Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Limit Texas Hold'em > Small Stakes Shorthanded

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-26-2007, 01:50 PM
ILOVEPOKER929 ILOVEPOKER929 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Omaha Fish
Posts: 5,114
Default Re: River semi-bluff (yes, river) vs. Heisenb3rg

ILP,

"Sorry if I came off as rude. That was not my intention."

I didnt think you were being rude at all. Also even if you were rude to me I would never hold that against you

"It just seemed to me that if I need a 9-point plan to make this play where every factor has to fall into place I'd be much more likely to just botch it up. This is especially true in online poker where the action is so fast and you have 10-30 seconds to make the play."

Youre concerns are valid, in fact we can even argue that we really have even less time to make this play since we should probably do it in a fluid rhythm. If you think youre much more likely to botch this play up then it would probably be best to never run this play for you as long as youre aware of the potentional lazy thinking that could possibly pollute your game if you take this attitude too far.

Also, lets keep in mind that many profitable exotic plays may indeed be impossible to execute in the heat of battle. The only way to overcome this problem is to be ready to execute the play before the play ever happens. Hence the "playbook" reference. The best way to develope this playbook is to always have a winning player you can talk to about any hand/situation and that's what 2+2 is for.

"I disagree however with your conclusion that this would be a good play vs me because you are not a favorite vs my showdown range in that spot and therefore the raise is -EV."

I did not say that this would be a good play to run vs you. Based on what you said I think it's pretty clear this play would not work vs you.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-26-2007, 01:50 PM
Tryptamean Tryptamean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,186
Default Re: River semi-bluff (yes, river) vs. Heisenb3rg

fwiw, I would not call heis showdown bound in general. In all likelyhood, he shows down very optimally vs whoever his opponent is. he seems to find folds against me a fairly high percentage of the time when I catch after semi bluffing, or when I fairly clearly represent a hand that is calling down but then improves. Its obviously tough to say how often that includes made hands, but I suspect that is the case some of the time. I also suspect he plays other straightforward tags in a similar fashion.

I also know that if I were in his shoes with an overpair or AJ, against a straightforward tag, I would bet the river and HATE a raise. I think paying off most tags with a one pair hand on this river would be a losing play.

I think this play should be called 'turning a made hand into a bluff' in this case. I think heis shows up with JT/QJ a smallish % of the time, and I do think he will b/f those hands mostly as well.

I'm undecided if I like this play but it is definitely interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-26-2007, 02:09 PM
Heisenb3rg Heisenb3rg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,733
Default Re: River semi-bluff (yes, river) vs. Heisenb3rg

I like it... a lot

I know my river range here and if I folded this, I folded a better hand... Cause it basically includes

Occasional 56s type hands (which have a striaght)
AK diamond type hands (which have a flush)
or.. pairs higher to or equal to yours...

You raised the river really quickly too on a card that I thought may have been scary to you as well (the 3rd diamond came in, and I didnt raise you on the flop, but on the turn).

River bluff raising is normally -EV against me, cause im a SD monkey, but here it's a pretty good spot.

BTW RZK, the reason river bluff raises like this are so effective is because people dont play optimally.

The key idea is this: A solid TAG vs a solid tag, is never re-raise bluffing this river.
It's re-raise bluffs that kill strategies such as this... But because they are so so rare in practise, that raising in spots like this is an exploitable, yet effective play.

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-26-2007, 02:15 PM
Wolfram Wolfram is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Reykjavik
Posts: 3,306
Default Re: River semi-bluff (yes, river) vs. Heisenb3rg

[ QUOTE ]
I did not say that this would be a good play to run vs you. Based on what you said I think it's pretty clear this play would not work vs you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I suck at reading.

[ QUOTE ]
I like it...
I folded a better hand

[/ QUOTE ]
Results oriented, but still...

ZOMG!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-26-2007, 02:56 PM
ILOVEPOKER929 ILOVEPOKER929 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Omaha Fish
Posts: 5,114
Default Re: River semi-bluff (yes, river) vs. Heisenb3rg

"ILP, i disagree on so many counts.
Quote:Here's an ad hoc list I have concocted to help evaluate the merits to this value/bluff river raise:
1) Does it appear that you picked your victim wisely? Yes, Heisen is a tag.
disagree. heisen is very showdown bound. it's unlikely that he folds less than an optimal amount."

All I am implying here is that Heisen passed the first screening test of being a tag/player trying to paly well.


" Quote:2) Is the river card unlikely to help your opponent? Yes.
disagree. heisen could have picked up a flush draw."

Just becuz Heisen could have a flush draw doesnt mean the river card is likely to have helped him. A flush draw in Heisen's range should certainly be discounted since Im sure he doesnt always C/R the turn with a FD in a spot where there is no apparent FE.


