15-30 live hand
 

This hand came from the 15-30 full ring round by round game at Motor City Casino. One round of holdem was dealt and one round of Omaha high. Despite the fact that this was a full ring hand I will post it here becuz this was a steal situation and I like the Short handed forums better than the full game forums.

I had A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] on the button and everyone folded to me. I just want to point out that if this was a 1-2 structure game 10-20 or below, I would usually fold this hand in this spot becuz the rake at MCC is extremely high ($6 max rake+$1 bad beat+$1 tip).

However this was a 2/3 structure game and the SB was a rock, and the BB whom I had only known for roughly 45 minutes seemed to be a reasonably tight agressive player who was trying to play well. I also felt he was capable of bluffing but not to the point of overdoing it, but I felt he was generally a fearless player, but I also felt he would give up his BB a reasonble amount of time. So with too tight players in a 2/3 structure game I felt opening with A4o was a profitable play.

After I raised the SB folded as expected and the BB called. The flop came out J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. He checked and I bet and he called. At this point I had no idea how to play the turn. If this hand was online and I didnt know what to do on the turn, I may just check behind and call a river bet. In live play, at these stakes, I prefer betting the turn if I dont know what to do becuz these games are not nearly as aggressive as online.

The turn was a total blank card, the 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. I bet and he called. At this point I wasnt sure what he had, but my plan was to check the river UI.

The river was a J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. To my dismay, my opponent now bets the river. What would you do at this point and why?

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

Well with the traits you described concerning this player I prefer to call... sure it is going to suck when he flips a weak J10 / J9 or maybe a hand like A8, but I want to know his range so next time I can capitalize... You are the button, he is in the BB, won't be the last time you have to play with him in this session...

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

His line is pretty odd for either a J or an 8. I like how you played it so far. Call the river and move on. Not too much to talk about here without a read.

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

I would call because he'll show up with busted draws some, a worse 4 occasionally, and rarely a huge hand (though occasionally). It's also beneficial, to an extent, to show that you aren't going to be bluffable. But mostly I think the call will show profit in a vacuum (I don't think he folds better if you're thinking about a raise).

Rob

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

I don't think a live player of this description folding an 8 is totally out of the question & doesn't sound like he'll bluff 3bet so I guess he's thinking about a raise. I'd call though; folding's a distant 3rd cause like surf said who plays a J/8 like this?

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
His line is pretty odd for either a J or an 8. I like how you played it so far. Call the river and move on. Not too much to talk about here without a read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that this hand isnt that interesting. Part of the reason I dont post many hands is becuz I have no idea what's interesting or not. It feels like weve all either talked about or faced every single situation this game has to offer. Does anyone else feel this way about limit holdem poker? That pretty much every situation has been covered a thousand times over and now all that is left to do is to simply execute in battle what we already know? Anyways about the actual hand...

When this guy donked the river, I still felt there was a reasonable chance he was bluffing. All top end straight draws missed, the FD missed, and I believed this guy was capable of bluffing, so I knew right away that I am not folding the river.

It is true that a broken FD or a straight draw should be discounted somewhat becuz he didnt check/raise the flop or make a play on the turn but this is still live middle limit poker where a flopped gutshot or FD is not percieved as a standard check/raise on this board like it is in the online world, so I would not discount these broken draws as heavily as I would if this hand was online.

Since Im not folding the river, its now between calling or raising. Since I knew I was atleast calling, I decided to invest an extra big bet and raise the river to try to get him to fold this hand range A4,55,6x,77,8x. For this raise to be profitable I need him to fold a better hand then mine more than 1 out of 8 times. BTW I ignored the SB portion of the pot since this amount roughly cancelled out the rake amount. I felt he would fold a better hand more than 1/8 so I went for it.

So I raised the river without hesitation and in perfect tempo and my opponent said in a nice manner "Nice hand, ya got me" And then he sloppily pushed 6 more chips in the middle to see what I had and I told him "Nice hand, you win" and he showed me T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and took down the pot.

I thought my opponent played his hand well. From my perspective, I'll never know for sure which line is best on the river. Ive thought about this river spot many times over throughout my poker career which is why it was so easy for me to raise the river in tempo. That doesnt mean I made the right play, but I think my play is defensible.

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that this hand isnt that interesting. Part of the reason I dont post many hands is becuz I have no idea what's interesting or not. It feels like weve all either talked about or faced every single situation this game has to offer. Does anyone else feel this way about limit holdem poker? That pretty much every situation has been covered a thousand times over and now all that is left to do is to simply execute in battle what we already know?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that its hard to tell if a hand is interesting.

