Learning about Poker through Non-Poker games |
|
Posted Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:19 am GMT by snoogins47
After beating Sean in a Heads-up FL SNG to make me like, 14 and 0 against him, I went to smoke a cigarette and started thinking about how interesting the game really is.
And I thought about how much we can learn about poker by thinking about strategy for games that are nothing like the poker we actually play.
First on the chopping block is 3-card poker.
This is a simple game:the deck is only 3 cards. K, 7, 2. Post blinds, deal two cards, bet/raise/whatever, showdown. Highest hand wins
Depending on the blind structure, a Nash Equilibrium exists where we're bluffing with the deuce a certain % of the time, and/or calling with the 7 a certain % of the time. This strategy will basically make this a game where we all have to break even.
However, we quickly see what tendencies can be exploited in opponents, and how to do so.
Specifically, calling a raise with the 7, or raising ourselves with the deuce. There exists a % of the time we make these plays which would boil down to our strategy being impossible to exploit.
However, in the real world, we notice tendencies that our opponents may have, where they play sub-optimally. For our purposes, we'll say that they never call with the seven.
Here, we can see that our "bet w/ the deuce" percentage should be way higher than 'optimum.' We're not shooting for 'optimal,' we're shooting for 'most exploitative.' I'm a little drunk and don't want to work out the math, but it seems pretty intuitive that if our opponent never calls with the 7, and is thus playing sub-optimally, we should be raising all the time with the deuce. Our play has become sub-optimal, in order to win us more money based on how our opponents play sub-optimally.
This has a very direct corrolation to 'regular' poker strategy. Almost every poker table we sit at, our bluff:valuebet ratio is suboptimal, if we wish to win the most money, since our opponents are playing in a specific, sub-optimal way. The looseys, we value bet more against. The nits, we bluff more against.
Second game to check out is poker, but with no blinds, and action ending preflop. It's quite easy to see why we should wait for AA in this game. It's also quite easy to see that if opponents do NOT follow this strategy, we have to adjust to, in a very real sense, "play more poorly" in order to make money off of our opponents.
I could elaborate for years on this, but it's not very structured. I think it'd do better to just open up a discussion on the topics and see what happens.
Discuss how sub-optimal play can be the biggest money-winner, and how it applies to these games I've mentioned above. Even just a little thought on the issue may surprise you with how much it can advance your understanding of the game. I'm sure I'll be back to re-ramble in response to the rambles.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:18 am GMT by tame_deuces
These 'easy' games often reflect on one of the main facets of poker playing. The 'logical' thing to do will not necessarily be the most profitable as long as your opponents:
Play poorly in some way which means the logical strategy will not be the most profitable one.
The Hold'Em game without the blinds and postflop play is the easiest example. With no blinds which eats at your stack there is from a pure mathematical standpoint no reason whatsoever to play anything but aces. Aces have the highest expectation versus any other hand and since there are no enforced pot you won't lose money.
If your opponent folds each time you enter a pot with aces you are not losing money. If some opponents play poorly you might even earn money with this tactic.
This reflects on a poker player's attitude that as long as his 'way' wins him money he will be convinced that his tactic is the best play, but in reality he is losing money because he could win more with another tactic.
If your opponent does not adjust to the logical way of playing the game, you might be gaining a profit from playing other good hands since your opponent will be playing bad hands. Hence we can earn money by bluffing poor 'tight' players and we can earn money by playing other hands than aces versus poor 'loose' players.
This reflects how we at a poker table in any game should adjust to the playing style of our opponents and recognize when a flaw in their game can be profitable to us if we adjust our game in a direction which seems to defy 'logic'.
For instance we could call with a poor hand versus a unimaginative tight player, because as long as we _know_ we are behind we have an advantage in going to the flop. We might a.) Bluff him off his hand c.) Make a powerful hand with high implied odds c.) Easily fold our hand.
As you pointed out, playing sub-optimally will be profitable, but the important lesson is that it can be more profitable than the alternative.
Posted Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:15 am GMT by supafrey
Now do we know why we don't want people to fold their draws? 
If I have aces and Mr. Snoggins has a floosh draw, is it better for me to bet 1/2 pot and have a call, or 2/3 pot and have a fold?
Posted Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:08 pm GMT by snoogins47
| supafrey wrote: | Now do we know why we don't want people to fold their draws?
If I have aces and Mr. Snoggins has a floosh draw, is it better for me to bet 1/2 pot and have a call, or 2/3 pot and have a fold? |
Trick question. I don't fold flush draws.
Posted Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:55 pm GMT by TheSalche
| snoogins47 wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | Now do we know why we don't want people to fold their draws?
If I have aces and Mr. Snoggins has a floosh draw, is it better for me to bet 1/2 pot and have a call, or 2/3 pot and have a fold? |
Trick question. I don't fold flush draws. |
donkey
sklansky writes a little something about this in hold'em for advanced players. he discusses how if we're playing hold'em heads-up and our opponent raises every hand from the button, if we call with top 50% of hands or less, he will automatically show a profit since he wins 50% of the time guaranteed, and then some of the other 50% he will win as well (winning postflop)
i believe that applies more directly to the check out poker example
Posted Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:44 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| supafrey wrote: | Now do we know why we don't want people to fold their draws?
If I have aces and Mr. Snoggins has a floosh draw, is it better for me to bet 1/2 pot and have a call, or 2/3 pot and have a fold? |
Ah, but we need some facts on the table:
1.) If snoo suspects weakness he will probably raise or call.
2.) If snoo suspects aces he will probably sense implied odds and call.
3.) If he calls, snoo will probably raise the turn if he hits figuring good implied odds vs the aces.
4.) If he calls, snoo will probably raise the turn if he misses figuring he has some fold equity.
5.) If snoo raises the turn, your probably ahead
6.) A potbet will not probably stop snoo from neither calling. folding or raising a flushdraw.
7.) Snoo might have a flushdraw.
8.) Snoo does not fold flushdraws
9.) Snoo probably doesn't have a flushdraw.
10.) Snoo might pretend he has a flushdraw.
The correct strategy is therefore to bet the pot and never fold your aces.
|
|
