New to this 6-max thing, no peel right

[Oink]

rzk

Are you sure its a bad thing if villain goes from bluffing "too much" to bluffing "optimally"?

Even if he bluffs optimally hero is loosing more often than not when the last bet goes in, right?

I am drunk as usual and prolly misreading your post as usual

[thepizzlefosho]

[ QUOTE ]
you might have misunderstood part of my argument.

i wasn't assuming these guys think about optimal play. i just don't want them to start playing more optimally _by accident_. i think if a guy bluffs too much you should try to make plays that make him bluff even more. if he starts bluffing a little more, he's further from optimal, if he starts bluffing a little less, he's closer to optimal.

another way to think about it is: say in a vacuum it's -EV to calldown now because even if he in general bluffs too much, you still don't have a profitable calldown against his current range. then i prefer not to make this -EV play. instead of trying to set up an unbluffable image at the cost of the EV on this hand, why not set up a _bluffable_ image? that way he will move even further from optimal, so you can snap off his next bluff with more confidence and with more +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

because unless he bluffs a ton all of the time I'm still guessing as to which time I have to snap off the bluffs. Certainly you are right that if I set up a bluffable image I should understand that and react accordingly. And some times the cards I'm dealth will cause me to have such image regardless. But if I have a chance to SD in a reasonable spot a little light, make a note, and set up an unbluffable image then it will probably make it significantly easier for me to play in the future.

I don't want to be playing guessing games against LAGs, I want to make them slowdown when OOP, so I can value town them at will, take free cards when I need them, and not end up lost on the river with medium strength hands.

What you are saying isn't incorrect, but I think if the opportunity presents itself for you to create a table image that will force them to adjust to you, then that is better than you trying to play the guessing game and picking off bluffs in the future.

[rzk]

[ QUOTE ]
rzk

Are you sure its a bad thing if villain goes from bluffing "too much" to bluffing "optimally"?

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty sure [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
isn't the whole point of the game to exploit non-optimal tendencies of our opponents? why would we want him to become a bluffing genius?

[ QUOTE ]

Even if he bluffs optimally hero is loosing more often than not when the last bet goes in, right?

I am drunk as usual and prolly misreading your post as usual

[/ QUOTE ]

yes of course, he then gives us just the right pot odds to be indifferent between calling and folding, so of course you are losing more than 50%. but what does this have to do with anything?

i think i am now misreading your post. maybe i'm drunk too

[rzk]

[ QUOTE ]

What you are saying isn't incorrect, but I think if the opportunity presents itself for you to create a table image that will force them to adjust to you, then that is better than you trying to play the guessing game and picking off bluffs in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think we differ in our estimate of how much they will adjust after this hand. you believe that they will _overadjust_ and i'm not so sure of that.

the reason i'm not so sure of that is that them overadjusting requires several things:

1. they are paying attention
2. they are smart enough to start adjusting.
3. they are stupid enough to adjust incorrectly, i.e. way too much.
4. they are not leaving soon.

as for the guessing game, isn't snapping off bluffs with your marginal holdings easier than guessing whether the above 4 factors are in place and to what extend the villain has overadjusted?

[Oink]

Yeah you are right I guess. I was thinking about it wrong.

However, the fact that he does bluff less makes it more profitable for hero to call less.

This is the reason why I like to create the unbluffable image.


That wasnt what I was trying to say, but I think thats the main reason you should call down light vs unknowns and early in a session


I also think that assuming a 40/20 villain plays optimally is a HUGE assumption. Not sure it is really helpfull in any way.

When I talk about establishing an unbluffable image I am assuming that villain is an "idiot" which I can exploit and make better folds later on.


Can be bothered with editing. NL games too good on party

[rzk]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah you are right I guess. I was thinking about it wrong.

However, the fact that he does bluff less makes it more profitable for hero to call less.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but if he used to bluff too much and now bluffs less, our EV on every hand will be lower.

to make our EV higher he'd need to bluff WAY less.

[ QUOTE ]

I also think that assuming a 40/20 villain plays optimally is a HUGE assumption. Not sure it is really helpfull in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey, i didn't assume that at all. where did you get that?

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, but if he used to bluff too much and now bluffs less, our EV on every hand will be lower.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about the hands that couldnt call a bet in the first place? They win more now as they fold less right?

Also the hands that beats the bluffs that he now doesnt make should also make less on the river as he now bluffs less.


OK so I am super drunk but I am fairly sure that I can prove it in a sober state of mind.

Cliff notes: I think you are results oriented and only speculating about the EV of AT when he bluffs les. The effect on other hands should be taken into account

I think that was what I was thinking about in a blurred mind


[ QUOTE ]
hey, i didn't assume that at all. where did you get that?

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad. But in any case it isnt that interesting what an optimal player does


Cant edit

[Oink]

It might be that the effect on AT is negative but the effect on other hands can be positive.

Is that clearer?

[rzk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yes, but if he used to bluff too much and now bluffs less, our EV on every hand will be lower.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about the hands that couldnt call a bet in the first place? They win more now as they fold less right?

Also the hands that beats the bluffs that he now doesnt make should also make less on the river as he now bluffs less.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, i wasn't being clear. what i meant to say is the EV of our playing against this villain will be lower. that's because if he used to bluff too much he was +EV to play with because he was non-optimal in that regard. if he now bluffs a little less he's becoming closer to optimal in this regard, therefore our EV against him decreases. it's fairly obvious and that's all i meant with my statement.

and yes, i don't care either what an optimal player does, but we do care if our actions make a player closer or farther from optimal.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
It might be that the effect on AT is negative but the effect on other hands can be positive.

Is that clearer?


[/ QUOTE ]

Cant this be the case?

I am too drunk and english is not my first language. if you sat right here next to me with a beer I am pretty sure I could explain what I am thinking in danish what I cant make clear in english


Take this fwiw. I am 99.9% sure you are thinking about this the wrong way because you are seemingly making the same mistake as 99.9% of all my students does.

I cant explain it any better. So what you should do is either a) think Oink is an idiot or b) think oink might be right and try and figure it out by asking some GT experts who can speak english

Sorry, I cant do better. But I am 99.9% sure I am right. I just cant explain it in your language so take it fwiw