Thinking about Shania progression.

[Grisgra]

I have an exceedingly difficult time thinking about Shania, table image, what-have-you. I think I have a decent feel for it, given that I'm not spewing large amounts of cash at 10/20 and 20/40, but it's very difficult for me to put it into words.

The obvious danger in any discussions about Shania is that almost any action at the table can be defended/rationalized as having a good effect on it. "I raised in the hijack with 75s and 3-bet the river but lost to a better 2-pair, but because I showed it down . . ." the implication being that somewhere in that ellipsis is an obvious positive effect on your Shania if you play your hands right in the future. Something to keep in mind.

There are simple Shania effects that are easy to put into words, because they are fairly straightforward: when you 3-bet in your BB after an SB open-raise, and show down a marginal hand, even if you lose, the guy in the SB is less likely to want to get into wars with you out-of-position with crap, because he knows you can't be pushed around.

But deeper than that . . . I have a tough time. Nonetheless, I've been thinking about my recent 20/40 experience, and my recent successful sessions have all gone like this:

1) Play tight postflop, fold to turn raises, etc. with marginal hands. (Most don't do this, I think -- I don't mean most 2+2'ers, just most 20/40 players, as they are immediately massively skeptical of aggression at that level, and rightfully so.)

2) Continue to play tight, raising when I think I'm ahead. I have the sense that people at this point think I'm easy to push around, as I've folded to aggression in the recent past, and I make up some $$ I *might* have lost earlier by folding. So I get bluffed at a little more than usual. They also -- and this is important -- think, I believe, that my aggression at this stage is to some degree tilt-induced, that I'm tired of getting pushed around and am 3-betting them with Q-high, just to show 'em who's boss.

3) I now have a rep of a possibly scared player (at least compared to the average 20/40 guy) that only plays back at folks with the nuts -- or at least top pair. In come the semibluffs, the flop checkraises on ragged boards when I'm defending my BB against a button or CO steal, etc. In other words, now, and only now, do I loosen up postflop and start LAGGING it up more.

4) Even if I get caught in a bluff at this point, my opponents now understand that I'm definitely mixing up my game all over the place, and I get the sense that they aren't big on getting into wars with me with marginal stuff until they can figure out how to re-pigeonhole me.


Now, this "gameplan", so to speak, hasn't been even much of a conscious decision on my part, and to be honest, I can't even say that if I went through my hand histories for my last few sessions that I'd even detect it. In other words, this all might just be the equivalent of looking at a cloud and thinking it looks like a pony or a skyscraper or Osama bin Laden. Also, even if this is 'real', it may not be optimal, even though I've presented it as some sort of genius masterplan.

As rory is wont to say, maybe I'm just rambling here. But I wanted to bring up the subject, get people thinking about (and posting) some Shania-progressions of their own.

For instance, I'd love to have someone describe the start-out-as-major-LAG progression. I think I've done it once or twice, not on purpose, but in general it's tough to outLAG the 20/40 players. On less aggressive tables, perhaps at some of the 10/20 or 5/10 tables, maybe it'd work better. Or maybe it works just fine at 20/40 and that's why there are so many 50/30 players there [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

EDIT -- needless to say, I think that many opponents at 10/20 and above pay enough attention to my play that such a progression is possible. Especially at 20/40, especially becacuse I lean towards tables with 4-5 players, and am not in a rush to leave if it goes 2-3 handed. Only way to learn, right? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe I'm just rambling here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Allman brother would be proud. Rambling posts are my favorite kind because they make us think about our approach to the game. Implementing these approaches is often academic once we decide what we want to accomplish in a given situation or family of situations. From thinking about and responding to posts like this we can learn to fish. When we get responses on how we played a specific hand, we have been given a fish even if we learn something from it.

If your tyical opponents are competent, thinking, observant, and adjusting players then I think your list is just about perfect. (Maybe they are at 20/40. I doubt if they are at 10/20. And I know they are not at 5/10.) My suspicion is that in the vast majority of games you could take a hatchet and chop off the bottom of your list right after 2). I would speculate that you get very little if any gain from the rest of the page against the overwhelming majority of your opponents. If you do indentify one that is competent, thinking, observant, and adjusting, then you can dust off 3) and 4) once in while just against him.

The typical opponent won't want to get involved in a hand with you anyway--that is unless he has a pair, or King high, or a gutshot, or a 3-flush, or an overcard. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Surfbullet]

Hey Grisgra,

It's good to be thinking about shania. It sounds like you have at least a general grasp of what yours is at this point.

