SSNL Study Session #2 Topic: Don\'t Justify Their Optimistic Calls
 

Don’t Justify Their Optimistic Calls

Two weeks ago we discussed the topic of implied odds from NL:TP (page 33-39). The first topic we will be discussing this week directly relates to the discussion we had last week and is a crucial concept for successful deep stack NL play. If you need to you can review the implied odds topic by following this link: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0#Post6201635.

Pages 40-44 of NL:TP talk about justifying our opponents optimistic calls. Essentially we will be discussing whether to pay off big bets or fold to a big bet. There is no actual definition for this topic but here is an example:

Suppose you hold a good hand but one that might not stand up well against big bets. After looking at the flop you come to the conclusion that the flop texture is good and the only real draws are to a gutshot. You make a pot sized bet denying your opponents the correct pot odds to draw to the gutshot but realize that the bet was equivalent to one-thirteenth of your stack. You didn’t refuse them high implied odds for the gutshot and get a call from your opponent who assumes they will get their one-eleventh of the time and stack you. If your opponent is right and does stack you when they hit their gutshot, then in addition to offering to high implied odds, you have made the error of justifying their optimistic call.

In the example above we noted that we had a good hand but one that might not stand up well against big bets. Unfortunately we paid off big bets with it and lost. Whenever we are involved in a hand we must be asking ourselves if we want to pay off big bets with the hand we currently hold. The answer may change later in the hand, but nonetheless we must keep this thought in the back of our head.

If we came to the conclusion that we are willing to pay off big bets with our hand we should try to avoid offering our opponents to high of implied odds. Bet enough money so that your opponent’s likely draws will lose money over the long run if they call. Even if you pay them off with a big bet when they get there from time to time. If you aren’t planning to pay off a big bet then consider your opponents draws and what bets they will likely call that is unprofitable for them to do so. Bet an amount that looks small but you know is too much for them to call as you won’t go broke with your hand.

This concept doesn’t exactly apply when we are short stacked though. If you are likely to get your money in when you are short stacked and your opponent calls a bet assuming they can get your stack, then they are right. But we must be careful to avoid doing this when much deeper stacked.

I would like to further our discussion by having you ask any questions concerning this topic and the topic of implied odds. We might be beating the implied odds topic to death, but it is such a crucial topic to successful NL deepstack play and I want to ensure everyone at this level has a firm understanding of it. If you do have a question about implied odds try to tie it into our discussion of justifying optimistic calls.

I would also like to ask you what hands can stand up to big bets (hands we might consider paying off with) in certain situations. I bet we can all come up with some generalizations about all the hold ‘em starting hands, but many of us probably can’t tell when a hand may be worth paying off with and when it might not. If you have any hands you are having trouble playing with when it looks like you may be paying off, please let us know the situation you are in. As a group maybe we can come to some conclusions about these situations and advance our game to the next level together.

Re: SSNL Study Session #2 Topic: Don\'t Justify Their Optimistic Calls
 

It also struck me how important the reads on the opponent is in these situations.

How often does s/he bluff?
Do they chase with draws hoping to stack?
What size bets does the opponent seem to fear/respect? Does this vary based on the type of draw they hold?

I think this is nearly as important as the effective stack sizes, but it was not emphasized enough in the reading for my taste.

Re: SSNL Study Session #2 Topic: Don\'t Justify Their Optimistic Calls
 

Idk, isn't this section basicly saying, "hey, sometimes you don't pay him off and sometimes you do"? And yes I read the book. I thought this particular section was meh.

Re: SSNL Study Session #2 Topic: Don\'t Justify Their Optimistic Calls
 

It is more like have a plan for the villian in mind and be prepared to pay him/her off or not.

Re: SSNL Study Session #2 Topic: Don\'t Justify Their Optimistic Calls
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is more like have a plan for the villian in mind and be prepared to pay him/her off or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the section is saying "plan ahead." Meh. Definitely better parts of the book. The worst section of the book imo: the hammer of future betting.

Re: SSNL Study Session #2 Topic: Don\'t Justify Their Optimistic Calls
 

Well that section is coming up very soon, but I think this section is very important to look at. At first I thought it was kind of mehish but then something caught my eye in the reading. I quote: "Many no limit players' eys are bigger than their heads. They often call decently-sized flop bets with longshot draws because they assume that if they get there, they'll stack you a large percentage of the time."

Now I am sure many of us can come to that conclusion on our own. But for some reason it took someone saying it in writing for it to really hit home.

At first I found myself thinking of this all the time and almost like playing defensive poker. I was like "Well I don't want to play a big pot with this hand... blah blah blah." But then I found to read the situations and opponents a little better and pick them apart. Because of it I was able to extract more value after putting some time and thought into it.

