Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Poker > Heads Up Poker

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-07-2007, 02:50 PM
ChicagoRy ChicagoRy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: husng training site
Posts: 2,083
Default Re: Getting to the 220\'s

Ok, explain #5 please.

I don't see a ton of 1.5x pot, but I see people do this stuff early with pot sized bets and I have no problem check calling them on 3 streets.

It's always amazed me on FTP how many people will just straight up pot if you check, no matter how strong you were repped earlier in the hand. It's like you can play rounders poker and make money. "check check tarp" etc.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-07-2007, 03:00 PM
NSM NSM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default Re: Getting to the 220\'s

Chi, this may or may not be a +EV play out of context, but for me it is something that helps me assign a style to my opponent early in a match with no other information. I know that I will check/call opponents all 3 streets as well OOP if i flopped middle or bottom pair (or have an unimproved but not crushed PP). However, I think pot sized bets from the button on the flop make this easy to do. If I make it 90 into a limped pot of 60, I'm making a check/call strategy that much more expensive for my opponent and also maybe inducing a check raise earlier in the hand that tells me a lot about what they flopped (ie, now I'll stop betting w/ my top pair weak kicker or middle pair).

If I flopped top pair, I'm getting a lot of value from their check call on all 3 streets w/ middle pair.

If I flopped air and they call I could be done or I could doublebarrel and get more from them than they intended to give by calling w/ bottom pair or some gutshot draw on the flop. At least the threat of an expensive turn and river are present and my CB's start to get more respect from bottom pair, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-07-2007, 03:17 PM
TNixon TNixon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 616
Default Re: Getting to the 220\'s

[ QUOTE ]
but I think there is merit in my suggestion that your insta-raises from position were usually hands that wouldn't withstand a re-raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Think about the logic here for a moment:

Since I *never* vary the size of my raise based on the strength of my hand (I raise the same with AA as I do with 95s), for weaker hands to be an insta-raise while stronger hands were sometimes delayed would have to mean that I was either intentionally delaying sometimes to make my hand look weaker, or that I was having to think for a moment about raising with the stronger ones.

And I can absolutely *guarantee* that neither of those things is happening. All the insta-raise means is that I didn't have another table distracting me at that moment. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Realistically, though, against somebody who doesn't call OOP too much, a pretty big percentage of my position raises are with hands that can't really stand a pot-sized reraise, especially as the blinds get bigger. (and sometimes I'm too stupid to back off and narrow my raising range when people start coming over the top too often)

So, if you were reraising more often to my insta-raises, and folding more often to the delayed ones, then you were generating false reinforcement to a "tell" you thought you had, in that I probably wasn't folding more often because my hands were weaker on average, but because you were reraising more often. So you looked at series of events with basically a random distribution (the amount of time it took me to raise), saw a pattern (which is absolutely not a bad thing to do, you *should* be looking for patterns wherever you can find them), and then likely created a situation where any further evidence was basically *guaranteed* to reinforce the pattern.

Don't get me wrong, if somebody has something on me, I *love* to hear about it, and I never discard well-intended advice completely out of hand, and there is some possibility that I do have some sort of subconscious delay with stronger hands. I tried to watch for it, but short of recording a video of every game you play and watching after-the-fact, the observer effect makes it practically impossible to watch for something like that.

But, I do think it's highly likely that in this particular case, you gave weight to a timing tell that almost certainly didn't (and logically, almost *couldn't*) exist.

And that can be very dangerous.

Just trying to give a little back. Whether I think it's valid or not, you did try to let me in on something you thought you had picked up on, and I do appreciate that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-07-2007, 03:22 PM
NSM NSM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default Re: Getting to the 220\'s

TNixon, those are good points. Honestly, the fact was I was having a lot of trouble in my matches with you so I started looking for anything I thought I could possibly exploit. There's a high likelihood I found a placebo, but at least I liked the way it made me feel [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-07-2007, 07:57 PM
ukdentisto32 ukdentisto32 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 177
Default Re: Getting to the 220\'s

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, has anyone ever been able to calculate how much money "LOL" posts have made 2+2ers?
Sheesh

[/ QUOTE ]

i think "lol" posts have profited for people quite well, because instead of telling you that this strategy is completely wrong, i just put "lol" and let you keep doing it
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-07-2007, 08:11 PM
HokieGreg HokieGreg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: zomg i got my taco
Posts: 811
Default Re: Getting to the 220\'s

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

BTW, has anyone ever been able to calculate how much money "LOL" posts have made 2+2ers?
Sheesh

[/ QUOTE ]

i think "lol" posts have profited for people quite well, because instead of telling you that this strategy is completely wrong, i just put "lol" and let you keep doing it

[/ QUOTE ]

lol
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-07-2007, 09:10 PM
NSM NSM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default Re: Getting to the 220\'s

At least this isn't too far away
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-07-2007, 10:20 PM
HokieGreg HokieGreg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: zomg i got my taco
Posts: 811
Default Re: Getting to the 220\'s

[ QUOTE ]
At least this isn't too far away

[/ QUOTE ]

tl;dr imho
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-08-2007, 01:39 AM
prodonkey prodonkey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: underrating women on teh interweb
Posts: 5,993
Default Re: Getting to the 220\'s

"7) Don’t call shoves too light just b/c you think you’ve got your opponent on the ropes. If blinds are 15/30 and he shoves 405 and you’ve got A6 or 33 I don’t think that’s a good call. Him getting 800+ in chips makes him very much alive. He’s going to keep shoving in these spots, you’d much rather call w/ AK or 88 and those will come."

This is the one I have the most problems with.. I'll get them to 3-400 early and start trying to bully and get myself pot stuck with a lot of crap usually.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-08-2007, 01:48 AM
TNixon TNixon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 616
Default Re: Getting to the 220\'s

Dunno if it's really a good idea, but I tighten up quite a bit when they get low, limping lots of hands I would have raised.

Wouldn't surprise me if, like many of the things I do, that's exactly backwards from what I should be doing, since most people seem more likely to fold bad cards when they're low. :/

It just tilts me too much to have somebody come back from 200-300 chips for the win, and playing regulars, I have a lot more time to be patient than somebody playing turbos would.
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 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.