|
Sounds like my instincts were on point, which is good to know. And it's even better to see all this logic supporting it. So for those interested in the story, what happened is that I did indeed check-raise. Check because as mentioned I'd rather not fold out his bluffs and I expect anything I want to tax is going to bet into me. Raise mainly because I want him to pay for the draw. To recap; the pot is 35 cents. I check, he bets 25. I raise to 75 (Is this a good raise size, btw?). At this point he ponders for a moment and 3bets to 1.75. The shove seems pretty automatic at this point because yeah, I have the third best hand possible and he looks like he wants to stack off. Just to be sure I double-checked afterwards and Equilab + the Red Chip Poker fold equity calculator confirm that this is indeed a massively profitable shove provided he doesn't do this with sets and only sets, which seems like a ludicrously paranoid assumption. So I shove, he snaps it off with JJ and I lose the pot. And before anyone says it, I am well aware that this is just a cooler. I'm not nearly as bothered by the fact that I happened to get it in vs the nuts as I am by the fear that the check-raise wasn't getting enough value against second-best hands. Now that that fear has proven unfounded, I feel really good about this hand.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
In my tournament today I fully understand why the pros say sick with a scornful grimace on their face. Got knocked out in my tournament today by going up against AA and KK in consecutive hands in a table of four. Had AK for the former and was a gnat's rear end out of the money to add insult to injury.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Here's a chart I made for a presentation I'm doing later on today
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Sheep-Goats posted:Here's a chart I made for a presentation I'm doing later on today Are those all supposed to be on the same timeline? Because it looks like it's saying some of the things you said in your long intro post to me ("read this book, start playing, then ask question about hands you're unsure about" for example), but it also kind of breaks apart in places. For example, it seems to be saying I should get an account, read the entirety of "Small Stakes No Limit Hold'em" and only then deposit any money. And then not even play until I've watched some Poker Guys. Maybe that's just my autistic brain getting stuck on the most literal interpretation, but I think you could combine and move some of those bubbles around to make it a bit more comprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
You're right, the first three bubbles in play should be compressed and align more or less with Little Green Book. I'm not going to talk at all about how you actually get money online though and wanted to leave a little guidance there for Americans -- depositing is a pain in the rear end for us. I can't really edit it now anyway because I made it online and didn't save anything, I suppose I'll just mention that you can shuffle any of the columns up or down in time as you wish.
raton fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
wide stance posted:Got knocked out in my tournament today by going up against AA and KK in consecutive hands in a table of four. Had AK for the former and was a gnat's rear end out of the money to add insult to injury.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Imaduck posted:Yep, tournaments are pretty high variance, and dealing with that can be tough. Since most tournaments only pay 10-20% of the field, you really have to get used to losing if you're going to be a tournament player. It must be nice when you're riding the good side of variance, tho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Sure, but keep in mind that "the good side of variance" might mean you're cashing like, 30% of the time, which means you're still losing 70% of the tournaments you play. Or it might mean that you just get 1st in one really big tournament, and then go lose 20 other ones, and still come out ahead. And it's always hard to know if you won because you were playing well, or just running hot, because winning a tournament really requires both. A tournament player's life is tough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Imaduck posted:Sure, but keep in mind that "the good side of variance" might mean you're cashing like, 30% of the time, which means you're still losing 70% of the tournaments you play. Or it might mean that you just get 1st in one really big tournament, and then go lose 20 other ones, and still come out ahead. And it's always hard to know if you won because you were playing well, or just running hot, because winning a tournament really requires both. A tournament player's life is tough. Yeah, if there's one thing I've learned about poker it's that you don't win $10 by winning $10, you do it by losing $100 and winning $110. Which, as I understand it, is why poker pros tend to not remain poker pros forever. You can make a hell of a lot of money playing poker, but all that stands between even the best of the best and a month in the red is a roll of the dice. Winning player or not, that kind of uncertainty eats away at you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
I've started up making weekly poker videos again. If you want to see me grind some online sit and goes, do tournament reviews, and talk about beer, check out my youtube channel.
