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?