Critique my "Betting Patterns" article

[laja]

Just threw the rough draft up on the webpage and wanted some input from you guys [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

http://www.pokermentor.net/hpm_betting_patterns.html

sorry if it is a little hard to read at first, after some thinking I thought it was the simplest way to do it

Usually poker articles talk in the abstract but I thought it might be interesting to write something very concrete. What do you guys think of it, how do you think I should adjust it? Add/subtract anything?
thanks

[Jeff W]

Interesting article. I don't agree with everything, but well worth reading.

[Guruman]

While I like the idea of having a concrete way to play some of these hands I do not think that the concept is very practical.

The reason is that even though you've been very detailed with regards to kickers and position, you've not mentioned several other factors that can turn these plays from money winners to money losers.

First and foremost is the number of people in the hand, and the number of people left to act. If you've made a habit out of betting T2o on a board of 89Ts into a field of 8 people, you're gonna lose more than your fair share.

Also unaccounted for are hidden outs, table image, coordinatedness of the board, stack sizes, and whether an opponent is tilting.

In the end, I think that good winning poker is just too complex to sum up in a neat little article like the one you've attempted. Your advise would work pretty well at passive tables, but it probably won't win you the maximum every time you sit down - even if you do account for all of the "use judgement" circumstances.

[sabre170]

You asked for a critique. Be careful what you ask for!

What game are you writing about? I'm guessing limit hold 'em. You shouldn't make me guess.

Why go to the trouble of defining "Bull" and "Paper Tiger" and then not use these terms in the article?

[laja]

"Why go to the trouble of defining "Bull" and "Paper Tiger" and then not use these terms in the article? "

great question This actually started with some realizations about poker and the underlying patterns in it. Me and Jeff W. were planning on creating a bot but were to lazy to follow through with it. He wanted to do no limit and abuse tripping on pocket pairs,but I thought that I could sum up limit much easier. That is how I came up with bull and paper tiger. The bot would basically be just 3 modes like this, and saying when one mode should transform into another. The third mode which I did not add in would be when you are on a draw. But you can easily see the transition from "Bull" to "Paper Tiger" as follows: the most substance in writing the bot would be defining the power of each hand and telling the bot when to go from bull mode to paper tiger in which 1 extra more bet would change from calling down to foldoing, I don't want to get into it too much but thought I would explain some. So in reality they did not have much use in the article, more just to show that poker is relatively simple even though many players like to over complixify it^^.

"First and foremost is the number of people in the hand, and the number of people left to act. If you've made a habit out of betting T2o on a board of 89Ts into a field of 8 people, you're gonna lose more than your fair share."

even though the situations you bring up are not very common in the entirety of poker and a "bot" would not lose to much by betting a single small bet into that 8/9/10 However, it is good to bring up but that is where real poker skill and knowledge comes into play. Or rather... common sense.

"Also unaccounted for are hidden outs, table image, coordinatedness of the board, stack sizes, and whether an opponent is tilting. "

This is for multi-tabling behemoths only [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I would rather play fundamentally perfect on 8-12 using any extra energy to do the above things you say, than play 3 tables and tweak, min/max everything perfectly. My way is also much more conducive to not tilting and maintaining discipline which I believe is also worth a ton more than the above stated. But anyway, the article was not to solve poker but rather give a solid foundation for players to start from.

[Lawrence Ng]

Hi Mentor,

I read most of your articles as I believe it is great literature for the multi tablers who have extremely little time to think when 4 - 12 tabling limit games, so your guides are wonderful help.

I think one of the key differences to developing the betting pattern is to seriously note the level of post-flop aggression on the table and this can be tough to do while 8 to 12 tabling.

Of course, mods like GT+ and PV really help with this. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I think if you change your article any further it will get lose its focus to become what it is - a multi-table strategy oriented post flop play guide.

Lawrence

[pzhon]

Here are a few things I felt were missing. It's natural to omit some of them, but you may want to say what you are leaving out.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] What is the size of the pot?

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] What was the preflop action?

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] What is the texture of the board? How likely is it that others hit the flop, or have a draw, or already have a flush or a straight?

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] What is your plan for made hands that are weaker than top pair, e.g., A7 on a 973 flop?

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] What do you do with hands that have combined made strength and drawing strength, e.g., AK unimproved on a rag flop?

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] When would you ever check-raise?

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] When would it be right to slow-play?

I also don't know what you mean by two pair weak kicker versus two pair strong kicker. To a novice, it may sound like you are advocating playing 22 strongly on a board of ATT, but not playing KQ as aggressively on a board of KQ2.

I would prefer to see the betting patterns with made hands graded by levels of aggression, not the rank of the made hand. You might describe which levels might correspond to which hands in some situations, and how you might change the levels of aggression depending on the turn and river. For example, if you flop a straight you can be very aggressive, but you should slow down if the turn completes a flush draw and pairs the board or makes a higher straight likely.

[laja]

Thanks for the quality reviews so far, was afraid was either going to get BS or flamed lol

exactly, Lawrence Ng [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

"I would prefer to see the betting patterns with made hands graded by levels of aggression, not the rank of the made hand. You might describe which levels might correspond to which hands in some situations, and how you might change the levels of aggression depending on the turn and river. For example, if you flop a straight you can be very aggressive, but you should slow down if the turn completes a flush draw and pairs the board or makes a higher straight likely. "

shouldn't the level of aggression be directly proportional to the rank of the made hand? Are what you are trying to say is that I should take more consideration into how scary the board is? sorry I do not quite understand

"I also don't know what you mean by two pair weak kicker versus two pair strong kicker. To a novice, it may sound like you are advocating playing 22 strongly on a board of ATT, but not playing KQ as aggressively on a board of KQ2."

good point, I should clarify that

"What is your plan for made hands that are weaker than top pair, e.g., A7 on a 973 flop?"

I did cop out on this a good deal it comprises some of the hardest poker decisions, but I plan to still write it

"When would you ever check-raise?"

good idea, even though it is a little complex I think I can simplify it some. Also I believe I will add to check-raise with good draws with many players in.

thanks for all the input, keep it coming!

[laja]

exactly