Imaduck fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Your link doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Ack, thanks, fixed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Carnegie Mellon has a bot that's dominating against a few very good pros that's streaming and being talked about at the moment. Of course HU limit hold'em was "solved" a good while ago now, this time around it's Head's Up NLHE. The bot was built through machine learning, playing solely against itself, and was not fed any statistics or info about the players it would face in advance of this contest. Bots have been playing on poker sites for a long time, of course, so this is really just another notch in the belt of AI vs. human minds. More info: https://www.riverscasino.com/pittsburgh/BrainsVsAI/ There was also a Reddit thread recently from the human players: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5qi3i9/we_are_professional_poker_players_currently/ One of the human players summarized their difficulty with the AI as something like "It puts more pressure on us correctly than any human player can."
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
so I play poker, but I'm really impatient and tend to over-bluff when I don't get cards. I'm a pro bluffer(in my head), but the people I play with all the time have come to learn that I'm typically full of poo poo. so my question is how do I bluff???
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:so I play poker, but I'm really impatient and tend to over-bluff when I don't get cards. I'm a pro bluffer(in my head), but the people I play with all the time have come to learn that I'm typically full of poo poo. so my question is Do less of it? If you bluff 100% of the time (or any other too-large % of the time) people are going to call you on it, and you're going to lose money. Even if you have the stoniest poker face in history people can see your tendencies and you'll be taken advantage of. Bluffing only works if you do it rarely enough that they don't win money by calling you every time. Now of course you don't want to just blindly cut your bluff % across the board; you should bluff less, but let the board, the action and the players dictate when. You want your bluffs to be credible, which is an artform unto itself and I'm not nearly good enough to speak confidently about it. But to give you an idea, here's a couple of articles on how to c-bet bluff the flop: http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy/plays/continuation-bet/tips/ http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy/plays/continuation-bet/when/
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
I guess these learning bots will just kill online poker forever in the not too distant future. I can't say I'm particularly cut up about it though. There's something kinda...depressing about the entire online poker thing. People grinding away for hours every day just going through the motions. Seems like pretty soul sapping stuff. And all the talented comp sci grad robots that come out the other end. Sometimes you see a few of them at a final table with a few chatty older players and they just sit there like unresponsive zombies, avoiding eye contact or any interaction. For me half the charm of poker is the human side to it. Table chat, reading other people, nerves and bluffs. Reducing the game down to calculated odds and applying them just makes it pretty insipid. The fact that it can be solved is no surprise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:so I play poker, but I'm really impatient and tend to over-bluff when I don't get cards. I'm a pro bluffer(in my head), but the people I play with all the time have come to learn that I'm typically full of poo poo. so my question is Also, you have to be careful to not do it too often, and look for just the best opportunities, instead of firing at every single one of them. As Terrorforge points out, it's pretty easy to spot a player who's representing too many big hands too often and is just bluffing too much. I love playing against these types of players, because they typically pay out and lose money a lot faster than any other type of player. The most common bluffs that happen in good poker fall into two categories: 1. Bluffs where you have a relatively low risk and high chance of success, like the continuation bets Terrorforge pointed out. 2. Bluffs where you're representing a strong made hand, but also have a lot of outs in case you do get called (semi-bluffs). These are things like betting aggressively with a flush draw, or a flush draw + straight draw, or overcards or whatever. Mathematically these are great, because they'll get a fold some of the time, and the other chunk of the time you have a shot at making your hand. You also have a chance at bluffing again if you don't make your draw, or you can just get away from it sometimes if you don't think another bluff will work. Focus on these types of bluffs when you're starting out. Then, read some books, watch some videos, and learn about what to look for in the rare spots where you can get away with making bigger bluffs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:so I play poker, but I'm really impatient and tend to over-bluff when I don't get cards. I'm a pro bluffer(in my head), but the people I play with all the time