Don't players make moves? Is bluffing non-existant? [Archive]

neon

03-03-2005, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]

post some hands where you caught some interesting bluffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know you weren't talking to me, but . . .

Prima 5-10 NL, five- or six-handed
relevant stacks: Hero (~$1400)
Villain (~$1800)

Villain is very aggressive. He is a bit out of the SR mold, i.e. overbets w/ nada and overbets w/ the nuts. Is excellent at sensing weakness and applying pressure. Does not, however, seem to get too far out of line preflop, and probably thinks of me as aggro. but quite solid.

Folded to hero on button w/ AKo, raise to $40. Villain, in SB, reraises $100 to $140. Hero calls.

Flop comes KKx, rainbow. Check, check.

Turn is an A.

Villain pushes.

After changing my boxer shorts, I . . . ?

(sorry, didn't mean to hijack, but you asked, and this came to mind?)

Anyway, given the context in which I'm posting this, it's pretty obv. villain was bluffing, but not-so-much at the time. I ran my time bank down and called, and he tabled 73o. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The bluff is alive and well.

-neon.

Post-Oak

03-03-2005, 04:43 PM

"The key to fixing those problems is better hand reading"

What problems?

What makes you think that people are folding too much? We would have to talk about specific hands I guess, because I don't see that problem existing here.

Maybe the specific hand which triggered this thread ("Folding KK preflop on Partypoker because somebody re-raised a short stack? You have to be kidding me") would be a good place to show us how superior hand reading would lead to a clear call.

It's a pot limit game, not NL.

Post-Oak

03-03-2005, 04:48 PM

That is not a good example of picking off a bluff. That is a good example of how a loose aggro gives away his stack to a nut peddler.

If you picked him off with QQ, that would be closer to an example of what he is talking about.

But I don't think we are talking about fish who bluff their entire stack into a small pot when they could be facing the nuts anyway.

Paluka

03-03-2005, 04:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"The key to fixing those problems is better hand reading"

What problems?

What makes you think that people are folding too much? We would have to talk about specific hands I guess, because I don't see that problem existing here.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a thread today where someone folded KK preflop against allins from AK and QQ. That is a disaster.

cwl

03-03-2005, 04:52 PM

one of the things thats jumped out at me a little is a number of hands where, even if the opponent has the hand your most afraid of, the poster has a pretty reasonable amount of equity in the pot. generally speaking, trying to correctly pick off bluffs can be pretty costly in somewhat deep stacked no limit. trying to make smart folds when you are either slightly -ev or hugely +ev is also pretty costly. i think some people are undervaluing how powerful the combo of some chance of a bluff + some chance of the best hand + a good draw even when not against a bluff is.

AdamBragar

03-03-2005, 04:53 PM

Notes on players really turn profits up a ton in NL games. There's so many players that get so much enjoyment out of bluffing, that they do it a lot, a lot of times in similar situations. Even at the 5/10 (I haven't tried out party yet), a ton of bad players don't change up their game and bluff in the same situations over and over again. With that said, I usually don't put someone on a bluff without notes on them, and also, if the only hand I think I beat is a bluff, then I'm still going to consider laying down the hand.

Post-Oak

03-03-2005, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a thread today where someone folded KK preflop against allins from AK and QQ. That is a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

No there isn't. It was a pot limit game and no one was all-in.

Just because the villain rolled AK does not mean folding KK was necesarilly wrong.

Post-Oak

03-03-2005, 04:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
one of the things thats jumped out at me a little is a number of hands where, even if the opponent has the hand your most afraid of, the poster has a pretty reasonable amount of equity in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The converse is also true. If you call an all-in with KK and get shown AK, they don't ship you the pot.

Again, it depends on the situation.

Rocaix

03-03-2005, 05:09 PM

Picking off bluffs is most definately based on strong hand reading, it comes down to looking at logically what the player is representing with their play on previous streets. I think some players have a tendency to "freeze up" when the pot starts getting big and they don't have the nuts.

I tend to think on boards with draws, when the draws don't get there at the end and the pot has become sizable. Any signs of weakness will greatly increase the likelihood a bluff at the pot. As many players tend to think that because they've invested alot in the pot, they are obligated to make a play at it, especially when the other player has indicate he is willing to lay down. Such as in this case, where I have likely defined my hand at the end by checking. Against some players, I might turbo muck here knowing I'm crushed. However with this player I thought that by checking it to him, he would almost certainly bluff at it with any missed draw or Weaker Ace.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $6 BB (6 max, 6 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

UTG ($438)
MP ($356)
CO ($516.2)
Button ($651.4)
Hero ($1115)
BB ($1221)

Preflop:
Hero is SB with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Hero posts a blind of $3.
 2 Folds, CO Calls $6, Button Calls $6, Hero raises to $28, 1 Fold. CO calls $22, Button calls $22.

Flop: ($88) 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif 7/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gif (3 players)
 Hero bets $70, CO folds, Button calls $70.

Turn: ($227) 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)
Hero bets $135, Button calls $135.

River: ($497) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 players)
Hero Checks, Button calls $418.4 (All-In), Hero calls $418.4 (All-In)

Final Pot: $1333.8

Results in white below: 
Button has 8c 9s (one pair, threes).
Hero has Ad Qd (two pair, aces and threes).
Outcome: Hero wins $1333.8

Post-Oak

03-03-2005, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Against some players, I might turbo muck here knowing I'm crushed. However with this player I thought that by checking it to him, he would almost certainly bluff at it with any missed draw or Weaker Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you do against a player who is totally unknown to you?

