Do you hold anything back?

[Roy__Batty]

of course very good players hold almost all their thought process.
There are so many posts by respected players that look "shove on the flop" etc without any explanation.
I understand that it must be painful for seasoned players to see that most 2+2 posters don't have a clue and that's doesn't make them likely to share their thoughts in key hands but, obviously, posts without thought process, even by seasoned players, are not of much value.
You have to read 100 posts to find one with deep thought process. It's boring but the matter is here, just have to search. At least it rewards people who take the time to read most posts.

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
where it is ultimately more profitable from a meta-game perspective to sacrifice expectation during a given hand to maximize long-term expectation by making alterations to one's own hand range (randomized bluffing, for instance, or other unorthodox lines). This sort of stuff doesn't come up because everyone posts stupid hands without including relevant info on opponent (you need a lot more than, "aggro"), the last 30-45 minutes of play, and other read-relevant miscellany;


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I will be probably flamed for that but here's the thing : recent history, metagame blablabla are totally meaningless in game between two good players. If you think you can deduce something from these you are assuming that your opponents is unaware or at least less aware than you. There is such a thing like optimal play in every hand regardless all metagame issues (I think its almost always mixed strategy like 30%fold/70% call). I wonder when we will come close to this considerations.
All "thinking levels" deducing from history etc is like rock-paper-scissors game if both opponents are equally skilled. Dont forget that every hand is independent unit and from mathematical point of view all previous and future hands dont matter at all.
I hate when somebody think that hes great player cause he "play the opponents" , "play the board", "sacrifice EV for metagame purposes (this is bullshit anyway)" and saying sth like "cards doesnt matter that much" all this only mean that somebody is better than their opponents in guessing (rock or paper ?) what his adversary actions will be based on history.

So if you read sth "no reads, other than Villain is aggro" you can just assume that Villain is very good and simply all your reads are irrelevant and he is aware of all recent history and you will not deduce anything from that anyway. His only tendency is that he is aggro, that's it. Now based on this facts you can formulate your opinion about optimal play. Its no lesser problem than "he bluffed 2 out of 3 last times when flush cards comes , his girlfriend dumped him yesterday so maybe hes on tilt"

Everytime you "sacrifice EV" you make a mistake in hope that your opponent is weak and you will exploit it in the future; nice concept but certainly not very useful when you play against aware players.

Best wishes

[Marlow]

Personally, I don't really care if people hold back. I still need the basics, and that's what I'm getting here. In fact, I think that most players, even the really great ones, constantly need to "get back to the basics." After all, this isn't a game where you can sacrifice any edges and still expect to win. The reason we keep coming here and keep reading the same book is because we need to to stay sharp.

As for going beyond the basics, I don't think that a player can get that from a book or an online forum. It has to come from being steeped in the game and just finding your own personal and meaningful transformative (and transcendent) expereinces.

No one can tell me how to be great, I've got do figure that out for myself. But they can tell my why it's bad to check when I should bet. And I think this is extremely valuable.

Marlow

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
where it is ultimately more profitable from a meta-game perspective to sacrifice expectation during a given hand to maximize long-term expectation by making alterations to one's own hand range (randomized bluffing, for instance, or other unorthodox lines). This sort of stuff doesn't come up because everyone posts stupid hands without including relevant info on opponent (you need a lot more than, "aggro"), the last 30-45 minutes of play, and other read-relevant miscellany;


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I will be probably flamed for that but here's the thing : recent history, metagame blablabla are totally meaningless in game between two good players. If you think you can deduce something from these you are assuming that your opponents is unaware or at least less aware than you. There is such a thing like optimal play in every hand regardless all metagame issues (I think its almost always mixed strategy like 30%fold/70% call). I wonder when we will come close to this considerations.
All "thinking levels" deducing from history etc is like rock-paper-scissors game if both opponents are equally skilled. Dont forget that every hand is independent unit and from mathematical point of view all previous and future hands dont matter at all.
I hate when somebody think that hes great player cause he "play the opponents" , "play the board", "sacrifice EV for metagame purposes (this is bullshit anyway)" and saying sth like "cards doesnt matter that much" all this only mean that somebody is better than their opponents in guessing (rock or paper ?) what his adversary actions will be based on history.