have come to learn that I'm typically full of poo poo. so my question is I used to do this a lot too. What helped me was to realize that I wanted my bluff value to stay at least part value, and if you want that to have to "spend" it wisely over the course of 1000 hands or so. I also try to think of a few spots as bluffing indulgences where I can get out of line. Like the 3am game with tight lowstakes guys where I'll just start stealing every button or cutoff, or the "well that's the worst card in the deck for him" bluff. I mean, obviously you should bluff more in the cases no matter what but what helps me is to think of them in a way that keeps the bluff monster satisfied. Difficult decisions in your brain are often literally two parts of your brain trying to outshout each other. The examples I heard (on a Radiolab episode I think) was people were asked a few questions with mixed considerations while in an MRI machine and brain activity was monitored. If you ask someone a Scrabble question the part of the brain that does language lights up, not much else does, and people produce reasonable responses. If you ask them "You're hiding in the basement with ten other refugees and your baby and enemy soldiers are at the door outside. Your baby is sick, inconsolable, and is crying constantly. If the enemy soldiers find you they will kill everyone in the room. What do you do?" two district parts of the brain light up, the logic center (11>1) and the empathetic kind of parenting area (protect your child at all costs). Results were 50/50, and in general the people that couldn't kill their baby had brighter and larger scans in the empathetic center than the logic center, and vice versa. Anyway, if you know you have a tendency that's hurting EV the ideal thing would be to just excise it, but if you know you have a tendency and try to fix it and can't it may be easier to intentionally appease or distract the nonlogical part of your brain to make the self management task easier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
On the bots: There are a ton of caveats with this challenge. The bots play very slowly; probably much slower than you could play online. The human players are putting in tons and tons of long sessions, which is a huge disadvantage since humans get fatigued, but bots don't. This is a deep stacked variant of the game, which most of the players are less familiar with, and the bots are only trained on how to play in this specific, deep stacked scenario. This is heads-up only; building a bot for multiplayer variants of the game using this methodology is basically impossible at this point. And even if the bots win this challenge, it doesn't mean they wouldn't get exploited like crazy online, once people figured out what exactly they were doing. We're still a long way off from "solving" Heads Up NLHE entirely - that's a very, very high bar that means the bots effectively make the best decision in every situation. But, what this challenge proves is that bots are certainly capable of being competitive against some of the best players in the world. On top of that, the bots are getting better and better every year. As computing hardware and machine learning advance, it's hard to imagine a future where bots aren't dominating the game. We're entering a different era of mental games. Chess has been played for over a millennia, where humans have been besting each other and incrementing strategy over time, generation after generation. Savants would come and go, and the game could be considered a true battle of wits. Today, we have chess bots that are unbeatable by humans, along with dozens of other games. The computer scientist in me is excited about this, but the mental game player in me feels a little bit wounded. People still play chess and Go, but do the games feel cheapened now that bots can win? Should they? I don't know. Does running feel cheapened now that we have vehicles that can move much faster than humans? I suppose it's not as valued a skill anymore, but we still host huge running competitions all the time, and marvel at the humans that break world records. One interesting thing to come out of this will be how training changes as these bots get better. Blackjack is a long solved game, and you can play with a bot that will tell you whenever you make an incorrect move. Soon, poker will be like this; we're already using poker simulations to improve our game, but soon the best players train against bots instead of humans to find the weaknesses in their game. This is kind of neat on one hand, but I do feel a little sad about it. One thing I really loved about poker was that there was still debate to be had about strategy. There are many different play styles out there, and while certain actions are certainly wrong, it's often to know what the absolute best move is in any given situation. You can debate these things endlessly with different players. A decade from now, however, we'll simply have an answer from a machine for every single situation, and that will be that. Practice will be learning a few basic rules, and then just memorizing what the computer tells you to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
