[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
With KQ betting all the way and getting raised on the river in games less than 50/100 paying a whole 1BB in calling to not be exploitable when there's a player pool of 1000s is crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, isn't it still applicable to hands played against known opponents who know you, like in high stakes games, like the ones discussed in this forum? I posted this here for a reason. I agree that it has less use in the lower stakes games.

Further, when your opponent is unknown, it's perfectly reasonable, especially as the limits go up, to handle these decisions with game theory. It's perhaps a defensive strategy, but it's sound, and gets more and more sound as the limits go up. You then can adjust from the "basic strategy" of game theory triples as you learn more about how he plays.

Further, just because the player pool is large does not mean that there aren't lots of good players around who know who you are. Datamining has taken on an art form these days. pokeredge supplies tons of data about players you've never played against. Assuming that your unknown opponents doesn't know you is dangerous.

Finally, I think it's important to know how the game would be played if your opponent played perfectly. This gives you a framework to adjust as you get information about your opponent. Maybe you never 3-bet for value and then fold to a 4-bet on the river, but it's still useful to know that in a perfectly played game, this should happen. If you start writing out triples and see that you are suggesting a 3-bet but would never fold to a 4-bet, then you are forced to ask yourself what mistake your opponent is making that is allowing you to get away with this.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is true for most threads around here. In the 30/60 game against the majority of players there's very little point in paying off, and when there is a chance of being exploited it's better to fold then call your next hand rather than to randomise your calls/folds.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is plenty of room within a triple-based solution for you to apply your own judgment about when to fold and when to call. You like to fold early and call later. That's a fine strategy. Other times it may not be appropriate though, like when we have an extensive history with the villain.

You also seem to think that in your games, the way they are played today, in the particular situation I described, that you should never fold. Fine. That doesn't mean that a mixed strategy will never be appropriate in a different game, or at a different time, or in a different situation.

I write this post because, to read 2+2, you might conclude that every decision in a poker game had one correct answer. Mixed solutions are almost never suggested or discussed. In fact though, in a perfect game they would be absolutely commonplace, covering virtually every decision made! It seems absurd to think that our opponents are so bad, so predictable, even in the highest limits discussed here, that we still can get away with a definite fold or call or raise answer every time.

good luck.
eric