|
Yeah, exactly. You can make a correct read that the guy is strong, but the weaker the player is, the less reliable the tell is. I've seen players giving off obvious strength tells with trips on a four-flush board. Granted, when you're dealing with players like that, the real challenge isn't getting their money; it's getting it before someone else does.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
In spite of the higher edge, live play basically is gambling in several orders of magnitude more then online play simply because you can get a year's worth of live hands online in a week. I think the way higher edge trumped by the way higher variance. I'm really starting to think that you should have at least 50 buy ins for live play. Last year I ran 4k below eq at live 1/2. Getting it in with 85% hands again and again and losing. But in total for the year I played around only 2000 live 1/2 hands just going going once or twice a month. That's about the same amount of hands I get in 3/4 hours on stars with 6 non-zoom tables. 20 bi downswings are common and people shouldn't think that it can happen to them just because they're playing live and the other players play in an obvious way. So Alterac. You shoulda snap got it in with QQ there. But I suspect you don't have 15k For 2/3 in just disposable income to use as a bank roll. So you can't play properly. AARO fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
olin posted:In spite of the higher edge, live play basically is gambling in several orders of magnitude more then online play simply because you can get a year's worth of live hands online in a week. I think the way higher edge trumped by the way higher variance. How do you know how far below EV you ran live? Also the variance isn't higher the sample size is just smaller but I think that's just semantics. I'm sure some people have had downswings of 20 buyins before but I would seriously analyze my game if that happened rather than chalking it up to bad luck because the odds are really low of that big a downswing while playing well. Also I think 20-30 buy ins should be fine for live play, and less if you are just taking a shot at a higher stake. 50 seems like way too much. I don't think you need a $10,000 bankroll to play $1/$2 NLHE profitably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
I tarcked my games with an app and used pokerstove at home. The game here is 1/2 but no buy in limit with $600 stacks being the average and usually at least one guy having 1500/2k. It doesn't take all that many hands to run 4k under in these games. And I think that that's just a common fallacy. If you're actually running under EV then that means that what you did was correct. If I was presented with the situations again I would make the same decisions and over the long term I would profitable because of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
I mean if you can prove that you're running under EV and your EV is a good winning EV then yeah you shouldn't change. I just don't keep track of every hand live so I could never prove if I am running good or not. I find it best to analyze my game in the midst of a downswing because it focuses my play rather than potentially allowing me to tilt off even more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
olin posted:In spite of the higher edge, live play basically is gambling in several orders of magnitude more then online play simply because you can get a year's worth of live hands online in a week. I think the way higher edge trumped by the way higher variance. Thing is though your winrate is so much higher live than it is online that you're equally likely to profit over X hands live as you are to profit over X*Y hands online. 20 BI swings are actually exceedingly rare at low stakes live. You likely have some pretty major live leaks that you are overlooking because you recognize a few spots where you did get unlucky and are using them to explain everything else. And having a bankroll for 1/2 is absurd. Because you are not going to move down if you bust, you're not living off the money (I hope), you don't need to go through a bunch of BS or pay a vig to redeposit, and if going busto means you can't save up another few hundred from your job to play again you probably can't afford to play poker at all. Also a proper online bankroll can be as low as $60, you can feasibly practice BRM while playing the lowest stakes for cheap. Suggesting someone procure $5k just to begin playing live is crazy. The minimum you need to play low stakes live IMO is 2.5 full buyins, which is what you should have on you when you play: a spare buyin so you're not nervous about losing the first one and then some extra to top up your stack. If someone is capable of beating 1/2 for $15 an hour why does he have to save up $4500 before playing when he can start with $500? If anything saving up a bankroll is kind of destructive because you can lose more. If you're taking stabs as soon as you save up enough but you're actually a loser you're going to realize it when you have no money. Or be forced to study while you wait for your paycheque. If you save up several thousand it might take blowing all of it before it sinks in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