I think that is the crux of the argument.

random

03-03-2005, 05:21 PM

I hate (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=plnlpoker&Number=1834675&F orum=All_Forums&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main= 1834675&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=6804&datera nge=1&newerval=1&newertype=w&olderval=&oldertype=& bodyprev=#Post1834675) to fold.

FoxwoodsFiend

03-03-2005, 05:29 PM

Wow...I would try to keep knowledge of that hand suppressed. Probably better if you don't let too many people know about that one. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

random

03-03-2005, 05:45 PM

We all sucked at some point. Some of us still do. Oh well?

cero_z

03-03-2005, 05:46 PM

Hi Post-Oak,

[ QUOTE ]
I play in games where an all-in raise (of hero's bet) on the river means a big hand, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you guys are talking about the PP 1000 NL, I don't agree with this statement at all. I see lots of bluffing, and the reason I see it is that it often gets called by someone else. So, while people on this forum might be advising others to generally not suspect a bluff when an unknown bets/raises big, I highly doubt they are folding as much as they're advocating.

There are much more frequent big-pot showdowns these PP games (that I've played in / observed) than in comparable (stakes) games at Foxwoods in Nov, or Tunica in Jan (sorry guys, I don't get out of VA all that often). And this is not solely attributable to the increased number of hands played. So, I can't say whether folks are calling too much, or bluffing too much; all I know is there are a lot of big showdowns in this game.

In general, it seems like the posters who play higher stakes NL than most here are saying that people are folding too much; I'm in this camp, as well. But as Post-Oak pointed out, this could very well have something to do with the types of games we play in.

One thing I will say: it's fairly easy to spot the winning players who virtually NEVER make a move at a pot on PP for big money. They are in multiple games, they rarely play a hand in EP, and they almost never limp in to a pot. Put one of these guys in my game, and he's going to get tested often with raises that will make him uncomfortable. But, I play in 6-max games mostly, and these nut peddlers tend to play in the full games; there, I just have to stay out of his way.

Ulysses

03-03-2005, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
how powerful the combo of some chance of a bluff + some chance of the best hand + a good draw even when not against a bluff is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lawrence Ng

03-03-2005, 09:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop:
Hero is SB with A, Q Hero posts a blind of $3.
2 Folds, CO Calls $6, Button Calls $6, Hero raises to $28, 1 Fold. CO calls $22, Button calls $22.

Flop: ($88) 6 7, A (3 players)
Hero bets $70, CO folds, Button calls $70.

Turn: ($227) 2 (2 players)
Hero bets $135, Button calls $135.

River: ($497) 2 (2 players)
Hero Checks, Button calls $418.4 (All-In), Hero calls $418.4 (All-In)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a perfect example of inducing a bluff when you belive your opponent missed a draw. Your opponent's mistake however was not the river bet, but the size of the river bet. He could have just easily gotten away with a bluff as a much cheaper price with a 1/2 pot bet instead of a full pot bet.

Very nice play on the river.

Lawrence

Loci

03-03-2005, 09:39 PM

Good talk.
No better place to get better, imo.
Ez

Sponger15SB

03-03-2005, 09:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I ran my time bank down and called

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow you are a [censored] jackass!

gomberg

03-03-2005, 09:48 PM

Here was a bluff catcher for me.

5-10 vs. a semi short stack. I have QQ and raise in EP to $40. One caller - I have a loose laggy image at this point. Flop is K83 w/ two diamonds (I have one). I check, villain checks. Turn is offsuit 7. I bet $60, villain raises me to $260. I figure he would have bet a K on the flop, and isn't the type to slowplay, so I called. River was a low blank. I check - he goes all-in for $320 more, I call - He shows A6o for Ace-high no draw. I've been known as a calling station though.

Usagi_yo

03-03-2005, 10:31 PM

Understand the difference between no limit and limit. In limit, you are typicaly looking at 4-1 or better payoffs in bluffing and snapping off bluffing. In NL you are typicaly very close to even money or perhaps even laying odds putting on a bluff, and anywhere between 1.1-1 and 2-1 on snapping off a bluff.

In Limit, when you are wrong it costs you a bet or two, in NL when you are wrong .... it's typicaly goodbye stack.

In limit, you can get by without reading your opponant too well. In NL, reading your opponant very well is paramount.
Furthermore, in NL your opponant can make a mistake calling, and score a big pot in doing so.

Fold equity in the games I play are virtualy non-existent. 5/5 blind $500 buy-in. Even when I get big stacked against big stacks, my fold equity is very small. Hands that are seemingly big, but are actually minor dogs become very dangerous because of misjudgement in fold equity. Classic cases like pairs with flush re-draws on the flop -- when an opposing player is anxious to get his money all in become big losers over time if you keep pushing all in thinking you have the best of it with fold equity.

The're is a saying that the biggest trick that the devil pulled off is convincing mankind that he doesn't exist.

Well, take that to NL hold'em. The biggest trick that great players pull off is to convince you that they bluff regularly.

Usagi_yo

03-03-2005, 10:38 PM

Hero K7c on the BB in unraised pot. 5 limpers pot size $30. Board of Kd 9d 6c 2d 2c. Checks all around first round. I bet $30 on the turn, get flat called by UTG+2 and every body folds. I check the river and UTG+2 bets $50. What can he have that he would have played it that way? I call and he shows Ad 10c. Oh, he is semi-loose aggressive type.

Sponger15SB

03-03-2005, 10:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Understand the difference between no limit and limit. In limit, you are typicaly looking at 4-1 or better payoffs in bluffing and snapping off bluffing. In NL you are typicaly very close to even money or perhaps even laying odds putting on a bluff, and anywhere between 1.1-1 and 2-1 on snapping off a bluff.