I hope one day I will have talked about or faced every single situation (or least most of them)... hopefully by then I will be good at poker

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that this hand isnt that interesting. Part of the reason I dont post many hands is becuz I have no idea what's interesting or not. It feels like weve all either talked about or faced every single situation this game has to offer. Does anyone else feel this way about limit holdem poker? That pretty much every situation has been covered a thousand times over and now all that is left to do is to simply execute in battle what we already know?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I feel that way at times.
Then I run cold, and all that goes out the window and I get humbled pretty quickly :P

ILP if you are feeling that way about a lot of hands, try thinking about how you play the other hands in hero's range instead of just the current hand hero holds. Then , identify situatons where your range is really narrow/weak/strong. Finally, figure out how to balance your distribution; IE when to trade immediate value on some strong hands for boosting the value of the other hands in your range. Getting a sense for both "standard" plays and "optimal" plays is important. Too many people focus on "standard".

There's so little work done on this type of thinking in holdem, that I think there's a gold mine of stuff still to uncover. IMO the future of original poker theory will be more focused on optimal play than exploitve play.
If you haven't read mathematics of poker, do it.. Im sure someone with your reasoning will benefit huge from it.

As for the hand, betting the turn is necssary, because someone with that profile is not check raising draws very often on that turn, and peels a wide range. You can safely fold in a small pot.

On the river, many draws missed, which he may take a stab using a scare card. Or bet a marginal hand, using the J as protection. You are probabily behind, but it's worth a call.

I dont like raising without a better read, just because.. ppl dont fold, especially since your on the button [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] It's very close though.. There's also some value with the intimidation factor.. You may scare him into not doing that in the future.

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

Reading this, my first thought is that he's bluffing, or has an 8 and is taking the "my opponent can't raise me on that scare card so i can safely bet" line, and that there is a decent chance he folds the 8 to a raise. So I like your play.

Looks like he might have realized that there was not only some value to a bet, but also some induced bluff raise equity as well, and he was right.

Pwned. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

I can't believe people are talking about anyone folding an 8 here. In the current limit hold'em world everyone is a showdown monkey, the only reason to raise this river is to value raise a worse 4.

-DeathDonkey

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

"Yes I feel that way at times.
Then I run cold, and all that goes out the window and I get humbled pretty quickly :P"

I agree that running bad can mess with one's perspective, but whenever I look back at most of my bad sessions I usually feel that most of the plays I made were acceptable and that the results just didnt work out.

Now dont get me wrong I make mistakes all the time when I play, but thats whether I'm running good or bad. Imperfect information is a bitch sometimes.

"ILP if you are feeling that way about a lot of hands, try thinking about how you play the other hands in hero's range instead of just the current hand hero holds."

I think about this stuff all the time, that is why it was easy for me to conclude that my opponent played his hand very well.

"Then , identify situatons where your range is really narrow/weak/strong. Finally, figure out how to balance your distribution; IE when to trade immediate value on some strong hands for boosting the value of the other hands in your range. Getting a sense for both "standard" plays and "optimal" plays is important. Too many people focus on "standard"."

For me standard and optimal is the same thing. Standard is not static. There is always a standard/optimal play for every situation. The trick is being able to identify it as quickly as possible and then capitalize on it.

I would also like to point out that Ive never been a proponent for the whole "balance" idea. I have a little secrect to tell you. My poker game is extremely unbalanced and very exploitable and thats exactly the way I like it. In the quest to be unreadable, I think people sometimes forget that exploitable strategies are much more profitable than balanced strategies and the key is figuring out which exploitable strategy will work against each opponent.

For example: In a loose passive game or against a loose passive opponent my wtsd will be much lower than normal. Hence I will be very exploitable to many aggressive lines. So essentially I am just betting that my opponent will not figure out what Im doing. Usually they dont and I am able to deploy a very profitable/highly exploitable strategy. The key to this game is figuring out your opponent's weaknesses and then designing an exploitable strategy to take advantage of their weak points. This idea will work against any opponent model. BTW I dont play in games where players have very few weaknesses or adjust very quickly to what Im doing. I dont think anyone esle should either unless theyre rich and they like challanges.

"There's so little work done on this type of thinking in holdem, that I think there's a gold mine of stuff still to uncover. IMO the future of original poker theory will be more focused on optimal play than exploitve play."