So I will kind of start with MyTurns first reply to this thread.

I found that one opponent that makes more marginal hands a little more +EV is a showdown muppet. Especially if they are passive. At the same time when I am playing HU with one of these players, I try to get a read on the texture. If the board is coordinated I know that I won't want to be paying big bets with my hand. If the board isn't that coordinated I have to be careful to not pay off a big bet with a dominated hand. Because of this it makes it easy to not offer the correct implied odds to my opponents and value betting on the river is really easy.

What other kinds of villains/situations come to your mind?

Re: SSNL Study Session #2 Topic: Don\'t Justify Their Optimistic Calls
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well that section is coming up very soon, but I think this section is very important to look at. At first I thought it was kind of mehish but then something caught my eye in the reading. I quote: "Many no limit players' eys are bigger than their heads. They often call decently-sized flop bets with longshot draws because they assume that if they get there, they'll stack you a large percentage of the time."

Now I am sure many of us can come to that conclusion on our own. But for some reason it took someone saying it in writing for it to really hit home.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true. I actually recommend donking around in some low stakes pot limit omaha hi/lo. The hand values are much stronger in this game, so the draw has to be great and the hi and lo must be valuable or it is time to let it go. It teaches you to avoid bad situations and to look for opponents who do not.

Re: SSNL Study Session #2 Topic: Don\'t Justify Their Optimistic Calls
 

[ QUOTE ]

I found that one opponent that makes more marginal hands a little more +EV is a showdown muppet. Especially if they are passive. At the same time when I am playing HU with one of these players, I try to get a read on the texture. If the board is coordinated I know that I won't want to be paying big bets with my hand. If the board isn't that coordinated I have to be careful to not pay off a big bet with a dominated hand. Because of this it makes it easy to not offer the correct implied odds to my opponents and value betting on the river is really easy.

What other kinds of villains/situations come to your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

One that I see alot is bad shortstack players who will c/r allin with any pair. I can bet a comfortable amount, ie pot size, and know that I will call any c/r or push.

Re: SSNL Study Session #2 Topic: Don\'t Justify Their Optimistic Calls
 

Actually this is very true. Albeit I read a tad a lil about Omaha hi/lo I think this brings up a very good point. If you are at a table with someone that is knowledgeable and you want a quick (albeit maybe not cheap) lesson get in there and slug it out. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Actuall that might not be a bad idea to recommend to beginning players for not getting to attached to their hands.

Re: SSNL Study Session #2 Topic: Don\'t Justify Their Optimistic Calls
 

I will have to keep an eye out for these players more often. Maybe I don't spot them often enough as I don't get to take a lot of notes on them as they leave after they lose their money.

Whats our calling range here? We limiting it to just TP? What about if we know the short stacks will move in on draws as well? How does that affect our calling range? Do we have to start looking at the potsize and estimating their outs for a possible draw they have before we can think about calling in this situation?

Using information to determine when to pay off
 

This is kind of a bump for all to see the thread but it is also meant to continue the discussion started by MyTurn2Raise.

MyTurn2Raise kind of spurred on our discussion of what information we can use to help us determine if our hand is one worth paying off big bets with. It changes in every situation with every different opponent but I am sure there are some generalizations we can all come up with. Here are the questions he brought up:

1)How often does s/he bluff?
2)Do they chase with draws hoping to stack?
3)What size bets does the opponent seem to fear/respect? Does this vary based on the type of draw they hold?

NL:TP talks about question one and two a little so someone feel free to expand upon it. Question three is a great question that I think we ought to discuss. I for sure find myself sizing up opponents stacks and asking myself the questions, "Can I get my opponents whole stack by making so and so call...?" "Do I want to call a possible big all-in bet from my opponent with my hand?" "What size bets are my opponents to call with?" I think we have all heard these questions before but I dont believe that we ask ourselves these questions in relation to opponents stack sizes all the time.

So that brings up the question how perceptive are our opponents to stack sizes? If you could generalize an opponents playing style, how does their stack size and our stack size affect their decisions?

Here is a generalization I made about a player and the one after mine is from MyTurn2Raise. Why don't you look at them and add some of your own generalizations about hand ranges that you might call with as well as adding how stack sizes affect these players. Also dont forget to add your own player categorizations. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


DawnToDusk:
I found that one opponent that makes more marginal hands a little more +EV is a showdown muppet. Especially if they are passive. At the same time when I am playing HU with one of these players, I try to get a read on the texture. If the board is coordinated I know that I won't want to be paying big bets with my hand. If the board isn't that coordinated I have to be careful to not pay off a big bet with a dominated hand. Because of this it makes it easy to not offer the correct implied odds to my opponents and value betting on the river is really easy.

