Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:04 pm GMT by snoogins47
This is gonna be a long one.
http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/forum/t20087/a-theoretical-question-for-everyone
Refer to that for the post that inspired this. Note I am not making this for argument's sake, but because it seems to illustrate a concept I feel like rambling about. Also, the post was originally started as a response to that thread, so if there's any weirdness, that's why.
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | So a raise would be bad as it forces him to fold his worse hands and call with his better ones. If he's drawing dead there's no reason to force him out. |
This is not necessarily true, and I'm not posting this for argument's sake. Given the numbers call-call does show the best result ($20 on average? I rushed through them just because) And I like this post, because I think one area mediocre players spew a shitload is way-ahead-way-behind spots.
However, be careful of situations against Supafreyian types that can put a lot of pressure on you on the later streets, when you're in deeper stacked situations, against what is likely a bluff/hand that can't take a raise. A smaller raise here to end the pot right now, regardless of your cards, may well be better than call-call, if you've got deep stacks and he's bound to follow through, large, with the kind of frequency that keeps you out of the pot. This sucks even more on boards with say, 3 flushes when you don't have one, since not only are you risking that he's bluffing, he's got 9 outs to win the pot regardless of what he has. There's almost always cards that make is such that you can't call.
I mean let's take an arbitrary situation here... $2/$4, I make it $20 to go, you call from the SB with JJ. Board comes KK9. I bet $30, you call. Turn 5. I bet $100. You look down at your stack, and see you've got about $700 behind.
You're actually in good shape against my range. I won't try to guess my bluffing frequencies here, but remember that call-check-fold is worth -$100, where a minraise is probably worth like +$120. And call-check-check isn't as good of a result as you might think. Besides, I've got 4 outs to a straight.
Anyway as usual, Suited's post is goot reading, and hopefully will make for goot discussion. His concept is an important one, and a good one, just be careful not to misapply it. I think his concept is of the utmost importance in shorter stacked NL situations though, which you'll often find yourself in with NLCash online, and much more frequently, in NLTourneys later on.
Bottom line: if you're both going to be totally committed to the pot regardless of whether you raise or just call, it's often better to turtle up and let him do the betting for you.
Reminds me a bit of a OTHERFORUMNAMEDELETED IT DOESN'T RHYME WITH SHOE GUS SHOE post... I'll copy and paste a bit from my blog since it's easier
| Quote: | | Long story short you're in the blind somewhere with AA. Two limpers, you make a standard 2+2ian raise, two people call. Flop comes 3 6 T rainbow (or some such uncoordinated dry neverhitanybodyness) and you bet 3/4 pot, folds to the CO/Button ish (limper) who makes a smaller raise, minimum or a bit more. |
Though the details are significantly different, try treating this as if you can't lose if you're ahead (not a huge stretch) and you can't win if you're behind (also not a massive stretch) and do a little thinking, and you may begin to see more and more spots where wuss and passive wins the race.
(Plenty of people on the OTHERFORUMLAWL posted in the poll that they raise. I don't care. Against most players, they're wrong.) The kink is when you're not committed.
This post is as stream of consciousness as most of my blog posts. Good for me. Even better is that I'm spending time on here spewing this nonsense instead of driving home for Thanksgiving. You guys are like family to me, except you don't house me.. love me... feed me... So what the hell am I doing here?
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 Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:08 pm GMT by Phil14312
This is a concept that I frequently try to get across to one of my NL cash game buddies. He doesn't see things this way, but I tend to agree with (if the money is going in one way or another) to just get passive and let him add some bluffs to his range. But, I must say, the post is a bit confusing and probably doesn't get your point across as well as you could snoogs.
Posted Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:09 am GMT by tame_deuces
I'm necroposting in this thread.
I think if we're playing extreme lags (35+VPIPs, huge aggro), we can probably assume them to always be bluffing as it will probably me more correct than 'putting them on a hand'.
It's like the old red ball/green golfball example. If a sack is filled with 100 golfballs, 70 of which is red and 30 of which is green, the correct strategy for guessing what kind of golfball you will draw from the sack is to always guess for red as you will be correct 70% of the time which is probably as good as it gets.
Sometimes it won't be correct, but that isn't really important. Struggling to put such high vpip players on hands will probably do you more harm than good.
Another interesting implication is that extreme vpip figures (very low or very high) can be a good strategy against poor players...but it will become exceptionally bad strategy vs opponents who adjust to your game, since it is such easy strategies to adjust against.
|
|
