QTs - dubious preflop call, but standard call bluff?

[corsakh]

I speak of a cash game like you have an infinite bankroll or never tilt.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me just say that all I've said in the above is because I'm probebly a giant wuss and can't handle the varience that comes with pushing in on situations where I'm probebly 50/50

Of course you create more EV by being agressive in these situations because of the FE.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point of pushing something like a classic 50-50 situation, say a "weak" combo draw (middle pair + FD). You're changing a 50-50 situation into 60-40 or whatever because your opponent might fold. I hate the variance too, but you really need to learn to make this play when it's correct. (It isn't always correct. If you KNOW that your opponent will call, you should probably play for implied odds and hope the hidden part of your draw hits.)

That's different from the OP, of course. I'm pretty certain here that my hand loses at showdown without improvement, unless Villain is a really loose reraiser with 99 or KQ. So the only thing making this play marginally +EV is my assessment (based mostly on my perception of weak flop and turn bets) that my FE is HUGE.

But I'm glad to have touched off a discussion of marginally EV plays in general, because this appears to be a deficiency in people's thinking. If you're just trying to keep variance down and build bankroll, fine. <font color="red">But you don't turn down small edges in cash games just because you expect to have bigger edges later on</font>, unless losing with an edge would cripple you and prevent you from pressing the bigger edge later on. Micro-stakes are tougher these days, and the apparent subtext that you don't need to worry about playing well because people will line up to give you money is getting less and less true with each passing month.

[corsakh]

Pushing 50/50 into 60/40 is totally fine with me, as is pushing for metagame. Two buts.

But number 1. In the OP case, thoough I like it, if our read is correct we push 0/100 to something like 50/50.

But numver 2. At micros no one cares about metagame.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]


But numver 2. At micros no one cares about metagame.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is taken to be axiomatic, but I question it a bit. There's a mass of new user names I still see passing through the NL25s, and they certainly don't care about metagame. Then there are reasonably good players who I keep running into at NL25, and they probably do care about metagame.

That said, I'd rather change tables to avoid them.

[corsakh]

I actually like regulars since I have a ton of hands on them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[AKQJ10]

Well, that justifies my FPS to corrupt your data on me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[dirtysanchez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you should be willing to gamble in coinflips alot at the micro stakes just because it's slightly EV

Lets say we're playing 100NL and we're getting our money in when were 54/46 ahead every 200 hands and we play for 100k hands. That would make 500 of these coinflips. Assuming we're both 100bb deep, that would make it a 200bb x 500 100.000bb wager.

Assuming we don't get doomswitched I would win 54% and villain would win 46% of the time. thus giving me a profit of 56.000 - 44.000bb = 12.000bb profit over 200.000 hands which would give me 3ptbb/100 winrate over those coinflips.

If we change this to picking 70/30 advantages over 500 hands we get this situation 200 times in which we wager 200x 200bb = 40.000bb. If I win 70% and lose 30% my profit would be 28.000-12.000 = 16.000bb profit over 200.000 hands which would come down to 4ptbb/100.

Of course my math on how many times these situations accur is way off but it's just to give you an indication that it's not the most +EV play (in uNL) to get your money in on coinflips all the time, because people will call you off here more often and will push there money in the pot when you have them drawing dead etc.

I was always thought that poker was about adjusting to your opponents, why would you adjust your game to higher stakes games when you're playing uNL and taking more marginal chances when you don't have to and can make more money getting it when you have better odds of winning?

Note:
My Math is probebly WAY off [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] it's basicly the last part that's important

[/ QUOTE ]

im not advocating passing on 70/30s [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]. If we take the marginally +EV spots and the coinflips we win 7ptbb/100 by your math, no? why does taking one edge preclude us from taking the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you have COMPLETE information over the game, you would be able to make these correct decisions all the time and know wether you're 54/46 70/30, 80/20 whatever.. but since you don't I would suggest that when you play uNL you wait for situations where you are probebly a greater than coinflip favorite since the money will get in more easily because the majority of the people on those levels suck (no offense I love you all [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]). I'm just trying to say you'd probebly win more (well less varience atleast) if you avoid coinflip situations when you have to in realistic situations. (It would be the best play if you would have an infinite bankroll, knew everyones cards, you are perfectly ok with it and don't tilt when you lose when you're ahead and have a REALLY large sample size)

edit:
I'm not saying you should avoid +EV situations but I think theres easier ways to crush uNL than taking every coinflip you can get because you'll have less varience

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont necessarily mean taking every coinflip. and im also not talking solely about all in pre situations. But since they are easier to quantify, i dont think, if you are properly rolled, there is a good reason to pass on a spot you are +EV in. Now obviously you dont always know your exact equity in every pot, and i dont mean that you should actively search for coinflips. But poker, from micro NL to nosebleed stakes, is about maximizing your EV. In the basic sense you do this by putting your opponent on a range of hands, and putting money in when it is +EV to do so against that range. So if you put your opponent on a range, and you are getting sufficient odds to make your hand +EV vs that range, whether you are 54/46 getting even money or 40/60 getting 1.75/1, i think passing on that spot to avoid variance is only going to lower your winrate.

[dirtysanchez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


But numver 2. At micros no one cares about metagame.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is taken to be axiomatic, but I question it a bit. There's a mass of new user names I still see passing through the NL25s, and they certainly don't care about metagame. Then there are reasonably good players who I keep running into at NL25, and they probably do care about metagame.

