Pooh-Bah post: Level 0 exploitation NLTRN

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
Glad to see someone else was puzzled by these examples. The points made are reasonable, but I was left thinking wtf on most of the hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these hands are derived from actual examples. Many of them are modified for two reasons:

1- I did not want to include elements that could change the focus of what I was getting at. I am sure that if I threw the actual bets, calls and checks, I would be spending the next three weeks explaining the meta-game. However, in all of these examples, I was left with no real idea how to complete the hand. I am simply stating some thoughts that could be used when critical decisions need to be made.

2- I didn't look at the HHs and my memory sucks.

[ QUOTE ]
We call a large three bet with 97s. Villian doesn't bet his over pair on this EXTREMELY WET BOARD....?

[/ QUOTE ]

It does happen. I used this example to show when you should check or bet. The key is not falling for this trap.

[ QUOTE ]
I search for the villian that shoves A7 on a paired board to a huge river raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all do. But you don't need to search very far.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't follow how we get to that river call with 99 when there are two overs and we can't see the action. WTF was villian doing in this hand with 43 for all his chips when he needs to double up and is short, trying to flop a wheel?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned that he re-raised me before the flop. I had second pair + a gut shot on the flop. J87, the turn brought a 6, and the river brought a Q. I explained the thought process on the river and why I feel the call is correct.

The title of this is "Level 0 exploitation"

Level 0 being the Sklansky (red underline on 2+2?) of the different levels of thinking:

0- what do I have?
1- What does my opponent have?
2- What does my opponent think I have, etc.

I had a hand that was worth a call with the pot odds.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why suits don't matter in these examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rainbow boards. If I am missing on an important concept about suits on rainbow boards, I would be pleased to know.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't undertand why villian stacks off with second pair on the first hand. There isn't much you are calling that flop bet with besides an ace after calling a large 3 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explained one post above.

If you think that your typical small stakes SNG player thinks like this, you are handing away credit. Like a credit card company that gives easy credit, they are not maximizing there earn rate.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, Some times a 1/4 pot or weak bet after a 3bet pf is sometimes a trap (or a draw). (call and get thurr ???) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Call all of your chips and get there often, yes. I showed how to think of each hand on different boards and what plays have the larges equities on each play.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes there is a point of desperation. But understand the primary method for villian to double up and for you to swap to the short stack is for you to make that light/marginal call while behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a great addition if you explained this.

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
I think calling a 3bet w/ 97s and those stacks is a big mistake. If you knew he had QQ you would probably never call. And you're losing your whole stack if the flop is 9 or 7 high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that how much you can out-play your opponent after the flop is vital to how loose you can play before the flop. I did say that if we do not hit at least two pair, we are done with the hand.

I, of coarse, do not know my opponent's exact hand. Many times, in this situation, he could have a large range of hands, including as little as A8. I wanted to show that once this villain checks after re-raising pf, he will more often than not have a large pair. It is exploiting this mistake that I wanted to focus on.

I really hope we aren't losing all of our chips with a pair of 7s or 9s, especially after seeing this check.

vs AK on a 745 flop we would have a 74% equity, sure.



[ QUOTE ]
The villain was the stupidest ever on the A7 vs 9T hand. If he wants you to raise the turn, why don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be a problem. I sometimes get a little trappy. I figured that I have one more street to tie this villain tighter to the pot. If he doesn't actually have an Ace, but something like 77, then I don't want to encourage a fold. But, yes, with the thinking that I am stating, it would be better to raise on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
Calling a 3bet w/ A8 is bad. In fact, I would rather call later in the game than earlier, because later in the game when stacks are 10BB deep you're not even playing poker anymore and A8 is good enough to get it in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This hand goes with the thinking that it is better to press small equities earlier than it is to press large equities later.

I think that if you were willing to play these kind of hands strongly earlier in the match, you would be surprised to see how they end up. People tend to think you play terrible like everyone else, so they will press all sorts of crazy holdings and attempt horrible bluffs, and yes, even shove with middling pair hands on the rivers, call all-in shoves with second pair etc.

I knew many things I was writing would get a ton of heat. The reason why I wrote this stuff is because I want people to question the foundations of their games. Sometimes poker is counter-intuitive until you learn to think of it mathematically. I do believe that if you are a slightly winning, slightly losing, or break even at these stakes, learning to apply these will boost you nearer to a 60% wr.

