A speculation about mid-limit poker & winning players

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I have no idea if I'm ahead or not".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the largest difference between winning and losing poker. Knowing the answer to this question more times than the guys you are playing with.. I'm glad I read this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure about that. I think good players are uncertain a lot too. They just have better tools for dealing with it.

[OneMoreYouth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure about that. I think good players are uncertain a lot too. They just have better tools for dealing with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would agree and disagree with that statement... i vary rarely see a pro blatantly say "i have no idea whats going on" although the way tv plays hands like that you would think it happens much more frequently than it does... and i do agree that pros are at times unsure of where there at AND THEREFORE use the tools they've learned to figure out where they are... but since they were using those tools from the beginning of the hand then really they knew where they were at all along to the best of their ability....

i know that rambled a bit and i'm sorry if it doesnt make sense... i can try to re-explain it later if somebody would like me to.


oh... and hi everybody.. this is my first post.

[BaseMetal]

I disagree.

I think to be a mid-limit winner you would have to have a well balanced game. I only play small limit because my play is not good enough to stand higher competition, however, I am winning at low levels and this is partly because I analyse my play and look for problems.
Surely the mid level winners would be doing the same.
Online players would probably have poker-tracker/office and if these were over-valuing their hand against aggression such tools could help locate this leak and hence they would reduce it and play "near-optimally" in this regard too.
Also, if winning players were typically making this mistake doesn't that mean that losing players are likely to be cronically overvaluing? In which case we would all be suffering from this and the poker authors would be writing articles to help us reduce the it.

[ QUOTE ]
At any given time in a poker hand, in a heads-up scenario, one of four possible situations is in effect: you can think your hand is best, or not, and your opponent can be indicating strength, or not, creating 4 possible combinations.


[/ QUOTE ]
Also, I am not sure if your speculation is saying that these two variables cover all situations that arise in poker. Are you only considering these two facets (strength/aggression) of play or that all the fog of information, opponent state, position etc, can be reduced to these variables for this speculation?

[rakemeplz]

I dont think the OP was trying to sum up the entire game of poker and all of its subtleties with his post.

[Abbaddabba]

The problem in peoples games isnt as simple as 'play tighter post flop'. It it was, this forum would have half as many "zomg variance" posts.

The donaters are usually the ones who play way too loose.

but,

The problem in the game of someone who is a small loser (which accounts for the vast majority of losers) is far more complex. It can just as soon be due to playing too tight, not stealing or 3betting enough, folding too often to river bets, and generally ignoring information that a better player would exploit to it's fullest.


The majority of people who play midstakes are serious about winning. They have pokertracker, post on poker message boards and think about what they do. But a lot of these people will not win because the competition is either better than them, or they arent sufficiently better than the competition to overcome the rake.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think the OP was trying to sum up the entire game of poker and all of its subtleties with his post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, of course it's not the entirety of poker. The point is that all situations can be classified in that way (or in any of a number of other ways, if you so chose) and that the vast majority of errors that good players make occur in that one quadrant.

[jonny quest]

Interesting thread. I agree with original poster and many others; it is when we feel we are favorites but encounter strength that poses the greatest challenges. Expanding upon this, I took the OP’s paradigm and detailed what I believe are optimal responses given the prevailing conditions.

Favorite vs Weak
Value Bet (or bet to make opponents draw a mistake)

Underdog vs Strong
Fold (unless pot odds favor chasing)

Underdog vs Weak
Bluff (if probable reaction is fold) or check (if probable reaction will allow us free card)

Favorite vs Strong
Bet-Call-Fold-CheckRaise-Semi-bluff…

I can understand if some dispute my ‘optimal responses’ given the situation—these are simplistic generalized responses, so I welcome any feedback and/or analysis.

[BadFinger]

I think new (and old but formulaic) mid limit players do this because they've imbibed the mantra of "constant aggression wins" and its worked so well for them at lower stakes. As you move up to midstakes though, even the fish are aggressive, so how you treat this case becomes relatively much more important. So i agree with you in that sense, that of the 4 situations this one is among the most important if not THE most important in determining your winrate.

But there are tons of regulars who play this extremely well in the mid limit world.