in BB w/ AKo v SB re-re-raise

[Cornell Fiji]

Factors:
His range opening the small blind is the top 70% of hands

he knows that you know that he is opening wide so he thinks that you will raise him with the top 30% of hands

His pushing range is threfore anything that is +ev after taking into account folding equity. If you are thinking about folding AK here then it is possible that he has a note that you might be weak and that you will fold marginal hands that you were raising with. Assuming that he pushes with *only* the top 15% of hands you are a dominant favorite. This is because you don't need that much equity on your call, because you are coinflipping with a low pair, and because he often has hands like AQ/AJ/KQ that you absolutely dominate.

I am not saying that you should not think about your decisions, I am saying that when his range is obviously huge that this should not be a tough decision for you.

It is also important to note that when you reraise someone in a bvb confrontation you should already have a plan for what to do when he shoves. Blind vs blind confrontations go bet -raise - shove often enough that raising without knowing what to do if he raises is akin to investing in alternative energy stocks and not knowing what to do if oil prices drop.

[baltostar]

I did not intend to make these arguments in the context of the particular hand I posted.

The other two examples I provide are much much better:

(1) a 3 player flop where you flop a draw to the nut straight or nut flush, and a series of re-raises occur where you keep on calling because it is EV+ each time action is on you

(2) a BB situation where it costs you nothing to play the hand, but because you think you're ahead post-flop soon you have committed a lot of chips into a murkey situation

Both of these are good examples where gauging the present opportunity v. the avg oppotunity you like to pursue over the next n hands and backing away will optimize your play.

[Cornell Fiji]

(1) I like to shove my draws to add fold equity. If I am going to be calling off my chips anyway I might as well put the opponents to a decision for their tournament life when I have significant equity when called.

(2) I have no idea what you are talking about. If I think my hand is ahead of the villains range post flop then I will bet it.

I think that you are looking to pass up +cEV situations in hopes that greater situations will present themselves later on. If you read the threads in the anthology sticky (specifically woodguy's post and the other ones under the same header) you will see a lot of players like Raymer who say that they are not good enough to be passing up edges in tournaments... if Raymer is not good enough to pass up edges they you would have a lot of audacity to think that you were good enough to do so.

[J.A.K.]

Balto,
In the hand posted you seem to be asking us to deviate from cEV model with no reads and 18bb effective stacks based on what in retrospect was a trap. It's a hard sell because we have to proceed in hands with incomplete information and some pretty smart people have given us a solid foundation to do so.

Making a note on villain's betting patterns seems better than reinventing the wheel or passing up +EV spots. Once you abandon the math, are you not playing on what you "feel" will happen as opposed to what "probably" will happen? The places where this is arguable (strong reads+table/stack dynamics) are the exceptions, not the norm.

[baltostar]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that you are looking to pass up +cEV situations in hopes that greater situations will present themselves later on. If you read the threads in the anthology sticky (specifically woodguy's post and the other ones under the same header) you will see a lot of players like Raymer who say that they are not good enough to be passing up edges in tournaments... if Raymer is not good enough to pass up edges they you would have a lot of audacity to think that you were good enough to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read all the anthologized threads some time ago. I don't think my position has anything to do with "audacity" or any other attempt to place myself within some hierarchical ego-based structuring of one's thinking.

I approach poker as I approach any other endeavor: I build a foundation for my thought process and based upon it use logic and creativity to solve each particular situation.

Right now, the mantra on these boards is "never pass up a +cEV situation". Am I claiming to offer a mathematical proof that this is non-optimal play ? No. But nonetheless I believe it is non-optimal to never pass up a +cEV situation, and I believe that theoreticians over time will prove it to be non-optimal. And, in fact, this will be precisely what gives expert players an edge over the 1st generation of no-limit bots that emerge, because these bots will be strictly built on "never pass up +cEV".

The problem with mantras, of course, is that much of their acceptance is due to repetition, especially repetition by successful people, or generally knowledgeable people. People begin repeating mantras without starting from ground zero, re-evolving the underlying thought process, and asking themselves "Why?" every step of the way.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that you are looking to pass up +cEV situations in hopes that greater situations will present themselves later on. If you read the threads in the anthology sticky (specifically woodguy's post and the other ones under the same header) you will see a lot of players like Raymer who say that they are not good enough to be passing up edges in tournaments... if Raymer is not good enough to pass up edges they you would have a lot of audacity to think that you were good enough to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read all the anthologized threads some time ago. I don't think my position has anything to do with "audacity" or any other attempt to place myself within some hierarchical ego-based structuring of one's thinking.