MyTurn2Raise:
One that I see alot is bad shortstack players who will c/r allin with any pair. I can bet a comfortable amount, ie pot size, and know that I will call any c/r or push.

Re: Using information to determine when to pay off
 

This is probably a serious n00b question, but are you saying that you avoid justifying their optimistic calls by saying that you will refuse a huge river bet in case they get there? Or are you advocating overbetting the pot to eliminate implied odds?

For instance, the pot is $50, it's heads up, you have position, and you and your opponent each have $1000 behind. You have AA and the only credible draw is a gutshot. It's also possible for your opponent to have a set. But you know your opponent will also pay off reasonable bets with top pair.

Well, one thing you can do is to bet $100. A gutshot won't have the implied odds to call. But you'll also blow your opponent off of top pair. (Or will you?) But you'll definitely get at least called if he has a set. Probably just called, as with your overbet there's no need for him to build the pot.

You could bet $50 here, and you'll probably get at least called by TP, but now you've priced in a gutshot.

It seems like in this case there are competing desires. I want to get paid off if he just has top pair, but I don't want to risk getting stacked by a gutshot. Which desire should I give in to?

Re: Using information to determine when to pay off
 

CPK: by not justifying their optimistic calls we mean dont pay them off when they hit. Its great that they call 2:1 on a 4:1 draw, but you dont want to give them enough money on the turn to have made it okay for them to draw.

for example, villian has a FD on the turn, assuming that we can see each others hole cards. we bet out 1/2 the pot, giving them 3:1 to call. They gladly call, and the flush comes. now, if you put anymore money in the pot youll be making it correct for villian to have called getting only 3:1. but if you muck, then villian was wrong to call in the first place.

Re: Using information to determine when to pay off
 

[ QUOTE ]
CPK: by not justifying their optimistic calls we mean dont pay them off when they hit. Its great that they call 2:1 on a 4:1 draw, but you dont want to give them enough money on the turn to have made it okay for them to draw.

for example, villian has a FD on the turn, assuming that we can see each others hole cards. we bet out 1/2 the pot, giving them 3:1 to call. They gladly call, and the flush comes. now, if you put anymore money in the pot youll be making it correct for villian to have called getting only 3:1. but if you muck, then villian was wrong to call in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very nice explanation.

Re: Using information to determine when to pay off
 

I like xwillience explanation a lot and your question is not a n00b question at all. The simple fact is "that you avoid justifying their optimistic calls by saying that you will refuse a huge river bet in case they get there?"

So this topic probably isn't new to us. In fact it has probably been deeply rooted in the back of our minds and we have already been doing it for ages while playing poker. This section should help develop some critical thinking so we can decide when and what hands to pay. Which brings up my next question and something I have trying to get you guys to talk about.

What hands are to marginal in which situations to pay off big bets. I am sure we can all come up with generalizations of which hands you won't be wanting to pay off big bets with, but how often do you do it during the game for each opponent you play?

Back in the OP for "Using information to determine when to pay off" sub-thread it talked about this a little. Why don't you guys read it and post on what you think. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I\'m using it mostly on possible flushdraws and against set chasers
 

First of I want to thank DawnToDusk for putting up much hard work to get this going. Excellent work, it has inspired me to get to work on my game.

I'm pretty new to nl, been playing since March seriously and I'm beating the 50nl at pokerroom for 6bb atm. Right now I'm taking shots at 100nl atm, but it hasen't gone well so far.

Enough with the background check.

To the question at hand: I play 10 max only and I find that I'm using this mostly when in position and somebody is check-calling when there is a possible flushdraw out and I have top pair or an overpair. I usually bet the pot or 3/4 of the pot on the flop and bet half the pot on the turn as long as no flush comes. On the river I will fold if they make a value bet of 1/4 of the pot or bigger if the flush comes. And I will make a small value bet if it doesn't show and they check to me incase they have a pair to go with it. Or I put them on the completely wrong hand, some people will call down with any pair.

This way he gets two to one on the flop call and three to one on the river call. And as long as I don’t call a river bet of twice the turn bet when he hits his flush he’s loosing money.

My style of play is very vulnareable to bluffs but the few times I have called big bets they usually have what they say they have. Don't see much bluffing at the 50nl, mostly passive calling stations, haven't got a good feel for the 100nl yett.

Anouther time I use this is preflopp when I have pocket AA or KK I try to make sure he has to call more than 1/8 of my stack or his depending on which one is the shortest. If I think he has pocket pairs and likes to chase sets.

/Pete