olin posted:I tarcked my games with an app and used pokerstove at home. oh well that's completely different. That's actually a pretty unusual game and is closer to 2/5 in terms of size. I wouldn't call $200 "1 BI" if everyone is straddling and then the minimum opening raise is $30 or something like that. But it's still not life-changing money. If you can beat that game (and it sounds very juicy), 2.5 full buys is enough. If you think your expectation is positive it makes no sense to wait until you have an arbitrary amount of money to begin playing. Bankrolls only come into play live when you are moving up to stakes where you can't save up BIs from work, or if you are playing (semi-)professionally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
your edge is so huge live that you definitely don't need a 20bi roll. your winrate will be like 33-50bb/100. online winrates are way lower and variance is higher and thus you need more buyins. bart hanson says you only need "seven super buyins"...a super buyin being a really deep one. like 7 5k buyins for 5/T, 7 10k buyins for 10/25 etc.. this is a bit excessive for me but i understand his logic since you won't be getting in a huge stack without the nuts generally. there is no way to figure out how far above/below AIEV you run unless you're writing down every allin situation and the results...this will definitely be bad for your game overall as you should just try and not think about runouts. also you already running above EV by having access to such a soft game that plays really deep. the game at about walker hill which is what i assume you're talking about is also really 2/5 not 1/2. def buy in for at least 500. also if you aren't a pro you get monthly reloads from your job so losing what you came there with isn't a big deal and you shouldn't really worry about BRM. Dr. Eat fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
The only results for Walker Hill Casino is that there is one in S Korea. I would like to know more about this casino.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
eh not much to say. the 1/2 is uncapped. standard open is 20-30 and there is an optional missippi straddle to 10. it is uncapped so it plays more like a big 2/5 in the US though there will be some $300 stacks. seen people who had definitely never played hold em before buyin 2k+ deep at 1/2. 2/5 is really big and plays bigger than 5/T at borg and foxwoods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Dr. Eat posted:bart hanson says you only need "seven super buyins"...a super buyin being a really deep one. like 7 5k buyins for 5/T, 7 10k buyins for 10/25 etc.. this is a bit excessive for me but i understand his logic since you won't be getting in a huge stack without the nuts generally. Where does he say this? I love his material & subscribe but haven't heard this one yet. Wondering if I missed a must-hear podcast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Crovie posted:Where does he say this? I love his material & subscribe but haven't heard this one yet. Wondering if I missed a must-hear podcast. that being said, 6-10k big blind pots are pretty rare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Yeah its walker hill and I'm not talking about playing Pro. But I did run into a bunch of deep stack hands last year like getting it in with a set on the flop vs a pair and end up losing to runner runner overfull. 98% eq. That was the worst one. But hand after hand like that equates to a lot of missed EV. Lost a bunch of 80/20s. I stoved my ai hands including the big hands I won, and I was 4k down last year. I didn't track every single hand but I tracked every hand over 100 bucks that I was involved in. I still play now but I realize the risk a lot more in spite of the fact that most of these people really couldn't beat 5nl. What on earth are you talking about Dr. Eat about the variance being higher online? Obviously variance is going to be decreased with a greater quantity of hands. It's not like that's a controversial view. I think you mean variance can play a bigger role due to the lower win rate. But obviously having a 50/100bb winrate isn't going to help your BR if you get sucked out on every hand for a few thousand hands. And when you're only playing a few thousand hands total this is much more likely to happen. AARO fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
Variance should be higher online because the competition should be tougher so you may have to get in more marginal spots in order to be a winning player. The sample size is certainly larger though, but overall the variance is larger. It may not seem like it because you play many more hands per hour, don't have to drive to the casino, wait for a table, etc., so the downswings (and upswings) last much longer in real time in live play vs. online play. In most live games, a good player has such a huge edge that he rarely has to make marginal decisions and is almost always a huge favorite against weak opponents. One marginal decision has much more variance than one decision where you are an overwhelming favorite and thus live play should have a lot less variance. PLO is a higher variance game than NLHE even if you play 1 million hands of PLO and only 1 thousand hands of NLHE. It's because equities are much closer and many more marginal decisions have to be made. As you mentioned, sample size has a big impact on whether or not you win or lose money, but that has nothing to do with variance. Mind_Taker fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:
