uNL: you are weak-tight.

[Pokey]

A little over a year ago I tested SSNL (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=ssplnlpoker&Number=650561 6&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=) and found out that they were weak-tight. Well, this month I tested uNL and found out that we're still weak-tight as a group.

<font color="blue">What does weak-tight mean?</font> In a nutshell, weak-tight means you have MUBS: (M)onsters (U)nder the (B)ed (S)yndrome. You give your opponents too much credit for hands and too much credit for hand-reading. I like to call it "Psychic Villain Syndrome," where you feel like your opponents can see into your soul. You know what? They really can't. They're just as lost as we are. Unfortunately, when we give them credit for being paranormally perceptive poker players we shoot ourselves in the foot, failing to make +EV moves because we fear that our plays will be obvious (no matter how far from the truth that might be).

<font color="blue">Why do I accuse uNL of being weak-tight?</font> Well, because I tricked you into telling me that you were. First, I gave you this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=microplnl&amp;Number=12286986 &amp;fpart=1&amp;PHPSESSID=) where hero flops air:

----------

Poker Stars - No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $0.10/$0.25 Blinds - 6 Players - (LegoPoker (http://www.legopoker.com) Hand History Converter (http://www.legopoker.com/hh))

SB: $28.60
BB: $22.55
UTG: $10.00
Hero (MP): $29.80
CO: $48.30
BTN: $10.35

Preflop: Hero is dealt J/images/graemlins/club.gif T/images/graemlins/club.gif (6 Players)
UTG folds, <font color="red">Hero raises to $1.00</font>, 3 folds, BB calls $1.00

Flop: ($2.10) 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 Players)
BB checks, <font color="red">Hero bets $2.00</font>, BB calls $2.00

Turn: ($6.10) 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">BB bets $5.00</font>, Hero calls $5.00

River: ($16.10) 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 Players)
BB checks, <font color="red">Hero bets $14.55</font>....

----------

I then asked you how often villain calls the bluff. The results as of right now:

Less than 25% of the time: <font color="red">6 (15% of responders)</font>
Between 25% and 50% of the time: <font color="red">11 (27.5% of responders)</font>
Between 50% and 75% of the time: <font color="red">18 (45% of responders)</font>
More than 75% of the time: <font color="red">5 (12.5% of responders)</font>

After that thread died down, I had my sneaky moderator-accomplice make another post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=microplnl&amp;Number=12472242 &amp;fpart=1&amp;PHPSESSID=). It should look reasonably similar to you:

----------

Poker Stars - No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $0.10/$0.25 Blinds - 6 Players - (LegoPoker Hand History Converter)

SB: $28.60
BB: $22.55
UTG: $10.00
Hero (MP): $29.80
CO: $48.30
BTN: $10.35

Preflop: Hero is dealt 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif (6 Players)
UTG folds, Hero raises to $1.00, 3 folds, BB calls $1.00

Flop: ($2.10) 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8/images/graemlins/club.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $2.00, BB calls $2.00

Turn: ($6.10) 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 Players)
BB bets $5.00, Hero calls $5.00

River: ($16.10) 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif(2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $14.55....

----------

NOTE WELL: stacks are the same. The flop and flop action are identical. The turn and turn action are identical. The river and river action are identical. The ONLY DIFFERENCE is that instead of air we've got the immortal nuts. We then asked you how often THIS river bet gets called, and you told us:

Less than 25% of the time: <font color="red">7 (29.2% of responders)</font>
Between 25% and 50% of the time: <font color="red">12 (50% of responders)</font>
Between 50% and 75% of the time: <font color="red">4 (16.7% of responders)</font>
More than 75% of the time: <font color="red">1 (4.2% of responders)</font>

Bummer -- you're weak-tight. You've mistakenly assumed that an identical, unknown villain calls MUCH more often when we've got nothing than he would when we've got the nuts, even though every possible factor in the hand is otherwise identical. This makes no logical sense, it cannot be correct, but it's how we think as a group. That, my friends, is the very definition of weak-tight.

<font color="blue">What are the consequences of being weak-tight?</font> Well, the main consequence is that we make incorrect plays because we give our opponents too much credit. We bluff too little because we're just SURE that villain is calling, but in the same situation when we've got the nuts we bet small because we KNOW that villain won't call a big bet. I'm not saying that both of these statements are wrong, but at LEAST one of them MUST be. I honestly don't know where the truth lies. IF our villain will call our bluff-pushes too often for bluff-pushing to be profitable, then pushing with the nuts will be extremely +EV for us. On the other hand, IF our villain dumps most of his hands to a river push, then bluff-pushing will be extremely +EV for us. Only empirical evidence and reads will tell us which answer is correct for a particular villain, but believing that NEITHER pushing the nuts for value NOR pushing air as a bluff will be +EV cannot be correct -- if one doesn't work, the other will. My pure and uneducated guess is that at uNL, pushing for value is usually +EV and pushing as a bluff is usually -EV, but this will vary from villain to villain, and the formula will change as you move up in stakes.

