Very well thought out post CardSharp. I fundamentally agree with everything you say, but I think we are using two different concepts that achieve the same line of play. In my eyes, you just wrote a very easy to understand post on why position is so very crucial in this game.
Game theory states that if you aren't betting the same amount(relative to the pot and stack sizes) for all types of situations, then you must incorporate the "odd" bet amounts to all of the other situations a ceratain percentage of the time, for your overall strategy to be optimal.
For those that do not know much about Game Theory, an Optimal Strategy is one that cannot be exploited, even if the opposing players knows exactly what that strategy is. An example of a play that does not follow an optimal strategy would be to bet 1/4 of the pot into a player that is likely drawing. Betting that amount, even if you play the hand perfectly(meaning you played it as if the cards were face up) from that point forward, still gives the opposing player proper true pot odds to call.
An optimal bet in a situation where there is a likely drawing hand would be to bet half the pot or higher, which will price out most of the common draws.
This strategy of betting is considered optimal, because if you told all of the opposing players, before the game started, that you were intending on utilizing this concept of betting an amount relative to the size of the pot as to cause a drawing hand to be making a mistake by calling that bet. Even with that knowledge of your intended betting strategy, the other players cannot use that to their benefit, or your detriment; hence, Optimal Strategy.
Your "As If" strategy, while optimal and one that I mostly use, is very easily exploited by decent players who have determined that you are using it. How can it be optimal and exploitable at the same time? The math behind it holds up just fine, but the psychological part fails miserably when it is put to the test against tricky players. Tricky players will change their overall strategy for those situations in which they know that you are using a 2/3 pot bet on all continuations, whether you are holding a "strong" hand relative to the flop, or not. Instead of using an Optimal strategy, the tricky players will use what Game Theory refers to as an Exploitive strategy.
I'll use the QQ hand that CardSharp discussed as a framework situation to describe how an Exploitive strategy can psychologically defeat a player using this particular optimal betting strategy.
Ok, MP raises with QQ, and the CO calls with JJ(xx works too) and the blinds fold. Flop come K83, MP fires out a bet that fits in with CardSharps previously mentioned optimal strategy of always betting around 2/3 of the pot, regardless of how his hand fits to the board. Now it is the COs action. Obviously, one optimal strategy for the CO would be to fold. He clearly is not getting the right price to draw to a Jack, and all the signs are pointing out that JJ probably isn't the best hand right now.
Now lets rename MP to TP(tricky player) and the CO to VP(very tricky player). Now lets assume that these two players had been playing at the same table for a few hours, so they have a certain knowledge about each others game. TP had seen VP in alot of pots, so had a slightly better handle on VPs game than VP has on TPs game. VP had recognized that getting a solid read on TP was going to be hit or miss since he had only seen him in a handful of situations. However, VP did catch on to the theme of TPs betting pattern(or lackthereof). VP now had TP stereotyped as a thinking TAG, which is all the info that VP needs to play any pot with him.
Now, back to the hand. TP open raises the pot with QQ, VP calls from the CO with JJ and the blinds fold. Flop comes K83, and just like clockwork TP leads out for 2/3 of the pot. VPs standard reply with his holding to that bet would be to fold or raise. However, because he knows that TP always continues with that size of bet, he cannot be certain that either of those plays will be correct. Because VP has TP pegged as a thinking TAG, he knows that a call will define his hand better than a raise will. Most TAGs are not going to follow through on the turn when called on a K high flop when they are holding QQ. So, rather than using the optimal strategy in this situation(which is folding), VP reverts to an exploitive strategy and makes the call, hoping that freezes the aggressor on the turn.
The turn card comes X, and TP checks, just like VP had hoped. VP knows that most hands that are ahead of JJ at this point are going to check call the turn, and maybe put a defensive bet on the river. TPs check on the turn tells VP almost exactly what his hand isn't(a big K), and that he is a little worried that VP may have a big K. Now VP has to decide whether to check or bet, and if he bets, how much.