In Limit, when you are wrong it costs you a bet or two, in NL when you are wrong .... it's typicaly goodbye stack.

In limit, you can get by without reading your opponant too well. In NL, reading your opponant very well is paramount.
Furthermore, in NL your opponant can make a mistake calling, and score a big pot in doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paluka make sure you read this a hundred times, because this guy thinks you're an idiot.

Usagi_yo

03-03-2005, 10:55 PM

No, I know nothing about Paluka. What I do know is the propensity for 2+2'ers to say "push ... push ... push" is far greater then the ones that actualy do.

I can sit there for a solid two hours and show nothing but the nuts (and win many small contests unshown), then put in the 3rd raise all-in for $1000 with KK and still get called by A9s pre-flop. WTF do I have to waste valuable stack leverage by firing off bluffs and calling possible bluffs with little money interest in the pot and a small dog hand?

Paluka

03-03-2005, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

WTF do I have to waste valuable stack leverage by firing off bluffs and calling possible bluffs with little money interest in the pot and a small dog hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my original post I said playing scared nut-peddling poker is probably profitable, but not optimal. You just said the same thing.

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 12:31 AM

Really?

Lets see. I'll just take my two last big confrontations.

Hero $700 KQc Villian $1000AcAd

Flop is Jc Kh Tc Pot size $90, Hero bets $100, Villian raises to $300 -- Hero pushes all in $560. Villian calls, Hero wins when board clubs on the end.

Hero $600 AdJd Villian $800 AhKd
Flop Ac 9d 6d -- Pot size $75
Villian bets $50, Hero Raises to $150, Villian Pushes all in. Hero calls and wins when Jh hits on the end.

#1 I'm a small favorite, #2 I'm a small dog. Neither one of them showed *any* fold equity -- I'm up against TAG in both cases (different players).

The strategy is: Do I risk my stack on as a 47 53 dog with a perceived 10% fold equity or build it and leverage it when I'm a 70 - 30 favorite with a 90% call equity from my opponants?

When my opponants tighten up sufficiently so that my fold equity is on par with my fold equity expectation then I'll start putting in those big bluffs.

greg nice

03-04-2005, 12:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Paluka make sure you read this a hundred times, because this guy thinks you're an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

make sure you read usagi's posts a few times even though you think he's the idiot.

Ulysses

03-04-2005, 01:10 AM

What point were you trying to make with those two hands?

Ulysses

03-04-2005, 01:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I ran my time bank down and called

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow you are a [censored] jackass!

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that too at first, but then I re-read the post and it sounds like he was seriously thinking he was up against AA.

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 01:39 AM

Are you being nice or mean? I can't tell.

VanVeen

03-04-2005, 01:48 AM

I'm bemused by this response. I will just ignore most of it and ask a simple question: are you disputing ("Really?") the fact that passing up marginally profitable opportunities isn't optimal? That while your opponents may be sufficiently loose to make a nut-peddling/weak-tight strategy profitable, it isn't as profitable as a 'stronger' style that allows you to take advantage of your hand reading abilities?

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 01:48 AM

He called me a pussy.

But honestly, I'm trying to show that I'm not a chicken [censored] nut-peddler as they are calling'em here. They are two instances where I applied max pressure on hand that I'm not a head, but have a decent chance of drawing out *if* called. And I realized no fold equity in situations that I thought I would.

Paluka

03-04-2005, 02:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He called me a pussy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call you a pussy. You called me an idiot.

Ulysses

03-04-2005, 02:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And I realized no fold equity in situations that I thought I would.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you might be trying to make that point. That is wrong. You had fold equity. Just not very much against the exact hands they turned out to have.

Ulysses

03-04-2005, 02:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
They are two instances where I applied max pressure on hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero $600 AdJd Villian $800 AhKd
Flop Ac 9d 6d -- Pot size $75
Villian bets $50, Hero Raises to $150, Villian Pushes all in. Hero calls and wins when Jh hits on the end.

This is a hand you apply max pressure in? You raise just over half-pot and then call an all-in. Yes, maximum pressure was applied here - by your opponent.

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 02:14 AM

Optimal? Heck yea, it isn't optimal. Think of it like Blackjack and you're a card counter. The deck turns positive EV ... do you bet *everything* you have? based on a 1% advantage or do you try and apply force over time and perpetuate smaller manageable bets at 1% advantage over time (I.E kelly betting) .. then as the events turn into your favor more and more, then say you are at 10%, then you can bet significantly more -- and that significantly more may be money you wouldn't have if you pressed your luck at 1% and bet too large in proportion to your expectation.

Paluka

03-04-2005, 02:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Optimal? Heck yea, it isn't optimal. Think of it like Blackjack and you're a card counter. The deck turns positive EV ... do you bet *everything* you have? based on a 1% advantage or do you try and apply force over time and perpetuate smaller manageable bets at 1% advantage over time (I.E kelly betting) .. then as the events turn into your favor more and more, then say you are at 10%, then you can bet significantly more -- and that significantly more may be money you wouldn't have if you pressed your luck at 1% and bet too large in proportion to your expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should play a game that you have the proper bankroll for.

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 02:21 AM

Yea, I didn't like the way I played that. That was a sucker play -- putting my stack in (calling) on a draw, even though my hand seemingly had value.

But could you imagine if I posted that hand here and asked other what to do and took a poll when villian pushed all in? More then half the posters here would probably make the same mistake I did.

