uNL: you are weak-tight.

[Monster207]

really cool stuff to think about and great point. i definitely need to work on it.

[members_only]

Haha took me a while to realize I actually responed to the first one. Ty bozzer...

People will call more when you don't have a hand because it makes it more likely that they do from a combinations point of view. This is kind of pedantic, but still.

Also... 40 people responded to the first poll, and 24 to the second. So you have a maximum of 24 people who responded to both, and probably more like 10. 10 people... it's hardly statistically damning.

But I take your general point about MUBS syndrome, or in my case omg he called my c-bet with bottom pair what a station I'll only bet at him with the nuts syndrome. It's hard to have the confidence/skill to think around it sometimes.

[corsakh]

Boards are different. Cheats. But not the point.

The point is the line does not make any sense at all. And the villain does not need to be a great hand reader or anything to realize this.

He may have a draw. Then he folds and we win. Good times.

But more often than that he will have a small pair. And the way we played the hand is like we were drawing. Bet does not make sense, we are bluffing and he calls. Considering villains tendencies to fold rivers at micros, I think its a certain [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I understand what you are trying to say here. But honestly, I think weak tight with mediocre hands is often the preferred line in micros. People show aggression so rarely, its difficult not to give them credit. People call so lightly, its almost impossible to bluff and nutpedalling is much more important.

[friskyfleabag]

lol awesome

[Zagga]

[ QUOTE ]
Also.. 40 people responded to the first poll, and 24 to the second. So you have a maximum of 24 people who responded to both, and probably more like 10. 10 people... it's hardly statistically damning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since the people are all out of the same population (uNL) The sample size is more the enoufh for statistics. However, OP should give us the standard deviation and I could simply calculate if it is statistically significant.

I really love this post en what OP has done, but I have a few points worth noting. Both hands are not identique but have 2 different things that can also be the reason why the results are different for both hands:

1. On the first hand(the bluff) there is a flush draw, on the second hand there isn't one. Since the whole hand is played abit like a draw, it is far more likely villain will make a looser call on the first hand where both flush and straightdraws missed then on the second hand where only a far less apearent draw (straigth) missed. Since the draw is far less apearent in hand 2 villains will put you more often on a better hand and in hand 1 they will put you more on a missed flushdraw.

2. The titles of both hands are already imnplying the awnser, "Is this river bet too much?" implies heavilly that villain will priobady fold, "How often does villain CALL this bluff? " already implies villain will call. Hence the OP has influenced the results simply by these titles.

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also.. 40 people responded to the first poll, and 24 to the second. So you have a maximum of 24 people who responded to both, and probably more like 10. 10 people... it's hardly statistically damning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since the people are all out of the same population (uNL) The sample size is more the enoufh for statistics. However, OP should give us the standard deviation and I could simply calculate if it is statistically significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeh you don't need anyone who responded to both - if we did know that we could use a more powerful test (paired t test) but it doesn't matter that we don't.

[bazooka87]

Bastards.
Another great post that makes you think, you've really earned the custom title

[wslee00]

[ QUOTE ]
People call so lightly, its almost impossible to bluff and nutpedalling is much more important.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree with this from my experience on stars 50NL

[corsakh]

I suggest better table selection.

[Disconnected]

There are some good points in this thread about what the better style of play might be, and that at the micros, some level of weak tight lines are fine.

But I don't think that's necessarily the main point Pokey was getting at, in the way he was describing weak tight, or at least that wasn't what I took away from his post. I think where he was going with this is that if you think your opponents will act differently depending on whether you have a hand, that's not good.

So, regardless of the correct lines to take in the sample hands he used, the villains should be reacting the same.

If you don't bluff on the river because it's burning money at the micros, fine, but you should then be making large value bets when you have a strong hand. If you're convinced that you have to bet small on the river with a strong hand because otherwise your opponent will fold, you should also be willing to bluff 3/4 pot on the river with air. I think the first scenario is more likely than the second, but regardless, you should act "consistently."

Thanks for another quality post, Pokey [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]