally fold to a small Cbet. So not an exploit, just good news you gain more value from your range.
Depends on how he reacts to a bet, even if his checking range is perfectly balanced, he can still be exploited if he doesn't know how to correctly react to any sizing
whitemares is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 03:29 AM   #38
jeccross
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,811
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by DooDooPoker View Post
Your first part was correct but then you said you didn't know how we could exploit this further. We are checking back much more than we would at equilibrium if he checks more often than he should.
If he's range betting at equilibrium, then there is no node for him checking, so we don't have a bet or a check back range as a start point to say we should "check back more".
jeccross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 06:38 AM   #39
tombos21
journeyman
 
tombos21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 395
Re: Thought Experiment

People here are getting caught up in the minutia and missing the point.

If someone is playing too passively, then we get to over-realize our equity. That's all there is to it.

Take this example to its extreme. Imagine a SB that literally never bets. How would we exploit it? Well, you simply get to see a free card with more of your weakish hands that would otherwise have folded.

In my experience playing with exploitative sims, range-checking is as common an exploit as range-betting.
tombos21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 07:46 AM   #40
jeccross
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,811
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombos21 View Post
People here are getting caught up in the minutia and missing the point.

If someone is playing too passively, then we get to over-realize our equity. That's all there is to it.

Take this example to its extreme. Imagine a SB that literally never bets. How would we exploit it? Well, you simply get to see a free card with more of your weakish hands that would otherwise have folded.

In my experience playing with exploitative sims, range-checking is as common an exploit as range-betting.
Yes, I agree that is the point. I'm trying to understand what people mean by "overchecking though". Overchecking relative to what?
jeccross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 08:00 AM   #41
tombos21
journeyman
 
tombos21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 395
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeccross View Post
Yes, I agree that is the point. I'm trying to understand what people mean by "overchecking though". Overchecking relative to what?
Over-checking relative to a GTO strategy. In other words, villain is losing EV, relative to a balanced strategy, by playing too passively and letting us realize too much equity.
tombos21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 08:04 AM   #42
jeccross
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,811
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombos21 View Post
Over-checking relative to a GTO strategy. In other words, villain is losing EV, relative to a balanced strategy, by playing too passively and letting us realize too much equity.
Yes, but the example was to assume this was a range bet for Villain. Therefore in a GTO strategy we never get checked to.
jeccross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 08:29 AM   #43
tombos21
journeyman
 
tombos21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 395
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeccross View Post
Yes, but the example was to assume this was a range bet for Villain. Therefore in a GTO strategy we never get checked to.
Right. Let's say the optimal strategy is for OOP to range bet, so we don't get to realize equity with the bottom of our range. Now let's say villain never leads the flop, so we over-realize by seeing more free cards.

We don't even need to make any adjustments, we gain this EV simply because we aren't forced to fold out the bottom of our range.

---

Take another example where villain ought to be betting 75% of the time, but instead they are betting 25% of the time. We don't know how they are constructing their range, but that doesn't matter. The simple fact that villain is playing too passively lets us over-realize.

If you force a solver to range-check OOP in a spot it ought to be betting frequently, IP will respond by playing more passively, because OOP's checking range is (typically) stronger. IP will get to over-realize their equity by checking more often.

Last edited by tombos21; 05-31-2020 at 08:46 AM.
tombos21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 08:46 AM   #44
jeccross
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,811
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombos21 View Post
If you force a solver to range-check OOP in a spot it ought to be betting frequently, IP will respond by playing more passively, because OOP's checking range is stronger. IP will get to over-realize their equity by checking more often.
Yes, but there's no "more often", because you don't have anything to compare to. This is making an extra assumption - that he is range checking, which we don't know.

That's the issue - it's hard to work out what parts of our range we bet or check just with the information we have, we have to make an assumption about Villain's checking range to have an input for solver to use, because by definition there is no GTO solution when villain goes against a pure strategy.
jeccross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 09:38 AM   #45
tombos21
journeyman
 
tombos21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 395
Re: Thought Experiment

Any frequency is technically "more often" than zero.

We get to see a turn card with more of our range. That's all it really comes down to. The exact betting frequency depends on the details of the situation.
tombos21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 11:27 AM   #46
jeccross
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,811
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombos21 View Post
Any frequency is technically "more often" than zero.

We get to see a turn card with more of our range. That's all it really comes down to. The exact betting frequency depends on the details of the situation.
0/0 doesn't equal 0

I know that's what it comes down to. OP was claiming that "overchecking" is an exploit though. We aren't "exploiting" as such, and no one in this thread has actually said anything about which hands we would bet and which we would check back. In practice we would probably polarise heavily I would think and have a large checking range in the middle
jeccross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 10:57 PM   #47
DooDooPoker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 8,123
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeccross View Post
0/0 doesn't equal 0

I know that's what it comes down to. OP was claiming that "overchecking" is an exploit though. We aren't "exploiting" as such, and no one in this thread has actually said anything about which hands we would bet and which we would check back. In practice we would probably polarise heavily I would think and have a large checking range in the middle
You'd bet your hands that unblock the weakest parts of his range and you would check back hands that don't. And you would always bet big sizing.
DooDooPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2020, 01:35 AM   #48
pokerforumposter
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 810
Re: Thought Experiment

if you have absolutely no info on v's checking range then you play gto as the 'exploit' and there's nothing more to it. Theoretically though you could assume that villians' possible strategies would include ones that are highly profitable to exploit and you could deviate slightly from gto towards those exploits and hope that your assumptions are correct enough that it's better than gto. In practise you just find data on what villians do in similar situations and create one or two strategies that would be very likely to work well.

edit: actually, there is no possible solution to op's question because it would require either an infinite number of solves per each possible range construction from sb or assumptions about checking range.

Last edited by pokerforumposter; 06-01-2020 at 01:55 AM.
pokerforumposter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2020, 01:51 AM   #49
pokerforumposter
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 810
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by DooDooPoker View Post
Bingo! This the main point - the stuff about deceptively polarized ranges isn't accurate because we don't know anything about what his checks mean.

If all we know is that he is checking too much but we don't know if his checks are strong or weak, then we can still exploit him.

We do this by understanding basic poker theory.

1) Since his checks do not convey any information - we should assume SB is uncapped. Do we bet more or less vs uncapped ranges?

2) Does the turn card benefit the OOP player or IP player more? Of course the IP player because he will over realize equity by seeing what the OOP player does first.

3) If our check back range increases as an exploit - what happens to our bet sizing? We would bet less often, which means we are betting more polarized, which means we use big sizing.

4) What type of hands should we bluff with? We want to unblock hands that cannot withstand multiple barrels or a flop bet. So we want to unblock TT-KK.

Our best bluff candidates would be 4x/6x hands/87s type hands.

Anyways I thought this was a cool thought provoking idea. The fact that we can exploit a person without knowing his exact ranges and just his frequencies.
If you assume sb is "uncapped" then it is equivalent to assuming sb checks at least enough of the top of his range to be significant to the solution, which contradicts what you said about "having no info on what sb checks".
pokerforumposter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2020, 02:00 AM   #50
jeccross
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,811
Re: Thought Experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by DooDooPoker View Post
You'd bet your hands that unblock the weakest parts of his range and you would check back hands that don't. And you would always bet big sizing.
Why would you always bet big sizing, just because you are polarised?
jeccross is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online