Interestingly enough, the reason why I only raised that amount was because I knew what villian had -- which made the call all the more worse.

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 02:29 AM

I knew that would be brought up as an issue. It's not the bankroll I'm talking about, it's the table stakes in these "max buy-in" NL games. Same concept applies.

Ulysses

03-04-2005, 02:29 AM

Most everything you have said in that post is completely wrong. Your understanding of many concepts is horribly misguided and backwards. You are EXACTLY the type of player making the types of mistakes that Paluka was initially talking about.

That was a sucker play -- putting my stack in (calling) on a draw

Wrong.

when villian pushed all in? More then half the posters here would probably make the same mistake I did.

That's a clear non-mistake.

I knew what villian had -- which made the call all the more worse.

Again, completely wrong. That is precisely why you would make that call.

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 03:07 AM

We must be talking about two different hands. I'm 43% to 57% dog agains that hand. Change that Kd to Ks and I'm only 47% to 53% dog. The dead money in the pot is manufactured I.E mine. Unless you are talking about the hand I was 55% 45% favorite. KcJc vs AhAc?

mikech

03-04-2005, 03:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm 43% to 57% dog agains that hand. Change that Kd to Ks and I'm only 47% to 53% dog. The dead money in the pot is manufactured I.E mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

once the money's in the pot it's no longer "yours." this is a pretty elementary concept. now you're facing his all-in getting 825:450, easy call.

Ulysses

03-04-2005, 03:31 AM

Read what mike said. This is basic, fundamental stuff. You are thinking about the game completely incorrectly at the most basic of levels.

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 05:44 AM

Okay, best case I'm 47 to 53 dog. AJd vs AsKd board Kc9d6d

Fold 100 times I'm left with $45,000
Win 47 times $1,275 gives me $59,925
Lose 53 times $450 gives me $23,850
Winnings - Losings gives me $36,075

Remember, the pot is $75, he bets $50, I raise to $150, he puts me all in for $450 more.

Funny, I keep doing the math and it tells fold, or lose money.

Oh please show me the errors of my ways. Illustrate as simply as possible.

Spladle Master

03-04-2005, 06:32 AM

First off, you are bad at poker. And math. You are very bad at math.

Second, there is $825 in the pot and it costs you $450 to call. So:

Fold 100 times and you are left with $450 X 100 = $45000
Call 100 times and you win $1275 X 47 = $59925

If you folded in this situation 100 times you would be out fifteen thousand bucks. Fold in this situation one time and you are forfeiting $150. It's that simple.

Edit: The problem you have made is that you are assuming you end up with negative $450 every time you lose this pot. That is not the case. You are left with $0 when you lose, and so you do not subtract [$450 X 53 = $23850] from the amount that you win by making this call. I really thought this was common sense but apparently I was wrong.

Ulysses

03-04-2005, 06:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, best case I'm 47 to 53 dog. AJd vs AsKd board Kc9d6d

Fold 100 times I'm left with $45,000
Win 47 times $1,275 gives me $59,925
Lose 53 times $450 gives me $23,850
Winnings - Losings gives me $36,075

Remember, the pot is $75, he bets $50, I raise to $150, he puts me all in for $450 more.

Funny, I keep doing the math and it tells fold, or lose money.

Oh please show me the errors of my ways. Illustrate as simply as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Love the sarcasm, chief. Feels good showing me how wrong I am, doesn't it?

I'll assume your math above is correct.

You start with $60,000. You fold 100 times, you have $45,000. Net loss, $15,000.

I call. 53 times I lose all the money. I have zero. 47 times I win $1275 and have $59,925. That's how much I have left after playing 100 times. Net loss, $75.

On this particular hand, over 100 trials, you'll be a $15,000 loser. I'll be a $75 loser. That's why I do better at poker than you.

(These numbers are actually shifted by a few thousand since he actually starts w/ more like $635-40 based on preflop action, but the net difference will be the same.)

Spladle Master

03-04-2005, 06:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Love the sarcasm, chief. Feels good showing me how wrong I am, doesn't it?

I'll assume your math above is correct.

You start with $60,000. You fold 100 times, you have $45,000. Net loss, $15,000.

I call. 53 times I lose all the money. I have zero. 47 times I win $1275 and have $59,925. That's how much I have left after playing 100 times. Net loss, $75.

On this particular hand, over 100 trials, you'll be a $15,000 loser. I'll be a $75 loser. That's why I do better at poker than you.

(These numbers are actually shifted by a few thousand since he actually starts w/ more like $635-40 based on preflop action, but the net difference will be the same.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It actually doesn't matter how much he starts the hand with. What matters is how much he has at the end of it depending on whether he calls or folds.

Ulysses

03-04-2005, 06:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Love the sarcasm, chief. Feels good showing me how wrong I am, doesn't it?

I'll assume your math above is correct.

You start with $60,000. You fold 100 times, you have $45,000. Net loss, $15,000.

I call. 53 times I lose all the money. I have zero. 47 times I win $1275 and have $59,925. That's how much I have left after playing 100 times. Net loss, $75.

On this particular hand, over 100 trials, you'll be a $15,000 loser. I'll be a $75 loser. That's why I do better at poker than you.

(These numbers are actually shifted by a few thousand since he actually starts w/ more like $635-40 based on preflop action, but the net difference will be the same.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It actually doesn't matter how much he starts the hand with. What matters is how much he has at the end of it depending on whether he calls or folds.

[/ QUOTE ]

natedogg

03-04-2005, 06:58 AM

Max buy-in no limit is a different animal. You need to be a LOT more conservative pre-flop given the stack sizes.

