(11) Raise 5xbb with 1010/JJ from EP according to HOH?

[SonnyJay]

My only comment on the pineapple-everyone else argument on the issue of varying your raises is that it's really immaterial. If you feel like betting 70 sometimes and 60 others, it's not a huge difference. However, I do think that a lot of the people that would be "observant enough" to notice things and take advantage normally are multitabling and thus aren't paying enough attention to notice.

Anyway...

Harrington wrote a very good book, but I think its concepts are misapplied at the STTs. HOH/I is referring (mostly) to full tabled, deep stacked, gradual blind-increase multi-table poker. This is not a Party STT.

The raise 5xBB with JJ in EP may be optimal advice for the situations in the book, but the STTs are different. A reasonable raise will be called very often, and you'll be out of position. If you raise 5 BB (never mind 7...don't do that) you'll find yourself building a large pot with a hand you're not going to be thrilled with often once the flop comes. The pot will be too big to manage. A continuation bet after a few callers will be a large portion of your stack, and anyone coming along with you will freeze you. Limp, call a reasonable raise if necessary, and hope for a set or undercards.

Once the blinds are at 25-50 and a few opponents are eliminated, I usually raise this to 3xBB or so (if my stack allows), but I don't know if this is a leak. I figure that there are fewer opponents behind me, people are less likely to call with medium/bad hands, and stacks are shallower. I may be giving the situation too much credit however.

-SonnyJay

Fortunately the few people that have read this thread are the only ones who know that I raise (or used to raise) 5xbb with 1010/JJ. I find it very hard to believe that anyone at the 11s would figure out this tell. For them to figure it out, I would have to get 1010/JJ twice in a single sng, and they would need a semi decent hand that hit the flop in order to capitalize on my non-randomness, in which case I would probably fold easily anyway. Hope that all made sense. Long story short, at this stage im 10 times more concerned about making the correct mathematical play than randomizing my plays and out-thinking my opponents. Ill leave the randomized raises for my regular live games against my friends.

-grant

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'll bite...

[ QUOTE ]

Game theoretic optimal poker should not be your goal. You should actively try to exploit your opponents' weaknesses.


[/ QUOTE ]

Game theory takes into account your opponent's weaknesses.


[/ QUOTE ]

Game theoretic optimal play is unexploitable, and of course it naturally exploits suboptimal play, but not maximally. You have to deviate from optimal play to attempt to maximally exploit a weakness you believe your opponents have. And of course deviating from optimal play necessarily means playing in such a way that you can be exploited.

But game theoretic optimal play does not take into account your opponent's weaknesses: It assumes an opponent without weaknesses. That's why it should not be your goal. Because you should try really hard never to play poker against such an opponent.

[ QUOTE ]

Did you read my post? Your assumption that *nobody* at the tens *ever* pays attention has to be *100% correct* for this not to cost you money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I made no such assumption, I was countering your flawed logic. I haven't actually made a stance about the OP.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

and in fact if you correctly exploit the fact that no one takes such notes then it will make you money.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody in this thread has yet demonstrated the wonderful money-making potential of the OPs suggested strategy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nor have I actually claimed it exists. I have only pointed out a flaw in your logic because I think it will help you reach incorrect conclusions even if it didn't do so this time.