The more hands you play with any particular expected winrate, the less the variance becomes in your actual winrate. The higher and higher number of hands you play, each particular trail begins to approach the expected winrate. If you run a variance simulator with a million trails, much more of them will be close to the expected winrate at after 1 million hands than after 10 thousand hands.  Please explain what you mean mind_taker if I missed it. AARO fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
I'm just talking in absolute numbers, not in proportion to your bankroll. If you play the same stakes then you are much more likely to be $10,000 below EV if you play 1 million hands as opposed to being $10,000 down over 1 thousand hands. The main thing I am arguing is your claim that you need a larger number of buy ins live vs. online which is false given that live competition is much worse than online. If there is some gambling game where you have a 99% chance of doubling your $1 into $2 with each bet are you going to need $20 to start playing? Bankroll size depends only on EV and variance (and psychological issues that don't make your play suffer, etc., but we'll ignore that for now). Lower EV and higher variance means you will need a larger bankroll. It has nothing to do with sample size. Sample size only affects how quickly you will lose your bankroll or how fast you make money, not whether or not you will go broke or make more money. EV is certainly higher in live play, and variance is lower since the equities are higher in your favor if you are a good player. This means your bankroll requirement should be much lower than online play. Mind_Taker fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Yeah you're right about needing a smaller br to play live. But your probability of losing in the same amount of time can be way higher unless you have a very high winrate. Lets say an online player can play 1000 hands an hour or 80k hands in 80 hours. In that same 80 hours the live player plays 2400 hands at 30 hands an hour. The online player wins 3BB/100 giving him a 19% probability of a loss over those 80 hours. If the live player wins at 10BB/100 he has a 31% probability of a loss over those 80 hours. If he wins at 15BB/100 his probability of a loss is still higher than the online player at 23%. However if the live guy wins at 30BB/100 than he has only a 7% probability of a loss. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
30bb/100 is not unreasonable at all for a good low-stakes live player. I'd like to say that's what I'm managing but I have a pretty shameful sample.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
I have a much larger sample size (much of which is while running pretty bad) and I've logged around 22bb/100.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
a player who wins 10-15bb/hr ($20-$30) at 1/2 is winning like 30-50bb/100...not 10bb/100. the variance simulator doesn't even work with winrates that high and will spit out like 0% Risk of Ruin. if your winrate is 10bb/100 live at 1/2 you should just flip burgers insteadquote:What on earth are you talking about Dr. Eat about the variance being higher online? Obviously variance is going to be decreased with a greater quantity of hands. It's not like that's a controversial view. just look at some sharkscopes for people who play HS hyper SnGs (someone like mouldyonions or georgelind) just to see how sick swings can be in games with small edges even after samples of thousands of games. if i'm a huge bumhunter that only plays massive fish HU online at destroy them for 18bb/100 i shouldn't have many downswings. ya i will occasionally runbad and the fish will get it in with terrible equity and suckout so i don't realize that 18bb/100 but it doesn't change how +EV playing them is and how unlikely me losing will be. obv you will encounter spots live that are way more high variance than spots you will come across online if you play really deep stack cash game or rundeep in a high buyin live MTT. that being said, your edge will usually be so big that you won't encounter too many of them. i think my worst downswing ever at live poker is like 5buyins at 2/5 500max, 4k at 2/5 1k max, and ~5.5k at uncapped 5/T which was one session where i bought in for 4k (AA < KK aipf in 900bb pot) and then lost my next 2 sessions where i bought in for 2k (all of these downswings are separate by decent timegaps btw; just happened in very different games). i used to have 4-6bi swings every time i played a session on stars 16tbling 6max. wrt to you being down ul bro. it's normal. your winrate will should still be megahigh in that game. like, last year at WSOPME someone basically final table bubbled cause they lost AK v AK aipf...dollar and luckwise this is like FT bubbling the sunday million a bunch of times. or matt affleck final table bubbling here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMHwtN_wD0Q is him running several million below AIEV factoring in sponsorships in 2010/how big a stack he'd have at WSOPME FT/etc.. does that mean that there is more variance live than online just cause there will never be that much money at stake online? which has higher variance...betting $5/hand at blackjack or $500/hand? Dr. Eat fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
Yeah I get your point. Still though as long as a math is sound on the simulations you shouldn't be playing live unless you can be around 25BB/100. In my mind it seems like that means playing weekends where you're likely 60BB/100 against the table of 7 fish and one live nit pro. Because during the week, while live pros aren't, good they could still beat 25nl or maybe 50nl. Having much more than a 10BB/100 edge against them means you're really exceptionally good.