If you have built up a big stack and lose it all, it's a huge disaster to compared to a real no limit game. And if you have just bought in, you have to be far more conservative with your small stack than you'd have to be in a real no limit game.

Thus, I think decent players learn this after getting punished alot playing like it's a real no limit game. Many overcompensate and stop bluffing altogether and fold too much.

natedogg

Ulysses

03-04-2005, 07:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And if you have just bought in, you have to be far more conservative with your small stack than you'd have to be in a real no limit game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got everything you said except this sentence. Elaborate, please.

ethan

03-04-2005, 07:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if you have just bought in, you have to be far more conservative with your small stack than you'd have to be in a real no limit game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got everything you said except this sentence. Elaborate, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea. I'm confused too. Unless he means "than you'd have to be in a real no limit game, since there you wouldn't have a small stack." Mind explaining a little further Nate?

edit - huh. maybe because you can't rebuy to cover.

bugstud

03-04-2005, 07:56 AM

KaneKungFu123

03-04-2005, 08:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if you have just bought in, you have to be far more conservative with your small stack than you'd have to be in a real no limit game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got everything you said except this sentence. Elaborate, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think he means simply that in no-max no limit games, preflop play is looser -- so in the party games, with a max-buy in, the games tend to be tighter pre-flop, and a small stack cant make as many moves as he could in a game where big stacks have implied odds and can get loose preflop.

Spladle Master

03-04-2005, 09:09 AM

Sorry, didn't catch the meaning of the words in bold. We're both right, but I beat you to the punch. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Leroy Soesman

03-04-2005, 09:46 AM

Isn't the fact that advice on this board is so scared the consequence of the fact that playing a solid scared game can be quite profitable online (especially the lowerlimits, but I think also for some of the higher limits). Maybe that style of play even becomes right against some of the typical online poker players.

Rarely do you have to stray from ABC poker to make a solid profit, there is always a table with players weaker than you.

Maybe that is why many players mistake themselves to be winningplayers, because their unimaginative scared poker pays off. Whenever they are in a situation where the competition is a little tougher, they just change tables.

As soon as I sit down at a table of aggressive, observant players, I easily become juicy prey. If only for the mere fact that I will be forced to play marginal hands for big pots in which I would have to rely on reading skills that are no where near where they should be. They are more than enough to beat aggressive bad players online, but not enough to beat aggressive, average players. Let alone Aggressive good players.

btw. I like and utelize Dan Harrington's advice on bluffing: when determing his odds he factors in a chance of at least 10% that his opponent is bluffing. I find that works pretty well, maybe the analyses on this board should incorporate a little more of that. Other than that, if you don't know the particular players in a hand, what else can you give but basic advice?

Post-Oak

03-04-2005, 11:07 AM

The optimal strategy against calling stations is to never bluff.

The optimal strategy against aggressive bluffers is to trap.

The optimal strategy against very good players is to not play with them.

neon

03-04-2005, 11:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I thought that too at first, but then I re-read the post and it sounds like he was seriously thinking he was up against AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And this wasn't a fish making a retarded play, either, as an earlier poster suggested. It was a tricky player whom I respect and who would make exactly this sort of overbet with the pure nuts . . . Perhaps still not the best example, but not nearly as routine a call as you're making it out to be, esp. given his image of me, the relevant stack sizes and their relation to the pot . . . fwiw.

Post-Oak

03-04-2005, 11:25 AM

Thanks for the reply cero_z. You brought up a lot of good points.

[ QUOTE ]
If you guys are talking about the PP 1000 NL

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never played on PP, but from what I am hearing there must be a lot of bluffing going on there.

[ QUOTE ]
There are much more frequent big-pot showdowns these PP games (that I've played in / observed) than in comparable (stakes) games at Foxwoods in Nov, or Tunica in Jan (sorry guys, I don't get out of VA all that often).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the opposite of my experience. I have observed that play is a lot looser in BM rooms (in AC and NYC) than at comparable online stakes. This is probably because the stakes I play online are lower than what you play, and correspond to the lowest stakes offered in BM.

I will multi-table 2-4 online, but play up to 5-10 in a BM. And those BM games have usually been softer than a 2-4 online game. A 1-2 BM game is so much softer than a 1-2 online game that it is not even close. This is probably because BM casinos don't offer anything below 1-2 NL. So the difference in our experiences may be because you play higher, or it could be that the games in AC are just so soft.

[ QUOTE ]

In general, it seems like the posters who play higher stakes NL than most here are saying that people are folding too much; I'm in this camp, as well. But as Post-Oak pointed out, this could very well have something to do with the types of games we play in.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is my theory. Diablo and turnipmonster both pointed out that a lot of posters don't seem to be getting paid enough for their good hands. You can certainly say that this is because most posters are not aggressive enough. But the reason they should be more aggressive is because of the presence of so many calling stations. Often I don't bet the river because I figure that I will only get called by a better hand. This is a bad leak when you are playing against calling stations, just as bluffng against a calling station is a bad leak . So that is another way to look at it.

[ QUOTE ]

One thing I will say: it's fairly easy to spot the winning players who virtually NEVER make a move at a pot on PP for big money. They are in multiple games, they rarely play a hand in EP, and they almost never limp in to a pot. Put one of these guys in my game, and he's going to get tested often with raises that will make him uncomfortable. But, I play in 6-max games mostly, and these nut peddlers tend to play in the full games; there, I just have to stay out of his way.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I don't play shorthanded. I play full ring games and multi-table. I bluff against players who I know are capable of laying down a hand, or who have played with me enough to see how tight I am. I never bluff against unknowns because there are just too many calling stations in the games I target.

