Kind of an odd question... PL5CD and game theory

[Big Limpin]

[ QUOTE ]
The optimal strategy for the bluffer is to bluff 1/(pot size+1) = 1/2 of the time when he has nothing. You should call with 1/2 of your hands to make the draw indifferent to bluffing or not bluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that if someone takes a 1 card draw (let's say for the sake of argument that they don't have 2 pair here)... that when they bet post draw: if I call 50% of the time I'm playing correctly regardless of their tendency to bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think no, not in a real game. Mark's number would work if they WERE betting half their misses. Some opponents may bluff alot/always when they miss, while MOST are happy to check a miss (they limped in cheap...)
If you had noted him for a maniac, then it's worth calling >50%, just always check it to him, call when ur hand is good.
Most ABC players - the ones you "know didnt have 2prs because they limped" - they just check behind when they miss. So if they up and pot it...you should fold always.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
the ones you "know didnt have 2prs because they limped" - they just check behind when they miss. So if they up and pot it...you should fold always.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOTE: This 'note' only works if your opponent opens and draw 2. Since in PL5CD (at least at my tables) people will open-raise 2 pair, but they rarely REraise 2 pair. So if I open raise (which I do 90% of the time I'm first in), I'm rarely getting reraised with people calling with 2 pair.

If I'm against (most)decent player(s) and he open-raises and draws 1, I'm comfortable saying he has either 2 pair or trips. If he limps, calls a raise and draws 1... he's on a draw.

(the confusing players are the ones who never raise... draw, 2 pair, trips... they limp with all of them. I never know what they have because they're so passive)

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The optimal strategy for the bluffer is to bluff 1/(pot size+1) = 1/2 of the time when he has nothing. You should call with 1/2 of your hands to make the draw indifferent to bluffing or not bluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that if someone takes a 1 card draw (let's say for the sake of argument that they don't have 2 pair here)... that when they bet post draw: if I call 50% of the time I'm playing correctly regardless of their tendency to bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think no, not in a real game. Mark's number would work if they WERE betting half their misses.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not "correct" in terms of earning the most against an predictable opponent who is making the same mistake over and over.

But it _is_ "correct" in that your long-term earnings are independent of how often a tricky, tough opponent bluffs or doesn't bluff. Work the numbers--- with the assumptions given, calling 50% of the time on a pot sized bet comes out the same whether your opponent is bluffing 0%, 100% (when he misses) or anything in between. The game-theoretic solution doesn't depend on your opponent playing optimally, it just guarantees that he can't exploit you even if he does.

[TheGrifter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The optimal strategy for the bluffer is to bluff 1/(pot size+1) = 1/2 of the time when he has nothing. You should call with 1/2 of your hands to make the draw indifferent to bluffing or not bluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that if someone takes a 1 card draw (let's say for the sake of argument that they don't have 2 pair here)... that when they bet post draw: if I call 50% of the time I'm playing correctly regardless of their tendency to bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think no, not in a real game. Mark's number would work if they WERE betting half their misses.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not "correct" in terms of earning the most against an predictable opponent who is making the same mistake over and over.

But it _is_ "correct" in that your long-term earnings are independent of how often a tricky, tough opponent bluffs or doesn't bluff. Work the numbers--- with the assumptions given, calling 50% of the time on a pot sized bet comes out the same whether your opponent is bluffing 0%, 100% (when he misses) or anything in between. The game-theoretic solution doesn't depend on your opponent playing optimally, it just guarantees that he can't exploit you even if he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mark,

You're way off on this. You're working under the assumption that all opponents will average to bluffing 50% of the time.

In reality you should use your notes as biglimpin said and call much more frequently than 50% of the time if you are playing against a maniac (like me) and much less than 50% of the time if you are playing against someone who will generally check fold if they miss.

To illustrate, there are some players who will NEVER bluff if they miss their str8/flsh draw and also NEVER bet two pair after the draw, you should never call these players unless you can beat a str8.

Your math shows that calling 50% of the time is +EV but that is the EV gained from your opponents drawing thin in the first place, it is much more +EV to react to how your opponent plays.

[Big Limpin]

grifter, yeah!

kurto, my first reply was to comment when you check and call. To revist the OP, you were asking, specifically - when you have raised a good hand (out of position) and your caller drew 1 but has played passively?