AARO fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 11:58
|
|
|
well you're probably getting like 25-30 hands an hour when you play live...so 10bb/100 at 1/2 is only like $6/hr...if you were talking in PTBB then 20bb/100 still only like $10-15/hr. if you are winning 10bb/hr which harrington says is "crushing a game" you're at ~33bb/100 and should be the bottom of your WR at walker if you're beating nl50 online. maybe you get more hands if the dealer is fast. in deep games with good pros and stacks that are big enough where there is raise/folding/3betting/folding on rivers then i'm happy with 20 hands an hour. i remember dealers at walker being kinda slow though and there's no shuffle machines... but discussion of winrates kinda flies out the window when talking about deep games like the one at walker...i think a good hourly for a reg there is like 35-45$/hr cause it really is more like 2/5..although the rake there is so bad not even sure it's worth playing there on weekdays (i didn't). also is it true a lot of people are shortstacking there now? or that avg buyin will be like 300? heard that from a friend. edit: fwiw i encountered two people my entire time playing at walker that were actual winners online...you probably know them. also i don't think 90% of the live pros (meaning people who actually make a living off the game) i've played with at 2/5 at borgata or foxwoods could beat 50nl on stars. MAYBE 25nl. Dr. Eat fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
The problem is one of you is talking about variance in your winrate (sample size problem) and the other is talking about how much your winrate varies vs. the competition. They both follow the Law of large numbers, but you will come closer to your true winrate vs. the competition online, given enough volume. Maybe you won't exactly approximate your true winrate live (not enough hands), but you should be killing your competition. Sometimes you don't, and a losing swing live is agonizing (short-term variance). However, tougher competition is also going to increase the variance of your winrate, and this effect should be observed to be greater.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
I feel like I do fine online playing small stakes 6max games, but I always feel a bit out of place at 10 man 1-2 live tables. To illustrate, I'll walk you through a hand of mine: 10 handed. Table is mostly older businessmen who play lots of home games, but probably haven't ever read a book on poker and rarely bluff. I'm HJ+1. UTG and 3 others call. I have ATo: - Given how the table's played, I know that the players before me are calling with just about anything. If I raise, I know I'll just get a few calls behind, and a bunch of calls ahead, even if I make it something like 12x. I'll be playing a big, multiway pot, probably with a caller with better position on me, and basically have no additional information. - If I call, I'll get a few callers behind, but really have no idea where I'm at. - Folding seems pretty nitty; I likely have the best hand, can easily have folks dominated. It seems like if I fold hands like this here, I'm pretty much playing nothing but super-premium and maybe speculating on suited connectors. I call and get a couple more callers behind. Flop comes AJ2 rainbow. UTG bets 1/2 pot. It folds to me, and I call, 1 caller behind. Turn comes a 6, no flush draw. UTG bets 1/2 pot again. I call, other guy folds. River comes 8. Board is super dry. My opponent bets 1/2 pot a third time. Watching how he's played, I know he would have raised AJ+ preflop, and probably would have bet more if he had hit trips. So basically I have to worry about a random two-pair, but I suppose he could just as easily do this with a worse ace. I call, and he shows J2o... And I feel like this pretty much describes my entire trip. No matter what I do, I get a ton of callers, and get shut down by random 2 pairs or backdoor straight draws that never fold. I had KK 3 times, raised 10x, and would get 6 callers to an ace-high board where I'm blown out by the guy who kept A3o for no particular reason. What can I really do to get an edge at table like this? Only play suited connectors and pocket pairs? Only stay in hands with the nuts and hope to get paid? It seems like I'll get blinded out before I get anywhere with that, but maybe I've just had bad luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
kill yourself preflop, as played fold on every street edit: ok maaaaaybe raise/fold on the flop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
move up in stakes where they'll respect your raises.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
UTG bets 3 streets, first street into a million players, and is described as an old man? Fold turn. If people are really limping J2o preflop, raise pre. But be careful there isn't actually a tight player limping, since they will limp AK UTG and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:kill yourself preflop, as played fold on every street Ranma posted:UTG bets 3 streets, first street into a million players, and is described as an old man? Fold turn. quote:If people are really limping J2o preflop, raise pre.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