Theres a reason why so little energy has gone into this type of thinking. The money to be made in this game comes from learning how to exploit your opponents not from learning how to be perfectly balanced. For me, optimal play and exploitive play are not two separate entities. They are the same thing.

"If you haven't read mathematics of poker, do it.. Im sure someone with your reasoning will benefit huge from it."

Ive read almost every book ever written on limit holdem becuz I love this game. However when I looked at "Matchematics of poker" in the book store a few months ago, I did not buy it becuz I did not see how this book could help me become a better poker player. I may have not given this book a fair chance.

"As for the hand, betting the turn is necssary, because someone with that profile is not check raising draws very often on that turn, and peels a wide range. You can safely fold in a small pot.

On the river, many draws missed, which he may take a stab using a scare card. Or bet a marginal hand, using the J as protection. You are probabily behind, but it's worth a call.

I dont like raising without a better read, just because.. ppl dont fold, especially since your on the button It's very close though.. There's also some value with the intimidation factor.. You may scare him into not doing that in the future."

I had somewhat of a read although it was very murky. I felt this guy was trying to play well and against someone who is trying to play well who is also capable of bluffing, I will raise this river in this spot pretty close to 100% of the time. That doesnt mean my play is right. I am just giving you my mental model for this situation. I agree with you that the play on the river is close.

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

I agree that most of the time it's best to think exploitivly.

Times to use optimal play are when you are:
a) confused about what to do
b) are up against a player better than you
c) to rationalize actions in close situations

also, by understanding holes in your game (where you do not play optimally) you may also recognize these holes in other good players games... and thus can counter exploit them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

seriously dude read that book... NOW :P

How can it hurt you to have more insight into the game? Are you worried it will plague your thought process? The book can get dry at times, but Im fascinated by stuff like that so it made it less of a chore..

Hell even the first 6 chapters on exploitive play are worth it...

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that most of the time it's best to think exploitivly.

Times to use optimal play are when you are:
a) confused about what to do
b) are up against a player better than you
c) to rationalize actions in close situations

also, by understanding holes in your game (where you do not play optimally) you may also recognize these holes in other good players games... and thus can counter exploit them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

seriously dude read that book... NOW :P

How can it hurt you to have more insight into the game? Are you worried it will plague your thought process? The book can get dry at times, but Im fascinated by stuff like that so it made it less of a chore..

Hell even the first 6 chapters on exploitive play are worth it...

[/ QUOTE ]

To be frank, that books goes far and beyond what my brain is capable of understanding. For the same reasons I cant read a book written in Spanish, I cant read Mathematics of Poker.

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

Small nitpick:

I think you guys are confusing optimal play with unexploitable play.

Optimal play is the play that generates maximal EV for a given situation. Hence, if you're playing vs a guy that has epxloitable tendencies, optimal play is not equal to unexploitable play.

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Small nitpick:

I think you guys are confusing optimal play with unexploitable play.

Optimal play is the play that generates maximal EV for a given situation. Hence, if you're playing vs a guy that has epxloitable tendencies, optimal play is not equal to unexploitable play.

[/ QUOTE ]

The usage of "optimal" to mean the game-theoretical equilibrium (i.e. non-exploitable) was put forward by Chen and Ankenmann in Mathematics of Poker. It's not the standard usage in game theory and it's not the usual meaning in English but for this kind of discussion it's going to become standard thanks to that book.

Guy.

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

Thanks for putting me right Guy. I was going by Sklansky's usage in ToP, but if the other phrase is standard then that's fine.

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are talking about anyone folding an 8 here. In the current limit hold'em world everyone is a showdown monkey, the only reason to raise this river is to value raise a worse 4.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not playing all that much, but I certainly share this perception (though maybe I'm a perceived as a guy against whom someone would never consider folding an 8 and others are those against whom folding an 8 might be the right play).

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]


The usage of "optimal" to mean the game-theoretical equilibrium (i.e. non-exploitable) was put forward by Chen and Ankenmann in Mathematics of Poker. It's not the standard usage in game theory .....

[/ QUOTE ]


Guy,

I may be missing something here, but I am pretty sure that is the standard game theoretical usage. Optimal = game theoretic equilibrium strategy not only in C&A but in any game theory book you'll find....

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

I would call. After your description of him I would expect him to c/r a pair better than yours on the flop. The draws have missed so he may need to bluff to win. I think he is having an eight a fair portion of the time and can have 55-77 but he can also have a worse four (as I said, if he flopped better than you I would expect him to be more aggressive on the earlier streets).

