2 100/200 blind war hands

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if one of the best ways to adjust to ultra-agressive games is simply to almost never bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not never, but I've experimented recently with bluffing/semibluffing very infrequently, and it's gotten pretty good results. My opponents (especially the looser ones) make huge mistakes from a game-theory perspective since the hands i attack with nearly always have a pair, or a large # of outs.

As another side of this my flop aggression has gone through the roof...i'm either jamming or folding to save bets for jamming. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If my opponent looks to be adjusting and folding more i'll add in more bluffs.

Surf

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
personally i will play the 54o and not the Q4o usually, but would prefer K3o to 43o.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate perpetuating these pointless pre flop discussions, but Q4o>54o. Plug it into pokerstove and you'll see that Q4o has a 3.0% equity advantage vs. a 45% steal range. Q2o has a 2.2% advantage over 54o.

[ QUOTE ]
equity (%)
62.5% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J6s+, T6s+, 96s+, 86s+, 76s, A2o+, K6o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T8o+, 98o }
37.5% { Q4o }


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
equity (%)
65.5%{ 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J6s+, T6s+, 96s+, 86s+, 76s, A2o+, K6o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T8o+, 98o }
34.5% { 54o }

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
equity (%)
63.3% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J6s+, T6s+, 96s+, 86s+, 76s, A2o+, K6o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T8o+, 98o }
36.7% { Q2o }

[/ QUOTE ]

[etizzle]

if you had asked me which was better hot and cold, i would have said Q4o. It is close enough though IMO that increased semibluffing oppurtunities will mean more money for 45o in the long run.

When you win with 45o you will tend to win more money than with the Q4o. The SB is much more likely to payoff with A or Khigh on a 34782 board then QT235 IMO.

all in all, i'm not too sure about this one.

[Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Turn A putting a 2 flush up there, he bets I raise again (planning to follow through on the river of course)


[/ QUOTE ]
I get the first part of this sentence but not the second part. Would care to expand on it a little bit?
I don't play higher than 10/20 so I might be missing something.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Turn A putting a 2 flush up there, he bets I raise again (planning to follow through on the river of course)


[/ QUOTE ]
I get the first part of this sentence but not the second part. Would care to expand on it a little bit?
I don't play higher than 10/20 so I might be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he has the ace he's representing, I have 8 high and I want the pot. Maybe he calls the turn with a small/med pair and finally believes me when I bet the river. My perception is in the higher games you have to make more 'uncomfortable' follow through bets because players are better hand readers and you need to do anything you can to convince them you have what you're representing as well as make them know that when you raise the turn they have to call 2 bets to see your hand and that you're not just a guy who raises for 'free' showdowns a lot. Players that raise the turn and check behind on the river a decent amount are much easier to play against.

Does that clear it up?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he has the ace he's representing, I have 8 high and I want the pot. Maybe he calls the turn with a small/med pair and finally believes me when I bet the river. My perception is in the higher games you have to make more 'uncomfortable' follow through bets because players are better hand readers and you need to do anything you can to convince them you have what you're representing as well as make them know that when you raise the turn they have to call 2 bets to see your hand and that you're not just a guy who raises for 'free' showdowns a lot. Players that raise the turn and check behind on the river a decent amount are much easier to play against.

[/ QUOTE ]

BK,

I've played up to 30/60 (never higher) and what you're saying makes sense. If we let people push us around, our future at that particular table is pretty grim. However, I think we tend to value our own image a lot more than our opponents do. That's part of the ego-centrical poker world in which we play.

Isn't the biggest reason those follow through bets are 'uncomfortable' due to their limited success? Once we get called on the turn, we pretty much know we're grasping for straws on the river, and hate to invest all of that money only to fail at showdown.

I understand that if we freeze the action on the river and look at that bet separately, we only need the villain to fold 1 in every 9 times to make the bet worthwhile. But what about all of the compounded -EV bets that led us there? Is it worth planning things like this out from the start of the hand (by saying "this will be my 'move' hand if I miss"), or is this just a result of being backed into a corner by several failed attempts?

[bicyclekick]

On the flop I have 4 outs to the nuts, and 6 additional pair outs that have a pretty good chance IMO of being good. I also have position and I attempted to use it to steal the innitiative from him and be the one winning when we both miss instead of the other way around. Even if he has me beat, I often have plenty of outs. Sometimes I'm wayyyyyyy behind. That's just worrying too much though.

About the river play, yes, I think it's just a result of being backed into the corner to make the bet. If I knew it was going to take this much resistance I wouldn't have raised the flop.

[Nietzsche]

I see what you are saying. I guess there are more free showdown plays at those limits than at 10/20 and even the bad players are aware of that making it necessary to follow through more. It is an expensive move though and looked at in a vacuum I doubt it is +EV. On the other hand you WILL get paid off handsomely in the future at this table if this hand gets to showdown [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I also imagine considerations/shania play a much bigger role at 100/200 since the pool of players is a lot more limited than at 10/20 and so you guys run into each other a lot more.