Also, this thread was triggered by a posted hand where a player folded KK preflop. That thread is titled something along the lines of "changes with party structure, KK preflop". Could you look at that hand? It is PL, not NL. I don't agree that folding there was weak. Calling is not terrible, but I would fold. I would like to see what the people who are backing the OP have to say about this specific hand.

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 12:53 PM

It's not sarcasm. You can assume I started with $625 and called $25 pre-flop. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm trying to understand whats right. Go to private messages where you're more likely to try and convince me and show me the errors of my ways rather then trying to show that I'm an idiot.

You havn't convinced me. I'm starting to think this is a cruel joke. Furthermore, we're not taking into account the rake, figure a standard $3

I still see it as out of 100 trials

I fold 100 times I have $45,000 (Yes, I've lost $17,500 but that's dead money already right)

I go all in 100 times, 47 times I win 1275 ($75 preflop $150 from me and $150 call from villian, then $450 more from villian + $450 call from me) for $59,925 win.
57 times I lose $450 for a total loss of $25,650. Net result is I'm left with $34,275 Which is less then what I'm left with if I don't play.

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 01:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Love the sarcasm, chief. Feels good showing me how wrong I am, doesn't it?

I'll assume your math above is correct.

You start with $60,000. You fold 100 times, you have $45,000. Net loss, $15,000.

I call. 53 times I lose all the money. I have zero. 47 times I win $1275 and have $59,925. That's how much I have left after playing 100 times. Net loss, $75.

On this particular hand, over 100 trials, you'll be a $15,000 loser. I'll be a $75 loser. That's why I do better at poker than you.

(These numbers are actually shifted by a few thousand since he actually starts w/ more like $635-40 based on preflop action, but the net difference will be the same.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't count the $150, it's already spent and decided.
Yes, you win $59,925, but it cost you $21,150 to experience that. Leaving you with $38,775, or $6,225 less then what you started with. Effectively losing $62.25 per hand

Usagi_yo

03-04-2005, 01:09 PM

I'm not getting it. That 450 X 47 has to come out of somebodies win-loss colume.

Is this a cruel joke? or has my mother been hiding the fact that I'm retard all my life?

edtost

03-04-2005, 01:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
or has my mother been hiding the fact that I'm retard all my life?

[/ QUOTE ]

edtost

03-04-2005, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
57 times I lose $450 for a total loss of $25,650. Net result is I'm left with $34,275 Which is less then what I'm left with if I don't play.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't lose 450, you end the hand with $0.

kerpowski

03-04-2005, 01:29 PM

Usagi,

One way to think about this that might explain the math better:

If you call you have a 0.47 chance of being +$675 and a 0.53 chance of being -$600 at the end of the hand.

So each call is worth (0.47 * $675) - (0.53*$600) = -$0.75

With folding you have a 100% chance of losing $150 by the end of the hand so each fold is worth -(1 * $150) = -$150

This shows why after 100 trials folding will have you losing $15,000 while calling will have you losing only $75.

SpeakEasy

03-04-2005, 01:37 PM

My thoughts on the basic point of this thread:

On-line, bluffing works well only in limited situations with small pots. Due to high turn-over, multi-tabling, surfing, watching TV, bad players, and the fact that no one is really paying attention to my style of play, trying to build any sort of tight image to execute a big bluff is virtually useless. If the pot is big, its very unlikely that hero’s bluff is profitable because hero will get called. If villain is bluffing in this situation and hero doesn’t have a solid hand, the pot belongs to villain. Ideally, hero bluffs when hero is in late position and last to act, the pot is small, and its checked to hero. I can’t tell you how many small pots I’ve taken down in this limited bluffing situation. So, in the right circumstances, the bluff is alive and well on-line. For me, bluffing in any other situation is -EV. Call it nut peddling if you want, but I’ve found that this is the nature of on-line play most of the time.

Live play, bluffing is completely a function of hero’s table image and read on the other players. I can play squeaky tight for a few hours, slowly building a stack and a solid image, to the point where other players are saying out loud, “Look out, he’s in, so he must have a hand.” Respect. Then, when I earn this respect, I can loosen up and make a few bluffs to steal some pots. The longer I play in a session, the better this works.

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest trick that great players pull off is to convince you that they bluff regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I subscribe to the opposite theory for bluffing, so maybe I'm not a great player yet. In live play, my best trick so far is to convince the table that I always have a solid hand. Then, occasionally when I don't, they still think that I do and my bluff works. Harrington's style. On-line, I really don't think that most players are paying enough attention for any of this to work.

edtost

03-04-2005, 02:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest trick that great players pull off is to convince you that they bluff regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I subscribe to the opposite theory for bluffing, so maybe I'm not a great player yet. In live play, my best trick so far is to convince the table that I always have a solid hand. Then, occasionally when I don't, they still think that I do and my bluff works. Harrington's style. On-line, I really don't think that most players are paying enough attention for any of this to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

while your way works, it is often far more profitable to convince the table that you're always bluffing so they pay you off when you actually have hands, although this strategy bacomes much move valueable when stacks get deeper and opponents get looser.

Spladle Master

03-04-2005, 02:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
or has my mother been hiding the fact that I'm retard all my life?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

MCS

03-04-2005, 02:59 PM

We're discussing the actual amount of money you'll have in front of you at the end of the hand. Like how many chips you can use to shuffle and tip waitresses and stuff.