<font color="blue">How do we beat this weak-tight curse?</font> Let's assume that we err on the side of overestimating our folding equity. If that's the case, then the next time you have the nuts on the river, ask yourself "if I had air, would pushing be +EV?" If your answer is no, then push. If your answer is yes then decide how large a bet you could make with air and still have it be +EV, reduce that amount by a couple BBs, and bet that much. This adjustment will reduce our predicted folding equity when we have the nuts. It might over-reduce it, but it's probably a move in the right direction.

Give it a try for a couple days and see how it works for you.

I don't point this out to insult you or try to make you feel stupid; rather, I point it out because it's an EXTRAORDINARILY common problem for poker players in general, at all stages of development. Let's try to get around our psychological stumbling blocks and start making rational decisions instead.

[Milky]

You sly devil you.

Thanks though, definitely food for thought.

[CaptDrew]

Second. Great post.

[GSykes]

Great post Pokey.

[thac]

lol you're so slick.

[Gelford]

Meh .... we all love to act like kings in uNL

[YanP]

You tricked us, great points, when i'm not getting paid enough for big hands i bluff more and they keep on folding. and if they don't i blufff less.

[Khumalo]

Pokey singlehandedly brings so much free value to these forums it's ridiculous!

[monkover]

i think i selected the same % both times

[takingcontrol]

good post, lots of thought.

[Spurious]

i think most of the people answer in a thread with the mindset that hero lost the hand (unless it's obvious he didnt), therefore they'll answer that way.
If they come up with the "right" answer they feel better, thinking of theirselves as better posters.

That's an assumption I made. I could be wrong, but i think that's one reason.

[Tawbor]

There's a flush draw on the flop in hand 1, but hand 2 is a rainbow flop. This makes a difference imo.

[JoseRijo]

Great. Now my Pokey ebook is incomplete.

Thanks for a great post!

[21SuicideKing21]

so wait, does this mean you have more than one account on FTP?

[Pokey]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a flush draw on the flop in hand 1, but hand 2 is a rainbow flop. This makes a difference imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh, you're right. That's what I get for outsourcing my second post. It's so hard to find good flunkies these days....

Nonetheless, the change actually makes it MORE likely that our opponent will call our made hand, since he couldn't be on a busted draw. Despite that, people found it LESS likely that villain calls on the end. This mistake actually makes my point stronger, not weaker.

[TTStrangler]

Pokey &lt;---so sick.

BTW, I am the king of weak tight, it's something I try to work on nearly everyday. 2+2 + Pokey is slowly leading me down the right path though.

Thanks Pokey!

[cashstrapped]

great post man.

[Tito]

Good to see you back Pokey. I wish you posted more.
I /images/graemlins/heart.gif Pokey

[hoyasaxa]

thanks man, this is really great food for thought

[bozzer]

i think i have to call sample size on this one:

- in both, about 2/3 respondents selected the middle two categories.

- only the 50-75% category has anything that looks like a significant difference between the data sets.

- the categories are very broad anyway. if i felt like there was a 50% chance of villain calling in either hand (which i think i do), its very hard to know which to click.

- overall sample is a bit small to be drawing too many general conclusions about the state of uNL, although I agree with OP's hypothesis. lol at the particularly weak-tight poster who responded first in the first thread.

I love the idea of these tests though; perhaps getting some slightly better known posters to post them (maybe some weeks apart) would help the sample size issues.

[EMc]

lolotrickedu

Sorryh about the flush draw/non flush draw but i think he still makes the same point.

[CruS]

Very nice Pokey, I wonder if the results were the same if all uNL players answered the polls. But I guess this sample tells more than enough.

[EMc]

We each tried to bump them a few times to get more results. Sometimes its hard to force participation

[CruS]

yeah, polls requires two clicks EXTRA! :/

[TTStrangler]

[ QUOTE ]
Pls dont clutter the forum. Your last post was fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ the moderator smacking the "newbie"

[EMc]

That was pokey's idea, so it wouldnt be overly suspicious.