I'd probably limp ATo there in a 1/2 game too as people will limp a lot worse and raising just folds out all the hands you dominate which will call postflop. Yeah T5 might call and the flop might come T52 but the money you lose that rare time (and really you might have a read on vil that lets you get away) is going to be outweighed by the far more common scenario where he just hits top pair and can't fold because it's top pair. That said if villain takes this exact line with all weaker Ax as well as random 2p then calling down is correct but we don't feel too good about it, although I doubt it and agree folding turn is probably correct. Dollar amounts are more relevant than % of pot size, $50 into $100 is a lot stronger than $20 into $40 for example. it's just how live players are. Set mining is going to be super profitable in games like that so keep doing that. suited connectors no -- you can't semibluff, you're just trying to hit and most of the time you hit it's a non-nut hand (weaker flush, weaker trips). but for that reason suited aces are probably good -- you stack worse 2p, worse trips, worse flushes, which villains will actually show up with because they are calling everything. In those sorts of games I narrow my raising range and widen my limping range in position, and then if I hit top pair or whatever just valuebet valuebet valuebet. This is very easy to do in position because people are often kinda polarized when they check -- if the board is like J54hh and 6 people check to me on the button I know JT is good there unless someone has 2p+ because Jx is just going to lead out to protect against overcards/flushes (and heck some nutty hands will too, people piss themselves when there is a flush draw). So I'd bet pot or something to get value from hearts, medium pps and 76 and then bet again most turns. And then I can just fold to a c/r from most villains. When in doubt, valuebet anyway, value owning yourself is not as big a mistake as missing a valuebet. A ton of your edge at low stakes is from valuebetting better than everyone else because nobody else knows how. I don't play a whole lot of 1/2 (usually 2/5) so maybe I'm doing everything wrong  quote:So again, does this mean I just open suited connectors and pocket pairs and hope to hit a monster, or what? It seems like even if I open AK UTG+1 for 10x, I'm guaranteed 5+ callers making my equity irrelevant and my hand impossible to play. What's your base preflop strategy at a table like this? keep opening AK UTG+1 for 10x get stacks in & win 100bb if you hit lose 10bb if you miss seems simple 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Yeah, okay, it sounds like I'm mostly in tune with the general plan then. I think I mostly just got bad luck this trip. I got called down by a guy who needed runner runner for a flush when I had top 2 pair, got blown out with my QQ on AQ5 board against AA, and had to give up on an ace high board w/ KK 3 times out of ~400 hands. I wasn't feeling great about calling it down with ATo, but like I said, I had just seen this player do the exact same thing with worse so I can't imagine it was too wrong. It was just one of those sessions where it felt like they always had it when I called and never had it when I folded. Thanks for the advice!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
If you're playing TPWK that passively then you're basically asking someone to draw out on you. Someone posted facetiously that you have to move up where they respect your raises, then you posted seriously that it doesn't matter what you raise with, they're coming along. That's exploitable. Exploit it. Don't check/call all night with ATo. edit: Calling is frequently your second best option between raising and folding. Don't let it become your default action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
If youre getting 5 callers at 10x pre just make it 15-20x or however big it needs to be pre to get HU. You'll be in pos with a decentishly good hand and tons of options based on who called you etc. Folding AT in pos facing 3 fish limps is absurd. You were at a great table.
AARO fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
tbf, the hand would be really badly played if it happened online too (at any stake). 3 limps, limp behind AT, and call down 3 streets TPWK after utg leads into like 7 people on Axx? this has nothing to do with live "1/2 10handed" and is just bad poker period. i would raise this pre always and i guess fold the turn as played. maybe the flop if he's old. he every set in his range except AA. also AJ/AQ/AK is in there. edit: i think limping this behind pre is a mistake there are reverse implied odds and our hand doesn't have much potential to make the nuts/win a big pot. if we can't fold top pair it's even more of a fold. Dr. Eat fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
You see a lot of live 1/2 games that play like this. ATo is really an annoying hand at tables like this, because it plays like poo poo multiway. I'll limp (or raise) with a suited ace with any number of limpers, but if you're limping ATo, you're really looking to hit two pair to be able to play the hand confidently against a large field. You say large raises aren't limiting the field much. That's pretty normal at 1/2 live. Often, though, people are just calling to see a flop, and you can take down a large percentage of pots with a smallish c-bet. You should test the table to see if that's the case when you get a loose-passive draw like this. If they will call to see a flop but tighten up after when they miss, raising big and c-betting them out is still effective. Sometimes they default call the flop and fold to a barrel on the turn. (I see this a lot.) If they stick around with anything, then just raise for value and be patient. If they're pure calling stations, then just value bet them to death when you have it and fold when you don't. It's fine to never bluff at a table of fish like that, because bluffing is a deceptive measure and deception doesn't do you any good if the other players are oblivious to it. Playing with a lot of stations can make poker feel like bingo while you wait to outflop them, but extraction is so ridiculously easy that you'll profit huge over the long run if you're not botching things. At tables like this, I raise small (online sizes like 3.5x) even behind limpers with suited connectors, pocket pairs, one-gappers, and hands I feel like speculating with. They're never folding, so you'll seed a pot and make people want to get involved at a time where you have good implied