50-100, four´way pot going a little crazy

[grando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP: Ok, preflop is pretty much undebatable. That's just 100% value against their ranges. So I don't see why you have a problem with that.


[/ QUOTE ]



You: you arent good at poker

[/ QUOTE ] Kahn: maybe you arent... KQs plays pretty damn well MW with retards that have super wide ranges...

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone: you arent good at quoting

[/ QUOTE ]

You: ya it seems like this is an insult directed at me, but i cant figure it out...

[/ QUOTE ]

[hoppscot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP: Ok, preflop is pretty much undebatable. That's just 100% value against their ranges. So I don't see why you have a problem with that.


[/ QUOTE ]



You: you arent good at poker

[/ QUOTE ] Kahn: maybe you arent... KQs plays pretty damn well MW with retards that have super wide ranges...

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone: you arent good at quoting

[/ QUOTE ]

You: ya it seems like this is an insult directed at me, but i cant figure it out...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Me: Guy raises UTG and another guy 3 bets in the CO in a 5 handed 50 100 game, they dont have huge ranges i dont care what the poster says. he simply said that because he made a rediculous play (granted pflop is probably not terrible, probably borderline) that ended up working out and he wanted to make a brag post.

/end rant

[Raxxmataxx]

And if you're going to think I'm lying why would you guess it's about the behavior rather than stakes? Both seems equally silly to lie about and favoring one hypothesis over the other equally so. In fact even if you're 100% sure that I am lying it's still stupid to derail the thread since the topic's utility is completely independet of the truthiness of the HH and my claims.

If I wanted to discuss my estimates your response wold've been on-topic. But as those were assumed your response is just confusing the discussion and diminishing the possibility of anything useful getting out of the thread.

If you want to discuss whether there are any retardly loose and aggro 50 games you should feel free to start another post about it. That way you don't contaminate a thread with trivia when it could contain some interesting strategic discussion. And if you're claiming there's not, I'm thinking there are a bunch of LA regulars and people who remembers the old Party games that disagree with you.

And yeah, I know I could have framed the discussion better and just went with "assume these ranges pre-flop. Assume the players post flop are supernaturally good, what should be the balancing hands on a turn check-3bet and about how frequent should they be?". But I didn't, so just try to make something as useful as possible of what there is.

Dammit, now you've got me tilting by implying I give much of a [censored] about what HSL thinks about my results or play.

[Raxxmataxx]

You may want to think about precisely why the play is so bad. It seems that way because you assume the players have a whole lot of characteristics that just aren't quickly observeable at the table. You can tell when someone is hella loose and pretty aggressive, but that's not true of post flop play. Especially not when it comes to what kind of hands are folded.

If you use a sparser model than <font color="blue">[opponent is loose/tight/, aggressive/passive, calls down everything/very little]</font> like <font color="blue">[we know opponents are very loose because we've seen them show down [censored] and like all hands are 2-3 people to the flop, but we don't know much else and assume the guys has some idea what we're up to]</font>, then you suddenly have to start doing trickier plays than just checkcalling all draws that aren't obvious value bets and treating ops as a bunch of really stupid bots.

There's different ways to play poker and the approach where you assume your opponents' play and then calculate EV has some incredibly huge holes in it. To wit, a player using that approach probably would have weighted my probability of a bluffing when checkraise 3-betting turn as really [censored] slim simply because nothing like that had been observed yet. Whereas someone who doesn't rely on too infrequent post flop plays are going to be much more inclined to think "oh [censored], [censored] [censored] is raising. I got teh odds and call him down". Which on the whole is a far more balanced approach to the game since it doesn't rely on making strong predictions about how the other guys act in situations you just haven't observed much and are inherently very unpredictable due to tilt and other external factors.

For instance, imagine you have the previously drunk 5-10 players and then magically teleport in 4 clones of Matt Hawrilenko to play their cards for a few billion times untill we get g00t statistical evidence of the players lines with this board and betting sequence. Would you then expect there to be some bluffing in the bet-call, check3bet, bet-line, and if so what hands should those bluffs be?

I'm not claiming that this play was part of some well-thought out balancing play on my part. And it doesn't matter if it was. AFAIK the play is horrible from that perspective, but I am claiming that is an issue that is interesting and useful to think about. Which is the reason I posted here instead of just doing it in BBV, which would only have fulfilled the "whee I bluffed a huge pot"-part.

[hoppscot22]

i dont even know what that ramble is about... but if you have money on ap ft or stars ill play you hu? haha

[JacksonTens]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont even know what that ramble is about... but if you have money on ap ft or stars ill play you hu? haha

[/ QUOTE ]

cue 'CHALLENGE' thread...

JT

[hoppscot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont even know what that ramble is about... but if you have money on ap ft or stars ill play you hu? haha

[/ QUOTE ]

cue 'CHALLENGE' thread...

JT

[/ QUOTE ]

you are telling me you wouldnt challenge this guy?

wtf is he even saying... sounds like free dollars to me

[Raxxmataxx]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont even know what that ramble is about...

[/ QUOTE ]It's really simple stuff about different kinds of poker strategy, sprinkled with a few terms from decision theory.

It's about why it's really hard to construct very exploitative strategies when you have extremely limited info on your opponents type of play. And that is the case for huge multi-way pots on later streets since they're so complex to begin with and rare at that.

I'm mildly surprised people don't keep up with that sort of thing after the publishing of Math of Poker and the sick success of HossTBF, but meh. If you're not into sciency stuff and general game models I doubt there's much point for either of us to talk.

[ QUOTE ]
but if you have money on ap ft or stars ill play you hu? haha

[/ QUOTE ]Accepted if you care to move money to an EU-based site since I only play there for tax reasons. See PM for terms.

[hoppscot22]

alright ill let someone contribute "content" to this thread...

[James282]

just like to contribute to the forum's unanimous decision: misplayed on every street.

James