VP decides to bet the size of the pot. That may be the only bet that will get an easy fold from hands that are better than JJ, but cannot continue after getting called on the flop and then showing aggressionn on the turn.
TP thinks for a minute, and decides that, although he knows that VP is very capable of making that bet with air, it is just too many chips to risk, especially with more action to come on the river. The implied threat of the river bet is really what makes TP fold. Every TAG knows that it is ridiculous to lose a large amount of chips on a one pair hand with action on multiple streets.
This first hand that TP and VP play against each other is rather standard for two good players going up against one another for the first time. But it will be played out many times over, with only very subtle differences. From that hand forward, nearly every pot that TP raises, is going to get called by VP. And whenever they get heads up in a pot, that same line from above will play out again, with only subtle differences. Obviously TP cannot stick to his 2/3 flop continuation and then give up on the turn whenever he misses and gets called if VP is in the pot with him. VP would have all of his chips in no time.
VPs exploitive strategy is taking advantage of a psychological weakness. TP is unable to put a large amount of chips in the pot when shown resistance, and still suspects he has the best hand. If we could simulate this exact situation, and play it out over 1000 trials, putting different players in TPs and VPs spot, but still the same category of player, I would bet that the best hand gets folded every single trial.
These Game Theory Strategies, when applied to poker, are the core of why position is so important. When in position, you become the very tricky player and can use exploitive strategies on players who are equal to you in terms of skill sets.
If VP wasn't in position in this hand, he could not have employed this particular strategy. Lets say VP was in the blind. Everything the same, except VP is in the BB. He smooth calls the raise preflop, decided to check the K high flop and then call TPs 2/3 pot bet. The turn card is still X, VP checks to the bettor and TP checks behind. VP can now narrow TPs range of hands to a much more manageable degree. Now that VP knows that TP doesn't have a big K, he is frozen out of the action until the river. Remember, it was the implied threat of the river bet that kept TP from calling VPs turn bet in the first situation. Now that there is no implied threat of future action, TP will rarely fold a better hand than JJ if VP decides to bet.
I went over that hand in detail because I wanted to show That if two good players are playing a pot, the player with position becomes the Very Tricky Player, while the other player is just the Tricky Player. Almost all of the best players that I have seen play, basically follow CardSharps "As If" line of play, or variations of it. Basically, varying your play by playing every hand the same would fall under the "As If" theory.
However, because you eventually have to play with other players who are at the same level as you. The "As If" theory line of play has to be varied from, or you will not have any chance in a game with another good player. The first time two good players are seated at the same table, the hand above(TP vs VP) usually plays out the first time they play a pot HU with each other. That TP vs VP confrontation is the stage that is set for all future hands that those two will play against each other. It becomes a game of cat and mouse for the two players, the TP player has to decide how he is going to alter the "As If" theory for that hand, and the VP has to figure out how TP will alter it.
I think CardSharp doesn't conceptualize this as a positional theory because he just hasn't played enough hands where there were good players in the game. Once you recognize that a player is abusing your pattern of play with his position, that is about the point where you start to realize that whole basis for the "As If" line of play, or similar lines, is that it essentially nullifies any positional disadvantage you may have.
How do you nullify positional disadvantage? By closing the action. The person who closes the action, has position. So by making that 2/3 pot bet every time you are the original aggressor, you send an image of implied threat in every one of those hands, but the threat of future action is only real approximately half the time. With the knowledge that the action is indeed closed(as far as you are concerned) you have released any positional disadvantages.
It is just like pushing all in. Once all of your chips are in the middle, you have no more decisions to make, so position is inconsequential for you at that time. The players who have yet to act after the all in bet was made, are now "out" of position.
|
Two Plus Two 
Previous
Search Results
Next
Flat
Re: The "As If" theory
Edit
Reply
Quote
