Why do we care so much about our own cards?

[john kane]

Never posted here before, mainly post in MSNL.

But too often I feel we are caring about our own cards. For example, in posts we should often be ignoring our cards and intead solely basing this on our opponents hand range and our read and act accordingly.

Obviously I understand that our holding helps reduce our opponents hand range, but I still feel that it is the case that if you completely miss the flop, often people are far too reluctant to flat call the flop with the intention of a raise on the turn leaving enough on the river for a high enough fold equity with a push. Granted this may be a -EV play but the session EV shoots up either way if you get called or show your bluff.

This style is something i have been trying out recently to some success (although way too small of a sample size for anything that relevant).

This may be a style a lot of very developed players use, but even a lot of the winners in MSNL don't even contemplate using it, so maybe it is just a strategy required for those playing 10-20nl+.

thoughts appreciated.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Never posted here before, mainly post in MSNL.

But too often I feel we are caring about our own cards. For example, in posts we should often be ignoring our cards and intead solely basing this on our opponents hand range and our read and act accordingly.

Obviously I understand that our holding helps reduce our opponents hand range, but I still feel that it is the case that if you completely miss the flop, often people are far too reluctant to flat call the flop with the intention of a raise on the turn leaving enough on the river for a high enough fold equity with a push. Granted this may be a -EV play but the session EV shoots up either way if you get called or show your bluff.

This style is something i have been trying out recently to some success (although way too small of a sample size for anything that relevant).

This may be a style a lot of very developed players use, but even a lot of the winners in MSNL don't even contemplate using it, so maybe it is just a strategy required for those playing 10-20nl+.

thoughts appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not level dependent. It's player dependent. You can't bluff a calling station at any level.

When players are capable of folding decent hands, you will notice that often, the second person to show strength post flop takes down the pot.

[ProdgyProdgy]

this is going a little bit astray but...

there was an interesting article like this in novembers issue of cardplayer magazine by david apostolico. im not going to quote the whole thing but the article read something like this-

next time you play poker in a live game keep track of the percentage of hands youve won, and the number of hands youve won without showing your cards (much easier to do online, just click the stats button). youll see that probaly 70-100% of your hands you win, you do so without a showdown. so thats 70-100% of the time you win a pot it doesnt matter what your cards were. the only difference between STARTING with 27 off and aces is confidence.

of course the article mainly focuses on tournament play when you are card dead, but also can be applied to cash games in the exact same way.

[LovinItAll]

Hmm... I realize this is a very small sample size, but this is what I did (a la HOH, though this was not tourney play):

The last two times I went to the casino, I played 7 hour sessions (2/5 NL). I'm generally very TAG, and I feel a big leak in my game is not bluffing enough. So I tried the clock bit (bluffing 10% of the time based on where the second hand was on my watch).

It really went against my basic playing style the 2 times I had to push +$200 into the pot (once w/7-2o into a coordinated board--I was committed!), but no hand made it to showdown.

I know this is not sustainable by any means, but it was nice to considerably increase what I consider my "average" winning session.

For years I have kept comprehensive records for every session session I play. I calculate travel time (even gas, as it is 100 miles round trip) into the equation and play about 25 hours/week. My net is slightly more than $37/hr. Personally, this number is fine with me (I have no idea whether it is "good" or not), as I consider my play to be recreational and the winnings are just little "bonuses" used to vacation, buy my woman nice things, etc.

If this strategy negatively impacts my net over the next few months, I will ditch it, even though I have always envied the LAGs who seem to run over tables. I have no idea how they do in the long term, though....

Any thoughts?

[ProdgyProdgy]

that was some kind of a joke right?

you bluffed depending on where the second hand was on your watch?

not trying to be mean but i dont believe this entire post is true...

[retleftolc]

Its game theory based, but just saying im gonna do it X% of the time doesnt work as well as applying it situationally.

Ret

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
that was some kind of a joke right?

you bluffed depending on where the second hand was on your watch?

not trying to be mean but i dont believe this entire post is true...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pure BASIC game theory stuff, makes you completely unpredictable.

Start reading some books dude.

[mornelth]

Hi john,

I'm primarily an online MTT player.

Couple of months ago I was thinking along the same exact lines as you do here, and I actually went ahead and played a tournament ($20 / 180-man) with my cards covered by a post-it note (aka blind). The rules were that I can peek at my cards if my next action results in an imminent showdown.

I didn't make it into the money (I finished in 83rd spot, I think).

My next experiment will be to cover up my cards and not peek at them until I evaluated the action to me, considered players already involved / still to act, relevant stack sizes / blinds / etc. and decided on the range of hands I need to get involved in the hand at all. I think this will have a lot more value.

Especially since tournaments have a lot more spots / situations where your two hole cards matter very little or not at all than a cash game.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that was some kind of a joke right?

you bluffed depending on where the second hand was on your watch?

not trying to be mean but i dont believe this entire post is true...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pure BASIC game theory stuff, makes you completely unpredictable.

Start reading some books dude.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some actions you take should be random and you can use this clock method in situations like limping or raising with AK UTG. Most of these instances occur in preflop decisions. Varying your preflop play will make you hard to read.

Other actions are very dependent on the situation, like bluffing or continuation bets, and thus should not be done randomly.

[alanbrown]

You don't need to use the second hand of your watch as a Random Number Generator. You can use the cards themselves. That way you can pick better bluffing hands than 72o (no reason to not give yourself an edge over Completely Random). So - you should simply widen your range to play lower suited connectors or one gappers where you weren't before. This will give your hand a more random texture to your opponents but will still enable you to not play complete junk.

Harrington's "second hand" is good for mixing up your Call/Raise/Fold actions. So in a situation where you would normally Raise 80% of the time and call 20% of the time, your second hand would be ideal.