"if he had tptk why didn't he just 3-bet the flop?"

Waiting til the turn with TP strong kicker or better is a fine play in this spot, so is just 3betting the flop. Im sure Heisen mixes up his play here vs another tag-like player.


"Quote:4) Is the river card scary enough to get your opponent to possibly fold?
the question is not whether he can fold but whether he can fold a better hand."

Yes, that was implied when I said fold. I didnt know I needed to be clearer on this point.


" Quote:6) Is Heisen capable of bet/folding or making expert laydowns? I have never played with Heisen so Im not sure.
b/f'ing this river wouldn't be an expert laydown, but rather a very exploitable play. heis (and other good players) tries very hard to avoid being exploitable."

I dont want to get into a semantic's battle about what "expert" means. The point is, if you see a player who can make an "big" laydown in a certain spot then there's a good chance they are a thinking player and against such a thinking player it can be possible to use their thoughts against them.

Also your idea of exploitable is flawed. Remember exploitable plays are potentially the most profitable plays of all. Your goal should be to find as many players/spot where you can be as exploitable as possible and get away with it. If you think there is a natural dichotomy between "exploitable" and "expert" you are dead wrong. In other words, If you think these two terms are mutually exclusive you are dead wrong. So when you say "b/f'ing this river wouldn't be an expert laydown, but rather a very exploitable play" you really dont know what youre talking about.


" Quote:8) Do you already have a calling hand on the river? Yes, you beat JTs/QJs/ and you tie KJ. Thats enough to call. having a calling hand should make you less inclined to raise, not more."

Again this statement is dead wrong. The fact that we already have to commit one bet on the river means we are now getting much better odds on a bluff raise. If we didnt have a calling hand on the river our bluff/raise odds would be cut in half.


" Quote:Also it is worth noting that we need Heisen to fold a better hand more than 1/12 times to make raising the river better than calling.
yes. so if our equity is indeed 31%, he should fold 31%+1/12=39% of his hands. this would be a very exploitable strategy."

I dont care if bet/folding the river for Heisen is exploitable nor should you. All I care about is whether he will fold a better hand or the same hand often enough combined with those times he calls our river raise with a lesser hand to make raising the river better than calling.


"in general, it is game-theoretically suboptimal to raise with calling hands."

Another statement that is dead wrong. Were not talking "In general" here. We're talking about a very specific situation. No platitude is going to help us here. If your statement is implying that raising the river with a calling hand has no place in game theory or poker then once again you dont know what youre talking about.

The essential point is this, there is a time to call with a calling hand and there is a time to raise with a calling hand. I understand how rare it is when the latter play comes up, but it still comes up and why not be prepared for it?


"whenever you are considering such a big deviation from optimal strategy, you better make sure your opponent is exploitable."

This isnt about deviating from optimal strategy this about making the play that will make us the most money in the long run. Do you understand how ridiculous your statement can sound?: If the right strategy is to deviate from the optimal strategy then the right strategy is the optimal strategy and therefor we're not deviating to begin with. I prefer to avoid this logical absurdity and approach the game this way: There are money plays and non-money plays. Will raising the river make us more money than calling the river in this spot? And then I try to answer this question.

In this case the answer is, I dont know. I dont know Heisen's game enough to accurately draw a conclusion or how he views OP. All I have really said is I love the thought process of the OP so far and that this hand contains many of the ingredients neccessary to make a value/bluff raise play more profitable than calling. Some key ingredients are sill missing becuz I dont know Heisen's game that well nor how he views OP. Im not gonna rule out the possiblity that the OP has enough information on these missing variables to make value/bluff raising the river the money play.

Even if Heisen comes in this thread and honestly says that raising the river with this hand in this spot is not a good play vs him, this hand should still be treated as a case study for anyone interested in adding or perfecting the value/bluff river raise play in their game.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-26-2007, 03:01 PM
rzk rzk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 647
Default Re: River semi-bluff (yes, river) vs. Heisenb3rg

[ QUOTE ]
BTW RZK, the reason river bluff raises like this are so effective is because people dont play optimally.

The key idea is this: A solid TAG vs a solid tag, is never re-raise bluffing this river.
It's re-raise bluffs that kill strategies such as this... But because they are so so rare in practise, that raising in spots like this is an exploitable, yet effective play.



[/ QUOTE ]

heis,

if you say this bluff-raise is good against you then i believe you. however, the fact that you will never bluff-reraise the river is not the main component of your exploitability that would make this play valid. the main component is that once you bet this river you fold to a raise a suboptimally large percentage of the time (>39% would be required if op's equity is 31% as he estimated).

whether playing exploitably in your spot is correct or not is a different question. it's certainly correct if by playing this way it is actually you who is exploiting your opponent.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-26-2007, 03:32 PM
Heisenb3rg Heisenb3rg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,733
Default Re: River semi-bluff (yes, river) vs. Heisenb3rg

yeah, ur right.. I guess its more that I have to be folding a high % of my range for the play to be profitable..