I approach poker as I approach any other endeavor: I build a foundation for my thought process and based upon it use logic and creativity to solve each particular situation.

Right now, the mantra on these boards is "never pass up a +cEV situation". Am I claiming to offer a mathematical proof that this is non-optimal play ? No. But nonetheless I believe it is non-optimal to never pass up a +cEV situation, and I believe that theoreticians over time will prove it to be non-optimal. And, in fact, this will be precisely what gives expert players an edge over the 1st generation of no-limit bots that emerge, because these bots will be strictly built on "never pass up +cEV".

The problem with mantras, of course, is that much of their acceptance is due to repetition, especially repetition by successful people, or generally knowledgeable people. People begin repeating mantras without starting from ground zero, re-evolving the underlying thought process, and asking themselves "Why?" every step of the way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I look forward to your future posts.

And I understand abour your concern about mantras. For example, it is commonly believed that water in our toilets and sinks rotate in a certain direction when they are draining depending on what part of the earth you are on. This nonsense is even in textbooks so I hear where you are coming from. People need to be straightened out regarding the facts.

[baltostar]

[ QUOTE ]

I look forward to your future posts.

And I understand abour your concern about mantras. For example, it is commonly believed that water in our toilets and sinks rotate in a certain direction when they are draining depending on what part of the earth you are on. This nonsense is even in textbooks so I hear where you are coming from. People need to be straightened out regarding the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get your "facts" regarding "never pass up an +cEV opp" from ? You probably read it on these boards, looked at the poster's post count, looked at some of his previous posts, figured he sounded intelligent, and so adopted it as your own, and started posting it as the gospel. That's how these things gets started.

It easy to be a genius when your surrounded by geniuses who say the same things as you do.

I have no need to adopt someone else's gospel. I start from nothing, a blank piece of paper, and build up from there.

You don't provide any counterarguments, you don't even bother to spend the time/energy to properly evaluate my arguments. You just assume that because you exist in a group of like-minded presumed experts who espouse the same mantra day-in and day-out that therefore you must be correct.

Where's your arguments, man ? Where's your logic ? Your deductions ? Your derivations ? Where's your ability to think independently ?

[mflip]

The point is, you only made this post because you ran into AA. If he shows you AQ here you gloat about how good you are to have stacked him there. So now everytime you see this line you are going to fold? This spot isn't even marginally +EV, there is so much EV here that you cannot afford to pass it up.

[ QUOTE ]
(1) a 3 player flop where you flop a draw to the nut straight or nut flush, and a series of re-raises occur where you keep on calling because it is EV+ each time action is on you

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense. When judging our equity in a hand we obviously have to take into account those who are left to act.

[mayesie]

This is a tremendously easy call. The fact that you're up against the SB makes it even easier (he could be making this move w/ all kinds of hands).

You should be thrilled to get all-in here for 18BB.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I look forward to your future posts.

And I understand abour your concern about mantras. For example, it is commonly believed that water in our toilets and sinks rotate in a certain direction when they are draining depending on what part of the earth you are on. This nonsense is even in textbooks so I hear where you are coming from. People need to be straightened out regarding the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get your "facts" regarding "never pass up an +cEV opp" from ? You probably read it on these boards, looked at the poster's post count, looked at some of his previous posts, figured he sounded intelligent, and so adopted it as your own, and started posting it as the gospel. That's how these things gets started.

It easy to be a genius when your surrounded by geniuses who say the same things as you do.

I have no need to adopt someone else's gospel. I start from nothing, a blank piece of paper, and build up from there.

You don't provide any counterarguments, you don't even bother to spend the time/energy to properly evaluate my arguments. You just assume that because you exist in a group of like-minded presumed experts who espouse the same mantra day-in and day-out that therefore you must be correct.

Where's your arguments, man ? Where's your logic ? Your deductions ? Your derivations ? Where's your ability to think independently ?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you are reacting like this. My comment about toilet drains was right to the point. They don't flush one way or the other depending on the hemisphere. It's actually a false assumption that most people believe. It is similar to the point you are making. Just because you believe something that everybody else does, it doesn't make it true.

I was supporting your claim to have another point of view. I don't understand why you made this post against me.