[ChicagoRy]

I don't think a villain 3-betting preflop and then checking the flop means he's automatically super strong "overpair."

Especially at the lower levels, I think it would be a big mistake to assume that.

And I think it is -EV against most players to call a 3-bet with A8.

[Landonfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think calling a 3bet w/ 97s and those stacks is a big mistake. If you knew he had QQ you would probably never call. And you're losing your whole stack if the flop is 9 or 7 high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that how much you can out-play your opponent after the flop is vital to how loose you can play before the flop. I did say that if we do not hit at least two pair, we are done with the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once we call the 3bet, we don't have much room for outplaying anyone. Say he checks a dry flop and we decide to bluff. The pot's 480, so we're betting around 300-350. That means we're bluffing over a third of our stack on the first hand with no reads on the villain.

Another scenario: the flop comes something like T72 and he hits the bet pot button (pretty damn common at this level). What are we doing now? If we're not going broke with TP we certainly shouldn't go broke with MP, but calling 3bets then folding a flopped pair will get you run over at this level.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're saying is that we're not continuing past the flop unless we have a monster or villain checks. If villain does check, we make a big bluff if we missed, or try to check it down if we hit something.

[daveT]

wwlwlwwwlwllwwlwwwlwlwwllwwlwwllwl

I went back over the past 200 games and marked how many games ended in 8 hands or less. I won 20/34 for a record of 58%. I am sure that if I showed 15 or less, these numbers would be equal.

Most of these losses were due to suck outs or cold-decks (KK vs flopped set, set under set, flush under flush, fh vs fh etc) because I ran super bad for a week in the middle of October.

I am not a losing player spouting b.s. advice. I have posted my w.r.'s in LC and you will see that my 5s are 61% over-all, and my 10s are 58% over-all.

With all of that said, if you are uncomfortable using these ideas, then don't, but if you are struggling to beat this game, then it would not hurt to rethink your game a little bit.

[HokieGreg]

Dave,

You clearly put a lot of effort into this post, so I don't want to come off like I don't respect what you are trying to do. I just don't think very many of the hh examples you provide are correct.

As I said in my previous post, the goal is to play abc poker at the low stakes. Calling large 3 bets with marginal hands and stacking off light just because they are bad players is not the best way to go about maximizing your winrate at these levels.

Congratulations on your 58% winrate at the 10's. If you were playing abc, solid poker it would be closer to 62-63% probably.

I guess you are implying I'm not a winning player too. You might be right. A 3k game sample size probably isn't enough for me to be able to say whether I am or not.

Here is my month at the 33's:

[ChicagoRy]

Brag: I have more games than Hokie in the 33s when I was 4 months into playing poker. My ROI was 7 pts higher too.

Beat: This thread might turn into a flame war.

Seriously though, lets not turn it into a flame war, you two can have a civilized debate about this stuff.

[HokieGreg]

[ QUOTE ]
Brag: I have more games than Hokie in the 33s when I was 4 months into playing poker. My ROI was 7 pts higher too.

Beat: This thread might turn into a flame war.

Seriously though, lets not turn it into a flame war, you two can have a civilized debate about this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our games are almost identical Ryan.

Don't be afraid to say this is bad information.

[daveT]

Due to my bad bank-rolling, my wr at the 10s is probably not what it should be, but that is another debate entirely. I was actually stuck for many many games of getting creamed (not by bad play) before I showed any kind of profit at the tens. I am sure that if I spent more time at it, I would have a wr that resembles my 5s, but I usually bounce past it and tackle the 20s and 30s and drop back down.

I was not sure if you were a winning player or not. Glad to see that you are doing well, and yes, you probably are better than me as well.

Trying to further explain myself is taxing without sounding defensive. I had several reservations about posting this. I knew it would create an out-cry. Either it would seem that it is a losing player that felt like "whatever, I got the post count, so here we go," or it would sound too solid.

As I said, it depends on the player if they are comfortable using any of these thought processes. They are there for your own interpretation. I do understand that many of these hands are marginal. The thinking process during these situations is what separate the good from the bad, and in many cases, the losers from the winners.

[cwar]

daveT while I respect the effort here you give out a lot of bad/misdirected info and the reasons you give for a lot of the hands are often completely wrong. I would accept the criticism you got here its all very valid.