Get it in

[poincaraux]

[ QUOTE ]
Pokey is officially on notice that a man named Poin is gunning for the title of SSNL Mathiac.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's how things usually work:

Poincaraux: hey, guys, here's some cool math that I just worked out!

Guys: cool!

Pokey: Nice try, but here's the correct math.

Poincaraux: oops!

Pokey: To the mathmobile, Robin, we have more problems to solve today!

[ajmargarine]

Nice post pc.

Not really cliff notes, but a possible rule of thumb:

If you want to get AI on the next street, bet 1/3 the effective stack.
If you want to get AI over two streets, bet 1/9 the effective stack on the first bet, followed by 1/3.

[maxtower]

Villains are more likely to call flop bets than turn bets. There are more options here than
1. pot-pot-AI
2. 1/2 pot, 2/3 pot, river over bet
How about
3. pot + 10% or 20%, 2/3 pot, nice sized river bet??
or the overbet reverse bluff? has anyone tried this?
The overbet reverse bluff is what I call when you hit the monster on the flop and over bet the pot in an attempt to get a caller who thinks you might be bluffing.
Max

[Grunch]

OP was not overly long. In fact, by the time I got to the end, I was hopiing there would be more.

[ QUOTE ]
So, unless you think that villain is savvy enough to make some real adjustments based on the various lines you take, you should be betting quite a bit when you have a great hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Emphasis mine) It's like evolution. Everyone who is going to get good at poker seems to come to this conclusion at some point.

This is definite sticky material. Good job.

[poincaraux]

[ QUOTE ]
Villains are more likely to call flop bets than turn bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup! I thought I made the fact that I agree with that clear in my OP via the calling percentages for flop vs. turn bets, but I certainly agree. That's one of the primary reasons that we want to get more money in early.

[ QUOTE ]

There are more options here than
1. pot-pot-AI
2. 1/2 pot, 2/3 pot, river over bet


[/ QUOTE ]

Ha! Are you really telling me that you want me to be more longwinded? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

In real life, I often bet things like 4/5-pot. I haven't done a lot of study here, but I think that a PSB is a magic number for a lot of villains .. they notice if things are less than the full pot or >= the pot, but most sizes inbetween are a blur (or seen in terms of $$ rather than %-of-the-pot).

I felt like the OP was longwinded enough, and that posting even more examples would reach the point of diminishing returns: more people would have their eyes glaze over and stop reading, and I'd get less feedback. You're not going to make my OP longer, though, so please feel free to reply with your own lines and analysis! (please!)

[ QUOTE ]

How about
3. pot + 10% or 20%, 2/3 pot, nice sized river bet??
or the overbet reverse bluff? has anyone tried this?
The overbet reverse bluff is what I call when you hit the monster on the flop and over bet the pot in an attempt to get a caller who thinks you might be bluffing.
Max

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, your third line is something that I've only really thought about recently. On boards where I *really* don't want people to catch up to me, I'll overbet a little on the flop. I don't do it very often, and I probably don't balance it well with my other lines, though. Any insight to offer?

The overbet reverse bluff is certainly in my arsenal, but it usually comes up when I already have notes implying that a particular villain will call it. Any insight?

[quarkncover]

Poincaraux-

Detailed and well explained, but not verbose. Fantastic post.

VNH Sir.

[AZplaya]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to get AI on the next street, bet 1/3 the effective stack.
If you want to get AI over two streets, bet 1/9 the effective stack on the first bet, followed by 1/3.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is gold.
BTW, incredibly nice post pc, you always seem to post gems every time you post.

[poincaraux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, unless you think that villain is savvy enough to make some real adjustments based on the various lines you take, you should be betting quite a bit when you have a great hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Emphasis mine) It's like evolution. Everyone who is going to get good at poker seems to come to this conclusion at some point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Intuitively, I knew this. Stuff like "one of the main reasons I'm aggressive in general is so that I can be aggressive with my monsters" just seems intuitive to me. I hadn't done these EV calculations before, though, and I thought they were pretty compelling [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[ QUOTE ]
This is definite sticky material. Good job.

[/ QUOTE ]

w00t! my first sticky [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Pokey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pokey is officially on notice that a man named Poin is gunning for the title of SSNL Mathiac.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's how things usually work:

Poincaraux: hey, guys, here's some cool math that I just worked out!

