RYANCMU teaches struggling NL50 and NL100 players

[effang]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
let's say that you PFR A6ss and get 3/b by a tag reg who likes to squeeze. You make a loose call looking to take it away. The board comes T62, and you are doubtful that it hit his range. (28 bb pot)

for whatever reason, you float him on the flop instead of raising the flop. (72 bb pot) he checks to you on the turn, and you bet out. He c/r AI (178, 22~ more for you to call), and now, you have bottom pair with little chance to improve, but purely given pot odds you have to be calling.

So, in these examples, you're floating with a weakish hand, but with only 100 bb stacks, you're forced to call the turn AI in the off chance you can catch...

so what's the worse play, floating the flop? or betting the turn...because folding on the turn to the AI when you already put so much money into the pot can't be good. (should have made your decision before).

[/ QUOTE ]

4bet preflop is way better than calling with A6s, vs someone that squeezes a lot(obv call a shove)

shove flop is better than calling(you still have 25% equity vs most of his calling range, and there is a ton in the middle already)

[/ QUOTE ]

ok...let's not ignore everything i said, but moving on to your example.

4-betting A6ss and calling a shove, produces a very similar problem. When a tag reg is 5-betting you and you are calling, you are always behind, and very likely to be dominated. However, you're still calling because you already put in 1/2 your stack PF. So, which is the bigger error, 4/betting light? or calling a 5/bet light?

i guess in the nl200 games this probably works a lot better, but i've tried this move a few times, and i can't remember the last time i won/sucked out.

a bigger concern is...what if your hand isn't as strong as A6ss? How about QTss+ KTss+ 67ss+? Would you still pull these same moves without a suited ace? I think you can with 67ss because you're rarely dominated, but the other two you've gotta dump almost all the time right?

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
4-betting A6ss and calling a shove, produces a very similar problem. When a tag reg is 5-betting you and you are calling, you are always behind, and very likely to be dominated. However, you're still calling because you already put in 1/2 your stack PF. So, which is the bigger error, 4/betting light? or calling a 5/bet light?

i guess in the nl200 games this probably works a lot better, but i've tried this move a few times, and i can't remember the last time i won/sucked out.

a bigger concern is...what if your hand isn't as strong as A6ss? How about QTss+ KTss+ 67ss+? Would you still pull these same moves without a suited ace? I think you can with 67ss because you're rarely dominated, but the other two you've gotta dump almost all the time right?

[/ QUOTE ]

you 4bet because his squeezing range is wide, and there will be a ton of money in there for the taking, though very very few .5/1 players have wide squeeze ranges, same goes for 1/2 for the most part

if the squeezing range is really small, doing anything other than folding is burning money, unless he really really likes folding overpairs in RR pots

if you think their calling range is AK, QQ+

have the following equity vs that range

A6s-A2s 28.8-30.1(A5s is the best, then 4, 3, 2,6 all pretty close)
KQs 25.1
KJs 25.7
KTs 26.1
QJs 28.4
QTs 28.8
76s 31
65s 31.1(43s-JTs all outperform the broadway hands, and a few more outperform Ax hands)
86s 29.8 1gappers work pretty well too it seems

the next best hand calling range hands are JJ, AQs adding them to the range changes the equity

A2-6s 30
KQs 29.3
KJs 28.0
KTs 28.4
QJs 29.3
QTs 29.5
76s 30.5
65s 30.6
86s 29.3

wide variety of hands run basically equal here vs that range(weird sidenote, if you add AQo, TT, KJs becomes the best hand vs the range)

increased calling range helps all the hands, KQs gaining the most, but also tends to go with a smaller folding range, which is essential for re-squeezing

it looks more like personal preference on which hands you mix in to balance vs overaggro squeezers

[Landlord79]

Ryan,
I recently added Axs to my iso-raising range from LP and would like to know if there is a certain number of pf-limpers that you stop isoing at w/ these hands.

Same for SPP's from LP.

Similarly, One SPR adjustment that I recently made (experimenting w/) is to raise to 3x+1 w/ Axs and <MPP's in MWLP's. I have also mixed in some premium hands with this raise when I think I can get it heads up at a tight table or w/ fewer pf-limpers already acting ahead of me. I keep the 4x+1 in stronger spots where I really want a lower SPR or I want the most FE w/ my hands. Good strategy or should I abandone it?

[KurtSF]

Hey Ryan, nice thread. I'm going to tell a little story and then ask a few questions, so if you don't like tl;dr posts just skip the next paragraph of backstory and move on to the meat below.

I am the struggling 50NL player you're talking about. I was solidly beating 50NL and having good results taking a shot at 100NL when (for various reasons) I took a 6 month hiatus from online poker. My game was [censored] when I returned, so I started out at 25NL and it took a good two weeks to put my game back together. But I did put it back together and after a month I was winning a lot and confident again, so I moved to 50NL where I wanted to grind out a roll to move back to 100NL. It wasn't to be though. I got absolutely obliterated at 50NL. (It was so bad I downloaded a poker EV calculator and found out I was $1500 below expectation in all-in situations (yes, 30 buyins!) so whatever leaks there are, and rest assured there are many, I was also running sick cold.) So I "tightened up" to "get it back together" and just play for straight value. The thing is, by narrowing my range I fell right into the pit you are describing - I became one of the robotic 12-tabling TAGs that are so easy to exploit. It really felt like my hand was face up all the time, and reading your posts I realize that essentially it *was* face up to my opponents. I dropped back down to 25NL and things are going swimmingly there. Its like printing money (albeit twenty-five cents at a time), so I'll soon be rolled for 50NL again and will be back taking shots. This time I have promised myself to do it "right" - not just opening 50NL tables instead of 25NL and grinding my style, but reading and re-reading some books, reducing my tables, studying like mad, and basically giving my game a complete overhaul in the move up.




