0 barrelling

[LoaferGee]

Agree with Leader here. I like this play if the dude is a maniac type that will be playing back at with you with virtually anything. However, you'll see a lot of loose flop peels, turn folds against the average player.

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
I tried to get a discussion of game theory and balancing going here a while ago, but too many people thought I was full of (bleep),

[/ QUOTE ]

I think many people would be interested in hearing what you have to say, but you need to make your case not simply tell other people they're wrong while not addressing their argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Suffice to say, I think the reason so many players think the discussions here are lame,

[/ QUOTE ]

? Is SSSH the center for advanced strategic thought? No, but that's not what isn't meant to be. If you play mid-limits, then many of the discussions here are ovbious, but for people that are just starting out they are far from "lame."

[ QUOTE ]
is that we have reached a bit of a crossroads in our poker understanding. We post asking whether the best answer is to check, bet, or fold, but in reality the answer is none of the above!

In this case, the answer is probably to do a fair amount of checking, but with some betting in there as well. We could debate what the percentages are (some may remember my {check,bet} and {fold,call,raise} suggested notation), and we'd then we'd really be going places.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then let's have that discussion. I'm interested to here why you would make the ratio 60/40 instead of 80/20.

[ QUOTE ]
I just couldn't resist commenting on this, as your logic so clearly sums up both the way people think about continuation betting, and also why that thinking is flawed.

my 2 cents.
eric

[/ QUOTE ]

His logic is wrong because people suck at adjusting and an unknown SS player is not a 2+2'er. So it's relatively irrelevant what he would do in this situation. That doesn't change my main argument for betting however.

[barksdale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't c-bet against me and then fold to my turn bet once, I'll keep betting turn in that situation with blanks until you do something other than fold. Not c-betting on flops like 346 rainbow when you have JT is fine, but if you start not c-betting many flops UI, I'll never give you any action when you hit a flop and bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that both of the adjustments you suggest here are quite poor against a waffle, assuming he is doing the proper balancing. In fact, this line of thinking shows exactly why checking behind here is such a strong play.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you. My point is, if he wants to check through some flops, he better balance things or he'll get run over. If he's c-betting flop 50% of the time, checking flop 25% and willing to fold to turn bet, and checking flop 25% of the time and raising turn bet or betting if checked to him, then assuming I'm paying attention, I'll never be able to put him on a hand, and I'll start playing too weak/tight against him.

But at low limits, people often just play their cards without thinking much about what you might have, and even less about meta-game stuff. And at these limits, I think (though I could be wrong), trying to employ meta-game tactics is getting too clever on tables populated primarily with donks.

In TOP, Slansky write a lot about game theory, but says "It should only be used when you think your opponent's judgement is as good or better than yours, or when you simply don't know your opponent." When I see someone with VP$IP > 35, PRF > 25 or <5, and AF of <1 or >4, I know my judgement is better than theirs (and these players account for about 70%) and I will beat them using sound fundamentals, and trying to get too fancy will just hurt me.

If I was sitting with 2 players 30/20/2 and 3 players between 22-25/13-15/2-3, then I need to figure out how to outsmart them, and I better incorporate game theory concepts. Or what I would really do is change tables.

[elindauer]

edit: never mind. where is the delete button?

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: never mind. where is the delete button?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what this was originally, but if you think I'm obviously wrong. I'd genuinely like to know what I'm missing.

[Disconnected]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't c-bet against me and then fold to my turn bet once, I'll keep betting turn in that situation with blanks until you do something other than fold. Not c-betting on flops like 346 rainbow when you have JT is fine, but if you start not c-betting many flops UI, I'll never give you any action when you hit a flop and bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that both of the adjustments you suggest here are quite poor against a waffle, assuming he is doing the proper balancing. In fact, this line of thinking shows exactly why checking behind here is such a strong play.

I tried to get a discussion of game theory and balancing going here a while ago, but too many people thought I was full of (bleep), so I took it elsewhere. Suffice to say, I think the reason so many players think the discussions here are lame, is that we have reached a bit of a crossroads in our poker understanding. We post asking whether the best answer is to check, bet, or fold, but in reality the answer is none of the above!

In this case, the answer is probably to do a fair amount of checking, but with some betting in there as well. We could debate what the percentages are (some may remember my {check,bet} and {fold,call,raise} suggested notation), and we'd then we'd really be going places.

I just couldn't resist commenting on this, as your logic so clearly sums up both the way people think about continuation betting, and also why that thinking is flawed.

my 2 cents.
eric

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume for the moment that Waffle isn't on the button when I'm in the BB, because he wouldn't be for long unless the player in between us was really bad. I'd leave otherwise [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. So, while I might have to adjust against Waffle on the button periodically, I'm more normally going to have to adjust to someone else who fails to c-bet. In fact, that's a great guy to have on the button when I'm in the BB, because he's probably not going to balance that well. But let's assume that he is OK, just not good enough to make me want to move.

If I see that my opponent will not force me to call an additional flop bet, doesn't that allow me to adjust by playing more hands than I normally would? I get the benefit of getting more free cards on the flop, and even if I miss, if I think that he'll fold on the turn, a lot of hands that I might have semibluffed under "normal" conditions, I now get to make the same play with, only cheaper. In addition, I can more safely take initiative on the turn with marginal hands.

