wow we're [censored] DEEP

[Nielsio]

Bluff or split?

[klonpucko]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluff or split?

[/ QUOTE ]

split, which is why a bluffcheckraise on the river would have made me jizz my pants [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Dan BRIGHT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bluff or split?

[/ QUOTE ]

split, which is why a bluffcheckraise on the river would have made me jizz my pants [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It would have been cool if he had a5, amirite?

[MDMA]

First of all; I was speaking about somebody reraising adequately preflop; I'm not speaking about someone like you who reraises with a way too small range; man, you're in for hell if you play that way, I thought that was obvious. I'm NOT speaking about how you play, i.e not reraising at all pretty much, in that case calling with any two obviously becomes correct, that is as self-explanatory as what I wrote as well. This kind of clearly illustrates why re-raising a small range sucks generally, and even more so deepstacked.

Wtf, reraise and check the flop if you hit an ace then if you feel so bad about getting raised, people are so hung up on always continuation betting and stuff, MIX IT UP PEOPLE.

Yes, you actually have to PLAY POKER when you are deepstacked out of position, but just using that as an excuse to never reraise is seriously not gonna be the most optimal way to play, just the most scared way. Someone reasoning like this will pretty much c/c everything but the nuts with these stacks, and someone who can take advantage of your apparent weakness will just bluff you the HELL out of here with MASSIVE bets, given that he feels that your basic weakness will also make you play big hands fast, because of your fear of being outdrawn with very deep stacks, and this seems likely.

Your idea of playing deep stack poker OOP (never re-raising preflop OOP to not create big pots where you will be afraid of getting raised on the flop etc) will make people run over you.

It's not bad not 3-beting too often OOP, I'm just usually doing it with LOTS or not at all kind of, I hate anything in between. You can go ahead and call every hand preflop as well, it's not terribly at all, I'm just saying do either one, DON'T 3-bet with a small range, that's the worst thing you can do.

[aceswild83]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yiha, at least I was first in saying bet 2.5k on river. Wo-ha.

I don't really feel like explaining why I still think you are wrong triumph, I'm getting bored [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But basically this is not the way to approach deep stacks poker, i.e calling 3-bets with everything and then floating pretty much every flop, that is pretty self-explanatory imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

If klonpucko has shown the ability to 3 bet wide and they're playing a lot of pots, obviously this is incorrect. If klonpucko has not 3 bet a lot, this is pretty obviously correct. Floating with no pair/no draw may be wrong, but floating with backdoor flush or straight draws, one pair looking to hit a set, etc. may all become correct. It is going to be difficult for klonpucko to play these kinds of hands with only one pair, and a lot of the time that's what he's going to have.

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't it going to be equally difficult to play in a single raised pot?

[MDMA]

No aceswild,

given that if he 3-bets just a very few hands he has defined his hand too much compared to calling and is basically screaming "come and stack me with any two".

[whitelime]

I'm not a fan of 3-betting oop w/ stacks this deep, regardless of what you're holding. As for the rest of the hand, looks pretty good. Only thing you can do differently is bet-fold the river. You'd have to be pretty confident villain isn't some clown who will raise your river bet w/ AJ.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yiha, at least I was first in saying bet 2.5k on river. Wo-ha.

I don't really feel like explaining why I still think you are wrong triumph, I'm getting bored [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But basically this is not the way to approach deep stacks poker, i.e calling 3-bets with everything and then floating pretty much every flop, that is pretty self-explanatory imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

If klonpucko has shown the ability to 3 bet wide and they're playing a lot of pots, obviously this is incorrect. If klonpucko has not 3 bet a lot, this is pretty obviously correct. Floating with no pair/no draw may be wrong, but floating with backdoor flush or straight draws, one pair looking to hit a set, etc. may all become correct. It is going to be difficult for klonpucko to play these kinds of hands with only one pair, and a lot of the time that's what he's going to have.

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't it going to be equally difficult to play in a single raised pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because assuming klonpucko re-raises pot, the pot will be 3.5 times smaller on the flop, and if there are only pot bets (foolish assumption), it will almost certainly be smaller. If opponent bets pot on every street it's 140+420+1260. If klonpucko raises pot and bets pot every street it's 450 + 1300 + 3900. Obviously these are ludicrous examples but you see the point.

MDMA, I think you're right about not continuation betting when we hit, but what if our unknown opponent fires three barrels - is he bluffing or does he not realize we have TPTK? Given the lack of information klonpucko has, I just don't feel this kind of play is good.

[MDMA]

I would very likely/often check AK if 3-bet and hit a K given these stacks. Sure he can fire three barrels, but very few actually have the guts/are good enough playing deep-stacked to do so just because of the fact that we checked, especially not against an unknown.

I'm just trying to give my view on how to approach these situations, but no matter how we try to approach it, we are still are a VERY big disadvantage playing deepstacked OOP, and the basic premise of this is to stay away from confrontations, PERIOD.

I wouldn't blame ANYONE for never reraising OOP deepstacked, it's fine playing a VERY timid game against the other deepstacked guy (as long as he's a GOOD player and not a lucky donk), if the rest of the table is good value.

It wouldn't be OPTIMAL by any means, but it might very well be best in terms of variance and stuff like that that definitely is a factor to consider.

We would have to be significantly better than villain to make this situation (stacks and position that is) ev+ for us really, and that's why I'm not saying that never 3-beting is wrong, it definitely is not, it's just THEORETICALLY nowhere close optimal (this is kind of obvious and has no real practical value), but I still feel that in practice, it's probably not a bad idea at all, and that's why I'm fine with how klonpucko played it, I'm just trying to explain why it's not correct in a merely theoretical way.

There is no way we are ever going to "exploit" villains (as long as he's good) tendencies by checking to induce big bluffs etc, the only thing we can do is try to play as close to optimal as possible, and even though this might, in theory, be slightly more ev+ than just playing a very timid game basically avoiding nearly all confrontations/avoid bloating the pot etc, it's probably a lot of the time not worth it given the huge added variance it will also bring.

In this situation it's fine staying since stakes are low and there are lots of other normal stacks that we are probably trying to win money from, but now imagine a live game where everyone has deep stacks, and you can see the problem between very good players; it's one hell of a pokergame since obviously someone is going to be OOP in every pot, and they cannot wait for better situations given that EVERYONE is deep-stacked, all they can do is fold and wait until THEY are in position, but you will quickly realize how this will lead to very little action.

Oh my, the game of poker [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[aceswild83]

[ QUOTE ]
No aceswild,

given that if he 3-bets just a very few hands he has defined his hand too much compared to calling and is basically screaming "come and stack me with any two".

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. What I mean is if we are not that easy to read and we mix up our 3betting range to include sc and stuff then using the argument that we will be bluffed out of a lot of pots would be just as true if we had just called the raise.

otoh I could see that you would want to play as small pots as possible in general when you're OOP, ie if you have a hand that rates to be equal to your opponents hand you would rather play a smaller pot OOP then in position. but if you play that game you have to just call with your big pairs as well which I guess could be ok as a general strategy. however I don't really see a problem with 3 betting either as long as you mix it up but your range is still ahead of your opponents.

btw even if we only 3bet AA wouldn't it be possible to come up with some game theory way to play so that our opponent can't take advantage? but yeah that would be pretty impossible in real play.