The evolution of the mid-high stakes forum

[elindauer]

Ok, boys. This is the mid-high forum. It's time for us to take the next step in poker analysis.

You may have noticed that SO many threads talk about points that are very close in EV. Most threads, and all good threads, have heated arguments back and forth. It's a call. It's a fold. It's a raise. Frequently, nobody convinces anybody, and everybody has a good argument for their position. Fold, because he'll never check-raise with a weaker hand. Call, because if you fold he can run you over. You get the idea.

Well, the reason for much of the debate is that there's a fourth option we're ignoring: none of the above.


What do I mean? What is this fourth option? The fourth option is a probability triple, which indicates that you should take each of the three possible actions some percentage of the time. I suggest we write these triples this way:

{fold, call, raise}


Up to now, this forum has allowed only three options:

Fold: {100, 0, 0}
Call: {0, 100, 0}
Raise: {0, 0, 100}


When the answer to the OP is some triple like {15, 80, 5}, as it so often is, then we end up yelling at each other about how clearly our answer is right and the other guy's answer is wrong, and how if you think that, let's play heads up some time, fish.


Here's an example. You raise KQ and are called by the big blind, who is a good player. You flop top pair and bet all the way, and only to sadly get check-raised on the river. What should you do?

Well, this answer is almost always going to invlove a probability triple. Any answer of always folding, calling, or raising represents an exploitable strategy. Some are more exploitable than others, but all of them miss the mark of the perfect strategy.


We're playing mid and high stakes poker, so it is inevitable that we are going to have to deal with good players. Even against bad players, situations where triples are important arise all the time. Even a bad player is capable of noticing that you have been folding to river raises a lot, right?



So, from now on, please consider answers in the form

{fold, call, raise}

to be valid. These will be most common when the hand involves an opponent who is tricky, so he doesn't play exactly the same way every time with the same hand, and is capable of some adjustments to our play. Hopefully, we can start dialing in some of these triples for common situations, and talk about simple ways to make the random selection at home.


good luck.
Eric

[elindauer]

hi all,

Tommy suggests an alternate form to the triple {fold, call, raise} format I suggested. Specifically, if there is no action yet to you, suggestions might also have the form {check, bet}.

In my first attempts at using this notation tonight, I handled this with the triple {-, check, bet}, which I think is awkward. I support Tommy's improved notation.

thanks,
eric

[1800GAMBLER]

With KQ betting all the way and getting raised on the river in games less than 50/100 paying a whole 1BB in calling to not be exploitable when there's a player pool of 1000s is crazy. Which is true for most threads around here. In the 30/60 game against the majority of players there's very little point in paying off, and when there is a chance of being exploited it's better to fold then call your next hand rather than to randomise your calls/folds.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
With KQ betting all the way and getting raised on the river in games less than 50/100 paying a whole 1BB in calling to not be exploitable when there's a player pool of 1000s is crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, isn't it still applicable to hands played against known opponents who know you, like in high stakes games, like the ones discussed in this forum? I posted this here for a reason. I agree that it has less use in the lower stakes games.

Further, when your opponent is unknown, it's perfectly reasonable, especially as the limits go up, to handle these decisions with game theory. It's perhaps a defensive strategy, but it's sound, and gets more and more sound as the limits go up. You then can adjust from the "basic strategy" of game theory triples as you learn more about how he plays.

Further, just because the player pool is large does not mean that there aren't lots of good players around who know who you are. Datamining has taken on an art form these days. pokeredge supplies tons of data about players you've never played against. Assuming that your unknown opponents doesn't know you is dangerous.

Finally, I think it's important to know how the game would be played if your opponent played perfectly. This gives you a framework to adjust as you get information about your opponent. Maybe you never 3-bet for value and then fold to a 4-bet on the river, but it's still useful to know that in a perfectly played game, this should happen. If you start writing out triples and see that you are suggesting a 3-bet but would never fold to a 4-bet, then you are forced to ask yourself what mistake your opponent is making that is allowing you to get away with this.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is true for most threads around here. In the 30/60 game against the majority of players there's very little point in paying off, and when there is a chance of being exploited it's better to fold then call your next hand rather than to randomise your calls/folds.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is plenty of room within a triple-based solution for you to apply your own judgment about when to fold and when to call. You like to fold early and call later. That's a fine strategy. Other times it may not be appropriate though, like when we have an extensive history with the villain.

You also seem to think that in your games, the way they are played today, in the particular situation I described, that you should never fold. Fine. That doesn't mean that a mixed strategy will never be appropriate in a different game, or at a different time, or in a different situation.

