Strategic thinking against good players

[thepizzlefosho]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wonder why you would play a good player heads up. In a short-handed game I can see having to tangle with them if the table has a few fish. I guess it's difficult to avoid these days, but I just get up if I'm constantly faced with these situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

sometimes I will play with a good player at 2/4 trying to improve my HU game. I think this is good practice because often the bad players at 5/10 are still aggressive and thinking and getting in the extra practice can only improve your game.

but yeah for the most part playing good opponents HUHU is a bad idea.

threadjack over...

[sethypooh21]

Well, even in shorthanded games you're going to have to deal with a similar problem against AGGRO opponents, whether or not they are good aggro, it's just that the good player has a much better concept of the hands he can credibly represent, whereas the LAGDONK is all "scare card! ME RAISE"

[bobhalford]

All I can say is that when I have AQ and I get BS check-raised on the turn heads-up versus one of these aggro players, I wait a few seconds to pretend like I'm having trouble calling the raise. Then I call and call the river bet. Before I see his cards, I whisper "SHIP IT BABY!"

[sethypooh21]

I actually shout it, usually, but yeah.

[vmacosta]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, the way to combat this is the screwplay. TAG CO raises, I defend with a5, flop comes xxx, I check/raise. Turn is A, GREAT spot for a screwplay against a thinking TAG, imo - I know I walk right into this one all the time. (Though some people use this line way too often and screwplay like 77 or KQ here...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, the flop came a non-5, right? There are lots of players where betting and calling down in that spot is MUCH better than screwplaying. I mean, its not like the guy's gonna fold better aces, but he sure might 3-bet you with them. You're also missing out on some of the power-bluff equity heisenberg was talking about (he might bet/fold UI big cards if you check, but he will raise them a lot and even sometimes bet the river, if you c-bet).

Against a tough player, I actually think it (screwplaying the turn in your example) is a better play with 77 or kq.

[Heisenb3rg]

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw heis i can see you thinking this hard right through my laptop when i play(ed) with you lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you the person I just marathoned with or played a few hundred hands?

BTW the reason to play good players HU is if your stuck 3k$ and on monkey tilt.. In these situatuions having the tools to beat good players to minimize the amount lost to rake is key [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Heisenb3rg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, the way to combat this is the screwplay. TAG CO raises, I defend with a5, flop comes xxx, I check/raise. Turn is A, GREAT spot for a screwplay against a thinking TAG, imo - I know I walk right into this one all the time. (Though some people use this line way too often and screwplay like 77 or KQ here...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, the flop came a non-5, right? There are lots of players where betting and calling down in that spot is MUCH better than screwplaying. I mean, its not like the guy's gonna fold better aces, but he sure might 3-bet you with them. You're also missing out on some of the power-bluff equity heisenberg was talking about (he might bet/fold UI big cards if you check, but he will raise them a lot and even sometimes bet the river, if you c-bet).

Against a tough player, I actually think it (screwplaying the turn in your example) is a better play with 77 or kq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also dont like the screwplay against a solid player in this situation.

By checking the turn after check/raising the flop you are basically saying "I have a pair but im afraid of the ace or I have two pair or better and am planning to c/r u"

Basically neither of those thought processes fall in line with folding. Thus, I check behind a lot of turns or bet/fold them when I was planning to put in 2 bets anyway.
Only when I can REALLY credibly represent the ace would I bet it without an ace (need to suspect my opponent is considering a fold).

If you start playing mind games with your draws in this situation as well to balance it, maybe its okay.. But I prefer a b3b in most situations...

If I got sexyed and had an ace ill bet and happily call down... I was probabily planning to raise the turn bet anyway, so screwplaying just missed a bet vs me.

[sethypooh21]

On second thought, a bad example for screwplaying, I'll try to come up with a better one.

[midnightpulp]

Good post. Your ideas highlight the fact that poker is essentially a game about people. I think we sometimes too easily reduce an opponent to hand ranges and forget to play the player. However, against a good player I think sometimes a certain point is reached when there is no longer a "correct" play.

What I'm talking about is multi-level thinking (I know that you know that I know, ad infintium), and you reach the point where you make a certain play and hope it's right. For example, your opponent knows your marginal hand can't stand any more heat on that board. You know he knows this and he knows you know this. What is he trying to do? Bluff you? Or manipulate you into calling? How are you supposed to figure out the right play in such a convoluted situation?

Since I've been playing poker, I've always wondered what separates the good players from the great players. I truly believe a solid, experienced small/mid stakes player is just as "theoretically" good as a great high-stakes player.

But in the real world, why does one player ascend through limits, while the other, who has ambitions to play higher and works just as hard on his game, just can't seem to beat the next level?

I think this where the qualitive aspects of poker, like BR management, tilt-control (two things that have kept me stuck in 1-2, 2-4 limbo), game selection, knowledge of your opponent's psychological tendancies, become more important.

Two players come to mind: Jen Harman and Phil Ivey. I'm making an assumption, but I doubt they spend 1/10 of the time studying their game away from the table as your average 2+2 poobah mid-stakes poster. This is not a knock on their work ethic or the inherent talent of the 2+2er. I'm just wondering why this is?

How can Phil Ivey hold his own online with Brian Townsend, who is arguably the most fundamentally sound NL player around, when NLHE is not even Ivey's best game? If you approached Ivey and asked what his BB/100 is, you probably get in return that blank stare he's so famous for.

And Jen Harman. She's admitted to not knowing some of the math behind the game, yet she's one of the best LHE players in the world.

I know I've digressed, but what I'm trying to show is that when you play against other good players, knowing your opponent, the person behind the HUD stats, becomes much more crucial.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
uhmmm SHHHHHHH....

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm just realized its too late to delete the post.. I really was going to after I read this lol...

[/ QUOTE ]
doesn't everyone talk about this already?

i can think of one hand right off the top of my head. ninawilliam's K3 blind battle hand where the turn is an ace. otherwise i can think of a hand i played where i had a draw hu and after c/ring flop i ended up b/3betting a turn ace.

few people who don't think of this are ever going to start thinking about it. kind of like the argument against the argument against poker books. people who suck at poker are likely not too smart. people who aren't too smart are not likely to read a book and apply it.

sorry for pooing on the parade.