A shania post

[olavfo]

[ QUOTE ]
Oops. They are going to give me way too much action. Bam. Shania improves.


[/ QUOTE ]
This will be partly counterbalanced by the fact that it will be much harder for you to bluff successfully.

Also, when they give you more action, they will outdraw you more frequently, so you'll experience larger swings.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone really paying attention to you is going to notice you fold 80% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is of course true. However, anyone really paying attention to me may notice things like how I never raise 64 and take advantage by playing back at me on rag flops. If I raise these hands, even just occassionally, perhaps I plant some extra doubt in their mind about just exactly what it is I'm doing. Am I always raising all combinations of 64 and just haven't been dealt it very often yet? Am I changing gears right now? There's no way for him to know, and that's the point. He can know that I play 20% of hands, but which 20%? If I showdown 64, it's harder for him to understand my thinking. He can't play as well against me, so perhaps my loss of EV on this one hand is offset by greater gains on other hands.

Then again, perhaps not. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It's interesting to note that against this type of play, the best defense is not to notice. Don't try this in a small stakes game!

-eric

[DeeJ]

I like to do this. But I like to pick worse hands (like 72o or 93o) so that if I am caught out, it looks even worse than if I'm playing T9o early, which just makes me look like a fish. It often has the perverse effect of making people fold against you (because they work out the simple 'bluff' strategy) ... 72o from UTG is especially joyous. I don't do this in tournies [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] except late when it's an occasional steal against shortish stacked blinds.

[mex78753]

I think if you changed your criteria to include any combination of 64 instead of a suit-based combination, it will have a much better effect.

Another great tactic would be for you to change your shania hand every session so that observant opponents think you're randomly raising garbage hands from time to time.

[punter11235]

I play only NL but I often do the following (especially if I play lower stakes than usual) : I announce to the table that I will raise or reraise preflop every time I get 96. Then I show every time its come up. There is really nothing my opponents can do about it , because 90%+ of my raises are still normal... but showing this 96 often put sb on tilt [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
I think its related idea.
The problem with limit is that your bluffing frequency should be much lower there (because of lower bets comparing to pot size) so I dont think you can add many hands to the mix.


Best wishes

[elindauer]

You got it punter. In NL, this same concept makes much more sense, as the value of deception in that game is increased. If they have trouble pinning down your starting range, your winrate should improve.

In your example, you might do better to conceal the details of what you are doing. Instead of always raising 96, for example, you could do something like pick a crappy hand (96), raise the first time you get it, show. Now change hands. Raise 84 next time you get it. show. change hands. Raise T3 next time you get it. show.


In this way, you've added 16 random starting combinations to your preflop raises. Nobody knows this but you though, unless they do an incredibly detailed analysis of your play. Did you add 100 combinations? 8? It's very difficult to tell if you just happen to have hit on a couple of your random raises and rarely do it, or if you are changing gears and don't care what the cards are, or if you always play these hands whenever they are dealt, or if you randomly raise every 17th hand, or...

Force them to figure it out, and they may guess wrong.

-eric

[eviljeff]

isn't this the idea behind the granny mae?

[ErrantNight]

doing this with ONLY 9To almost defeats the purpose... and misses the point to some degree...

varying the cards is important.

what he seems to be getting at... what DERB may be extremely proficient at... and what "Shania" is talking about... is game theory. advanced game theory. it's touched on in the 2+2 books... primarily with discussion of bluffing frequency.

fwiw, i think that opponents who may (or may actually) play with blinders on are still not immune to noticing terribly obvious things... like extremely aggressive play... like making terrible river showdowns... and i think that a complete lack of capacity to read hands or boards or remember players should be confused with that

[Lestat]

When I see someone with otherwise reasonable stats make the plays you describe, I dismiss it. So I think you need to include a few more hands. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[PokerCad]

I don't think this play is effective on-line as I agree most players are just not paying this close attention. However live, it can be effective as an example, this last weekend at Resorts, East Chicago, I was playing in the 20-40 game, not being a regular and having an apparant table image of TAG I was getiing no action on most of my PFR's, to mix it up I started raising 2-3O/S first 2 no shows stole pot, the third time I raised and was re-raised, I called and saw a flop of AK2, I bet, raise, call turn rag I check/call River 2, I bet raise I re-raise, villian had AK. I realize I got lucky winning the hand but for the rest of the night that hand stood out around the whole table and loosened up the play towards me while allowing me to play my regular TAG style for a profitable session. So was the play expert? I dunno, was it dumb luck? I dunno, I am still learning from many of the better players in this forum. Just thought I would outline a situation where I believe this move was very effective.

Jeff [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]