1000th post: Poker as a Logic game (long)

[linuxrocks]

Hello SSNLers,

I haven't posted much in SSNL when I was starting, but have read SSNL quite extensively and now I read MSNL mostly. 2+2 helped to become a winning player at MSNL, and I hope this 1000th post helps some people here. I play mostly 6-max 400NL, so take this FWIW.

Instead of talking about any specific strategy, I will talk about the general way of thinking about Poker. You have heard it before that Poker is a math game, Poker is a situational game, Poker is a feel game ... Apart from all those, IMO Poker is a Logic game or puzzle. Some of you might have played with these logic puzzles either for fun or as a part of test like SAT or GRE.

Poker at its heart is about playing the game in such a way that you infer your opponent's hand and making the most EV play depending on that. Because of many possible factors involved, every situation is different. Depending on the opponent, board, timing tells, physical tells, opponents' trickiness etc. your action might vary. All these factors have an element of uncertainity as we all know.

I believe that you reduce that uncertainity by logical reasoning. One simple reasoning is that if some one has a VPIP >50%, that guy is a fish. You may not notice it, but it's a very simple logical conclusion based on a certain variable. However, it becomes complex, because

1. That variable may have some uncertainity. In this case, the guy might just have joined and is running hot
2. You might draw incorrect conclusions. For example, many people assume that people suck post-flop, just because they have fishy pre-flop stats. Oh, he is a fish, I am calling with my TPTK when a clear flush staring on the board. This may not be that important at low stakes, as pre-flop fish are usually post-flop fish as well. At higher levels, there are some really good players, who might have some thing 40/20 stats, and play very well post-flop (TalentedTom comes to mind).

Moving on, pre-flop is probably the easiest for logical reasoning. A 35/5 fish limps EP, and you on the button are thinking of isolating him. What hands should you do it with? Not a very tough question, is it?

On the other hand, see this example posted by DJ Sensei, where he rivers a straight, but facing heat from a possible backdoor flush. That thread has some interesting comments, and let me put together some possible analysis, one might go through.

On the flop, what is SB potting with? Some thing like A9, diamonds, may be some [censored] two pair? In BB, we are faced with an interesting decision. If it's BvB, most people probably raise it here, but we have a limped CO behind us, so raising is not necessarily very good. Also, SB is betting into two opponents and showing strength.

Turn, SB pots again. You have gotta be suspicous now. Did he have Q9? or other [censored] two pair? Can he have a draw? From the action doesn't look like it. I don't really like DJ's call here, but as he said, there are some bluff outs.

River is where it gets most interesting. SB bets big again, and showing now sign of slowing down. What can he have? To me, it looks like a two pair, going for value. SB obviously, doesn't put us on the backdoor spade flush draw. A diamond flush draw for us certainly possible. Can he be bluffing? (Triple barrelling, really?)

If we use the evidence we have so far, we put him on two pair on the river. Reasonable conclusion, and DJ aptly goes for a raise. It gets even more interesting now. SB times down, before re-raising. Is it really possible for him to have a flush?

Again, applying our logical reasoning, what kind of hand with two spades pots on the flop? 3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ? If we assume that he has bigger two pair, he can't have the flush. Also, we have the 5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] reducing his chance of backdoor slightly. But, why is he re-raising the river or even bet the river? Is there any way that he is bluffing here ? (zero percent). Can he have the same hand (45)? If that's the case, why is he betting on the turn?

The conclusion as some one put it,

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes you have to accept the fact that even though there's "only XX__ that he can have here that beats me", that is precisely what he has, because he never makes the play with anything else...

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you guys go through your own analysis, before reading people's thoughts. In summary, we are solving a logic puzzle with given evidence. It's the essence of hand reading and making correct moves.

Let's see a simpler example. You raise to 3xBB with AQo from MP, every one folds except the SB who calls. SB is a regular, and is running at 18/12. Flop comes Q35 rainbow, and SB suddenly leads into you. Whoa! what can he have? Should you raise? Can he have KQ? You opt to raise and he calls. Turn brings a 9, and he pushes. What do you think he has? To me, it screams of trips. There are no draws present and regulars often play their trips very fast OOP. The only key thing that you have notice is that he is OOP and he just called PF. Would some one call with KQ like this? They might, but would they play KQ this fast, after our flop raise? Simple evidence and reasoning, but I am sure every one of you (including me) have called in such situations (at some point) with TPTK.

Similar situation, but now you are playing a semi-donk with 60BB stack. Note that this guy is not just giving away money, but making some mistakes that you can exploit (ex. calling with bad hands like KJo OOP). You raise, every one folds, he calls in SB. Same flop, he checks, you c-bet and he min-raises. What do you think he has? Slightly different action, but this is completely different situation. Sure, he can have trips, but the percentage of time he has trips is not as heavily weighed. You push because he is relatively small stack, get called and you win when he shows KQ. The key variable here is the evidence that he calls with bad hands OOP and he is short.