You don't "lose $450" by calling. You don't have Negative Dollars in front of you if you call and lose. You have $0 in front of you. So you shouldn't be subtracting the $25650. Your other logic is correct (and identical to Diablo's).

OrangeCat

03-04-2005, 03:20 PM

Leroy Soesman said:
Rarely do you have to stray from ABC poker to make a solid profit, there is always a table with players weaker than you.

Very true. A lot of guys know this may be a leak in their game but are prepared to accept it because they are still making some money. Maybe part of the reason is because so many players, even though they are winning, are really undercapitalized and can’t take many big hits.

Post-oak said:
The optimal strategy against very good players is to not play with them.

I would say the optimal strategy is to play and learn from them without getting hurt. I know, easier said than done. But in order to get better we have to test ourselves sometimes.

Post-Oak

03-04-2005, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I would say the optimal strategy is to play and learn from them without getting hurt. I know, easier said than done. But in order to get better we have to test ourselves sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you can be in a situation where you must play with some very good players because the rest of the table is so weak that you are still +EV. But I would never sit at a table with 9 very good players for the learning experience. That is my point.

sexypanda

03-04-2005, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest trick that great players pull off is to convince you that they bluff regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I subscribe to the opposite theory for bluffing, so maybe I'm not a great player yet. In live play, my best trick so far is to convince the table that I always have a solid hand. Then, occasionally when I don't, they still think that I do and my bluff works. Harrington's style. On-line, I really don't think that most players are paying enough attention for any of this to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

while your way works, it is often far more profitable to convince the table that you're always bluffing so they pay you off when you actually have hands, although this strategy bacomes much move valueable when stacks get deeper and opponents get looser.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also agree that having a tight image is better. I honestly don't play stakes as high as you guys, and am not nearly as experienced so correct me if I'm wrong. I remember reading an article where Mason said the best table image to have is a tight one. I spent alot of time experimenting with my image and thinking about this statement and came to the conclusion that he was absolutely right. I think you may be correct in saying that it's more profitable to have that loose image, but you then really need the cards to back you up at some point. I think this strategy comes with a much greater variance. Having a tight image, though perhaps slightly minimizing profits offers a much smaller variance. Another plus to this, is that I can successfully steal pots when I'm just getting cold cards. I think that I make back a lot of the money I lose by not getting paid off with my good hands this way. I'm not merely "nut peddling" though, I just want my opponents to think I am.

edtost

03-04-2005, 04:13 PM

mason plays limit, where a tight image is MUCH more valueable, imo. and you're right, a loose image carries a much higher level of varience than a tight one. most importantly, though, as long as you know what your image is at any time, and to each of your opponents, it doesn't matter so much what it is as opposed to how well you react to it.

Ulysses

03-04-2005, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to think this is a cruel joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

radioheadfan

03-04-2005, 07:03 PM

People still bluff.

offTopic

03-04-2005, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your post. Not only are people looking to fold too much, it is clear they are not always getting full value from their hands. The key to fixing those problems is better hand reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and getting out of the kiddie pool.

ML4L

03-04-2005, 07:52 PM

Hey all,

I don't have a ton of time, but I wanted to help people sort through the immense amount of BS being thrown around this thread, which started off with a fairly legitimate point by Paluka.

As Diablo alluded to, the entire issue comes down to hand-reading. Better hand reading means more profit. You can make a lot of money by picking off bluffs and pushing marginal hands, if you know how to pick your spots.

But, what do you do if you don't know how to read hands? The answer is: play more conservatively. Play fewer starting hands and play in such a way that keeps you out of really tough spots. If you're not good at picking off bluffs and pushing marginal hands, then adopting a strategy that relies on those things is not going to be successful.

So, it comes down to this. If you know how to read hands well, and you're playing like a rock, your strategy is sub-optimal, because you could be using your reading skills to turn a profit with other hands.

But, if you are not a good hand reader, tight, conservative poker is probably YOUR optimal strategy.

There is no "optimal" strategy for all poker players. It is a function of your skill set. So, if you are still learning, don't be ashamed because you don't call all-ins with middle pair. If you started doing stuff like that, you would probably lose, because you don't know how to pick the correct spots yet. You should aspire to read hands better, but it will come in time. Until then, be a nut-peddler, because that is what works for YOU.

So, all of the talk should be stressing improving one's hand reading, not throwing one's conservative style out the window. Because, contrary to popular belief, it CAN be a reasonably lucrative style, particularly in a loose game with bad players who do not adjust to one's conservative style. And, until a player becomes very adept at hand reading, it is undoubtedly THE optimal style.

It's better to dunk a basketball than take a lay-up. If you have the ability to dunk, then lay-ups are sub-optimal. But, if you're short and can't jump, you just get as good at making lay-ups as you can. If you grow enough such that you can dunk someday, then do so when the time comes. If you never grow that much, just keep taking your lay-ups with no shame, and you'll do just fine...

ML4L

B Dids

03-04-2005, 08:06 PM

Isn't there an argument to be made for just learning to read hands instead of playing in a less than optimal fashion?

Or is your thought that on some level that's a fairly innate skill that people simply aren't going to learn?

Jason Strasser

03-04-2005, 08:32 PM

Hey Ives,

You post made my nipples hard it was so good. Quit your day job.

I also wanted to add that there is a transition between being a nut peddler and a very good hand reader. I don't know what it is to be a good hand reader, because I'm not one. But I do sometimes try to get out there a make a read, even when it's very questionable. I think you get better at hand reading by really trying to find spots to pick off bluffs, but without going out of your way to look for trouble, if that makes any sense.