It can be dangerous to be oblivious to one's shania as well. Part of my losses when I first moved up to 10/20 was due to not understanding the effect my shania had on my opponents. I opened up to a 30/22, very aggressive game, stealing with almost anything from the button/SB, and pretty much playing raise or fold poker postflop with made hands. However, I didn't adjust my folding standards very well.

So, the fact that I was raising stuff like T7o/J4o on the button first in coupled with the fact that I had no qualms about raising a flop donkbet with middle pair made me look something of...well...a manaic. I would have people bet-3betting me on the turn with A-hi. Others would 4bet me on the flop with an underpair(55-66) on a board like J87.

I was completely oblivious to this, and continued to fold made hands as though my opponents were treating me as a sane player, which they weren't. My shania was working - I was generating excess action from all sorts of hands, but it got me pushed around because I didn't realize the affect it was truly having.

Now, that doesn't seem to be a style of play that suits me well, so I've tightened up a bit. I still get that image sometimes, mainly on loose re-steals, but I pay more attention to what I've been showing down and what my opponents think of me.

I haven't begun to alter my play significantly in response to my opponents' adjustments - mainly because I don't see them adjusting too much. Mainly it just involves tightening up on re-steals and flop c/r's for awhile until I've shown down some quality hands.

Surf

[cartman]

I apologize for my ignorance, but is a "re-steal" when you are heads up against a steal raiser and you try to take it away from him on with a flop CR and a turn bet?

Or is it when you 3-bet preflop against a steal raiser?

If none of the above, then what is the definition of "re-steal"?

Thanks,
Cartman

[Surfbullet]

A re-steal to me:

Villain(usually aggressive, steals too much) open-raises CO/btn/SB. I 3bet light, knowing that his hand range is so wide that even if I'm only slightly ahead (or slightly behind) he will fold often on the flop without improving so it will be profitable.

Examples of re-steals:
30/20 openraises in sb. I 3bet with Q4s in BB. He will raise any 2 here. If he caps lightly this isn't a good idea. If he knows i'm tight it's a good one.

45/15 opens on the button. I 3bet from SB with A6s.

It's basically just blind defense where a 3bet pf is used to keep opponent in line postflop.

Surf

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
If your tyical opponents are competent, thinking, observant, and adjusting players then I think your list is just about perfect. (Maybe they are at 20/40. I doubt if they are at 10/20. And I know they are not at 5/10.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to disagree with you here on 5/10 players. I'm not saying that they are competant, thinking, observant, and adjusting -- but I think that most players intuitively (i.e., without plan) adjust in small ways to your table image / table tempo / session happenings. They're not consciously thinking "he 3-bet the flop in that one hand with second pair and a BD draw, so I will duly note that his flop aggression is not as trustworthy an indicator of hand strength as I might think"; but I do think that showing down a few junky hands tends to increase action from marginal hands and/or increase the incidence of call downs that are close; and I do think that lots of folding by you will generate excessive fear of your raises and general aggression and/or greater attempts to push you off hands.

But I may be in the minority here as a felt a decent percentage of players at lower levels behaved (again, subconsciously) like this and few others seem to believe so.

[cartman]

I don't think we are in disagreement at all. You are talking about adjustments in aggression out of our opponents. I think that falls under Grisgra's 2). I was referring to 3) and 4) in which he his opponents must be willing to fold in order for him to be successful. The only point on which I think we disagree is the part about us folding a lot "generating excessive fear of our raises". On that point I stand by my opinion that the typical opponent will virtually never fold any draw, overcards, any pair or even an Ace, regardless of how often we have been folding. The part about "(generating) general aggression and/or greater attempts to push you off hands" I agree with whole-heartedly.

Cartman

[housenuts]

i'm in the dark...

what is Shania?

[Catt]

Maybe we don't disagree much - I didn't read it (the original and your reply) carefully enough, I don't think. But I was trying to say that what I'm talking about is perhaps a blend of 2 + 3 -- that there is some marginal increase in the utility to certain plays that require a willingness to fold some % of the time on the part of our opponents to be +EV (but do not require an absolute willingness to fold - i.e. semibluffs, for example). And I'm still trying to find the pool of guys that never fold an Ace [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] - I find some, but not enough for me to go along with the "not folding" part on that hand.

[Catt]

Shania