It's easier to love Bobby Fischer than Magnus Carlsen, and honestly it should be. It's cool that as scattered and animalistic as people are that we can build tools over many generations whose capacities so obviously outstrip our own, at least for their purpose (and some day in the future maybe in every way that matters), but each one of those is just another item on list at some point. It's an urbanization of ideas, moving from a distributed organic past to a concentrated, gridded out future and there's an obvious and undeniable loss there no matter how much you love city life. raton fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jan 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
The number of hands those guys are forced to play per day is ridiculous. I don't know why they'd even agree to do this, sounds completely miserable but I don't know how much they're getting paid. A guaranteed check is probably a magnificent novelty to a poker pro of course. Plus they're not playing for real money unlike real poker so there's another mental detachment at play too. If the computer wins it will come with plenty of caveats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Doug Polk participated in the challenge last year and has been interviewing the players this year. He's put up a couple videos about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz9FJfe2YGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crgmYTMfrSc I don't remember off the top of my head, but he mentions the compensation in the first video. I think it was something like $50k, which isn't too bad for a few weeks of (very hard) work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
You also get to be The Guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eZ0zHJuTIY raton fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Is there a stigma associated with covering your face with glasses and handkerchiefs or whatever at the table? Like is it seen as useless or unsportsmanlike or as a sign of weakness or anything like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
It just seems goofy to me. Unsportsmanlike definitely not, if they think they give away that much info with, like, the pulse in their loving neck then go ahead and cover it up. Sunglasses I can understand if you don't want people to know you're looking at them at particular times but I look at the same person at the same time most any hand anyway so there's no reason for me to wear them. Pupillary dilation? Give me a break. It is however absolutely ridiculous to go in on any of this poo poo at a 1/2 game. If you're playing for a living at 2/5 or up or whatever then you know, fine, I get it, it's your livelihood and you have a right to overdo it. For the lowest game in the house full of casual players? Come on man. For a while in Vegas (in certain casinos at certain times) they were not allowing people to put their hoods up on their hoodies. I think this was mostly for image reasons as the older locals hate certain things, one of those being black people, and by extension hoodies, especially with the hood up. Note that wearing glasses and things like that isn't strictly +EV. Sometimes it can be a struggle to see hearts vs. diamonds if you're in the three or four seat and the casino is dark, put on glasses and maybe you make an occasional mistake about that where if you weren't wearing glasses you wouldn't have. Maybe you get a drunk retard coming out of the nightclub who has an extra 1200 in his pocket that he's going to either try to double in twenty minutes or lose because he struck out in the club -- which table is he going to sit at, the one with normal looking people or the one full of people dressed up like the loving Black Mage? If you're trying to make sure the drunks have fun so they rebuy a few more times it's going to be harder to do that wearing a balaclava than it would be with your honest normal face. I want a lot of people to play poker and enjoy it. Not just because I make more money that way, but because poker is a genuinely good game that makes most of the people who play it better people. It gives a social arena for older folks whose friends have died off. It's one of the purest games for games sake out there with a rule set that's arguably simpler than go (rare beats not rare, you take turns bidding on the pot with certain restrictions on the size of these bids, that's about it) and a set of rules for perfect play that's probably larger and more nuanced. Part of my job as a poker player (and human) is to make what I like as open to other people as I can so that they'll be happy to try it out and do it with me and honestly that's the reason I don't gear up to play poker. The worst thing I do is bring a fanny pack with the faceplate from my car stereo in it and I only do that because my loving car got stolen and the radio cut out of it at the Venetian one time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Sheep-Goats posted:It just seems goofy to me. Unsportsmanlike definitely not, if they think they give away that much info with, like, the pulse in their loving neck then go ahead and cover it up. Sunglasses I can understand if you don't want people to know you're looking at them at particular times but I look at the same person at the same time most any hand anyway so there's no reason for me to wear them. Pupillary dilation? Give me a break. Post pics of fanny pack please. TIA
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