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that most of the time it's best to think exploitivly.

Times to use optimal play are when you are:
a) confused about what to do
b) are up against a player better than you
c) to rationalize actions in close situations

also, by understanding holes in your game (where you do not play optimally) you may also recognize these holes in other good players games... and thus can counter exploit them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

seriously dude read that book... NOW :P

How can it hurt you to have more insight into the game? Are you worried it will plague your thought process? The book can get dry at times, but Im fascinated by stuff like that so it made it less of a chore..

Hell even the first 6 chapters on exploitive play are worth it...

[/ QUOTE ]

To be frank, that books goes far and beyond what my brain is capable of understanding. For the same reasons I cant read a book written in Spanish, I cant read Mathematics of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont believe that ILP ur definitely selling urself short ( out of character?) haha jk

i definitely bet the turn here and definitely call the river

vs a really tricky, good opponent who cr'd the turn with a huge range and less often the flop, but whom I didnt feel comfortable betting and calling down a raise profitably against here, I mite ck behind and call any river except like the 8 or 9 of hearts

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

also do u think on this board villains best possible line on all streets really was ck call ck call then bet fold the J river? are u raising a worse hand enough on the river he can call profitably? if he plans on betting should he just be resigned to calling a raise? if ur that aggro how many draws with no SD value are u stealing with and firing 3 streets with he loses value from by betting?

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]

I may be missing something here, but I am pretty sure that is the standard game theoretical usage. Optimal = game theoretic equilibrium strategy not only in C&A but in any game theory book you'll find....

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite.

In the big thread about this book, JaredL rants:

[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand at all their nonstandard use of words. They use optimal when they should use equilibrium and use exploitive when they should use optimal or best-response. It takes some getting used to for people who have read other texts in game theory and those who haven't will have to readjust should they decide to take a course in game theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

to which Chen responds

[ QUOTE ]

Actually the use of the term "optimal" is fairly common when describing equilibiria in zero-sum two player games. In fact the equilibrium is the same as the minimax solution and the term optimal for the strategy pair is used for example by Gilpin and Sandholm from CMU in their "Optimal Rhode Island Holdem" paper. This is also the term used by the Manitoba group and Daphne Koller at Stanford. It seems it's a term adopted ny the Computer Science people working on algorithms for these problems.

It's a fairly common if not standard usage in this field.

...

Our goal is not to unify notation across fields, but to clearly define our terms so people across different fields can read and understand what we are talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

And this last point, which is very reasonable, was the reason for my reply in this thread. Chen and Ankenmann have written a nice book, and fixed upon some terminology, which whether standard across GT or not, we should probably use standardly when discussing poker from now on.

Guy.

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

Interesting....

In any case, I have seen it used in game theory contexts before, so I assumed it was a standard synonym for equilibrium strategy.

EDIT: also, fwiw, I have seen "maximal" = most exploitative

Re: 15-30 live hand
 

"also do u think on this board villains best possible line on all streets really was ck call ck call then bet fold the J river?"

I dont know which line is best vs me in this spot, but the villain certainly took one of best possible lines since I did manage to lose the maximum in this hand. Against me in this spot with his specific hand on that board I think there are 3 candidates for the best line:

1: C/R flop, Bet/Evaluate turn, Bet/Evaluate river.

2: C/C flop, C/R Evaluate the turn, Bet/Evaluate river.

3: C/C flop, C/C Turn, Bet/Evaluate river.(the one my opponent actually took)

"are u raising a worse hand enough on the river he can call profitably?"

I think the answer is yes. I am capable of raising any "calling hand" 4x or worse in this spot vs a certain population of player types. This means my strategy on the river is exploitable but that doesnt matter if my judgement on this opponent is accurate which it may or may not have been in this case.

"if he plans on betting should he just be resigned to calling a raise?"

Yes since against me he will have a profitable crying call, of course If I knew that was his strategy then I would just call the river assuming he will bluff sometimes.

"if ur that aggro how many draws with no SD value are u stealing with and firing 3 streets with he loses value from by betting?"

I dont know the specific answer to this question other than to say that on this exact board I will be 3barreling alot more often than normal. If I have queen high or less on the river I will be betting pretty close to 100% of the time in this spot. If he donks the river and I have King high or less Im just gonna fold.

BTW, Since all you guys love that book so much, maybe I'll open my mind and give it another chance.