So if you read sth "no reads, other than Villain is aggro" you can just assume that Villain is very good and simply all your reads are irrelevant and he is aware of all recent history and you will not deduce anything from that anyway. His only tendency is that he is aggro, that's it. Now based on this facts you can formulate your opinion about optimal play. Its no lesser problem than "he bluffed 2 out of 3 last times when flush cards comes , his girlfriend dumped him yesterday so maybe hes on tilt"

Everytime you "sacrifice EV" you make a mistake in hope that your opponent is weak and you will exploit it in the future; nice concept but certainly not very useful when you play against aware players.

Best wishes

[/ QUOTE ]

if i were you id read vanveen's post again. there's a lot of good stuff in there.

and recent history matters a LOT. thats why all the bots use prior and posterior distribution analysis of recent and overall actions applying differing weights to the action based on a # of factors. if 2 good players are playing each other its especially important. not less important. seeing the mood of each other makes a big difference and recent hands make a difference.

in terms of a lot of the other stuff van said you should read it again and think about it.

Barron

[edge]

[ QUOTE ]
i) Discussing the logic of betting when playing no-limit poker against a random opponent in a given game is of no interest to me. I get it. It is not hard to get. The only thing left to discuss for those who've mastered the basics is how to make logical adjustments to players given their exploitable tendencies and identifying situations where it is ultimately more profitable from a meta-game perspective to sacrifice expectation during a given hand to maximize long-term expectation by making alterations to one's own hand range (randomized bluffing, for instance, or other unorthodox lines). This sort of stuff doesn't come up because everyone posts stupid hands without including relevant info on opponent (you need a lot more than, "aggro"), the last 30-45 minutes of play, and other read-relevant miscellany;

[/ QUOTE ]

I play a lot better than I post just because of the factors that can't be conveyed over this forum. A lot of the game works on flow and instinct, as well as just guessing right (rock paper scissors). Some of the hands I post probably look really dumb out of context, but when I think about them after posting and multiple people have told me that I'm wrong, I still feel they're perfectly warranted because of the way both parties have been playing so far.

I can't say exactly how much information I hold back when I post, but I definitely don't reveal everything. I can't, really. I can't describe exactly why I think this pot can be taken with a strong move, or why I think this pot should be given up on. In order for me to give the best advice, I would have had to have played all the hands up to the point of someone's post, and played them exactly the same way as he/she did.

Then there's the issue of physical or timing-based reads. Even in a post with "no reads, first hand at the table", there is some information out there. Sometimes I can pick out reluctance or confidence from the timing of someone's bets online. I can't really convey that on this forum, since it's barely tangible to begin with.

Even with all of these failings, this forum is still great and I would be a much worse player without it. It's just that I, and probably every other poster, can't really give optimal advice because so much depends on things that can't be conveyed properly in text.

[AZK]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I will be probably flamed for that but here's the thing : recent history, metagame blablabla are totally meaningless in game between two good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't quit your day job.

[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
where it is ultimately more profitable from a meta-game perspective to sacrifice expectation during a given hand to maximize long-term expectation by making alterations to one's own hand range (randomized bluffing, for instance, or other unorthodox lines). This sort of stuff doesn't come up because everyone posts stupid hands without including relevant info on opponent (you need a lot more than, "aggro"), the last 30-45 minutes of play, and other read-relevant miscellany;