Anyway, your posts struck a chord with something I've been thinking about lately which is range balancing in a 100BB game. Basically, 100BB seems so small or awkward to me right now. You mention getting 3 streets of value, but 3-streets of value is at least half my stack (often more if the pot is multi-way or 3-bet), which means that any playback at me results in playing for stacks. I already stack off light too much (one of the afore mentioned leaks), and if I don't have a "get the stacks in hand" I have to fold. So this opens me up to being exploited by floating and, well, any random aggression. But if I tighten up then my perceived range in a given hand is small and opens me up to being exploited by anyone paying attention (basically they can get away whenever I have a hand and I never get paid).

Now if I had a shorter stack I could just play a game of entering pots when my 2 cards beat the villain's range and just play 2-street poker. If I had a deeper stack (>200BBs) I could manipulate pot equity and fold equity and keep my play +EV. But recently 100BB stacks have me feeling "in between", unable to put anything together, and open to exploitation from all sides.

Do you have any advice about finding the balance? Reading these forums I know there's a solid tight-aggressive style for 100BB stacks, but I'm oscillating between nit and spewtard and can't find it. Sorry about the ridiculously open-ended question, but rambling stream-of-consciousness responses are cool.

For context, I usually play a 15/12 highly positional preflop game which is 10/10 UTG, takes a turn at the highjack and leaves me at 25/23 OTB. My flop play is decent, but I'm a fish on the turn and river, with my AF wavering, but around 1-1.5 on those streets. Yeah, I need help with that too.

[effang]

thanks again for the help.

quick question, if you look around, you always see those EV graphs in BBV. Some of the best aggressive players (as in those who can hand read AND put villains to the test) have graphs where their total winnings is actually higher than their expected winnings/sklansky bucks.

That means that they are winning a large % of their hands on the flop or the turn. As an aggressive player yourself, do you have any examples of "outplaying" your opponents? I know that it isn't that necessary at FR, but still, the closer we can come to having diverging lines, the better our post flop play is.

I guess a very simple example would be...you limp call OOP w/ a small PP. Flop comes Q high...how do you go about winning the pot? and how often do you give it up immediately on the flop?

what if you Cold Call a PFR w/ a small PP. Flop comes Q high...again how do you go about winning the pot, and how often are you giving it up?

[Chargers In 07]

[ QUOTE ]

quick question, if you look around, you always see those EV graphs in BBV. Some of the best aggressive players (as in those who can hand read AND put villains to the test) have graphs where their total winnings is actually higher than their expected winnings/sklansky bucks.

[/ QUOTE ]Not sure if you just mistyped that but if the winnings is above showdown winnings then that's winning more than your fair share of pots. Winnings above SBs is "running good".

[CalledDownLight]

The further away from 50% your average equity is in allin hands the the faster your graph is going to diverge. If you get it in with 75% equity on average then your going to be down or up more than X buyins faster (on average) than a player with an average equity of 50%. Also, the higher your average equity is then the longer it takes you to recover from a single bad beat. Likewise, if you have an average equity of ~2.3% (1 outer) and you hit a 1 outer the first hand then you will be running above expectation for a very long time. Thus, if you get sucked out on just a few times and get it in way good most of the time then you will be running below expectation for longer than someone who loses after missing a flush draw. Just think about it.

[Berge20]

Good thread

Does anyone advocate showing cards at certain times to enhance a certain image? I know that I've got auto-muck turned on for sheer simplicity sake--but if I'm playing 6 tables or fewer, it isn't a big deal.

Against the regulars, it might give them more intel on you...but if you have a certain fish or two at the table you are trying to manipulate, it might be worth something.

It's a part of the online game that I rarely see used and we never discuss it here. Probably b/c a lot of people 12-table and don't have time for the extra clicks.

Thoughts?

[CalledDownLight]

Berge, honestly never show any kind of bluff that had any thought behind it. Its really just going to hurt you in FR. Also, there are a lot of times where I think its +EV to make a move (like a 2way bet or bluff) in order to not showdown a hand. If you pay attention you can get a lot of info from what other people take to showdown with certain lines. There are people at NL100 and NL200 FR that you can pretty much put on an exact hand a lot of the time when they take one line or another. HU is another story, but I'd keep the muck on at FR.

[kindling]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

quick question, if you look around, you always see those EV graphs in BBV. Some of the best aggressive players (as in those who can hand read AND put villains to the test) have graphs where their total winnings is actually higher than their expected winnings/sklansky bucks.

[/ QUOTE ]Not sure if you just mistyped that but if the winnings is above showdown winnings then that's winning more than your fair share of pots. Winnings above SBs is "running good".

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he has it right. I've seen some graphs where aggression gives them a lot of pots, but if they get to showdown, they're usually behind. So they may have W$SD<<50%, but they pick up so many pots without getting to showdown that their Total Winnings line is way above their Expected/Sklansky Bucks line.