KK unimproved, facing a push and a call

[thatpfunk]

whoops, sorry i was questioning why in the world you don't play 6max when it is an easier, more profitable game (i think thats the general consensus)

and regarding your comments: more often than not i do reraise PF. on the flop the maniac had been folding (in general) to PSBs yet would get cute if he "sensed weakness." i also think that i would put CRing the guaranteed cont bet ahead of leadng for PSB, but i thought i could tie the avg-bad player in for my weak lead. i considered pushing the flop when it got back to me but i held the Ks and was fairly certain that the avg bad player would have raised with most Axs hands. at the time i thought it was worth the risk, although scarecards are a very distinct possibility.

(i cant say im very good at expressing all my thoughts that go into each action, uff)

[TheWorstPlayer]

Oh, I only play 6max. My quote was a FYP. And your line worked in this spot, so I can't say that it was bad when I'm sitting on the sidelines. But from just the info provided in your OP, I think my line is better.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
Once in a while plays at NL100 are like saying "I usually prefer $20 to $10 but once in a while I like to take the $10. Just to mix it up." I never take that line in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. From a player development standpoint, its good to take an occasional unorthodox line if only to give yourself experience with the situations that follow it even if it is less optimal from both an immediate EV and metagame standpoint to do so. It'll save money later when the player takes a non-standard line against smarter players in a bigger game.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once in a while plays at NL100 are like saying "I usually prefer $20 to $10 but once in a while I like to take the $10. Just to mix it up." I never take that line in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. From a player development standpoint, its good to take an occasional unorthodox line if only to give yourself experience with the situations that follow it even if it is less optimal from both an immediate EV and metagame standpoint to do so. It'll save money later when the player takes a non-standard line against smarter players in a bigger game.

[/ QUOTE ]
This reply is logical and makes sense theoretically. It is wrong though.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once in a while plays at NL100 are like saying "I usually prefer $20 to $10 but once in a while I like to take the $10. Just to mix it up." I never take that line in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. From a player development standpoint, its good to take an occasional unorthodox line if only to give yourself experience with the situations that follow it even if it is less optimal from both an immediate EV and metagame standpoint to do so. It'll save money later when the player takes a non-standard line against smarter players in a bigger game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Ghaz. Plus mixing it up on one play might not make the most on that specific hand, but it does pay dividends over the course of the session by making your opponents make mistakes on future hands. A confused opponent is a profitable opponent. It doesn't make sense to mix it up against all opponents, becasue many won't notice or react in a +EV way. But to say that nobody will react in an +EV way is wrong. It's not like they aren't trying to win.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once in a while plays at NL100 are like saying "I usually prefer $20 to $10 but once in a while I like to take the $10. Just to mix it up." I never take that line in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. From a player development standpoint, its good to take an occasional unorthodox line if only to give yourself experience with the situations that follow it even if it is less optimal from both an immediate EV and metagame standpoint to do so. It'll save money later when the player takes a non-standard line against smarter players in a bigger game.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does practicing less than optimal play help you save money? I understand practicing LAG play at a lower limit to gain experience, but shouldn't every play you make be optimal based upon the circumstance?

Even some metagame considerations could be considered unorthodox, but their goal is to create an optimal future situation.

[troymclur]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once in a while plays at NL100 are like saying "I usually prefer $20 to $10 but once in a while I like to take the $10. Just to mix it up." I never take that line in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. From a player development standpoint, its good to take an occasional unorthodox line if only to give yourself experience with the situations that follow it even if it is less optimal from both an immediate EV and metagame standpoint to do so. It'll save money later when the player takes a non-standard line against smarter players in a bigger game.

[/ QUOTE ]
This reply is logical and makes sense theoretically. It is wrong though.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bit arrogant aren't we?

It also makes sense when you can play the table accordingly. Playing off peoples weaknesses while placing more trust in your reads can be hugely beneficial in making more money, and gets better along with the rise of ones own skill. Your $20 v. $10 argument is ridiculous, top poker isn't binary.

[ QUOTE ]
How does practicing less than optimal play help you save money? I understand practicing LAG play at a lower limit to gain experience, but shouldn't every play you make should be optimal based upon the circumstance?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but what qualifies as "optimal" is dependent on the table. Books and strategy and meta-games are all fine for giving you a good base, but you can't just take x idea and apply it across the board. You adjust to the table, and find the ways that extract the most money, specific to that grouping of players.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Pusher (MP) is not crazy, just average bad. Overcaller (CO) is absolutely horrible (90/44) preflop, postflop, hell hes bad at sitting at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

If both players are that bad, you made a pretty big mistake by not reraising preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe its just me, but i win next to zero big pots after putting in a 2nd raise pf (unless it happens to be AA v KK and we know a 40pfr's range is way bigger than simply big pps). even maniacs know that a reraise = a big hand in this game. the majority of the time i reraise in this situation i lead the flop and its folded. is the deception worth the risk? i dont mind it and am perfectly comfortable with it.

once again, maybe its just me.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, I never play it this way, but then again, usually my table sees me re-raising with all sorts of garbage before this, so no one ever believes me. That said, I understand switching things up a little (although I'd be more likely to do this against good, not bad players).

That said, once the flop comes what are you waiting for, an Ace to come and kill your action? I say put in a big raise on the flop, and then get the rest in on the turn.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once in a while plays at NL100 are like saying "I usually prefer $20 to $10 but once in a while I like to take the $10. Just to mix it up." I never take that line in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. From a player development standpoint, its good to take an occasional unorthodox line if only to give yourself experience with the situations that follow it even if it is less optimal from both an immediate EV and metagame standpoint to do so. It'll save money later when the player takes a non-standard line against smarter players in a bigger game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Ghaz. Plus mixing it up on one play might not make the most on that specific hand, but it does pay dividends over the course of the session by making your opponents make mistakes on future hands. A confused opponent is a profitable opponent. It doesn't make sense to mix it up against all opponents, becasue many won't notice or react in a +EV way. But to say that nobody will react in an +EV way is wrong. It's not like they aren't trying to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not what I meant. TWP asserts that these players don't pay any attention (well, he didn't say that, but I'm inferring it) so any direct metagame effect is negligent. My comment refers more to the overall development of the player in question.

Let me make up an extreme example:

Bob plays .01/.02 NL and always openpushes AA preflop from any position. Players are so atrocious in the game he plays that this method makes him buckets of money as he gets called by A4o, K7s, and J3o on a regular basis. A few months pass and Bob has the bankroll at last to move up in limits. Now when he pushes his AA, its no longer optimal as he isn't getting the loose calls he used to get. So he makes a smaller raise and somebody calls him. Now he's never played AA postflop in his entire life so he's very confused about how to procede. Except when he flops the nuts, he has decisions to make and he doesn't know how to make them because he's never been in the situation before. Had he played a few flops with AA in his old .01/.02 game, he wouldn't be so lost now.

I'm not talking about metagame for a session or even for a stake level. I'm talking about overall development as a player. Putting yourself in situations comparable to those you'll face at higher stakes is worthwhile in the sense that it gives you some familiarity with those situations. Obviously, they may play out very differently at the higher levels due to the nature of the opponents you'll face there but you'll at least have a place to start.

[GrunchCan]

I know you weren't talking about metagame considerations. My post was an additional consideration, not a refinemment of yours.