Gigabet play vs formula

[roma12]

i know this post is old: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2345987&page=&view=&s b=5&o=

BUT it has been bothering me for months and nothing i have read has touched upon this topic:

A: Gigs(or whomever)... when you make your moves...for instance the Q4s raise to 300 from the UTG raiser of 100(step 5 Higher-15k buy in) then he folds and you win a decent pot(lvl 1 or 2, dont remember/dont feel like looking it up to find out)...i see what are you doing(Fold equity=huge).... but what would you do if you actually had a hand like KK or AA in this situation...would you raise less? more? call?

B: what makes that situation more profitable/+EV than say any other hand in that particular SNG where you either felt weekness or obvious reads... why did you not make moves elsewhere? Did you not feel obvious weekness/reads in other hands/situations?

C: C relates to A and B. but in GENERAL: when you bluff/want people to fold, and you are playing good players, how do you determine your play(bet/check/fold) as compared to when you WANT a call with a good hand. wouldnt good players realize that....say.... you betting extra large(to the level of them folding a better hand) means you want them to fold and thus would logically induce a call(sounds simplistic but i think you know what i mean). or is the BUY-IN in these games so big that a big bet is so threatening that they fold anyway, without that logic in their thought process/or without the brains/balls to call you anyway

-and please do not respond with obvious [censored] like.."i had a read of him having a good/decent/EXACT hand so i bet big inducing a call/ or i had a read of him having a bad hand so i knew if i bet big enough he would dump/or I knew the player"


i believe it is a bit more complex than that.


-and also: please respond with the level of SNG you are reffering to(if not a generalization) (a 15k step 5 higher is a little dif from a 50 sng...as you know...(i am not insulting, just being particular))

Ta Ta
(...yes i am "new"....to posting-NOT reading)

[Gigabet]

Alot of what you are asking is fairly basic, betting size, what they will call and won't call, comes down to finding which level of thinking that player is on. The reverse reverse psychology dance. The first level of betting psychology would obviously be....bet small if you want a caller, and bet large if you don't want a caller. Second level reverses that, so on and so forth. "I know, that he knows, that I know, that he knows, that I know......"

The reading of bet sizes comes into play when you can isolate the level of thinking that each player is on at your table; and then you know what a small bet for each player means, and what a large bet means....unless of course they know that you know that.

The bets that you describe me making add another dimension to the call or fold, is he bluffing or not dilemma the players face. Because it is a higher level of play, I can trust that the other players understand(even if only intuitively, from the many games they have played) what gamblers ruin is. Basically, gamblers ruin states that, even if you are offered +ev odds, you should still not take the gamble if the negative side of the coin brings you to zero. Because you cannot recover from zero, the + side of the coin will rarely be worth the risk necessary to take the chance. Most of my bets are obvious bluffs, but with gamblers ruin staring them in the face, it is rarely worth it to take the chance that they are wrong at any given time, because they have all seen me turn over two Aces after someone called one of those early position open pushes.

Gigabet

[Jman28]

Good post and response...

[ QUOTE ]
because they have all seen me turn over two Aces after someone called one of those early position open pushes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you ever show a big hand after an open push if nobody calls? I feel like although many players will recognize that you want them to see the AA, they still will have trouble calling you later knowing that you are capable of making a play like that with a big hand.

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you ever show a big hand after an open push if nobody calls? I feel like although many players will recognize that you want them to see the AA, they still will have trouble calling you later knowing that you are capable of making a play like that with a big hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


I never show my hand if I am not called.

Gigabet

[allenciox]

I am working on becoming more of a "super aggressive" player, and I think the best intro to that style of play is in Super System (I or II). The real key to the strategy is to put your opponent to a decision for all his chips without risking all your chips... if he bites the bullet, you know he's got something and you disappear. But he doesn't know what you've got until making the decision. It's a beautiful way to play.

[roma12]

thanks for the response

[ChuckyB]

Why not? It would seem there's another level of mental games to be played if you were to show your cards on ocassion.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]


I never show my hand if I am not called.

Gigabet

[/ QUOTE ]
I am very interested in this. Would you say that this is because of the level that you play (and your oppenents) or would you advocate not showing at any level?
I play the 33s, and I find myself showing a lot of my uncalled big hands on the bubble, usually to encourage later folds when I am open pushing with any 2. Do you think this has value at my level, or should I keep them in the dark?

[HesseJam]

I never show my uncalled hands because you give out information for free.

The information is not "look, I do not bluff" or "look, I push with a lot of hands" because your opponents should well understand that it could have two consequences: If, for example, you showed a strong hand you might push with a weak hand because they might believe that you are not bluffing or you might push with a very strong hand because you think they counteract to your "show-off" and believe you have a weak hand. Thus, they cannot interpret you show-off with regard to your raising standards and thus you cannot estimate their calling standards.
But they know you showed your cards for a reason, namely, that you want to manipulate your opponents.

This is the information you gave out for free: You want to manipulate your opponents which means that you are not playing a robotic first-level-thinking style.

[bawcerelli]

[ QUOTE ]


This is the information you gave out for free: You want to manipulate your opponents which means that you are not playing a robotic first-level-thinking style.

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't that helpful for intimidating your opponents? if they know you're thinking outside the box, they might be less apt to get involved with hands against you...simply because they fear being out-thought.

[Oluwafemi]

i really wish David Sklansky or Barry G would have commented on Gigabet's Q 3 hand. somehow i believe they would'nt have thought it was a good play. too bad they don't post in the 1-table Forums.

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]
i really wish David Sklansky or Barry G would have commented on Gigabet's Q 3 hand. somehow i believe they would'nt have thought it was a good play. too bad they don't post in the 1-table Forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until they play a few thousand SNGs, I don't care what they think about this play or anything else that has to do with SNGs.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i really wish David Sklansky or Barry G would have commented on Gigabet's Q 3 hand. somehow i believe they would'nt have thought it was a good play. too bad they don't post in the 1-table Forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until they play a few thousand SNGs, I don't care what they think about this play or anything else that has to do with SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

common, let's be real. these guys have alot more poker experience than Gigabet does. alot of what Gigabet talked about in his analysis had more to do with just the hand itself. both David and Barry are well aware of what gamblers ruin is and, mathematically and psychologically, are more than qualified to comment. tell me you see why or do i need to go on?