[wslee00]

you guys are sneaky

[Zagga]

OP studies psychology?

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
lolotrickedu


[/ QUOTE ]

I get it...EMc --&gt; rNx: each letter in the name right next to the matching letter on the keyboard. Clever.

[2p2J]

TY Pokey for another great post. Your always enlighting the uber donkeys

[Monster207]

really cool stuff to think about and great point. i definitely need to work on it.

[members_only]

Haha took me a while to realize I actually responed to the first one. Ty bozzer...

People will call more when you don't have a hand because it makes it more likely that they do from a combinations point of view. This is kind of pedantic, but still.

Also... 40 people responded to the first poll, and 24 to the second. So you have a maximum of 24 people who responded to both, and probably more like 10. 10 people... it's hardly statistically damning.

But I take your general point about MUBS syndrome, or in my case omg he called my c-bet with bottom pair what a station I'll only bet at him with the nuts syndrome. It's hard to have the confidence/skill to think around it sometimes.

[corsakh]

Boards are different. Cheats. But not the point.

The point is the line does not make any sense at all. And the villain does not need to be a great hand reader or anything to realize this.

He may have a draw. Then he folds and we win. Good times.

But more often than that he will have a small pair. And the way we played the hand is like we were drawing. Bet does not make sense, we are bluffing and he calls. Considering villains tendencies to fold rivers at micros, I think its a certain /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I understand what you are trying to say here. But honestly, I think weak tight with mediocre hands is often the preferred line in micros. People show aggression so rarely, its difficult not to give them credit. People call so lightly, its almost impossible to bluff and nutpedalling is much more important.

[friskyfleabag]

lol awesome

[Zagga]

[ QUOTE ]
Also.. 40 people responded to the first poll, and 24 to the second. So you have a maximum of 24 people who responded to both, and probably more like 10. 10 people... it's hardly statistically damning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since the people are all out of the same population (uNL) The sample size is more the enoufh for statistics. However, OP should give us the standard deviation and I could simply calculate if it is statistically significant.

I really love this post en what OP has done, but I have a few points worth noting. Both hands are not identique but have 2 different things that can also be the reason why the results are different for both hands:

1. On the first hand(the bluff) there is a flush draw, on the second hand there isn't one. Since the whole hand is played abit like a draw, it is far more likely villain will make a looser call on the first hand where both flush and straightdraws missed then on the second hand where only a far less apearent draw (straigth) missed. Since the draw is far less apearent in hand 2 villains will put you more often on a better hand and in hand 1 they will put you more on a missed flushdraw.

2. The titles of both hands are already imnplying the awnser, "Is this river bet too much?" implies heavilly that villain will priobady fold, "How often does villain CALL this bluff? " already implies villain will call. Hence the OP has influenced the results simply by these titles.

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also.. 40 people responded to the first poll, and 24 to the second. So you have a maximum of 24 people who responded to both, and probably more like 10. 10 people... it's hardly statistically damning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since the people are all out of the same population (uNL) The sample size is more the enoufh for statistics. However, OP should give us the standard deviation and I could simply calculate if it is statistically significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeh you don't need anyone who responded to both - if we did know that we could use a more powerful test (paired t test) but it doesn't matter that we don't.

[bazooka87]

Bastards.
Another great post that makes you think, you've really earned the custom title

[wslee00]

[ QUOTE ]
People call so lightly, its almost impossible to bluff and nutpedalling is much more important.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree with this from my experience on stars 50NL

[corsakh]

I suggest better table selection.

[Disconnected]

There are some good points in this thread about what the better style of play might be, and that at the micros, some level of weak tight lines are fine.

But I don't think that's necessarily the main point Pokey was getting at, in the way he was describing weak tight, or at least that wasn't what I took away from his post. I think where he was going with this is that if you think your opponents will act differently depending on whether you have a hand, that's not good.

So, regardless of the correct lines to take in the sample hands he used, the villains should be reacting the same.

If you don't bluff on the river because it's burning money at the micros, fine, but you should then be making large value bets when you have a strong hand. If you're convinced that you have to bet small on the river with a strong hand because otherwise your opponent will fold, you should also be willing to bluff 3/4 pot on the river with air. I think the first scenario is more likely than the second, but regardless, you should act "consistently."

Thanks for another quality post, Pokey /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[myammy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People call so lightly, its almost impossible to bluff and nutpedalling is much more important.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree with this from my experience on stars 50NL

[/ QUOTE ]

I play 50 nl and have much more success when i hand read and am not afraid to get caught bluffing in spots wher i am +Ev