I'm with Sheep-Goats on this one - keeping games fun and talkative should be a priority no matter what type of player you are. Players that are chatting, joking, and having a good time are more likely to stick around and attract more players to your table. Even if they lose, they're likely to remember having a good time and wanting to come back for more, and you're going to enjoy the experience more as well. Hoodies, headphones, and sunglasses create a less welcoming environment that's going to kill the game in the long run. Do those things work at preventing people from picking up tells on you? Maybe, sometimes. But I really think you're going to get more value by keeping people at the table instead of the 1 in 10,000 hands where someone picks up a tell on you that would have been hidden by sunglasses and it actually matters for the hand. If you're at the final table of some major poker tournament and playing against a bunch of live pros, maybe you get a pass. Otherwise, I definitely err on the side of keeping the game fun. Groundskeeper Silly posted:Like is it seen as useless or unsportsmanlike or as a sign of weakness or anything like that? Sunglasses and hoodies are pretty common sights at the table. I tend to see two classes of people that wear sunglasses: skilled players that are trying to intimidate people, and people who watch a lot of poker and think they're way better than they actually are. As far as I can tell from the old WSOP footage, I think sunglasses and hoodies are becoming less popular, but I'm seeing a lot more scarves. Imaduck fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Jan 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
bengy81 posted:Post pics of fanny pack please. TIA It's black I don't wear it I just carry it in and either check it at the check in desk or if they don't do that hang it off the back of my chair. I have had people ask me to wear it before. I also keep my phone charger and comp cards (when I'm in Vegas) in there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
My friend says that 100% of players at the table that have backpacks are pros. In my experience, story checks out. I might have to expand that to fanny packs as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Imaduck posted:My friend says that 100% of players at the table that have backpacks are pros. In my experience, story checks out. I might have to expand that to fanny packs as well. You should Part of the reason I got the fanny pack actually was because there was another really bad reg that had one in Vegas at the time and I thought if I'm going to out myself I might as well associate me with him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Someone gets a healthy snack out of the backpack hanging on his chair = probably avoid
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Keg posted:My unfair edge during the Party Poker days was having a huge pokertracker DB mined from a few weeks when I'd just leave a bunch of tables going while importing hands into pokertracker. I think close to when Neteller shut down, Party stopped generating hand histories on tables where you weren't sitting, but until then it was pretty great being able to load up the game and search through a list of people who were absurdly passive and loose. Those were the golden days. Sheep-Goats posted:If you have some experience at poker already and want a solid book to open the door into the modern poker world you can't do better than Small Stakes No Limit Hold'em by Metha and Flynn and one other guy that I always forget. I seem to recall getting about a chapter into this before they suggest reading Professional No-Limit Hold'em Vol 1, where they talk extensively about putting people on hands and planning hands, they have some name for this that I forget. Is this a necessary read or can noobs pass over this on their road to live or online cash riches? (i.e. Moshman has a book on SNG's that is basically replaced by his student Greg Jones). Also I found Harrington on Online Cash Games to be super valuable in summarizing what I already knew about positional ranges. Sheep-Goats posted:There used to be (maybe still are?) shortstackers who would play 12-20 tables regularly, who had software that would sit them at new tables as they closed open ones, who had Autohotkey set up so instead of clicking a mouse they would hit like 1-5 for fold/call/bet/raise 3x/push or whatever, and would just kind of matrix out while grinding their custom made spreadsheets against the world. I am reminded of this video Imaduck posted:I've heard good things about America's Card Room as well, but I haven't checked it out yet. Bovada's anonymous thing really annoys me, so I'm thinking of making the switch. So the tournament play here is soft, but I was a little put off when I saw several quad over quad plays in a very small hand sample. I have seen worse, back in like 2007-2009 but it just struck me as odd. Everyone says good things about Bovada, but I can't justify playing without rakeback. What is the rake structure/volume on MTTs and SNGs there? Also anyone playing much at Foxwoods or in Chicagoland lately? IED enthusiast fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