odds. If you miss, it's an easy fold. If you hit, the pot size on the flop will almost always get you some action. There are the kinds of tables where you hear people say, "There's nothing out there to fight for!" when they fold the flop. You don't want that to happen when you flop a set or a huge draw, so raise. Yes, raising small is transparent against good players. These are not those. If there's a good player at your table, he's probably not sitting there for your money any more than you're sitting there for his. Obviously, at a reggy table, you don't want to be doing this, but that's the point; deception sacrifices immediate EV in return for future EV when someone misreads you. If no one is reading you in the first place, you're sacrificing EV for no reason. Your more conventional big hands suffer from reverse implied odds multiway, so you want to raise enough that you limit the field at least somewhat and can reasonably commit early when you hit. Leaving a high SPR out there with a broadway kind of hand will kill you. If you're raising small with a lot of speculative hands, it usually trains the table to accept the smaller amount as the "normal" raise, which usually allows you to limit the field with a larger raise. Even if no one folds to 10x when you sit down, getting them acclimated to 3x can often change their perception of what a raise is. Even still, if you're getting multiple callers on big raises, you're getting low SPRs, which is ideal for big card hands when you hit. You limit their implied odds against you. Also, with a lot of loose, lovely players limping all the time, you should be limping wide behind them. Anything with some speculative value is worth a look. Don't go playing with offsuit, scattered trash, but you're getting huge implied odds if they insist on making it a 7-handed flop. It's worth noting that most old guys limping in wide in EP are not betting three streets without at least two pair. At the kind of loose-passive table you describe, I see guys like that check top pair at the river all the time. Two pair is usually the minimum for three bullets. You said you had seen him do the same with worse before. Are you sure it was all three streets with one pair, and for 1/2 pot? A common pot control play out of weak players with top pair is to bet the same amount on multiple streets because they're afraid checking looks like weakness. Did he do something like that with one pair, or did he continue to increase his bets on each street? Regardless, I would assume three streets of betting at a loose-passive tables means two-pair minimum, and you aren't ahead of many aces there, anyway. You're beating A9, A7, A5, A4, and A3. That's it. That's an ugly call. In the future, I would try training your table like I mentioned above so you don't have to try to play poo poo like ATo limped. You put yourself in an awkward guessing-game position with a mediocre hand and paid for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 09:44
|
|
|
amnesialab's advice is really bad just ignore it. you should always be adjusting your raise size relative to what people will call and how many limpers there. a constant raise size of 3.5-4x is too small relative to the pot after the pot to cause a fold. at live 1/2 game as no one is aware of stack sizes or thinks in terms of big blinds. their thought process is "whatever it is just $10 lets gambol i was betting 25 a hand on blackjack earlier" not "it's 5bb and i need to be getting 30:1 to call here so i can't with my 50bb stack." raising to small it will just lead to awkward spots postflop when you are playing 98s as the PFR vs a bunch of limps on A75r multiway. limping behind speculative trash is the most common live leak. i don't understand why bad live regs think think random suited napkins makes them money. they end up making non-nut straights, bad 2prs, or give a flush draw that is actually drawing dead. like, i think even completing in the small blind after a few limps is often a mistake but maybe i am a nit. one 2/5 hand kinda sticks out for me as proof showing this strategy is good: like 5-6 people limp, i fold 62s in the SB. some guy laughs at me and asks how it is i play every hand when i don't haven't put money in pre (i had won large pots at show down where i had iso'd with 52s and 3b A3s pre), but don't want to stick in 3 extra dollars. flop was 543 two-spades and i would've probably doubled up this guy who ended up showing down 76. i don't have large sample size or anything but i've seen way more people get felted playing lovely hands and not too many big pots won by them. amnesialab is advocating you play a non-exploitable style when but you should be just exploiting the gently caress out of fish since that is where all your money comes from. you are missing TONS of value if you don't. just raise as big you think people will call, seriously. if you have QQ+/AK and people will call $30 pre there is no reason not to make it that make much. if you are at a 1/2 game where people are making it less than $10 pre as the default raise just get up from table. even at 5/T where i 99.99% make it 4x + 1bb per every limper i'll make huge sizings for value if someone will call. i've been at 2/5-5/5 tables where opening to $40-100 was fine. online it's harder to get away with but i'll do big preflop sizings against exploitable fish if i think i'm able to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