That said, I'd rather change tables to avoid them.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think your last sentence is key. I am all for taking each and every +EV spot i can find, but if you are finding yourself in spots where you feel it necessary to make a play that isnt +EV solely for metagame at micro NL you are table selecting badly IMO. Even at 100NL i switch tables if i feel like there are enough regs that i need to FPS in order to create +EV situations at a particular table.
Also there are always exceptinos to every rule, and that is true w/ not passing on +EV spots as well. Say you buddylist a huge fish who buys in full but always leaves a table after dropping his initial buyin or doubling it. Now, this guy is the reason you are at the table, so it is certainly ok to pass on a very marginally EV spot for 2 reasons: 1) you know for a fact he will throw his money at you in a much better spot 2) you knoow for a fact hes going to leave after an all-in whether you win or lose the hand, so by taking this marginal spot vs him you are increasing the risk that you make nothing off him in this session

[EMc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me just say that all I've said in the above is because I'm probebly a giant wuss and can't handle the varience that comes with pushing in on situations where I'm probebly 50/50

Of course you create more EV by being agressive in these situations because of the FE.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point of pushing something like a classic 50-50 situation, say a "weak" combo draw (middle pair + FD). You're changing a 50-50 situation into 60-40 or whatever because your opponent might fold. I hate the variance too, but you really need to learn to make this play when it's correct. (It isn't always correct. If you KNOW that your opponent will call, you should probably play for implied odds and hope the hidden part of your draw hits.)

That's different from the OP, of course. I'm pretty certain here that my hand loses at showdown without improvement, unless Villain is a really loose reraiser with 99 or KQ. So the only thing making this play marginally +EV is my assessment (based mostly on my perception of weak flop and turn bets) that my FE is HUGE.

But I'm glad to have touched off a discussion of marginally EV plays in general, because this appears to be a deficiency in people's thinking. If you're just trying to keep variance down and build bankroll, fine. <font color="red">But you don't turn down small edges in cash games just because you expect to have bigger edges later on</font>, unless losing with an edge would cripple you and prevent you from pressing the bigger edge later on. Micro-stakes are tougher these days, and the apparent subtext that you don't need to worry about playing well because people will line up to give you money is getting less and less true with each passing month.

[/ QUOTE ]

That part in color isnt exactly true. I've advocated in the past on specific hands, that sometimes is is better to pass up on a marginal edge early to exploit a bigger edge on the turn, when the bets are bigger and the hand clearer. Granted, this is more a limit concept, but can be applied to uNL as well.

I also like to note that I agree with your last statement, but you cant tell anyone that does not play these stakes that because they will just dismiss that as not being true. The 50nl game on FTP now reminds me of the 200nl game during the summer, same for stars.

[dirtysanchez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me just say that all I've said in the above is because I'm probebly a giant wuss and can't handle the varience that comes with pushing in on situations where I'm probebly 50/50

Of course you create more EV by being agressive in these situations because of the FE.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point of pushing something like a classic 50-50 situation, say a "weak" combo draw (middle pair + FD). You're changing a 50-50 situation into 60-40 or whatever because your opponent might fold. I hate the variance too, but you really need to learn to make this play when it's correct. (It isn't always correct. If you KNOW that your opponent will call, you should probably play for implied odds and hope the hidden part of your draw hits.)

That's different from the OP, of course. I'm pretty certain here that my hand loses at showdown without improvement, unless Villain is a really loose reraiser with 99 or KQ. So the only thing making this play marginally +EV is my assessment (based mostly on my perception of weak flop and turn bets) that my FE is HUGE.

But I'm glad to have touched off a discussion of marginally EV plays in general, because this appears to be a deficiency in people's thinking. If you're just trying to keep variance down and build bankroll, fine. <font color="red">But you don't turn down small edges in cash games just because you expect to have bigger edges later on</font>, unless losing with an edge would cripple you and prevent you from pressing the bigger edge later on. Micro-stakes are tougher these days, and the apparent subtext that you don't need to worry about playing well because people will line up to give you money is getting less and less true with each passing month.

[/ QUOTE ]

That part in color isnt exactly true. I've advocated in the past on specific hands, that sometimes is is better to pass up on a marginal edge early to exploit a bigger edge on the turn, when the bets are bigger and the hand clearer. Granted, this is more a limit concept, but can be applied to uNL as well.

I also like to note that I agree with your last statement, but you cant tell anyone that does not play these stakes that because they will just dismiss that as not being true. The 50nl game on FTP now reminds me of the 200nl game during the summer, same for stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with you here. i moved down to 50NL for like 10k hands recently during a rough stretch at 100NL and other than betsizes i didnt notice a big diff at all in the play. I do think we are reaching an equilibrium of sorts, or will at least. I think the mediocre regs are going to either keep moving down or eventually quit b/c of lowered winrates and increased variance, while the donks that dont know what these two terms mean will keep losing there money happily. Problem is there arent as many of em as before the legislation and IMO, the next few months will see the lower level of regulars dying out and eventually those who survive will find an easier game w/ fewer "sharks" competing for the same number of "fish". Ive noticed that the games are already starting to get a bit easier at the 100NL level than they were a month ago, but still substantially harder than they were 6 months ago.