**Official uNL Microbrew thread: July(LC/NC)**

[netstorm]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, a range consists of good solid hands and an air segment, where you have things like 44 and 87s or if you so choose 43s and Q3o

The reason you add junk and semi-trash to your ranges is to mask your good hands (Theory of Poker, bluffing frequencies) and thus increase the payoff on those.

All the hands in your pf ranges are NOT supposed to be profitable, you aim is to maximize your OVERALL winrate (or hourly, if you are a massive multitabler).


That being said, 43s is not in my UTG range, but I don't mind it being there. On a different note, insisting that it is profitable might be a stretch, but critizing it for being unplayable due to being unprofitable is also a stretch.

And finally if you suck postflop, playing with wide ranges is a spew, but that is a different subject alltogther.

/end Gelfordness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gelford, I know you are a player who plays, uses and abuses table dynamics a lot more than anyone else at the microstakes. However, my issue with this hand is that you are opening it UTG, OOP. Stealing with it from the CO or BTN is fine. I wont do it, but I can see when someone opens up their game this could be a hand to be played IP.

calling a 3-bet with it is a whole other story, because there is so much less room to use table dynamics when the pot is being 3bet. Most 3bet pots (and Im still talking microstakes here) are being decided on the flop. It either goes in, or it will be folded. (or checked to the turn)

I guess its just personal preference, and it will help your image. But seeing as there arent many good regulars who take you image into account, its useless at the micro's IMO

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]

also apparently not true according to MOP (p207), but I might have miss-read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

MOP (chen and ankenmann for those not aware of it) also deals with it, but your are in the wrong chapter. Somewhere there is a clear reference to this, but since I haven't touched the book since first readeing it on its release, I will just offer you this:

MOP, p 98:

Balance is not always correlated with profitability, but balanced play is often strong


(Whether 44, 78s, 43s or 83o offsuit is the proper hand to balance with is up for debate. But the 43s in unprofitable, so it shouldn't be played arguments are plain wrong imo.

At least ssdex is balancing his play. That being said, I am going into this debate cos I find the ones that attacked ssdex where wrong, ssdex hands I don't mind, his following posts defending the hand are meh, but holla [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

[HBomb]

I love microstakes forum [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] just wish I had this type of community on my own forums where we would be able to debate situations like this with a fair amount of valid points.

I do agree with several of your guy's points in the fact that:
Dex: Yes, you will tend to flop some sort of draw at some points and will find spots to felt a solid showdown hand much like the same way you could flop a set against an overpair. But you will have to also take into account for those positions in which your hand is still drawing to what may be an 8 outer at best against someone that will often stack off lightly at these lower limits.

Gelford: You are right in the fact that you do need to mix up your game every once in awhile to keep people on their feet if they have been paying any sort of attention (usually at these limits half aren't paying attention and would rather play to suck someone out). But you made a valid point which I still have a hard time working on because of the fact that I'm often afraid of bluffing alot of these guys at these limits in reraised pots. Because generally on flops like the KQ3 flop example, they often have AK or QQ in these spots.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]

Gelford, I know you are a player who plays, uses and abuses table dynamics a lot more than anyone else at the microstakes. However, my issue with this hand is that you are opening it UTG, OOP. Stealing with it from the CO or BTN is fine. I wont do it, but I can see when someone opens up their game this could be a hand to be played IP.

calling a 3-bet with it is a whole other story, because there is so much less room to use table dynamics when the pot is being 3bet. Most 3bet pots (and Im still talking microstakes here) are being decided on the flop. It either goes in, or it will be folded. (or checked to the turn)

I guess its just personal preference, and it will help your image. But seeing as there arent many good regulars who take you image into account, its useless at the micro's IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Well image (balance) is not useless at the micros, but you need to be picky about where you apply it.

Clueless calling station fish and non-thinking massively multitabling regs are not your target.

Thinking regs and macho/non-calling station fish are your target, and those exist also at the micros.


But yeah, it took me ages to make all of this work, but it does take hand reading abilities, and without those, it is all useless and spewing.

We only played together once, but I sure got your attention [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[netstorm]

@ Gelf:

we got each others attention becuase we both pay attention to the tables, and respect each others game.

You said it right though: you need to picky about when you do this. How can you pick the right villain when you are raising it UTG with 5 players left to act? I dont even mind 3betting with air. Hell, I do that once in a while. But against the right people.

As ssdex is posting this, he makes it seem like he will raise it up UTG regardless, and call 3bets with it regardless. Thats what I hate about his play

[HBomb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Gelford, I know you are a player who plays, uses and abuses table dynamics a lot more than anyone else at the microstakes. However, my issue with this hand is that you are opening it UTG, OOP. Stealing with it from the CO or BTN is fine. I wont do it, but I can see when someone opens up their game this could be a hand to be played IP.

calling a 3-bet with it is a whole other story, because there is so much less room to use table dynamics when the pot is being 3bet. Most 3bet pots (and Im still talking microstakes here) are being decided on the flop. It either goes in, or it will be folded. (or checked to the turn)

I guess its just personal preference, and it will help your image. But seeing as there arent many good regulars who take you image into account, its useless at the micro's IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Well image (balance) is not useless at the micros, but you need to be picky about where you apply it.

Clueless calling station fish and non-thinking massively multitabling regs are not your target.

Thinking regs and macho/non-calling station fish are your target, and those exist also at the micros.


But yeah, it took me ages to make all of this work, but it does take hand reading abilities, and without those, it is all useless and spewing.