I'm talking specifically about this sort of loose-passive calling station table. The point of small raises isn't to generate a fold; it's to build a pot with strong implied odds. You're looking for a set, straight, or flush that you can take a big multiway pot with. The entire idea is to encourage a big multiway pot when you have a hand that plays well multiway. I already said all this. As for limping behind, when you have 7 to a flop all the time and crowd full of people who will pay you off with anything, playing tight with a bunch of weak loose players at the table misses opportunities. Sure, you need to stay out of trouble with vulnerable hands, but at a table full of stations, that's pretty easy. If they raise, fold unless your hand is huge. If they bet more than two streets, they probably have it. It's easy poker. For what it's worth, even at a calling station table like that, I don't much care for completing in the small blind, either, and I consider 62s too weak to be limping even with limpers in the first place. As for your gutshot example, what's so hard? Check. I'm not wasting bullets there. If we improve, great, but we're obviously not throwing money away trying to c-bet with a weak draw in a multiway pot. If you think what I suggested is non-exploitable, I have no idea what to tell you. It's exploitable as hell and something I would never condone at a normal table. Raising small for implied odds and large for a big hand is transparent bullshit that will get you killed at not just a good table, but an average table. The way you exploit a table full of stations is by value betting them to death. That's the entire point of what I'm saying; get in as many hands with them as possible, don't waste your money bluffing, and just extract. The optimal strategy for taking money from people like this doesn't feel like poker at all, because it involves doing poo poo you can't get away with at a real table. You say to raise big when you have a big hand. That's part of what I already said. When I pull a table like this, I regularly raise 10-15x with premium hands and get action. The problem is you don't get premium hands often, and you're just letting the stations keep their money if that's all you're playing against them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
AmnesiaLab posted:I'm talking specifically about this sort of loose-passive calling station table. The point of small raises isn't to generate a fold; it's to build a pot with strong implied odds. You're looking for a set, straight, or flush that you can take a big multiway pot with. The entire idea is to encourage a big multiway pot when you have a hand that plays well multiway. I already said all this. Why would you want to build a pot with implied odds? Building a pot just shrinks your implied odds. It's probably ok to limp AT in position and trips/2p/straight-mine if nobody's going to raise and everyone has 100bb. But when you make a dumb 5bb raise with such a hand your IO shrinks from 100x to 20x and you fold out a lot of trashy hands that can potentially pay you off when you hit. How often do you see some idiot go broke with 64o because it was just $2 to play and then he flopped bottom two and couldn't fold to a 3bet on the flop? Raising pre prevents him from making that mistake. Raising for implied odds is the dumbest most backwards thing ever. There's also the LLSNL effect of smaller pots having even greater implied odds because people think in dollar amounts rather than pot size -- $20 into $14 will get called far lighter than $35 into $50. You're allowed to bet top pair for value a bazillion ways too, you just have to be able to find a fold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
AmnesiaLab posted:I'm talking specifically about this sort of loose-passive calling station table. The point of small raises isn't to generate a fold; it's to build a pot with strong implied odds. also i don't think you know what reverse implied odds means either: quote:Your more conventional big hands suffer from reverse implied odds multiway, so you want to raise enough that you limit the field at least somewhat and can reasonably commit early when you hit. Leaving a high SPR out there with a broadway kind of hand will kill you quote:You're looking for a set, straight, or flush quote:that you can take a big multiway pot with. The entire idea is to encourage a big multiway pot when you have a hand that plays well multiway. I already said all this. what about just betting/raising after you make your hand instead of before? you do realize you are just bluffing preflop with zero fold equity with these little mini-raises, right? i don't see how this can be a +EV strategy. also if there is a good player at the table he will just start 3betting you. 3betting is pretty rare at 1/2 but it's bad too develop this habit for when you play higher stakes to assume you can "train a table." even if you don't think you can, old habits are hard to break. quote:As for your gutshot example, what's so hard? Check. I'm not wasting bullets there. If we improve, great, but we're obviously not throwing money away trying to c-bet with a weak draw in a multiway pot. i iso people with all sorts of hands but it's not for the purpose of implied odds. i mean, the 52s hand i flopped quad 5s and felted someone with a boat which was nice but i just raised pre so i could play a pot HU with a fish after he limped. quote:If you think what I suggested is non-exploitable, I have no idea what to tell you. It's exploitable as hell and something I would never condone at a normal table. one hand kinda sticks out, it was my first showdown, even though i had raised or 3bet like 8/10 of the first hands i was dealt and had ran stack from 300 to 400: really deep (like >900) asian guy opens MP to 10 2callers i call T8o on button. i realized this was probably bad but w/e as my drunk self can surely outplay these donkas postflop. flop JTThh asian guy bets 20, folds to me and i raise to 80, he just rips it in there. i get worried that my ten is beat but and i tank a bit but he seemed passive enough not to raise AT/KT pre that often. i call make some comment that i think i'm good here often enough, my friend says "wow you fish with your T7off", asian guy goes "wow, you really called a raise with T7? you serious?" i say i obviously wouldn't do that lols. queen on turn he goes "i have queens" i'm sure i'm ****ed by his overplayed QQ but he has QJs. nh sir. like, he saw that i was drinking at the table really early in the morning, knew i was playing insane, and was pretty likely to call if i had some big draw (and i could easily have a T), but he still piled it in my face with top pair and BDSD that won't ever be live. this is a normal experience for me playing drunk 1/2 lol. actually people will get annoyed that i am playing like an insane fish and try to discourage me from raising. quote:The way you exploit a table full of stations is by value betting them to death. quote:That's the entire point of what I'm saying; get in as many hands with them as possible Dr. Eat fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