IED enthusiast posted:Those were the golden days. Ignition does 10% rake on MTT's. not sure about SNG's. For what it's worth, they don't usually do more than 1.5 hrs of late reg. and they don't have a million tournies with ridiculous overlay like they did until mid last year. ACR has way more variety, but Ignition isn't bad . I've yet to see any quad over quad hands in the last year on either site, so maybe you just have a weird sample. But if you are implying that ACR is rigged than online poker might not be for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
IED enthusiast posted:Those were the golden days. Everything is skippable if you already know it. If you want to know if it's worth your time because you're already a ways along in what you know about poker I'd suggest finding a copy somewhere and reading the chapter on Stack to Pot Ratio. If that material is familiar maybe that book isn't the best use of your time. The rest of the material in it is pretty much covered in most decent introductory books (but I think they do a good job of it) so SPR should delineate the books utility for you if you are wondering about it. If you're picking up poker for the first time ever in 2017 I think it's going to be worth your time one way or another but I remember your avatar from old poker threads so I don't think this is the case for you. raton fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
bengy81 posted:Ignition does 10% rake on MTT's. not sure about SNG's. Sorry, I'm not implying the ACR RNG is rigged, maybe I was just seeing a lot of family pots, or perhaps a little collusion or something of that sort. I just thought the sample was really odd, but again it was a small sample so not really significant. I also find all the automated ACR phonecalls to be more than a bit intrusive and annoying. I was playing a lot on juicystakes about a year ago and had a pretty sick run for a week playing the microstake wild west tournament type. I would just play my usual style until I hit the end of registration, then I would match the bigstack in 500chip rebuys and an add on and bully the rest of the tournament. I definitely got quite lucky with seating most tourneys, but even during that rungood there was at least one instance at tournament end where I thought the play just seemed really strange, I couldn't tell if it was botty or collusion or dumb luck, maybe I can dig up a few hands if I still have the laptop I was playing on lying around somewhere. The best part was winning in spite of this. Unfortunately they don't run these tournaments under the same buyin structure anymore, the cost is more prohibitive to playing profitably in this way and also no one registers for it. I also read on pokerscout or 2+2 or somewhere recently juicy instituted some strange restrictions on withdrawals (needing to rake a certain ratio of your winnings in order to withdraw), can anyone validate this? Do people still play on Carbon?  Sheep-Goats posted:Everything is skippable if you already know it. If you want to know if it's worth your time because you're already a ways along in what you know about poker I'd suggest finding a copy somewhere and reading the chapter on Stack to Pot Ratio. If that material is familiar maybe that book isn't the best use of your time. Thanks for the thoughtful answer considering my background. To clarify I was asking on behalf of newish players. i didn't do multiple reads or study the cash game material thoroughly as i did MTT or SNG material, i just read SSNHLE PNLHE and Harrington Cash and Online Cash books once and tried to internalize the play and remembered feeling like things seemed incomplete in places, SSNLHE specifically stuck out to me, but maybe because it came out more recently. So better put, as a new player, my questions should have been: Can I read SSNLHE without reading PNLHE V.1 also by Metha, or would skipping over PNLHE V.1 be a mistake? IED enthusiast fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
IED enthusiast posted:Sorry, I'm not implying the ACR RNG is rigged, maybe I was just seeing a lot of family pots, or perhaps a little collusion or something of that sort. I just thought the sample was really odd, but again it was a small sample so not really significant. I also find all the automated ACR phonecalls to be more than a bit intrusive and annoying. I think it provides a good model for how to think analytically about something in poker. Everybody gets by instinct things like odds and hand reading (even if they're terrible at it at least they can see the utility right off the bat) but that's poker from 1700-2007. Things like SPR or what I call shaping (don't know if there's an actual term for it, I basically mean betting with the intent of forcing polarization or nonpolarization for villain based on what you think is better for the hand) are extra more modern poker tools that a new player has to learn to build for themselves at some point and what SSNLHE does is show you how to build probably the simplest one of them. So it's good as your first poker book to show you, like, a method of improving rather than just saying "here is the material."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Sheep-Goats posted:I think it provides a good model for how to think analytically about something in poker. Everybody gets by instinct things like odds and hand reading (even if they're terrible at it at least they can see the utility right off the bat) but that's poker from 1700-2007. Things like SPR or what I call shaping (don't know if there's an actual term for it, I basically mean betting with the intent of forcing polarization or nonpolarization for villain based on what you think is better for the hand) are extra more modern poker tools that a new player has to learn to build for themselves at some point and what SSNLHE does is show you how to build probably the simplest one of them. So it's good as your first poker book to show you, like, a method of improving rather than just saying "here is the material." Much clearer than I could have put it, thank you for that. Also thank you for the pokerguys suggestion, I had not seen this. This poo poo is entertaining and informative. IED enthusiast fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