PL has an extra tool at your disposal. In LIMIT, you'd have to bet out for 1BB, set price. In PL, you can lead out real weak. (Like half your predraw raise? Or less?).

This is a favorite bet of mine, because it takes a MUCH stronger hand for him to pot it behind you. He doesnt know if you are baiting him in with AAA, or what. So he'd unlikely to bluff you. And if he DID have 2prs limped all along, you wont get raised. Now. if he comes overtop of your small bet, its either monster or air, far more often monster. You payed a little bit of chips to find out...easiest fold ever.

*and the passive guy is folding 4/5 hands anyways when he bricks, so minbet's often returned.

<u>so if you KNEW he is very unlikely to have 2pr:</u>

A- opponent is known bluffer/maniac - CHECK/CALL
B- opponent is passive/nutpeddler - CHECK/FOLD
C- opponent is unknown/assumed fish - LEAD WEAK/FOLD

Re-notate players whenever you "guess wrong" [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
But that would be my default line for, say:
[ QUOTE ]
post draw you have nothing but AA. The person in position will bet 100% of the time its checked to him. His starting requirements to play are 8 card draw or any pair. Do you call 100% of the time here?

[/ QUOTE ]
He will bet 100% of the time? And he could only start with a draw or worse pair than mine?
I check to him post draw every time, no matter i hit or miss. I then call 100 of the time. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

If u meant he has any pair+ 2prs trips, like, he could have limped those... Then its a little less profitable a check/call, but still money.

If he pots it, your call pays 2:1, and i'm sure you're better than even money against his range, even just AA.
Thats for the dude who bluff always. Vs the nit - you see how this would be a horrendous call to make? 2:1...you're good like 1 in 10! And why i like the "post-oak" in draw, 'cause you can define their hand cheap, and make the right play if its potted.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If u meant he has any pair+ 2prs trips, like, he could have limped those... Then its a little less profitable a check/call, but still money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I meant before the draw he has anything from an OESD/Flush Draw to two pair. (though I have been at tables with people who raise NOTHING. They literally limp in late position and then check with a pat hand. They then minbet afterwards. I've actually paid the .50 a few times because I'm trying to figure out... did they really let every in for free with a pat hand.)

But re: the original question... Where I struggle is figuring out the calling range with overly aggressive players (not intelligent lags.. just people who can't resist betting anytime its checked to them)

Here's another question. Let's say you're on the button and everyone's limped to you. You know its unlikely to be raised so you call with a draw... all 6 go to the table.

The SB draws 2, everyone else draws 1... you take 1.

The SB opens with 3/4 pot. The BB CALLS, UTG Minraises.... what is the minimum hand you call with? Autofold all straights? Weak flush? A-4low flush?

[Big Limpin]

oic, yeah im not sure why i got it into my head that hero KNEW villain could not have 2pr. Its pretty frequent though, that you strongly suspect he wouldn't have limped in with 2prs.
Like, i think i subconsciously half the likelihood of 2prs right off that bat if dude only limped in (and not raised my action)

you know, those guys that limp in with &gt;&gt;&gt;AA...they mess me up [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
But re: the original question... Where I struggle is figuring out the calling range with overly aggressive players (not intelligent lags.. just people who can't resist betting anytime its checked to them)


[/ QUOTE ]
Do this: when your hand is so-so to justify a call...call the cheap "bluffs" and let the expensive ones go. The more the predraw pot was as % of the bet, the better price you get...and the more horrendous a fold you can make. As his bets get smaller, i'd call with greater range of my hands. For a minbet in a ok size pot? Yeah i'll call anyhting...get to see his hand [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

-----
For your example question
pf- perfect. folding would be mistake.
post - OMG i want to cry. thats the sickest action. make a new thread of this hand if you want to discuss it.

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's not "correct" in terms of earning the most against an predictable opponent who is making the same mistake over and over.

But it _is_ "correct" in that your long-term earnings are independent of how often a tricky, tough opponent bluffs or doesn't bluff. Work the numbers--- with the assumptions given, calling 50% of the time on a pot sized bet comes out the same whether your opponent is bluffing 0%, 100% (when he misses) or anything in between. The game-theoretic solution doesn't depend on your opponent playing optimally, it just guarantees that he can't exploit you even if he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mark,

You're way off on this. You're working under the assumption that all opponents will average to bluffing 50% of the time.

