blitzing on third and long and the problem with poker forum advice

[sahaguje]

I have a slight disagreement here. I really think that in a given situation there is one best play. It is the complexity of the factors a good player takes into account while making his decision that creates the illusion of mixing it up. Of course, it ends up the same way : the good player plays differently hands that would look the same to unexperienced players.

But I do not think it is a good idea to make people think that there is some intrinsec value of randomization. There is not, unless it takes place in a very specific plan, but then again it is not randomization. Beginners (including me) should never voluntary make random decisions; they should on the contrary try to refine and work on their game to the point where they "naturally" mix up their play in apparent similar situations.

So I agree there is a problem with the way we handle posts here. But it my opinion, it is the lack of two things in the hands posted, and in the way they are answered : psychological aspects, of course (reads, recent hands etc.) ; but also integration into a game plan. Maybe this is more important in live play, but I am quite sure it is underrated by online players. The same hand should not be played the same way if you are playing a "target", if you are intending to double up quickly in order to cover up a bad player to your left, if you want to play a long session and then want to convey a specific image, if you know that a player on your table is very likely to tilt if he takes a beat etc.

That is IMO the way one should mix his game. Not by randomization, but by increasing the number of factors taken into account when making a decision.

++

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a slight disagreement here. I really think that in a given situation there is one best play. It is the complexity of the factors a good player takes into account while making his decision that creates the illusion of mixing it up. Of course, it ends up the same way : the good player plays differently hands that would look the same to unexperienced players.

But I do not think it is a good idea to make people think that there is some intrinsec value of randomization. There is not, unless it takes place in a very specific plan, but then again it is not randomization. Beginners (including me) should never voluntary make random decisions; they should on the contrary try to refine and work on their game to the point where they "naturally" mix up their play in apparent similar situations.

So I agree there is a problem with the way we handle posts here. But it my opinion, it is the lack of two things in the hands posted, and in the way they are answered : psychological aspects, of course (reads, recent hands etc.) ; but also integration into a game plan. Maybe this is more important in live play, but I am quite sure it is underrated by online players. The same hand should not be played the same way if you are playing a "target", if you are intending to double up quickly in order to cover up a bad player to your left, if you want to play a long session and then want to convey a specific image, if you know that a player on your table is very likely to tilt if he takes a beat etc.

That is IMO the way one should mix his game. Not by randomization, but by increasing the number of factors taken into account when making a decision.

++

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is chock-full of junk. But it contains at least one very common type of faulty thinking that pops up over and over: someone posts a tough spot that practically BEGS for a game-theoretic solution, but everyone instead suggests there's some magic "read" that the player should have that would bail him out. E.g.: "It's read dependant." No, it's not. If you have a "read," fine. If not, sometimes you have to play defensively, or a good opponent will tear you apart.

[sahaguje]

oh well ok

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]
But it contains at least one very common type of faulty thinking that pops up over and over: someone posts a tough spot that practically BEGS for a game-theoretic solution, but everyone instead suggests there's some magic "read" that the player should have that would bail him out. E.g.: "It's read dependant." No, it's not. If you have a "read," fine. If not, sometimes you have to play defensively, or a good opponent will tear you apart.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree: almost all of these hands are read dependent, the best play depends massively on how your opponent plays and it's lazy not to have a good idea what that is. Yes, there is probably a "standard" line, which might be a mixed strategy or a pure strategy, but it's probably not very profitable.

[glass_onion]

I'll add my :02. First I disagree that halfback pass or statue of liberty play is the best +ev option. I'd think far from it, due to the interceptions that come. Coaches choose it because a run up the middle rarely results in a 50+yd touchdown. Sometimes in a football game, as in a 10 person tournament, you have to gamble to win, as safe +ev plays wont achieve a desired results.

At the ring game level, long term profitability is the only long term desired result and gambling on a -EV decision is obviously not optimum. As many posters have said there are other things that can take a probably -ev play in terms of what the final hands were and turn it positive. Reads, mixing up play, a host of metagame features, range of hands you put the opponent on, and inducing donkey tilt.

