3-bet J10s against good player?

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course taking the highest EV action is the best policy but that is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although this may seem like an obvious statement, I think it is a debate that we engage in every time we advocate a line that is immediately incorrect mathematically because of metagame reasons. A frequent example of this is the recommendation to peel the flop and fold unimproved on the turn even when this is immediately -EV so that we don't get run over.


[ QUOTE ]
None of what I wrote is about future hands, only the current hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't disagreeing with what you wrote. I was just elaborating on what I thought you correctly pointed out later in your post regarding our opponent not being a theory.


[ QUOTE ]

If Villain is bluffing correctly--not excessively, but correctly--then a policy of folding too many hands will cause an immediate EV loss on the current hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we can only make decisions as to which line we think has the highest immediate EV on the information available to us at the time. I am sure at the time that you folded your AQ you thought that was the decision with the highest immediate EV. Based on your estimate of the relevant factors at the time, your fold was "correct". If you later learn that he loves to checkraises the flop and bet the turn with weak draws and air, then the next time you were confronted with the same situation you would probably make a "correct" call.

Excepting tilt or some other illogical catalyst, if we are seeking only to maximize immediate EV we will always make what we estimate to be the "correct" decision at the time. It is only later that we may change our assessment of our opponent and understand that if we had only known then what we know now, we would have realized that what we thought was a "correct" decision was probably actually "incorrect".

Cartman

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course taking the highest EV action is the best policy but that is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although this may seem like an obvious statement, I think it is a debate that we engage in every time we advocate a line that is immediately incorrect mathematically because of metagame reasons. A frequent example of this is the recommendation to peel the flop and fold unimproved on the turn even when this is immediately -EV so that we don't get run over.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your interpretation of this example.

It sometimes happens that I make a play with a metagame purpose. Like a humiliating sexy whose purpose is partially to instill fear and intimidate an opponent into incorrect passive play on future hands. But "metagame" is actually a code name for psychology in this case.

But the loose flop peel is something else entirely. Just as there is tension between bluffing and bluffcatching, there is also tension between loose flop calls and marginal turn bets. A flop call that is slightly -EV on paper becomes +EV when you factor in the reality that sometimes you get a free card. So mathematically correct strategy is to rely on this and make a few extra calls with the "best of the rest". Never making these calls is exploitable because it allows Villain to take too many free cards and thereby avoid paying off my better hands.

But I absolutely am not trying to change the way Villain plays. Instead I exploit whatever I see. If Villain bets the turn too much then I fold more flops, pound him with turn value checkraises, and checkcall turns I would otherwise feel the need to bet.

On the other hand if Villain is a free card addict then my loose peels multiply like rabbits because one bet buys two cards.

But against a good player I cannot sustain a strategy of exploitation because he will adjust. I make whatever "loose" peels I think is the correct number for a given flop structure and opposing hand range.

Note that I have structured the discussion around the case where Villain is autobetting the flop with position. I could just have easily written an analogous explanation of loose flop calls versus OOP autobets, versus checkraises of our autobet, versus stabs at unraised pots, or whatever. The details vary but the underlying concept is the same. There is a right amount for him to be aggressive and a right amount of loose calls. Anyone who deviates can be exploited, but if Villain is messing up in a predictable way you can adjust your own play to exploit him.

[dave44]

Stellar, these last two posts were wonderfully crafted and helped bring some structure to a lot of the things that have been incoherently flying through my head for the last few months.

On the check-call, check-call, bet-fold line that you comment on. Something I just clarified in my mind today was that even if our opponent bluff raises us on the river at the perfect frequency so that he's giving us a 0 EV decision, we still need to make sure we are calling at an unexploitable frequency. We can't just say oh well either way doesn't matter I make nothing- you still really need to be calling a lot or else you're presenting your opponent a chance to bluff more profitably.