I'm not saying to c-bet 100% of the time (especially with more than 2 players, but the scenario in the OP was HU), but I'd like a read on the BB if I'm going to significantly reduce my continuation bets, not against an unknown. And in any event, if I *am* the BB, then the adjustments proposed above of taking more initiative on the turn as the BB until the button shows that he just won't fold seems to be a reasonable one. If not that, what would be, in general, the right type of adjustments to someone taking Waffle's approach?

As an aside, sorry that you felt unappreciated trying to bring a good theory discussion here...hope you'll come back and try it again. Mathematics of Poker is on its way to me, and after reading it, I hope to be better able to contribute to some game theory discussions myself.

[parkinson]

[ QUOTE ]
This is bad poker IMO. Poker about putting your opponent in a position to make a mistake

[/ QUOTE ]
there are more mistakes then calling without good odds or folding with the best hand.

assuming we do this vs loose players who will call you flopbet 90% of the time, regardless of their hand, and wait till the turn to raise if they have a good hand.

then isnt the mistake of not getting any bets in with the best hand worth something? often the focus is put on letting villain make the make the muistake of calling when he should fold, bu not betting when he should bet is a mistake as well.

i find on some of the more passive playing sites i end up betting their hand if i C-bet most flops. this is especialy true with the type that will call any flop, and bet the river if i check the turn.

with those people i find i'm often putting a bet in on the flop whith no FE, and forced to lay down on the river, wich make me think why do i make this bet?

-to win the pot right here? slim chance
-because i have the best hand? not enough information, villain might have hit something with his random hand
-to build FE, maybe some but that implies betting the turn UI (and if we improve we the created FE is worthless)

ofcourse you should only do it vs specific oponnents and if they DO adjust (after a while) then you can revert to 100% C-betting ofcourse

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is bad poker IMO. Poker about putting your opponent in a position to make a mistake

[/ QUOTE ]
there are more mistakes then calling without good odds or folding with the best hand.

assuming we do this vs loose players who will call you flopbet 90% of the time, regardless of their hand, and wait till the turn to raise if they have a good hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you assume this? Do you think this the average SH player? Because there's a large gap between that and my experience.

[ QUOTE ]
then isnt the mistake of not getting any bets in with the best hand worth something? often the focus is put on letting villain make the make the muistake of calling when he should fold, bu not betting when he should bet is a mistake as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

He shouldn't bet. Donking this flop loses him a lot of value against us.

Let's recall another key fact here the pot is 4sb. If we bet and win it more then 20% of the time, we've made a profit. On the turn the pot's 3BB. If we bet and win it more then 25% of the time, then we make a profit.

[ QUOTE ]
i find on some of the more passive playing sites i end up betting their hand if i C-bet most flops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the time they don't have a hand.

[ QUOTE ]
with those people i find i'm often putting a bet in on the flop whith no FE,

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is with your assumption that he will never fold.

[ QUOTE ]
and forced to lay down on the river, wich make me think why do i make this bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you stop betting on the turn? If your assumption that he never folds on the flop or turn is true, then you should check the flop, but it rarely is true.

[ QUOTE ]
-to win the pot right here? slim chance

[/ QUOTE ]

I only make a living doing it.

[ QUOTE ]
-because i have the best hand? not enough information, villain might have hit something with his random hand

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need the best hand.

[ QUOTE ]
-to build FE, maybe some but that implies betting the turn UI (and if we improve we the created FE is worthless)

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the problem with betting the turn UI?

[ QUOTE ]
ofcourse you should only do it vs specific oponnents and if they DO adjust (after a while) then you can revert to 100% C-betting ofcourse

[/ QUOTE ]

And of course I said that in my OP.

[parkinson]

first off, my post wasnt means as a critique, but as input why i think/tought it sometimes might be ok to 0-barrel.

the players i describer are definately NOT the standard SH players, and i offcourse dont advocate doing to vs an unkown. but i found quite a few of these kind of players are found on some of the very loose sites such as pacific.

against these players i think it can be correct to 0-barrel.

about wether he should bet or not, i agree that he shouldnt bet IF we always C-bet him. but if we reduce the amount of C-betting at some point he should start betting (in the extrreme case that we never C-bet he 'should' bet quite a lot) the reason he shouldnt bet here is because we C-bet and if we C-bet with a worse hand we make the mistake (FTOP kind of mistake) and he should allow us to hang ourselves.

that basicaly the Crux of my point, against players who fold very rarely we often make the 'mistake' of C-betting against a better hand (wich he aint gonna fold anyway, these people showdown a pair of deuces on a AKQJx board vs preflop raiser.


about the adjustment, i just meant that you should be aware of wether your opponent picks up on it.

these kind of players are mayor contributers anyway, but i just find it intresting to try to get to the bottom of these kind of things.

[Blue Lagoon]

[ QUOTE ]
This is bad poker IMO. Poker about putting your opponent in a position to make a mistake. The fact is, if you bet here, he's almost always making a mistake by calling if he doesn't have a SD'able hand, a 5 or a 7. This is because he should face another bet from you on the turn and then he will have little choice but to fold UI (thus making his flop call bad) or make a hugely -EV call(in the broad sense obviously not in this specific case unless he has less then JT high).

Now, are there opponents where this is a good check? Sure. If the guy is going to peel the flop and turn in this tiny pot with Q8 or is going to c/r you with 2x or random overcards, you should check, but the average small stakes player is not this loose or this aggressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it mean that when I call with Q8s or Q9o in the BB against a raiser on the Btn or CO, and the flop is
346 rainbow.
I check, the raiser c-bets and.... I should almost always fold? right?
34