|
|
#21
02-16-2007, 07:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: not raising strong flop hands on darw heavy boards(theory?)
[ QUOTE ]
If you include all this background information, the questions usually answer themselves. If you're just checking to see if you screwed up or not, that's fine and good, but if you're looking to learn something about a situation, sometimes less is more. [/ QUOTE ] This is SFtrue, and I wish every 2+2ers would read your short post and think about it. To answer a poker problem in terms of opponent tendencies is not to answer at all. It is trivial to say "Well if your opponent is bluffing more than 1/5th of the time here, you should call." Or "Well if your opponent is a rock you should fold, if he is loose you should call." No [censored]. What is actually interesting and useful is to try to solve a poker problem independent of player tendencies. What is the best play against an optimal oppponent? What is the unexploitable baseline play which you can adjust if you happen to learn something about opponent tendencies? 
|
|
#22
02-16-2007, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: not raising strong flop hands on darw heavy boards(theory?)
[ QUOTE ]
No [censored]. What is actually interesting and useful is to try to solve a poker problem independent of player tendencies. What is the best play against an optimal oppponent? [/ QUOTE ] OK, now we are cooking with gas. In this poker problem (hand history alone, 0 background info) we are given the following. 1. Opponent raises preflop. You and UTG call. 2. On J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], UTG checks, and CO opponent bets pot. The start of a discussion of an optimal opponent in this situation has to begin with what sort of hands he is raising with preflop in late position? What is that answer? How do you solve it? And then what is the optimal strategy for this sort of flop from your optimal opponent's POV?
|
|
#25
02-17-2007, 02:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: not raising strong flop hands on darw heavy boards(theory?)
Obviously nobody is going to actually 'solve' this problem. (Which is in fact not even soluble because it's a multiway game.) My point is that rather than making some trivially obvious contingent answer you should try to come up with a strong baseline answer for tough opponents. For an example of this style of thinking read my other post in this thread.
|
|
#26
02-18-2007, 11:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: not raising strong flop hands on darw heavy boards(theory?)
[ QUOTE ]
No [censored]. What is actually interesting and useful is to try to solve a poker problem independent of player tendencies. What is the best play against an optimal oppponent? What is the unexploitable baseline play which you can adjust if you happen to learn something about opponent tendencies? [/ QUOTE ] I think the most useful direction here is the best play against an unknown opponent, which you can adjust if you learn that your opponent is optimal or not-so-optimal. It's possible that the best play against an optimal opponent (if by optimal, you mean one who plays perfectly or close enough) could be the wrong play against an unknown opponent.
|
|
#27
02-19-2007, 05:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: not raising strong flop hands on darw heavy boards(theory?)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you include all this background information, the questions usually answer themselves. If you're just checking to see if you screwed up or not, that's fine and good, but if you're looking to learn something about a situation, sometimes less is more. [/ QUOTE ] This is SFtrue, and I wish every 2+2ers would read your short post and think about it. To answer a poker problem in terms of opponent tendencies is not to answer at all. It is trivial to say "Well if your opponent is bluffing more than 1/5th of the time here, you should call." Or "Well if your opponent is a rock you should fold, if he is loose you should call." No [censored]. What is actually interesting and useful is to try to solve a poker problem independent of player tendencies. What is the best play against an optimal oppponent? What is the unexploitable baseline play which you can adjust if you happen to learn something about opponent tendencies? [/ QUOTE ] This is fine, but it's not exactly what I meant. Figuring out the baseline unexploitable play is useful, as is figuring out the maximally profitable play against an unknown or typical opponent. But I just meant that, if you're really trying to learn something about a situation, you may want to broaden your inquiry and think about how it should be played in many different game conditions against many different opponents.
|
|
#28
02-19-2007, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: not raising strong flop hands on darw heavy boards(theory?)
Like pete I often (or at least 'not infrequently') will smooth call the flop with a variety of strong made hands, intending to get it in on most turns. Without going into tons and tons of detail, my general rationale involves the fact that if I pop it on the flop (esp. in pos) i'm only getting called when it's set over set, but if I pop a blank on the turn I can get it in against a wide variety of hands.
in the spot detailed by the op, however, I wouldn't be particularly inclined to take that line.
|
|
#29
02-19-2007, 11:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: not raising strong flop hands on darw heavy boards(theory?)
What no one seems to have mentioned, but maybe Pete was hinting at, was using a flat call as part of a meta strategy. In this way, folks don't automatically put you on a draw everytime you just call a flop and you end up causing them a lot of uncertainty as to how to play the other streets. Just calling with nut straights is a very similar ploy.
As to the hand in question it is very tricky and as dependent on stack sizes and player tendancies as to anything else. But if you get in 100BB+ hu in this spot it is unlikely that you are "taking your equity" as you will probably in crooked coin toss territory at best. gl bdd
|
|
#30
02-20-2007, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: not raising strong flop hands on darw heavy boards(theory?)
[ QUOTE ]
What no one seems to have mentioned, but maybe Pete was hinting at, was using a flat call as part of a meta strategy. In this way, folks don't automatically put you on a draw everytime you just call a flop and you end up causing them a lot of uncertainty as to how to play the other streets. Just calling with nut straights is a very similar ploy. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this post, against observant players it's really nice to turn up with a set on fourth street from time to time after you call the flop. Calling here with any set from time to time is good, with bottom set you have the added bonus that you sometimes avoid set over set.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