More people should play poker because it is cool and good, is what I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Sheep-Goats posted:Note that wearing glasses and things like that isn't strictly +EV. Sometimes it can be a struggle to see hearts vs. diamonds if you're in the three or four seat and the casino is dark, put on glasses and maybe you make an occasional mistake about that where if you weren't wearing glasses you wouldn't have. Maybe you get a drunk retard coming out of the nightclub who has an extra 1200 in his pocket that he's going to either try to double in twenty minutes or lose because he struck out in the club -- which table is he going to sit at, the one with normal looking people or the one full of people dressed up like the loving Black Mage? If you're trying to make sure the drunks have fun so they rebuy a few more times it's going to be harder to do that wearing a balaclava than it would be with your honest normal face. Oakley has high contrast lenses that can help you recognize the shapes on the cards (clubs v spades, hearts v diamonds). I found this helpful in live poker. If you call their help line and explain your purpose the reps are super knowledgeable. I also hate bright lights, and I find that my eyes get tired in any live tournament session or cash session over 4 hours. Also I would recommend caution if you choose polarized lenses, a lot of the felt on tables sparkle when wearing polarized lenses. I actually like it, but I have heard of it giving people headaches. Also unless you are active duty or a vet you may be SOL if you need Rx lenses in high contrast but don't quote me on that. I know lenscrafters handles retail Oakley frames but I'm not sure if they can do Rx with legit Oakley lenses. Vets/AD military should check out Oakley SI if you haven't heard of it already, even if you don't need an Rx they have discounted Oakley glasses and other shits. They also offer this to FF, LEO, and EMTs. Imaduck posted:On the bots: There are a ton of caveats with this challenge. The bots play very slowly; probably much slower than you could play online. The human players are putting in tons and tons of long sessions, which is a huge disadvantage since humans get fatigued, but bots don't. This is a deep stacked variant of the game, which most of the players are less familiar with, and the bots are only trained on how to play in this specific, deep stacked scenario. This is heads-up only; building a bot for multiplayer variants of the game using this methodology is basically impossible at this point. And even if the bots win this challenge, it doesn't mean they wouldn't get exploited like crazy online, once people figured out what exactly they were doing... I'm curious about whether humans can even exploit ranges the way Libratus is currently exploiting ranges or if it is a type of optimization that only a computer can accomplish (i.e. Google being able to solve the Rubik's cube in 20 moves or less from any starting position). This would have the potential to be devastatingly exploitative if someone could memorize lines or create a bot to dominate the online space. Anyway they are a long way from dominating non heads up play so no need to worry for now unless you are an online HU player. Imaduck posted:My friend says that 100% of players at the table that have backpacks are pros. In my experience, story checks out. I might have to expand that to fanny packs as well. If you go to the same room enough irl you'll recognize familiar faces, and if you can estimate their VPIP over more than one sitting you'll have an idea as to whether or not they are a winning/verging on winning player or just a degen. At Foxwoods frequent players get fancy player cards (a black card after like 500 hours of table play over 75 discrete visits on discrete days) which generally indicates skill, but not always. Sunglasses are no indicator of skill although many good players wear them. CT is also a medicinal marijuana state and I am yet to meet a player who sits down smelling like a smoked blunt that plays well. Imaduck posted:I've started up making weekly poker videos again. If you want to see me grind some online sit and goes, do tournament reviews, and talk about beer, check out my youtube channel. These are fantastic. Thanks for the content! bengy81 posted:Post pics of fanny pack please. TIA This. IED enthusiast fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Some newbs at my regular game said I looked like an accountant because of my gingham button down  (I stole many pots from them)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:23
|
|