Though both seem like contrived examples, I have seen exact same situations many times. Each time, the situation is slightly different, and you have to apply your reasoning based on the evidence. Also, don't just make some conclusion and stick to it till the river. Re-evaluate based on every move being made. Once you start doing this, you see how easy it is to beat certain opponents.

An excellent post by ipokeder recently talked about this rationalizing. I added paragraph formatting to make it read a little better.

[ QUOTE ]
....

One of the hardest parts to moving up is that people pay a great amount of attention to very salient spots, such as huge river decisions and bluffs, and they do not take the time or effort to re-rationalize lower level situations that contribute significantly to their winrate.


If you keep the fundamentals mostly the same of when you played 2/4 when you move up to 3/6 or 5/10, although it may appear as if you play not much differently than other people do in the large pots, you actually are sacrificing lots of EV in the smaller or medium sized pots because you are not re-rationalizing many of the decisions which you treated as routine at lower limits. The distinctions you have to make to be a great player are very fine and they are very numerous. I think that’s probably one of the big reasons why very good players tend to shoot up the stakes MUCH faster than most people – it generally does not happen that somebody shoots up the ranks from 5c/10c to 2/4 extremely fast and then can’t move up any higher.


The reason for this, I think, is that such a person will be very used to treating poker strategy as a constantly dynamic organism, which he will formulate and reformulate in many degrees and aspects in whatever game he is playing, whereas somebody who plays the same stakes for a long time will simply be wasting his mental energy if he tries to think out every single routine spot he plays; the human brain doesn’t work that way and cannot work that way. These patterns become imprinted on your subconscious mind, such that to an extent when you are playing poker you could not tell someone who points at a decision and asks you “why are you doing this” – the thought process NEVER consciously entered your mind, you are merely recalling a pre-formulated response to the situation. Of course, any intelligent player will be able to re-rationalize the situation and explain after the action what the original thought process would have been, had you had actually thought it out.


However, mistaking the ability to recall a thought process afterward with having actually thought out the action is a poignant fallacy, and something that will probably bite you in the ass in the long run if you don’t have the self-awareness to recognize it. That is not to say that the thought process has to verbal to be present, and also you need not rationalize many of the situations that you will be getting into (however, if you are NOT a top caliber player, a vast majority of the things you do will be suboptimal and so you WOULD gain a benefit out of re-rationalizing many of your small-medium level decisions).
...


[/ QUOTE ]

Often, people don't reason correctly, when the evidence is staring at their face. People still push big pairs when a possible flush, fh, trips hit, bluff calling stations, don't bluff in bluffable spots etc. It's very easy to miss them, if you are playing like a robot (especially if you have been multi-tabling SSNL heavily).

Sharpen your left brain, apply more logical reasoning, and move up !

[Ranma4703]

I could have used this a year ago! Too true. Getting stuck playing the same way, without knowing why you are playing that way is very bad, and it is something I am trying to stop doing myself.

[W3rdy303]

Nice post...Table selection at SSNL has been absolutely crucial for me..to the point where i am making hundreds more by spending 5-10 minutes finding nice tables where I can get those KJ OOP situations..Where 1-tablers are sitting with 3/4 of a stack waiting to get it in on their weak top pair..

Aside from table selection and respecting every opponent as an individual, differently calibrated player, rationalizing every situation as a unique one is crucial. Every spot is different because every opponent is different..Nothing should ever become automatic..

[Rolon]

Good post. I've recently started writing down at least 1 lesson I learned from that particular session. A lot of times its just "THINK!" don't be an idiot but it helps a lot. Maybe one day, I'll post 'em all.

[Keyser.]

Really good post. I think a lot of people who are stuck at lower limits view poker way too rigidly. So many SSNL posts have a hand where someone, say, open limps the SB with A5 suited, and the first 20 replies are "omg open limping sucks!," and these same players are stuck at SSNL because they can't consider why that play might sometimes be a good one (the A5 is just an example obviously, but I think you know what I mean).

Basically SSNL has a ton of people who are just completely unwilling to listen or learn from plays that they have always robotically assumed are bad.

[goofyballer]

I'd like to use my post count to let you all know that OP is a very smart dude who knows what's up.

Nice post man!

[Merlinius]

great post. the mental and psychological aspect is the most important thing when it comes to evolving as a poker player. and still it is so tempting to be ignored. anyone who has been stuck on a certain level knows this but many fail to overcome it.

[sh58]

great post. well researched and well written

[SFF1]

really helpful, lots of great info. great post.

[dirtylobster]

Excellent post. Top notch! Tytyty