Is there such a thing as too tight

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]

I frankly don't see how it is possible to get VPIP stats below 18%. My own game hovers between 18-20%, and I dont see many places where I could shave off starting hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't want to start a whole PF debate here, but you could get below 18% just by not playing 22-66 and Axs from EP as a default play.

[Pov]

That seems to fit in with my stats. I usually drop those hands from EP and I come in between 16% and 17%. If the table is just right I may add them back in.

For instance, when the VP$IP for the table is over 35 with a PFR under 5 I might start thinking about playing those hands from EP, but the biggest factor will be my relative position to the likely raisers at the table. I need the MP players behind me to be very passive and very loose. In my early playing experience I got burned a lot by playing hands like 66 and going to the flop 4 handed in middle relative position . . . yuck. Remember, these are speculative hands that are looking to hit a set or a 4-flush and neither of those things happens all that often. You need a lot of limpers and even at a loose table (online) you will often not get them.

Uhh, to regurgitate the other factors I "know" but need to work on applying, the pairs are more playable against opponents who are more aggressive post-flop so you can make money on your set and the Axs is more playable against the more passive players post-flop so you can draw for cheap. Especially since you won't have position to make a free card play.

[jason_t]

-EV means the play you are making causes you to lose money in the long run. Limping with 27o in EP is an example. +EV play means the play you are making causes you to make money in the long run. Raising with AA PF is an example.

An EV neutral play means in the long run you neither lose nor gain money. Folding K9s on the button is EV neutral.

[jason_t]

I agree, limping with K9s on the button is +EV. But folding it preflop on the button is an EV neutral play.

[admiralfluff]

did you not read what I said? There is more to it then position. If you only paid attention to position, I think at PP 2/4 and 3/6 (more so for 3/6) always playing K9s from the button would definitely by -EV. If you were a little smart about it, and only limped with it, it would still probably be -EV. For the third time, IF YOU LIMP WITH IT ON THE BUTTON, AFTER LOTS OF LOOSE, BAD PLAYERS HAVE LIMPED BEFORE YOU, IT IS A +EV PLAY. This means NOT DOING SO is
-EV. Saying [ QUOTE ]
Folding K9s on the button is EV neutral.

[/ QUOTE ]
is silly if you don't include any other context besides position. Saying it again, after the error of your ways has been pointed out makes me question your literacy.

[admiralfluff]

This is still a silly thing to say. Folding any hole cards from any position other then the blinds can be considered an EV neutral play, because you can win or lose no money if you wager none. Folding AA from the buttong is, by your interpretation, an EV neutral play. What's your point? Mine is that the relative EV of limping with K9s from the button (in my previoulsy defined context) is +EV compared to all other options. In gambling decisions, relative EV is what we must consider, and is generally accepted to be the "EV" referred to in any discussion regarding a gambling decision.

[belloc]

[ QUOTE ]
-EV means the play you are making causes you to lose money in the long run. Limping with 27o in EP is an example. +EV play means the play you are making causes you to make money in the long run. Raising with AA PF is an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think the poster understood this.

[ QUOTE ]
An EV neutral play means in the long run you neither lose nor gain money. Folding K9s on the button is EV neutral.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying that, but it makes no sense without context. In some situations (say, if there are seven limpers to you in a loose passive game, or if it's folded to you in a supertight passive game), folding K9s on the button is just silly; you're leaving money on the table, as was said already. In some situations (e.g., a raise in front from a supertighty) failing to fold K9s will hemorrhage money over time.

Are you trying somehow to take an average of all of these situations and say that you'll neither win nor lose money over time if you fold K9s from the button in every situation? If so, do you have some reason for saying this, or are you just guessing?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
This means NOT DOING SO is -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a game. A fair coin is flipped. If it lands on heads, you pay me $2. If it lands on tails, I pay you $1. If I play this game with you, it's +EV for me. On average, I expect to win $0.5 per flip; that's the definition of +EV. If I don't play, I expect to neither win nor lose any money. My EV from not playing is zero. It's EV neutral. It's not -EV, as I'm not losing money by not playing, it just means I'm an idiot for not taking a chance when I have the best of it.

Thanks for remaining civil.

[admiralfluff]

I think I figured out what he was getting at, and addressed it in my most recent post. Folding any hand from a non-blind position is technically an EV neutral play. If you did so, you would have a 100% confidence interval of being exactly break even for this decision for any sample size. Hopefully he's just trying to be sassy and annoying, but if he actually approaches decisions in poker like this, he needs to stick to play money.

[belloc]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not -EV, as I'm not losing money by not playing, it just means I'm an idiot for not taking a chance when I have the best of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you don't start the "EV counter" until you actually put your chips in the pot? You might want to consider starting it the moment you sit down at the table. Or even the moment you begin to choose a table. You'll make more money that way. Seeing missed opportunities as -EV will make you a better poker player.