Your skill set is not something that maxes out at a certain point, I believe. I really think it's something you can always work on--and I think there is no really end to the journey at becoming a good hand reader because there are really infinite variables involved.

-Jason

Spekkio

03-04-2005, 10:45 PM

Well, here's an example of not playing "scared, unimaginitive poker."

I'm playing at .10/.25 blind NL. I'm on the button, I raise with A5 suited to $1. BB calls. Flop comes, 5, 8, Q rainbow. I bet $2. I get raised. I figure this guy has a pair of Queens, but he doesn't have AQ or KQ cuz he'd flat call and try to "slow play". So I re-raise all in. He calls with Q10.

The point? You can't make moves at lower limit tables. People just don't get it. The reason people are fish is that they ALWAYS think you are bluffing. That's why you wait for the nuts, because people get married to high pair bad kicker. Although, when I spot another self-proclaimed solid player, I do make sure to bluff when the pot is big and I know he doesn't have the nuts, cuz I know they are succeptable to folding.

Spekkio

03-04-2005, 10:59 PM

He's not saying you shouldn't try to read hands. He's saying that you should. But, until you get good at it, make sure you put your money in with the best of it. Think of how many fish start out and think that everyone is bluffing. That's because they THINK they can read what's going on, but they can't. They have no idea. So they put their money in the middle when they are losing.

A newbie playing tight, conservative poker IS the optimal way to play. Any other way will result in a loss of money.

Best way, I guess, to learn to read people is even if you have the nuts, try and put your opponents on hands. Do they have a strong hand ie will they call an all-in from you? Are they weak and will fold if you bet? That's a much less risky, and much more profitable, way to learn to read people.

So you get bluffed out of the winning hand a few times. When people think they can bluff you, they'll bet into your monsters, and you'll still make money in the long run. It's all about winning more than losing, however you do that.

OrangeKing

03-05-2005, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not getting it. That 450 X 47 has to come out of somebodies win-loss colume.

Is this a cruel joke? or has my mother been hiding the fact that I'm retard all my life?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really don't get this - and please understand, I'm not trying to be mean here - you shouldn't expect to win at poker until you do get it. Your expectation by calling is hugely better than it is by folding. The explanations in this thread have been very clear.

ML4L

03-05-2005, 05:00 PM

Hey all,

After I posted this, I decided that I should have started a new thread, because what I said doesn't necessarily have to do entirely with Paluka's original post. But, oh well...

Here are some follow-up thoughts:

First, the point of my post was NOT that a player should play like a rock for his entire career. In fact, my point was exactly the opposite. If a player is concerned with maximizing his potential, he needs to become adept at hand reading and playing well in uncomfortable situations. Furthermore, the best way to improve in those areas is to throw one's self into the fire.

But, that fact notwithstanding, this forum can have a tendency sometimes to shame people out of a conservative style before they are ready. One of the primary ways is by making people feel like they are leaving a ton of money on the table by playing conservatively. While this MIGHT be true, it is not necessarily true, depending on the game conditions. In a game where opponents will pay off too much and are not observant, a conservative strategy is not far from optimal, as long as the player does not make the mistake of giving aggressive opponents too much credit for having a hand (I think that this is Paluka's original point, and I agree; no matter one's strategy, seeing monsters that aren't there will really decrease a player's earning potential).

Another point of interest is that Paluka's post was brought on by the diluge of hands from the Party $1000 game. But, two things are true about the majority of the players in that game. One, I'd be willing to bet that most are severely underbankrolled. And two, most are limit players trying their hand at a new game, and frankly, many of those players aren't very good at no-limit (just as a no-limit player moving to limit might be slow to adjust). In any event, both of those conditions are good reason in my mind for a player to play a more conservative strategy...

Anyway, the entire point of my posts was that a player who plays conservatively should not be fooled into thinking that there is something inherently wrong with doing so. Because, the truth is that there isn't. And, getting back to the tenor of the original post, no matter your style, success and hand reading are highly correlated. So, if you are looking to improve, hand reading is probably the area that would pay the biggest dividends.

ML4L

natedogg

03-05-2005, 05:17 PM

That's pretty much it. The max limit on the rebuy amount is the crucial factor.

Take two games where everyone has $100. One has a max buyin of $100 and the other is a true no limit game.

You'd have to be more conservative in the max buy in game, even though stack sizes are the same in both games, becuase if you lose, you can only come in for $100, and you have to win TWO big pots to get that $200 stack's money. In a true no limit game, you just buy in for $200 now and you only need one big pot to go down.

Also, the preflop play has to be way tighter, in relation to the blinds, when there's a max buy in. In other words, when the stacks are ALL short, the limiting factor for preflop tightness is pot size. When the stacks are ALL bigger, the limiting factor is your opponents' stack size...which means you can play looser preflop.

natedogg

felson

03-07-2005, 04:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much it. The max limit on the rebuy amount is the crucial factor.

Take two games where everyone has $100. One has a max buyin of $100 and the other is a true no limit game.

You'd have to be more conservative in the max buy in game, even though stack sizes are the same in both games, becuase if you lose, you can only come in for $100, and you have to win TWO big pots to get that $200 stack's money. In a true no limit game, you just buy in for $200 now and you only need one big pot to go down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this. Why should the fact that you can't rebuy for $200 affect whether you play marginal spots for your $100 stack? If you're the best player, you should be more willing to play these spots in the max buyin game, since you're trying to build a deep stack asap and bust everyone else. It's the same idea behind playing aggressively in the early stages of rebuy tournaments.