A question for Krantz, CTS, and other recent nosebleed players.

[mused01]

X-post from NVG:

Note: I posted this in NVG because I thought it was very elementary and not really worthy enough to belong in the highstakes forum, but someone suggested to post it here anywas, so here it is.

First, I apologize if my question is unclear. I'm writing this during my break from studying for school. Anyways, this question is directed to Krantz, CTS, and other recent nosebleed players that were not long ago, regulars at 2/4+. After reading Jman's post about Phil Ivey's lack of balance in his range in certain situations, I began to wonder how much no-limit poker, especially at the higher stakes, started deviating towards game theory. I know highstakes limit poker relies heavily on game theory and randomization, evident by the barrage of loose calldowns many pros make, and since no limit stems of from limit poker only with a much wider degrees of freedom, I'm assuming it will follow the same path. My question is this, at nosebleed no limit stakes, how much are you guys taking randomization and game theory into consideration. Are you justifying some of your calls even though you know you're mostly beat, with the idea that if you make the call 20% of the time, you are unexploitable? Or are you guys still playing according to what your opponent can possibly have and simply playing a guessing game? The only example that I know of that makes me believe people still play by according what they "feel" or think their opponent have is the sick check with position by durr against krantz when he had TPTK with AK and Krantz had 5,6, unless that of course was part of randomizing his hands.

My other question is, should 10/20, 5/10, or even 2/4 players play with this mentality of playing according to game theory and randomization. Will it help their game at these stakes or will it only hurt it?

[xSCWx]

I play more midstakes, but in my experience the low stakes is almost completely about playing the odds and high stakes is more about being a level of thinking beyond the villain (mixing up plays based upon the villain's read on you). Mid stakes tends to be more towards the middle. I don't think that ideal play at 200/400 is the same as ideal play at 2/4.

[xSCWx]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you justifying some of your calls even though you know you're mostly beat, with the idea that if you make the call 20% of the time, you are unexploitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is either a misunderstanding of poker theory or me misunderstanding your post. The logic behind this situation should be that if they are getting >5:1 and will win 20% of the time against the villain's range then it is a call. This is a call 100% of the time though just 20% to win.