In reality you should use your notes as biglimpin said and call much more frequently than 50% of the time if you are playing against a maniac (like me) and much less than 50% of the time if you are playing against someone who will generally check fold if they miss.

To illustrate, there are some players who will NEVER bluff if they miss their str8/flsh draw and also NEVER bet two pair after the draw, you should never call these players unless you can beat a str8.

Your math shows that calling 50% of the time is +EV but that is the EV gained from your opponents drawing thin in the first place, it is much more +EV to react to how your opponent plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, read what I wrote again.

I acknowledged in the first paragraph that if you can predict your opponent correctly you can achieve better results by adjusting your play to always call or always fold.

If you can't make this prediction you should call 50% of the time (or whatever other percentage is dictated by the bet size he makes.) This is the best you can do against somebody as smart as you (or somebody dumb who stumbles across the appropriate bluffing ratio), not the best you can do against a predictable opponent.

The game-theoretic calling frequency is actually -EV with respect to showdown equity, because the player with the draw to beat you, and position, has a playing advantage once you check. If it was +EV you would earn something like 0.90 or more of the pot. Instead you're only earning 0.85.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's not "correct" in terms of earning the most against an predictable opponent who is making the same mistake over and over.

But it _is_ "correct" in that your long-term earnings are independent of how often a tricky, tough opponent bluffs or doesn't bluff. Work the numbers--- with the assumptions given, calling 50% of the time on a pot sized bet comes out the same whether your opponent is bluffing 0%, 100% (when he misses) or anything in between. The game-theoretic solution doesn't depend on your opponent playing optimally, it just guarantees that he can't exploit you even if he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mark,

You're way off on this. You're working under the assumption that all opponents will average to bluffing 50% of the time.

In reality you should use your notes as biglimpin said and call much more frequently than 50% of the time if you are playing against a maniac (like me) and much less than 50% of the time if you are playing against someone who will generally check fold if they miss.

To illustrate, there are some players who will NEVER bluff if they miss their str8/flsh draw and also NEVER bet two pair after the draw, you should never call these players unless you can beat a str8.

Your math shows that calling 50% of the time is +EV but that is the EV gained from your opponents drawing thin in the first place, it is much more +EV to react to how your opponent plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, read what I wrote again.

I acknowledged in the first paragraph that if you can predict your opponent correctly you can achieve better results by adjusting your play to always call or always fold.

If you can't make this prediction you should call 50% of the time (or whatever other percentage is dictated by the bet size he makes.) This is the best you can do against somebody as smart as you (or somebody dumb who stumbles across the appropriate bluffing ratio), not the best you can do against a predictable opponent.

The game-theoretic calling frequency is actually -EV with respect to showdown equity, because the player with the draw to beat you, and position, has a playing advantage once you check. If it was +EV you would earn something like 0.90 or more of the pot. Instead you're only earning 0.85.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wanted to say thanks. I think this is helpful. I generally have notes on the players who never bluff. Its the people who are capable of bluffing that I'm trying to figure out a better system then I have (which is usually 'feel' based. Though the results have been okay thus far [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

At the moment I've been calling based on a feeling that I get, "that bet seems small... he's been betting post draw too often, he calls and draws 1 all the time.... better call this one" Just looking for theory to back up or supplement my 'feel.'

[mindflayer]

Mark you are way off.

1) We are INDifferent to Calling or Folding to a player that bluffs with correct GTBF. The EV's are the same. That is the definition of correct GTBF.

2) We should call sometimes not to improve our EV (we can't vs perfect GTBF) but to keep our opponents guessing wether we will call or fold in a particular case. Otherwise they, like Murkwa, will makes notes on us.

3) .223 should be .333 NO?!?

4) in the case of
we UTG raise
LP smoothcalls
everyone else folds
Hero draws 3
Villian draws 1
Hero Checks
Villian pot bets
No notes on villian.

you will lose your shirt if you call 50% of the time.

in TOP the example Sklansky uses, we "magically" see that our opponent is on a draw and that he can only have a made hand or air.
In real life our opponent may be value betting good two pairs; two pairs that made boats Or slowplayed KKKA.
Rework your calculation so that X% of the time your opponent has a better hand than you PREFLOP(say 50%), then recalculate your calling frequency for an UNknown opponent.