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

[DawnToDusk]

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.

[cpk]

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?

[xwillience]

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.

[Chomp]

[ 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.

[DawnToDusk]

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]

[pete3145]

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