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I will be probably flamed for that but here's the thing : recent history, metagame blablabla are totally meaningless in game between two good players. If you think you can deduce something from these you are assuming that your opponents is unaware or at least less aware than you. There is such a thing like optimal play in every hand regardless all metagame issues (I think its almost always mixed strategy like 30%fold/70% call). I wonder when we will come close to this considerations.
All "thinking levels" deducing from history etc is like rock-paper-scissors game if both opponents are equally skilled. Dont forget that every hand is independent unit and from mathematical point of view all previous and future hands dont matter at all.
I hate when somebody think that hes great player cause he "play the opponents" , "play the board", "sacrifice EV for metagame purposes (this is bullshit anyway)" and saying sth like "cards doesnt matter that much" all this only mean that somebody is better than their opponents in guessing (rock or paper ?) what his adversary actions will be based on history.

So if you read sth "no reads, other than Villain is aggro" you can just assume that Villain is very good and simply all your reads are irrelevant and he is aware of all recent history and you will not deduce anything from that anyway. His only tendency is that he is aggro, that's it. Now based on this facts you can formulate your opinion about optimal play. Its no lesser problem than "he bluffed 2 out of 3 last times when flush cards comes , his girlfriend dumped him yesterday so maybe hes on tilt"

Everytime you "sacrifice EV" you make a mistake in hope that your opponent is weak and you will exploit it in the future; nice concept but certainly not very useful when you play against aware players.

Best wishes

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept that this post attempts to convey is 100% correct.

However, I'm one of those people who holds back, so I'm not going to explain why...

ML4L

[neon]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I will be probably flamed for that but here's the thing : recent history, metagame blablabla are totally meaningless in game between two good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, *here's* the thing: those factors which you mention, and claim to be "totally meaningless," they *are* the game at the higher levels of NL, at least IMO.

And the better the player, the more important such considerations become, not the other way around; if two players are aware of NL fundamentals such as hand selection, position, etc., then other things begin to override such factors. Things such as, How is a particular player playing today? Is he stuck? Rushing? Tilting? How does said player play his draws? His sets? Can he lay down big hands? With what frequency does he bluff? Overbet? CR the flop/turn/river? And that's just the beginning . . .

It's an extreme example, but consider the case of B_Buddy, whom I've yet to play against, having never played on Stars and having only recently started playing in the 10/20 on Party, but whom I'm aware is perhaps the most clear cut example of what I'm talking about. The dude is poker's manifestation of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde; he plays solid, winning poker according to the accounts of those familiar w/ his game, only to throw it away in bouts of extreme tilt in short spans of time.

Now is there no significance in recent history and metagame factors when playing such an opponent, who plays solid most of the time and open pushes preflop with offsuit rags at others?

You'd be foolish to think there isn't, and while he's perhaps one of the more/most extreme examples in the upper echelon of NL cash players online, I believe that every player, to some degree, exhibits pecularities that must be taken into consideration in order to play optimally against them. These are the things that cannot be conveyed in an online message board post, and this is the reason that the vast majority of the posts which receive the most attention in this forum are occupied primarily w/ the fundamental mechanics of playing a specific hand, in a certain position relative to the opponent(s), against a generalized opponent description.

I wouldn't claim to be privy to the highest tier of NL thinking, at least not consciously, and so I'm sure there are posters who choose not to reveal the entirety of their thinking behind a hand for fear of allowing others to access that thinking. I do know that personally, I don't post lots of hands that I'd love to get feedback on, but opt not to because I'm hesitant to publicize certain unorthodox parts of my game.

I think in general, howevever, people "hold back" not because they aren't willing to share, but because so much of what underlies the highest level of NL thinking/play are player/game specific factors that simply cannot be conveyed with any degree of accuracy to someone who is not familiar with said player/game through personal experience.

Wow. Sorry that was so long.

-neon.

[neon]

Great post, man. Sorry to hear you won't be posting anymore. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Vish]

Damnit, VanVeen, I was afraid you'd stop posting. And no, that's no in the least bit sarcastic. I was making a point to go through every one of your posts, and now you stop...[censored], now what do I do?