15/30 nl hand vs Allen Cunningham

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I don`t play this high but I really dislike the flop call considering the stack sizes, I think just push or fold flop. Maybe some1 can explain a call on this flop ?

[/ QUOTE ]


Seems like all the good players think the best play is to fold the flop, so I would bet that is in fact the best play in practice.

But strictly from a game theory angle folding QJ on the flop in this spot seems like it has to be wrong.

Basically we're going to be betting so many hands worse than QJ on that flop that if we are folding QJ and worse (excluding flush draws or open-ended straight draws), Allen has a +EV bluff c-rz with any 2 cards.

(I could be wrong here, I didn't do any math or anything.)

Again I'm not arguing for a call... just something to think about.

[Kirkrrr]

[ QUOTE ]
I find my self in this type of situation a lot and almost always call the flop and then they almost always do something like this on the turn.

My question to you, why even call the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) AC really surprised me when I played cash with him - he's actually pretty LAG and definitely not the soft spot at the table, so don't judge his cash game by his tournament game, they're very different.

2) the reason we call the flop is a lot of times the turn is going to get checked through b/c no one bets the turn 100% of the time after raising on the flop, and we can get to a cheaper showdown. It's kinda like:

PFR: Bet
V: you seriously got something? - Raise
PFR: Yeah, I'm not screwing around this time. Call, check.
V: Neither am I, you got me beat you can have it all. Bet.

This is obviously opponent-dependent and AC's image makes this more tricky than usual, but in general in that spot the QJo would be a fairly routine fold.

Sorry for the long post, I'm bored and putting off doing some stuff that I know I have to do [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Kirk

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

But strictly from a game theory angle folding QJ on the flop in this spot seems like it has to be wrong.

Basically we're going to be betting so many hands worse than QJ on that flop that if we are folding QJ and worse (excluding flush draws or open-ended straight draws), Allen has a +EV bluff c-rz with any 2 cards.

(I could be wrong here, I didn't do any math or anything.)

Again I'm not arguing for a call... just something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this reasoning is that he can't bluff 100% of his range here without you VERY quickly finding out. If folding QJ here is correct (i.e. his range is draws/better made hands), then even a slight increase in his CR frequency will be quite noticeable.

The thing with poker is that there is no pure strategy nash eq. It is, as we've said all along, an entirely adapative game. The key is not to be unexploitable, but rather to exploit your opponent by adapting faster than he does.

[nopepper]

AC is solid, I can see him making a play here is some flush draw and open ended straight draw. maybe 89c??? I dont mind a call here, hes not folding to a push.

[luckbox666]

I can't see calling being too profitable. That board hit a reletivley wide range of hands, which include Allen's range. There really isn't a safe river card, and your only hope is that he will check the river.

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
i kinda want to be a hero here, but its close. naw, fold. actually, yes i want to shove, some things i put him on include 88-TT and spades/89. then again he could do this with KJ or AJ and not fold to a push, I dunno, I really want to see what happens though when i go all in. he could play a set like this i guess, overpair probably not but maybe. .......results?

[/ QUOTE ]

definitive.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But strictly from a game theory angle folding QJ on the flop in this spot seems like it has to be wrong.

Basically we're going to be betting so many hands worse than QJ on that flop that if we are folding QJ and worse (excluding flush draws or open-ended straight draws), Allen has a +EV bluff c-rz with any 2 cards.

(I could be wrong here, I didn't do any math or anything.)

Again I'm not arguing for a call... just something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this reasoning is that he can't bluff 100% of his range here without you VERY quickly finding out. If folding QJ here is correct (i.e. his range is draws/better made hands), then even a slight increase in his CR frequency will be quite noticeable.

The thing with poker is that there is no pure strategy nash eq. It is, as we've said all along, an entirely adapative game. The key is not to be unexploitable, but rather to exploit your opponent by adapting faster than he does.

[/ QUOTE ]


I actually don't agree with your first point about how obvious it would be that Allen was exploiting you, but anyway even if it is 100% obvious, Allen could just exploit you the one time and then revert to 'optimal' and you would never be able to do anything about it.

(Not that this is realistic, I'm just pointing out that your rebuttal doesn't have any force.)

The second point about poker being purely adaptive is really completely wrong. Ask aba or whomever what % of his decisions in a HUNL match are "standard" as opposed to opponent-specific, and I'm sure the answer will be well over 90%.

And limit poker is even more non-adaptive at its core.

Also the point about there being no Nash equilibrium (for multiway poker), while technically correct, has much less significance than you seem to think. It just means that there is no strategy that is unexploitable if two or more of your opponents are using extreme strategies.

(The example that people always use for this latter case is a LHE game where button and SB raise and 3-bet 100% of the time preflop when you are in BB.)

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

I actually don't agree with your first point about how obvious it would be that Allen was exploiting you, but anyway even if it is 100% obvious, Allen could just exploit you the one time and then revert to 'optimal' and you would never be able to do anything about it.

(Not that this is realistic, I'm just pointing out that your rebuttal doesn't have any force.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to misunderstand my point. Obviously there's nothing I can do if someone wants to exploit me just one time. Cunningam might be able to raise any 2 here once, but until he shows that his strategy will actually include this (or similiar moves that make me suspect he is capable of this) quite frequently, the fact that he ought to do it more often is of no importance.

The whole point is that if he just does it once and we never catch on... who cares? Sometimes people will "outplay" you, that's just a fact of poker. If you aren't calling with worse and folding with better you're probbly making huge mistakes somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]

The second point about poker being purely adaptive is really completely wrong. Ask aba or whomever what % of his decisions in a HUNL match are "standard" as opposed to opponent-specific, and I'm sure the answer will be well over 90%.


[/ QUOTE ]

This just shows you don't really understand what I'm saying. What does "standard" mean? It means that opponent strategy is understood enough and universal that there is a "standard". It's not like standard at HU 200/400 online is the same as standard playing 2/4 online or 20c/40c with friends. It's all opponent specific.

[ QUOTE ]

And limit poker is even more non-adaptive at its core.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to know limit poker particularly well, but this is likely simply a result of there being more limited optimal pf play and thus more likely the game will be "solved" (pure strat nash eq?).

[Micturition Man]

It doesn't really matter but you don't seem to understand what exploitable and unexploitable mean in the context of poker. Nothing in your post really makes sense.