Guys: cool!

Pokey: Nice try, but here's the correct math.

Poincaraux: oops!

Pokey: To the mathmobile, Robin, we have more problems to solve today!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just heading straight to the mathmobile, because there's nothing to be fixed here. You got it all right, and it looks great -- I think this is an incredibly valuable post.

Personally, I've moved quite a bit in the other direction lately. Here's my reasoning, and if I'm way off the mark (as your original post indicates) I'd really love a good attitude adjustment.

When I flop an unbelievable monster, one of three situations will pertain:

1. Villain has a mini-monster -- some second-best hand that he's going to fall madly in love with.
2. Villain has improved to something mediocre.
3. Villain has nothing.

If we were to assign probabilities, we'd probably have to say villain's hand is "nothing" about 60% of the time, "mediocre" about 30% of the time, and "mini-monster" about 10% of the time. (That's overly generous, but it gets the point across.) At this point, I'd like to mention that the "mini-monster" hand is not one worth worrying about -- under normal circumstances, all the money is getting into the middle with these hands. Most villains are aggressive enough that they'll raise us, either directly on the flop or on the turn (tricksy check-raisers!), and we'll be all-in without any real difficulty. We're aggressive players by our nature; when our opponent wakes up on the turn or river when we've got the nuts, we're not just going to take our paltry winnings and go home -- we're going for the jugular, and if he's really got a mini-monster, he's going to bleed for us. So, whether we take a pot-pot-pot line or a 3/4-2/3-1/2 line, all them carrots are going into the soup when our opponent has a near-winner.

That means that, in trying to decide between these two lines, we can ignore the case when our opponent has a mini-monster. The outcome is the same in both situations, so it is irrelevant. (NOTE: this idea does not necessarily apply if we're both incredibly deep; those situations need to be treated separately, but since they're the exception, we can set them aside for a general discussion.)

To me, the relevant question is "how much money do I win with the nuts when my opponent has either a mediocre hand or no hand at all?" Here, we're left with a discussion that quickly leaves the realm of math and enters the realm of speculation: folding equity. This is, unfortunately, much more art than science, and the specifics of the hand, the opponent, and our table image will play an incredibly large role in the way things play out. A few items to consider:

<font color="blue">1. Board texture.</font>
Example #1:
We hold A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in CO. Our opponent is on the button with A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. We raise to $4, our opponent calls, the blinds fold. The flop comes:

K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Example #2:
We hold A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in CO. Our opponent is on the button with K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. We raise to $4, our opponent calls, the blinds fold. The flop comes:

Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]


Note how differently these two scenarios will play out. In both situations, we have the nuts, and we're overwhelmingly likely to win the hand. However, in the first case, our opponent's mediocre hand has little hope of improving, and we're going to have difficulty squeezing even small bets out of him. In the second case, we've got a chance to really soak the sucker.

<font color="blue">2. Opponent type.</font>
Against an aggressive opponent, smaller bets are more effective than larger ones. This holds true for two main reasons:

(a) Aggressive opponents are quick to lay down losing hands. Since they are always squeezing, they need to be more perceptive about when they've gone too far, and they tend to be pretty good about getting out of the way when the axe is swinging at them. Passive opponents tend to fold less often, so the bigger bets won't trigger any warning lights, and will get paid off more frequently.

(b) Aggressive opponents may misinterpret a small bet as being weak, and therefore raise you with a weaker holding. Whereas a pot-pot-pot line may wind up getting our opponent to fold a mediocre or poor holding on the flop, a 3/4-2/3-1/2 line may get floated on the flop and raised on the turn by the SAME holdings, winning us a very hefty pot in the process.

