my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

Though I obviously haven't played any hands against him, or observed enough, but I think this could be the reason why his overbet strategy works well. This could post could also seem like a no-brainer to many, so I apologize in advance.

To start it up, he uses his expert hand reading skills to judge if you can call his massive overbet. even if he has a better hand (say he has tptk and reads opponent for tpgk or less) and could possibly squeeze in a valuebet, he chooses to overbet in these spots, when it is highy unlikely the other guy will call his bet. he scarfices his valuebets in exchange for credit to overbet good hands in future.

And obviously, he'll do this as a pure bluff or worse hands when he has the "you can't call a big bet" read, but I think he does more in the former case though, because sometimes people do make these calls with TPGK'ish hands and he is insured with his better hand when that happens. This is funny because he is basically bluffing with the best hand and gets calls time to time while he's at it.

By increasing his overbet frequency, people adjust wrongly with their calling standards. He is probably so experienced that he can tell when people are doing this, and change his gear accordingly. Now he prays that he catches his cards now that people will call him with far wider range of hands.

I got the main idea from AJo allin's post in 50/100 mahatma thread, and just put on some details on top of it.

Discuss.

p.s) I just realized overbetting is the ultimate-pot-control move lol.

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

the main thing his style has got going is that he has a massive bankroll and isnt afraid of variance, and i dont think you can say the same for alot of players in that game.

350 preflop hu.

potted on flop = $2,100 on turn.

say 1500 bet on turn ave. = $5,100 river.

If he pushs 14,000 on river. He needs Villian to fold 75% of the time to win money...

This doesnt account for the times he has the nuts.

its all just math. it can be tweaked anyway he wants it, based on opponent, etc. just have to plug in numbers:

percentage of time villian will call/fold.

percentage of time he has the nuts.

then he picks the right spots w/hand reading.

if people play passive against him, they cant win.

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

btw, he is best sh'ed obviously because his opponents are forced to play marginal hands on earlier streets.

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

Related, drunken, rambling thought. Pretty recently there were periods where it appeared he had turned into a steamer/tilter after thousands of hands of succesful play. His once feared overbet had turned a little loose and players were just taking advantage of it, he was firing off stacks without the caution or hand reading he once used. Was it a week ago where a table filled up in a few minutes and dill was grubbing for money just to get a shot at him?

Anyways, is it possible that this was all a planned streak to get action again? I remember about a month or so ago he was complaining how no one gave him action anymore.

He's sitting with 150k between two tables on UB right now. And yes I realize it probably was tilt or some kind of tick, the guy often played like 10 hour sessions of shorthanded nosebleed NL for days on end, bound to take a toll sooner or later. I just keep thinking this for some reason.

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

godlike

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

Yea far fetched, I know.

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, is it possible that this was all a planned streak to get action again? I remember about a month or so ago he was complaining how no one gave him action anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the answer to this, and probably noone here can say for sure. However, if he did just donk off 200K just to get action again, that was brilliant.

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

[ QUOTE ]
the main thing his style has got going is that he has a massive bankroll and isnt afraid of variance, and i dont think you can say the same for alot of players in that game.

350 preflop hu.

potted on flop = $2,100 on turn.

say 1500 bet on turn ave. = $5,100 river.

If he pushs 14,000 on river. He needs Villian to fold 75% of the time to win money...

This doesnt account for the times he has the nuts.

its all just math. it can be tweaked anyway he wants it, based on opponent, etc. just have to plug in numbers:

percentage of time villian will call/fold.

percentage of time he has the nuts.

then he picks the right spots w/hand reading.

if people play passive against him, they cant win.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'd assume he always lost when called on the river, while this line was conceived from pf onwards, he needs to win more often than 75% to make a profit since half of the money in the pot was his own to begin with.

Marnix

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

Forgive me if this has been answered before: but has friedman ever written anything, or done any interviews where he described any poker thoughts, because if there is I havnt read it and id like to.

Re: my shy attempt at analyizing mahatma overbets.
 

he condenses his poker knowledge into "raps", which can be found for sale on the internet

listen to the MaMa Hat spit poker knowledge for 2 hours, only $29.99 at amazon.com