Now I primarily play 2/4 and less, with occasional shots at highter. I make very few 'mix it up plays' and I do just fine. I adjust to my opponents passive or donkish tendencies, but i'm of the belief that 95% of my opponents won't put in the time to recognize that I typically check the nut st8 on the river and look to donk it on the turn basicaly every time, or that about the only hand i'll RR preflop doesnt involve AA.

As proof of this I submit the fact that I win consistantly at every level, and have for over 18 months. Any competent opponent should see that I'm betting preflop 10% of the time and come up with pretty much what those hands are. They should DEFINETELY see that I'm not continuing past flop on a float - that is i've got odds every damn time. Now sure I'm semi bluffing and cold bluffing sometimes, but not too bloody much. A freind asked me the other day how I'd play myself and I said I'd play full stacked, be betting 3/4 pot on all flops and folding to raises when applicable, and I'd POT every turn that didnt' complete a draw. The fact that no one plays this way against me is proof that very little 'mixing it up' is nescessary to beat idiots.

[beset]

I just wanted to add that this thread contains many of the ideas that pretty much caused me to give up on contributing meaningfully to internet strategy forums a long time ago. I enjoy being apart of the community on two plus two mostly because I've met a lot of cool people here in Seattle and down in LA and Las Vegas that have helped make my experience as a professional gambler more enjoyable. It took me about 6 months of trying to have meaningful strategy discussions on this board to come to the conclusion that discussing poker situations on the internet in an effective, purposeful and intellectual honest/accurate way is very very difficult such that I often feel like I could make one of these responses to just about any hand posted, or I would write a dissertation based on how I would react to different players:

(1) it depends

(2) Often I will do X, but Y percentage of the time I will do Z because of [over-broad easy to misinterprete over-generalization that I then feel too lazy to defend or expand on]

(3) lol

I think whatever value does come from these boards in terms of player development is pretty minimal compared what can be learned by playing tons of hands, discussing poker strategy in person or in real-time with players who are better then you and engaging in intensive self-review.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
very little 'mixing it up' is nescessary to beat idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is disputing this.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it contains at least one very common type of faulty thinking that pops up over and over: someone posts a tough spot that practically BEGS for a game-theoretic solution, but everyone instead suggests there's some magic "read" that the player should have that would bail him out. E.g.: "It's read dependant." No, it's not. If you have a "read," fine. If not, sometimes you have to play defensively, or a good opponent will tear you apart.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree: almost all of these hands are read dependent, the best play depends massively on how your opponent plays and it's lazy not to have a good idea what that is. Yes, there is probably a "standard" line, which might be a mixed strategy or a pure strategy, but it's probably not very profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the fact that all hands are read dependent that makes this such a boring and lazy answer. Whether to call a big overbet all-in PF with 72o is read-dependent.

[grizy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
very little 'mixing it up' is nescessary to beat idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is disputing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a very long discussion with a friend about this in No Limit hold'em a couple years ago. I am a very game theory oriented player (degrees: comp sci, finance, economics, and yes, polic sci, I spent 7 years in college... hey, it was free) and he relied heavily on instinct.

What is comes down to is this... against idiots who aren't paying attention to what you're doing or are not changing his play whatsoever... then in turn you don't have to mix up your play since the mixing up would not yield you additional EV. In these cases, and this is true more often in low stakes than high, you are in fact better off sticking with the standard line. (This is actually mentioned in Super System)

However, the higher stakes you go, the more you NEED to randomize your game decisions. In fact, even in 100plo, there are players you need to mix up against or you're find yourself losing money to these players over the long run... even though you might be making money on these tables.

[grizy]

Ultimately, a read to me means I have a feeling my opponent is "more" likely to have certain hands... and I adjust my probabilities accordingly. And like Dan Harrington said... even the tightest players will probably go on stone cold bluff like 10% of the time.