I kept thinking that I only need to be folding with 10% of my range... but I have to actually be folding with 10% of my range THAT HE ISNT ALREADY BEATING.
Which, assuming I chose to fold my worse hands before my best hands, it works out to about 40% of my range (using his estimates... not mine [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

However, I still like it because I think a lot of TAGs are capable of making exploitable folds in this situation.

ps. great thread
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-26-2007, 04:03 PM
TheDudeChad TheDudeChad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 169
Default Re: River semi-bluff (yes, river) vs. Heisenb3rg

[ QUOTE ]
Which, assuming I chose to fold my worse hands before my best hands, it works out to about 40% of my range

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another interesting thing about this hand. Whether you have JTs or AA, any of your one pair hands are basically bluff catchers when you call this river raise. There's no way you put me on one pair here, so all your pairs are virtually equal in strength.

Of course, its still a lot more likely you call with AA because it looks pretty or because you can post it in the NC thread when you lose. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Glad this thread is generating some good discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-26-2007, 05:06 PM
rzk rzk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 647
Default Re: River semi-bluff (yes, river) vs. Heisenb3rg

ILP,

i think some of our disagreement comes from semantics but some is conceptual.

[ QUOTE ]

"whenever you are considering such a big deviation from optimal strategy, you better make sure your opponent is exploitable."


[/ QUOTE ]

i think your disagreement with this statement comes from our different understanding of the word optimal. whenever i say "optimal" i always mean it in the formal game-theoretic sense. with this in mind, i think you'll agree that the above statement is pretty obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
Also your idea of exploitable is flawed. Remember exploitable plays are potentially the most profitable plays of all. Your goal should be to find as many players/spot where you can be as exploitable as possible and get away with it. If you think there is a natural dichotomy between "exploitable" and "expert" you are dead wrong. In other words, If you think these two terms are mutually exclusive you are dead wrong. So when you say "b/f'ing this river wouldn't be an expert laydown, but rather a very exploitable play" you really dont know what youre talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

i think i do. i understand that an exploitable play is not the same as a bad play. when you are playing against a bad player the best strategy is usually a very exploitable one. but for this hand it's important to keep in mind that (a) heis is very far from the type of player who you would want to find "where you can be as exploitable as possible and get away with it", and (b) he himself shouldn't consistently be making such exploitable plays as folding to a river raise with 39% of his range against observant opponents because they will start bluff-raising him to death with any two cards. this second point is what my quoted statement was about.


[ QUOTE ]


" Quote:2) Is the river card unlikely to help your opponent? Yes.
disagree. heisen could have picked up a flush draw."

Just becuz Heisen could have a flush draw doesnt mean the river card is likely to have helped him.

[/ QUOTE ]

my point is that his play is consistent both with a top pair type hand and a flush draw, so i think it's misleading to say that a river card that completes a flush is unlikely to have helped him. i guess "unlikely" could mean very different things.

[ QUOTE ]
" Quote:8) Do you already have a calling hand on the river? Yes, you beat JTs/QJs/ and you tie KJ. Thats enough to call. having a calling hand should make you less inclined to raise, not more."

Again this statement is dead wrong. The fact that we already have to commit one bet on the river means we are now getting much better odds on a bluff raise. If we didnt have a calling hand on the river our bluff/raise odds would be cut in half.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"in general, it is game-theoretically suboptimal to raise with calling hands."

Another statement that is dead wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

these two quotes are really about the same thing and may be our biggest point of disagreement. it is easy to show that (unless you are planning an elaborate b/3b bluff) _in a optimal strategy_ you should reserve your bluffs for hopeless hands. indeed, when you are bluffing, an optimal opponent will fold just enough for the ev of a bluff to be exactly 0. so as long as there exists a play with ev>0 you should make it instead. in our case that play is calling.

the perspective "that we already have to commit one bet on the river means we are now getting much better odds on a bluff raise" is flawed because compared to bluffing with a hopeless hand there are now less _better_ hands that will fold. against a non-optimal opponent sometimes bluff-raising with a calling hand may be better than calling, but in that case bluff-raising with a hopeless hand would be _way_ better than folding.

overall, i wanna say that one _should_ care what optimal plays are, even if the correct strategy is to sometimes make non-optimal ones. if you have a good idea where optimality lies you can make more informed decisions about how, when, and whether to deviate from it and you will also be much better equipped to find exploitable traits in your opponents.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-26-2007, 05:25 PM
milesdyson milesdyson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: trying to 363 u
Posts: 14,916
Default Re: River semi-bluff (yes, river) vs. Heisenb3rg

river semibluff hehe
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.