[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since check-raising is presumably the 'better' option, should I just go ahead and check-raise?
[/ QUOTE ]
Thge idea that checkraising is better than check calling or check folding here, and that the other two are worse options that you should use only to randomize is wrong. Leading into a preflop raiser with a set is a great way to get there stack. CRing is frequently the worst way.
[/ QUOTE ]
One thought on this. I tend to like leading into the raiser with a set but I do play it differently sometimes. I think choosing to mix it up in a particular case should be done for a combination of game-theoretic and opponent-specific reasons.
Meaning - You often are at a table long enough for opponents to notice how you play certain hands. I'd rather have someone see me c-r a set once and lead into the raiser twice, rather than do the same thing three times. But which time I choose to checkraise will often be opponent specific. Say there's an ace on board and I expect someone to threebet push me with TPTK b/c he just saw me checkraise a draw or middle pair against him. Maybe it's a threeway pot and I think that if he doesn't have the ace he'll bet if checked to but fold if bet into. So either way I get the most, this time, and someone else sees me checkraise a set and makes it easier to get the raise next time when I lead into them.
The game-theoretic value is in the
appearance of randomized play. A lot of times you don't have to randomize to have your play appear random.
[/ QUOTE ]
i think what your saying is absurd... isn't 2+2 the place where we have all decided that having a set with different variables should be played in different ways? i mean maybe having an Ace on board really should differ the type of play you make. i believe what MLG is trying to say is that for ever specific situation, there is a correct percentile way of playing the hand. the question of if it is possible for a human to do this is another matter.
to imply that your goal is just to appear random is not logical. if you just appear random, but are not accually random, a perfect player could beat you in those situations, a good player would be able to take advantage of the fact that you appear random, but are not atually random. randomness to some extent is what gives you the ability to make money when playing other good players.
to another matter, i wanted to discuss, and ask you all about the ability to answer this thread. having reread it countless times, i would say the real question is if there is a strategy that can come out of this incredible poker insight. and my answer is no, although i am open to other's oppinions [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] but here's my stab at it:
the reason this type of thread has no relevance at lower stakes is quite simple to see. at low stakes, no matter how much better you get at winning, or "maximizing your profits", as we are toaght here on 2+2, your oponents honestly really never get much better, they still call you down like donkeys, and/or allow you to out play them like donkeys. in short, if there are a losing player at some stake, they will most likely always be a losing play at that stake, or at least for a very long time. now, as we move up in stakes, we begin to encounter people who accually think! what a shocker... they start saying"what does he have?" which is what this thread is about. how there is an obvious answer to the issue of oponents saying what does he have, and that is"what does he think i have?"
these players are beat by a simple question also. so we get to a place now where everyone is thinking what does he think i have. and here is the issue. original question was the existance of a strategy that can be deduced from there insights. and here we find our answer. let's say you are playing a head's up match. hero vs. villain
you as the hero, adjust first to how villain is playing. you are able to adjust to his ranges, and his betting styles and structures. but wait! villain is not an idiot, so he imidiately adjusts to your game, figuring out your ranges and betting structures. you then do the same. and as you can see, it will never end. so, is there any starting strategy that is more correct than any other? short of folding the nuts throught 20th nuts, and only raising hands that don't play on the board, can't any realistic starting strategy be viable assuming one is able to adjust to his/her oponent?
last, but i hope not least, i'd just like to say that this thread is the first i've accaully enjoyed reading, and i've been reading 2+2 for months. i'd say post of the month material easily... assuming i didn't just ruin it