<font color="blue">3. Relative probabilities.</font>
Perhaps my strongest reason for not playing flopped monsters so fast is that they don't come along very often. For every time I'm playing a flopped flush, there will be about nine other times that I'm playing a flopped flush draw. For every time I'm playing a flopped set, there will be three times I'm playing an overpair. For every time I'm playing a flopped monster, there will be many times that I'm playing a flopped miss. Far more often, I'm going to have a weak or non-existent hand; I want to maximize my profits (or minimize my losses) on my bogus hands, not my monsters. Yes, that's right, I care more about my weak hands than my strong ones. Let me pose a question for you that might make things clear:

After sacrificing the blood of a donkey to the poker gods, those dark lords grant you a boon. You may choose one of two rewards for your service to your dark masters:

1. EVERY time you have a royal flush, you will win the absolute, no-holds-barred, 100% most that is even remotely possible for you to extract from the hand. In other words, you will play your royal flushes PERFECTLY, every single time, from now on.
2. EVERY time you flop middle pair, the poker gods will give you one extra BB at the end of the hand, however you play it. They won't help you play it perfectly, and they won't even give you insights as to how to proceed, but at the end of the hand, you'll be given one extra big blind as your reward.

Any experienced poker player would pick reward #2, here, because "+1 BB every time you hit middle pair" adds up to FAR more than "maximum value on royal flushes."

I'm suggesting something similar: if we play in a way that maximizes the value of our monsters -- no, in a way that maximizes the value of our monsters when our opponents also have good hands -- we're catering our play to an extremely small subset of our hands. If, instead, we play in a way that maximizes the value of our humdrum hands, we come out far ahead in the long run.

Now, I'm not saying the two goals are always and everywhere mutually exclusive, but it seems to me that if we only play a "pot-pot-pot" line when we've got a monster, that's an easily identifiable and exploitable quirk. In order to play a "pot-pot-pot" line when we've got a monster, we also need to do so -- at least quite often -- when we've got less than a monster. Unless you're very tight, a pot-pot-pot line is EXTREMELY expensive to play with TP2K or something similar. Why build your playstyle around trying to extract an extra 10 BBs in the fraction of 1% of the hands when you're playing in the specific "monster-vs-second-best" scenario? Why not concentrate on a betting style that maximizes the value on your run-of-the-mill hands?



FINAL NOTE: Let me restate once again that this is my standard way of thinking about the problem, but it is not necessarily the RIGHT way to think about it. If people disagree, I'd really like to hear a good explanation about why I'm wrong. I'm not shutting off the possibility of rethinking my approach, but this is what seems profit-maximizing to me at the present.

[poincaraux]

Pokey-

Great reply! I have to get up in 3 hours, so I need to sleep now, but hopefully I'll have time for a longer reply soon. In the interim, I touched on some of the things you said in my other replies, but I think you're spot on for the most part.

- the two hands that prompted that post were AXs hands on monotone flops that made it very easy for the villain to have a flush draw that contained a suited overcard to the board. So, yes, board texture is very important.

- Lately, I've been very surprised at how often villains go passive against me, even when I'm in aggro mode. This makes *all* the difference, as I can't ignore the mini monster against them.

- Speaking of board texture, these are often exactly the sorts of boards where, if I make a c-bet, it'll be a big one, either 1) because I have a monster or 2) I want to charge draws a lot. How much do you change the size of your c-bets based on board texture?

- I certainly see your point about not wanting to be too exploitable, and I don't usually go pot-pot-pot .. it's usually more like 4/5, 4/5, 4/5. Like I mentioned in one of my other replies, it seems to me that many of my opponents lump anything between 1/2-pot and 4/5-pot together and don't really adjust.

- You're playing at higher stakes than I am, and I think you're playing against better villains.

I think, in the end, it boils down to flop texture and opponent tendencies, as expected. My current thinking on opponent tendencies is noticeably different from yours, and I worked out an example from my extreme in my second long-winded post in this thread. Did you see it? I spent a lot of time trying to make smaller bets when I flopped these kinds of monsters, hoping that the villain would play back at me, etc. That just doesn't happen much for me. IME, villains are much more likely to flop a hand that they'll call with than one they'll play back at me with, and that's why I'm betting in situations like this.

So, yeah, the boards you mentioned are different than the ones I was thinking of. Not quite like 4_2_it's 772 board, but still quite different.

Is it fair to say that there's a continuum of flop textures and opponent types, and that the more aggro line makes sense on my end of it, and the less aggro line makes sense on your end, or do you think I'm making other fundamental mistakes?

Hmmn .. this thread is also giving me good ideas about how to adjust to different types of opponents, things to keep in mind as I move up, etc.

But now I have to sleep. Sorry if this is incoherent.