I write this post because, to read 2+2, you might conclude that every decision in a poker game had one correct answer. Mixed solutions are almost never suggested or discussed. In fact though, in a perfect game they would be absolutely commonplace, covering virtually every decision made! It seems absurd to think that our opponents are so bad, so predictable, even in the highest limits discussed here, that we still can get away with a definite fold or call or raise answer every time.

good luck.
eric

[1800GAMBLER]

Some good stuff in that post.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]

So, from now on, please consider answers in the form

{fold, call, raise}

to be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this implies a level of precision that just doesn't exist, at least not for most players. I'd rather see someone respond:

"You are almost never good here, I would fold. The pot would have to twice as big for me even to consider calling."

Or

"I'd call. If the pot was smaller, say 7BB, it's a fold, but I think you will be good more than the 13:1 you are getting".

etc.

[mterry]

Are you advocating using probability triples at the table? I feel with little time to think and only subjective source of randomness, pts will have less value. However, after the hand I agree they provide a good way to quanitfy how we should've mixed up our play at a certain point.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you advocating using probability triples at the table? I feel with little time to think and only subjective source of randomness, pts will have less value. However, after the hand I agree they provide a good way to quanitfy how we should've mixed up our play at a certain point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are talking to me.

Yes, I advocate them, the same way I advocate using the complex math we often do at the table. You do it precisely away from the table, and then you do it intuitively at the table.

As far as randomness, my NL friend uses dice when he plays online against tough opposition. Doing it live would be trickier of course, but the old second-on-the-watch trick can work, among others.

good luck.
eric

[1800GAMBLER]

I don't think there is much reason at the 30/60 to use 'the triple', if i'm against someone i'm going to play 1000+ hands against over the next few months then metagame considerations become important. I think the most important metagame strategy against these players is putting them on the back foot. Some turn bluff raises, some flop draw caps, etc, find their exploitable strategies. I've labelled finding their exploitable strategies as 'get shania wide', by this i mean, playing legit against unknowns but watching if they fold the river for 1 bet in sitations, or fold to turn raises, then increase your range of hands against them to include bluffs and put them to the zero expectation calls.

Again though, this is against the regulars only. By that i mean, i will turn bluff raise against anyone if i think it is +EV for this hand, but for the regs i will do it if i think it is -EV right now but worth more later on. FWIW, i can only think of about 5 players i do this against in the 30/60 limit, but there are a lot i do it against in the 10/20 nl.

The parts of the last post i think were really good for the forum was,

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I think it's important to know how the game would be played if your opponent played perfectly. This gives you a framework to adjust as you get information about your opponent. Maybe you never 3-bet for value and then fold to a 4-bet on the river, but it's still useful to know that in a perfectly played game, this should happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your opponent played perfectly then they bluff 10:1 on their 10:1 bets, or 5:1 on their 5:1 bets, or (like in NL) 2:1 on their 2:1 bets. Knowning this you can, find the ones who aren't doing it. Good example is 88 overpair vs limper who called a low flop who you know has overcards then the Q comes. Some posters, wont think and just bet, some wont bet against some players because they will bluff raise, yet hardly any posters say 'i bet here because he will bluffraise too often, so it's not a tough decision it's a good decision' i think those are the only metagame game theory/percentage plays that have much value in the 30/60.

Plus _considerating_ all plays such as 3 bet and fold for 4 is good poker, but JASucker has said way way enough on that for us all.

[elindauer]

Hi gambler,

Despite your kind words on part of my post, I get the impression that you consider the idea of a mixed strategy to be rather theoretical and not of much practical value. I'd like to point out that doing this:

[ QUOTE ]
Some turn bluff raises, some flop draw caps, etc, find their exploitable strategies

[/ QUOTE ]

is just a more hand wavy way of saying that you would employ a mixed strategy of sometimes raising and sometimes calling with the same hand in the same spot. All I'm saying is that we should start addressing these critical ideas more precisely, by trying to figure out how often you should cap a draw HU, how often you bluff raise the turn, etc. We should start putting these numbers on specific boards, with particular textures and given actions, against particular known opponents.

[ QUOTE ]
... watching if they fold the river for 1 bet in sitations, or fold to turn raises ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you don't mean that you'll either always raise the turn or never raise the turn, right? Welcome to the land of mixed strategy, where {20, 60, 20} is a perfectly legitimate answer and may be clearly better than any of {100, 0, 0}, {0, 100, 0}, or {0, 0, 100}.

I think we all understand this intuitively and mix up our play accordingly, but we don't ever talk about here. Doesn't anybody think that those changeup plays we all just make on our own intuition deserve any recognition? How often should we make them. On what boards? Against what opponents?

So often the changeup is the most interesting part of the hand, but we blow by it and just say, eh, let's not talk about the preflop. I was mixing up my play. Now, about that turn decision... tell me the answer. Call, raise, or fold?

-Eric