Levels of thinking both micro and macro (lc)

[ericlambi]

Will I be amazed by how much money I lose, or by what crappy-ass hands call me?

[amoeba]

[ QUOTE ]
Will I be amazed by how much money I lose, or by what crappy-ass hands call me?

[/ QUOTE ]

hey eri, sorry about that AK vs A5h hand the other day. I was a bit tilty.

[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]
Very nice post and I agree with it in general (hell, I don't think you really said anything anyone can disagree with). But this particular example, I'm not sure how often it happens at NL50 and NL100. In my recollection, very few people would raise here with 77 because they notice that you are very aggressive. In my recollection, they would call if they doubted you had an overpair, not raise. In fact, that is true at NL400 and NL600 too. Very rarely do I see people raising and then showing down hands like 77 here. But I see them calling and showing down 77 all the time when the preflop raiser gives up on his AK. It usually checks down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Play Pokerroom $50 and $100 NL. They RAISE continuation bets, and MINRAISE them at that [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] I still don't know what to do when that happens

[ QUOTE ]
Play Pokerroom $50 and $100 NL. They RAISE continuation bets, and MINRAISE them at that [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] I still don't know what to do when that happens

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't fire a CB so frequently so it stops looking like a CB? If they keep getting called/raised then they obviously aren't working so tighten up post flop. fire just enough that you think you will get this action when you have the nuts. seems pretty fundamental to me.

[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Play Pokerroom $50 and $100 NL. They RAISE continuation bets, and MINRAISE them at that [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] I still don't know what to do when that happens

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't fire a CB so frequently so it stops looking like a CB? If they keep getting called/raised then they obviously aren't working so tighten up post flop. fire just enough that you think you will get this action when you have the nuts. seems pretty fundamental to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The frequency is almost non-existent. Players here aren't deciding that you are continuation betting based on how often you bet(I didn't say they were good), some players just figure you're stealing when checked to or you follow up a preflop raise with a bet. These players take a while to identify and have caused me to lose money before I dropped down to only 3 tables and started taking notes. I don't want to hijack this good thread tho.

[BlackRain]

I am a 100 and 200 NL player and for the most part I only use type 1 and type 2. I only use type 3 and type 4 when I am in a pot with a solid player, but one who I know to be tricky. These players are very rare from my experience at these two levels. Therefore I think only type 1 and type 2 are necessary.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a 100 and 200 NL player and for the most part I only use type 1 and type 2. I only use type 3 and type 4 when I am in a pot with a solid player, but one who I know to be tricky. These players are very rare from my experience at these two levels. Therefore I think only type 1 and type 2 are necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you have never bluffed?

[PinkSteel]

Great post; my most recent play shift near the end. First I'm going to agree with you in lots of words....

Sklansky's TOP chapter on game theory isn't just about river value bets vs. bluffs. I think after level 2 thinking, straight game theory and probabalistic play take over on every street.

The recent talk is about continuation bets. If you *always* continuation bet on the flop, that may be decent play against a non-thinking opponent. But any thinking villain is going to catch on and try to snap you off. So what do you do? Well, first, you go through level 1 and 2 thinking, evaluating preflop play and putting your opponent on a range.

But on the flop, precisely in accordance with game theory, you have to mix up your play to play optimally. So you check occasionally, either with best hand (seldom) or nothing (more often). When you check, you sometimes check/call, perhaps more often check/raise.

The key is seeing that, even after level 1 and 2 thinking, there will nearly always be an optimal mixture of plays, not a 100% best play all the time. Obviously the percentage distribution changes, and obviously in some situations there is a slam dunk best play all the time. But the continuation bet example is, I think, a good one for demonstrating how important a mixture is for max EV.

Along the lines you mentioned, I see more and more players -- at $25NL -- playing tight and apparently set-mining. So in late position, I've been playing more connectors, suited or non. Fewer people pay off flushes big, but straights are a gold mine; no one ever gives you credit for the flopped straight, especially if you're playing a 1-gapper. So I'm looser in late position, and if I don't catch something on the flop that can beat a set or draw to such, I release to aggression. It's elephant hunting -- the hits are seldom, but they're big scores every time, and I think more than make up for the lost limps.

[DrGonzo]

Very good post!

This is exactly what I and probably a lot of other itermediate players are struggling with.

When you first start out playing, you have no real idea of the relative value of a hand in different situations. As you progress, you learn the value of position, the value of different starting hands and the value of different made hands for different boards. You also learn to watch your opponents and adjust the rating of your hand based on how loose/tight/passive/aggressive your opponent is. Now, you can win some money, mostly from bad LAGs at the lower levels.

When you have learned that, I think many players get stuck. The next step(s) in expanding your poker knowledge seems to be much more diffuse and hard to find. Most of us have probably read about the levels of thinking that you talk about and understood them. I think that the majority of the players here at the forum find it very difficult to implement these ideas beyond the basic levels of thinking though.

I find that trying to identify an opponents level of thinking in different hands and applying higher levels of thinking often gets me frustrated and then I revert back to just 'waiting for good hands to play against LAGS and bluffing the tight players'.

Being more used to playing Sit-n-Go tournaments I also have a hard time identifying when and how to shift strategy based on how your opponents image of you shifts during the game. I understand that this is paramount for being a succesfull cash game player.

So, I know about and understand these theories, but find it difficult to apply them. You gave one example in your original post. It would be really great if you or any other experienced player could give some more examples of how to apply higher level thinking or how to shift strategy. I'm not talking about your most ingenious plays here. Which were the very first situations that you identified where you could use these ideas efficiently back when you were struggling to move from the basic 'value bet the loose players and bluff the tight players' strategy? Also, did you do anything special to overcome the obstacles of keeping learning at this stage?

[ QUOTE ]
Very nice post and I agree with it in general (hell, I don't think you really said anything anyone can disagree with). But this particular example, I'm not sure how often it happens at NL50 and NL100. In my recollection, very few people would raise here with 77 because they notice that you are very aggressive. In my recollection, they would call if they doubted you had an overpair, not raise. In fact, that is true at NL400 and NL600 too. Very rarely do I see people raising and then showing down hands like 77 here. But I see them calling and showing down 77 all the time when the preflop raiser gives up on his AK. It usually checks down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I play mostly 50 and 100 right now. I find that I rarely get raised in th scenario presented above-a call is much more likely. However, some players will check/raise with the 77 or 88 on a board like that.