Crovie posted:Why would you want to build a pot with implied odds? Building a pot just shrinks your implied odds. Dr. Eat posted:this is backwards. your implied odds come from the size of someone's stack being large relative to the pot, you don't have implied odds when stack to pot ratio is low. do you think implied odds just means it's "implied" you win a larger pot? The point something like a 3BB raise with a hand that has good implied odds is to build a pot that you can feasibly get all your chips in with. If you have seven limpers, you're looking at 7BB to the flop. If you hit your hand, you're not getting your whole stack in often because of the same low stakes mentality you mentioned. You limit your implied odds by NOT raising because you can't maximize what you win by just limping. At the same time, if you raise too much, you lose your implied odds because you make the SPR too low. Dr. Eat posted:there's no RIO with big preflop hands. your hands is already made. it is likely to go down in relative strength on future streets. I wasn't talking about premium hands. I was talking about big card hands that are not made. Hands like the aforementioned ATo. You're likely to win a small pot or lose a big one. It's a terrible multiway hand, and you're almost always going to be behind if significant money goes in unless you hit broadway. I'm not making a small raise with hands like that. If I'm making a small raise, it's a small pair, suited connectors, or a one-gapper, depending on how the table is playing. If people are willing to fold in a mid-sized pot, I'll raise small wider because I have more options to take down the pot later. If the table is just calling along no matter the size of the pot, then I'll only raise small with pocket pairs and occasionally suited connectors, and make a normal raise with large suited connectors that can play for pair value. Dr. Eat posted:also if there is a good player at the table he will just start 3betting you. 3betting is pretty rare at 1/2 but it's bad too develop this habit for when you play higher stakes to assume you can "train a table." Yeah, that's why you don't do it around good players. If a good player sits down and feels like coming after you, playing like this will get you killed. But loose-passive fish don't adjust to your play. If they did, all of this would be worthless because it's so easily exploitable by a player with a brain. You seem to be confused about what I'm saying here: I am not suggesting this as a standard way to play, at all. This is how I adjust to a table full of stations, which you see a lot at my local card room. I don't play anything like this at a decent 1/2 table or a 2/5 table. But if you have one standard game you always play regardless of the table, you're missing value. Can you beat a table full of calling stations playing your standard game? Sure. But you're not going to maximize your value that way. I would say about 20% of the time I play live, I have a table where there are reasonable adjustments to make. Playing that way all the time would be bad for your game, yes. At the same time, I would love to find a card room with players so bad you could actually play like this all the time. Dr. Eat posted:ya but raising pre with pocket 4s to 7$ is not valuebetting them to death. It leads to value betting them to death when you hit. Making a normal raise with pocket pairs at a table where the "normal" raise is somewhere between 6x-8.5x (I usually see the standard raise somewhere between 12 and 17) cuts down your implied odds, especially when there are people at the table with less than full stacks, as there pretty much always are at my local card room. Limping doesn't maximize your implied odds because it's hard to get your stack in, while raising bigs hurts your implied odds just because... y'know, math. The small raise is the adjustment I came up with after I hit too many sets limping and couldn't get much in the pot. Now I almost always more than double up if I hit a set, and that alone is worth the adjustment. Extracting from calling stations is easy in a raised pot, but it's still a problem in a limped pot unless someone hit something big. If there's something in there "for them to play for" (as I hear all the time), they'll come along with a lot less. AmnesiaLab fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
AmnesiaLab posted:The point something like a 3BB raise with a hand that has good implied odds is to build a pot that you can feasibly get all your chips in with. If you have seven limpers, you're looking at 7BB to the flop. If you hit your hand, you're not getting your whole stack in often because of the same low stakes mentality you mentioned. You limit your implied odds by NOT raising because you can't maximize what you win by just limping. At the same time, if you raise too much, you lose your implied odds because you make the SPR too low. This makes sense to me. There obviously has to be some sort of middleground. Limping 500bb deep because there's "more implied odds" can't possibly be right (obviously an extreme example to prove a point.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:14
|
|