We only played together once, but I sure got your attention [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

lol Gelford, what % of players do you estimate that you come across are the type that you define as the type to be reasonably bluffable at times? Do you think this % decreases the lower you go down in limits because of the fact that usually the higher the stakes are, the more people are willing to focus on what is at risk and try to play hands as best they can.

I'll say it again, I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] microstakes forum, if I didn't have internet at work, I can't imagine how bored I'd be here.

[ssdex]

[ QUOTE ]
ssdex, I literally have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. These are genuine questions, and are not in any way meant to be confrontational.

1. You keep saying that we raise 88 to steal blinds or build pot for when we hit a set. But doesn't this totally discount the times we win the pot some way other than with a set?


2. I think saying "raising total junk UTG is part of a balanced overall strategy" makes total sense. But what's with the 43s fixation? I mean, really aren't you just saying "raise your worst SCs sometimes UTG". Well, ok. But that's kinda standard, and 43s is no more or less of a hand to to this with. Do you include 56s in this UTG strategy? If so, well, so do I, and I am a total anal nit.


3. Here are 2 related quotes of yours on this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give you pairs under 8's utg and ill take 43s and I will never fold to a 3bet and I bet I will end up making more $ then all the times you just raise/fold when u get 3bet with under 8's, b/c you wont 4bet them, and if you do thats just bad,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
you cant call c/f if you dont have a set you lose a ton of $, you steal with 43s just as often as you steal with a pair or any hand utg

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't you do the exact same with 77 as 43? Is there something about 43 that allows you to bluff with it postflop, but something about 77 that doesn't? And you seem to be suggesting that you can 4b 43, but not 77?

Basically, you seem to be saying "77 = call/fold without set", but that "43 = boundless possibilites to catch 2p or bluff-steal or 4b pre". That seems kinda ludicrous.


4. In hand 2, you say "I knew i could pot and get a fold 95% from particular villain". 95%? Surely in any 4bet pot on a KQx flop 95% is wildly optimistic against any reasonable range?


5. Also, where does this PS fit in:

77: 80.577%
34s: 19.423%

Genuine question...I have no idea where this fits (or doesn't fit) in your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problems trying to answer some of your questions so please keep in mind the following
1) I am by no means a great player
2) I do however play just about as many hands as anyone, probably close to 2 million lifetime, usually 60k or more a month, ive played 14k in the last 2 days
3) I am a proven winner, over 4bb/100 over my last 500k
4) I am prone to tilt, this is why my graphs are so swingy, not because of my range

Anyways on to try and help with your questions, I by all means raise every pp utg, I raise most sc's utg as well.... I like to have a wide raising range so other hands get more action, I get 3bet really often and I like that

a downside to being 3bet really often, if your always folding then you need to raise less, so calls, especially in position, ill make with a lot of hands..... and I will 4bet from time to time as well, but only with a player who 3bets me with frequency, not the guy who is doing it with ak or better

the reason I think a hand like 43s is easier to play utg and more profitable for me is the following

i am going to steal the blinds with the same frequency as a PP
I am going to cbet with the same frequency as a PP
Here is the real difference for me.... when people play back at my cbets with a PP like 7's, I find a call really difficult, however, often with a hand like 43s I have a lot of really cool draws and I also think my hand is getting paid more when it hits than a set (just my experience)
I will probably call more 3bets with 43s then a PP because even though you can bluff as frequently with both what you must understand is when you are bluffing, 43s and 77 are really the same type of air, b/c neither has any showdown value if you get called..... atleast sometimes when im bluffing with 43s its a big semibluff and not just an altogether bluff as in im drawing to 2 outs to save my ass

[Gelford]

Just to wrap things up ... manipulation and abusing image is not the same as balance.

Balance is unexploitable, the other thing might not be, but in order to exploit it, you have to radically change strategies as I change stategies. (again a subject touched on in MOP, how optimal exploiting strategies tend the switch from one end of the specter to the other (like 100% call to 100% fold) as the exploitable player changes his frequencies.

Aba has touched some of this on cardrunners, but IShip2U's 25NL video from a MSNL'er is actually a very good introduction to the subject.

[netstorm]

Gelford, AIM please =)


The reason I tend to get into this big discussion here, is because I feel we are trying to learn the 'new' players here in uNL about position, and then people are (not on purpose probably) blowing that advice away by raising a marginal hand OOP.

Because what will new players remember from these 50 posts about 43s? "hey, a suited connector! Raise that [censored] up!"
They might forget about all the factors that come along with these plays.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
@ Gelf:

we got each others attention becuase we both pay attention to the tables, and respect each others game.

[/ QUOTE ]

My mistake, somehow I tought I was replying to Ama, who first time he played me, outed me in the brew as being a hyper aggro but exploitable player ... so forget this statement.

[ QUOTE ]

You said it right though: you need to picky about when you do this. How can you pick the right villain when you are raising it UTG with 5 players left to act? I dont even mind 3betting with air. Hell, I do that once in a while. But against the right people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the first raise is nothing to get exited about, you make it 3-4xbb and there is no more to see here.

You start thinking about right/wrong villian once your initial pf raise gets reraised/called.

Lets face it, most of the time you will either just win the blinds or the hand will go call-cbet and villian folds

[ QUOTE ]

As ssdex is posting this, he makes it seem like he will raise it up UTG regardless, and call 3bets with it regardless. Thats what I hate about his play

[/ QUOTE ]

Well whether you always raise 43s or 44 UTG (and most raise 44) is holla, as the hand rare gets to a showdown or plays a big pot.

So always raising it pf is nothing to be worried about. Always calling a 3bet with it is a different matter etc [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]