Useful frameworks or things to factor

[mjws00]

I've read your posts, Dave. I said 'sounds like' specifically not 'you are'. SAGE sucks, shove junk early in a match, 'Learn to play RANDOM'. WTF? They play ATC, call flop 60%, so you can't read them is complete and utter BS and counter-productive. We read them all the time that is how we win. I always have a read, I'm sure you do as well. We are not exploiting a 'random hand' we are exploiting a PLAYER.

Any good framework must address both profiling and specific weaknesses. That is not disagreement simply two parts of a complex system.

I haven't discussed how to play or bluff, only how to document and spot trends. That would be how you develop a framework. At somepoint we can apply an analysis for optimal play against, but we don't even have a system or even a list of what we are looking for specifically.

Btw, my intent certainly isn't to attack you. I do happen to disagree with a chunk of what you write, but I believe that is mostly due to the weak medium.

Regards,

Mike

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
so you can't read them is complete and utter BS and counter-productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel like tossing daggers either, but this statement has been disproved time and time again on this forum.

How many posts have been on this forum dealing with this very problem with the new posters?

Look at the difference between my posts and a newbies.

Me: My read is that he is likely to call with k-high.
or: My read is that he is on a flush draw.

A newbie is: My opponent is passive.

What does that us? Is that all you have at the 25/50 levels?

We can't expect them to do better than this right now. These players at the lower levels are beatable. People are playing 4 tables and walking with a 10% roi, and I can guarantee you that they are playing ABC poker, meaning that they are betting with the best of it, checking with the worst of it, and not bluffing. Your final statement is why I think your post falls apart.

It is for the quoted sentence that SAGE is used and favored by many posters. I feel like I can do better than SAGE, because I have a better sense of my opponent's tendencies, although I may not know what to do with this information at all times. For me, I feel that learning to use this information will be far more valuable than learning SAGE, and my WR dropped by nearly 5% since I started using it.

How do you do at the "x,y" posts? Are you able to think of what the villain is doing without some sort of knowledge about the OP's hand? That the betting makes sense in some sort of fashion?

What do I mean about RANDOM?

Range merging, polarizing, etc. All these concepts are talked about on this forum, and it is a vital piece of play for any player.

There are two different ways to approach this problem. You can either start with your opponent, disregarding what you have in your hand, or you can start with what is in your hand, disregarding your opponent.

While I understand that the base of this OP is to figure out hand reading, I believe it is mandatory to understand how to play your own hand, so that you are able to identify what is wrong with your opponent's play easier.

My reads usually go along the lines of "What is my opponent doing wrong?" Then I ask, "What can my opponent do wrong?"

Mastering those two sentences will get you very far, and that, IMO, is all the read you need at lower levels. But, if you are under the impression that your opponent is making a huge mistake, when in reality, he is playing correctly, then there is a problem.

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
shove junk early in a match

[/ QUOTE ]

This accusation is bothering me.

[mjws00]

Where was it proven that HU players are unreadable? I missed that lesson. Every beginner forum is full of newbs that can't make reads. That doesn't mean it is difficult or impossible only that lots of people haven't developed the skill.

The question at hand is how do you quantify that 'feel' and intuition that excellent players use to their advantage. Most of us got there by playing a few 100K hands. But there is no doubt it could be simplified and distilled.

The challenge is there is little incentive for good players to do this. In addition successful players tend to move up so sample sizes down low with winning strategies tend to be small, and considerations in their current higher games are often not applicable to low levels.

I'm not sure if you're saying, "just play your hand" or what. To me ABC does not equate to playing our hand in a vacuum, it is best done in context. Determining what is important in that context would seem to me to be a useful beginnig.

Mike

[mjws00]

Heh. It was a cheap reference to your Pooh-Bah post. Tongue in cheek.

Mike

[dwr]

[ QUOTE ]
We know how to do this intuitively, it is a matter of quantifying and expressing it. At this point while other forms of poker have standard plays, and fundamentals well documented HUNL is largely left up to 'feel'. Point blank the better players on here could sit down, play ABC, and absolutely crush the low levels. Documenting that play and thought process is the intent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything you have around this I'd appreciate. I play well in low-limit NL & limit, but just don't have any idea where to start (within a structure) with HU.