30/60 Limit Game in Toronto with experienced 50/100+ players 4handed

[Abbaddabba]

[ QUOTE ]
care to give any data supporting your lawling? I have a puny 203 hand sample that suggests that Q7o otb is breakeven.


[/ QUOTE ]

1) it's 30/60 - rake is a tiny consideration

2) the bb definitely sucks, the sb (op) is mediocre at best. because you dont average a win with it doesnt mean other people wont in specific situations.

3) what that guy above me said. something that is profitable without rake isnt exploitable with rake. if the two blinds were aware of the rake situation and acted accordingly, you should steal OTB with just about any two, and there's nothing you could do to exploit that. and it's for the same reason that the person to shove in an SNG has the edge. because neither person wants to get all in around a bubble, just like no one wants to be in a pot with an increased rake. but by being the first person to shove (or open raising otb) you are deferring that problem to them, and therefor benefitting yourself by picking up the blinds more often than you normally would in non-bubble or unraked circumstances.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
if the two blinds were aware of the rake situation and acted accordingly, you should steal OTB with just about any two, and there's nothing you could do to exploit that.

[/ QUOTE ]

the fact that nobody can exploit it does not mean it's profitable.

[vmacosta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
raising q7o in on the button in a raked game is a leak. exploit him...

[/ QUOTE ]

if a level, lawl.
if not a level, double lawl.


c/ring the flop is hilarious and awful. playing the hand straigt forward is far more deceptive.

where was this 30/60? i would be interested in playing live, if it's closer to home. the rama 20/40 is way too long a trip for what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

care to give any data supporting your lawling? I have a puny 203 hand sample that suggests that Q7o otb is breakeven.

[/ QUOTE ]

if a play is a leak because of the rake, it's not exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. But the variance due to small sample dwarfs any effect of rake.

The WR for the sample was -0.03 bb/hand.
The stdev for the sample (assuming 3bb/hand) is ~0.2 bb/hand.
The effect of the rake on the sample is ~.07 bb/hand.

So I'm not trying to argue that opening Q7o otb is exploitable--just that the statement isn't worthy of "lawling" over unless someone has a positive result (adjusted for rake, thanks) to within 2 stdev or so. in which case I'd love to hear the results.

[Abbaddabba]

your databases in all likelihood wont accurately reflect the situation. the blinds play [censored] and the rake is negligable.

empirical results are so completely pointless for context sensitive situations.

it's like saying "hmm, well, i broke even defending my bb against an ep raise with A10off over a sample of 200 hands in my regular online game, so i guess ill just dump my bb to the maniac in early position who has been raising every hand since he sat".


[ QUOTE ]
the fact that nobody can exploit it does not mean it's profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

doesnt necessarily mean that, but in this case, it is.

because their ideal response is to fold a lot more often than under normal circumstances, and what you lose in rake when they do defend, you gain from the additional hands they fold. successful steals arent raked.

[DavidC]

[quoteIn this spot I don't think it is necessary for you to get cute. You 3bet preflop. They fully expect you to bet that flop, and if they are at all good they are gonna check behind with no-pair hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the button had something like AJ it might be a good bet, do you agree or disagree?

[Abbaddabba]

i dont think anyone will agree. the only likely way for him to put more money in the pot with AJ is if he pairs on the turn. The difference between betting and checking is that if you bet, he puts in one extra half bet to draw nearly dead (because he will peel the flop 100% of the time if it is 1 bet to him, and he's closing action).