15-30 live hand

[ILOVEPOKER929]

"Yes I feel that way at times.
Then I run cold, and all that goes out the window and I get humbled pretty quickly :P"

I agree that running bad can mess with one's perspective, but whenever I look back at most of my bad sessions I usually feel that most of the plays I made were acceptable and that the results just didnt work out.

Now dont get me wrong I make mistakes all the time when I play, but thats whether I'm running good or bad. Imperfect information is a bitch sometimes.

"ILP if you are feeling that way about a lot of hands, try thinking about how you play the other hands in hero's range instead of just the current hand hero holds."

I think about this stuff all the time, that is why it was easy for me to conclude that my opponent played his hand very well.

"Then , identify situatons where your range is really narrow/weak/strong. Finally, figure out how to balance your distribution; IE when to trade immediate value on some strong hands for boosting the value of the other hands in your range. Getting a sense for both "standard" plays and "optimal" plays is important. Too many people focus on "standard"."

For me standard and optimal is the same thing. Standard is not static. There is always a standard/optimal play for every situation. The trick is being able to identify it as quickly as possible and then capitalize on it.

I would also like to point out that Ive never been a proponent for the whole "balance" idea. I have a little secrect to tell you. My poker game is extremely unbalanced and very exploitable and thats exactly the way I like it. In the quest to be unreadable, I think people sometimes forget that exploitable strategies are much more profitable than balanced strategies and the key is figuring out which exploitable strategy will work against each opponent.

For example: In a loose passive game or against a loose passive opponent my wtsd will be much lower than normal. Hence I will be very exploitable to many aggressive lines. So essentially I am just betting that my opponent will not figure out what Im doing. Usually they dont and I am able to deploy a very profitable/highly exploitable strategy. The key to this game is figuring out your opponent's weaknesses and then designing an exploitable strategy to take advantage of their weak points. This idea will work against any opponent model. BTW I dont play in games where players have very few weaknesses or adjust very quickly to what Im doing. I dont think anyone esle should either unless theyre rich and they like challanges.

"There's so little work done on this type of thinking in holdem, that I think there's a gold mine of stuff still to uncover. IMO the future of original poker theory will be more focused on optimal play than exploitve play."

Theres a reason why so little energy has gone into this type of thinking. The money to be made in this game comes from learning how to exploit your opponents not from learning how to be perfectly balanced. For me, optimal play and exploitive play are not two separate entities. They are the same thing.

"If you haven't read mathematics of poker, do it.. Im sure someone with your reasoning will benefit huge from it."

Ive read almost every book ever written on limit holdem becuz I love this game. However when I looked at "Matchematics of poker" in the book store a few months ago, I did not buy it becuz I did not see how this book could help me become a better poker player. I may have not given this book a fair chance.

"As for the hand, betting the turn is necssary, because someone with that profile is not check raising draws very often on that turn, and peels a wide range. You can safely fold in a small pot.

On the river, many draws missed, which he may take a stab using a scare card. Or bet a marginal hand, using the J as protection. You are probabily behind, but it's worth a call.

I dont like raising without a better read, just because.. ppl dont fold, especially since your on the button It's very close though.. There's also some value with the intimidation factor.. You may scare him into not doing that in the future."

I had somewhat of a read although it was very murky. I felt this guy was trying to play well and against someone who is trying to play well who is also capable of bluffing, I will raise this river in this spot pretty close to 100% of the time. That doesnt mean my play is right. I am just giving you my mental model for this situation. I agree with you that the play on the river is close.

[Heisenb3rg]

I agree that most of the time it's best to think exploitivly.

Times to use optimal play are when you are:
a) confused about what to do
b) are up against a player better than you
c) to rationalize actions in close situations

also, by understanding holes in your game (where you do not play optimally) you may also recognize these holes in other good players games... and thus can counter exploit them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

seriously dude read that book... NOW :P

How can it hurt you to have more insight into the game? Are you worried it will plague your thought process? The book can get dry at times, but Im fascinated by stuff like that so it made it less of a chore..

Hell even the first 6 chapters on exploitive play are worth it...

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that most of the time it's best to think exploitivly.

Times to use optimal play are when you are:
a) confused about what to do
b) are up against a player better than you
c) to rationalize actions in close situations

also, by understanding holes in your game (where you do not play optimally) you may also recognize these holes in other good players games... and thus can counter exploit them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

seriously dude read that book... NOW :P

How can it hurt you to have more insight into the game? Are you worried it will plague your thought process? The book can get dry at times, but Im fascinated by stuff like that so it made it less of a chore..

Hell even the first 6 chapters on exploitive play are worth it...

[/ QUOTE ]

To be frank, that books goes far and beyond what my brain is capable of understanding. For the same reasons I cant read a book written in Spanish, I cant read Mathematics of Poker.

[Wolfram]

Small nitpick:

I think you guys are confusing optimal play with unexploitable play.

Optimal play is the play that generates maximal EV for a given situation. Hence, if you're playing vs a guy that has epxloitable tendencies, optimal play is not equal to unexploitable play.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]
Small nitpick:

I think you guys are confusing optimal play with unexploitable play.

Optimal play is the play that generates maximal EV for a given situation. Hence, if you're playing vs a guy that has epxloitable tendencies, optimal play is not equal to unexploitable play.

[/ QUOTE ]

The usage of "optimal" to mean the game-theoretical equilibrium (i.e. non-exploitable) was put forward by Chen and Ankenmann in Mathematics of Poker. It's not the standard usage in game theory and it's not the usual meaning in English but for this kind of discussion it's going to become standard thanks to that book.

Guy.

[Wolfram]

Thanks for putting me right Guy. I was going by Sklansky's usage in ToP, but if the other phrase is standard then that's fine.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are talking about anyone folding an 8 here. In the current limit hold'em world everyone is a showdown monkey, the only reason to raise this river is to value raise a worse 4.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not playing all that much, but I certainly share this perception (though maybe I'm a perceived as a guy against whom someone would never consider folding an 8 and others are those against whom folding an 8 might be the right play).

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]


The usage of "optimal" to mean the game-theoretical equilibrium (i.e. non-exploitable) was put forward by Chen and Ankenmann in Mathematics of Poker. It's not the standard usage in game theory .....

[/ QUOTE ]


Guy,

I may be missing something here, but I am pretty sure that is the standard game theoretical usage. Optimal = game theoretic equilibrium strategy not only in C&A but in any game theory book you'll find....

[Kvacke]

I would call. After your description of him I would expect him to c/r a pair better than yours on the flop. The draws have missed so he may need to bluff to win. I think he is having an eight a fair portion of the time and can have 55-77 but he can also have a worse four (as I said, if he flopped better than you I would expect him to be more aggressive on the earlier streets).

[jstill]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that most of the time it's best to think exploitivly.

Times to use optimal play are when you are:
a) confused about what to do
b) are up against a player better than you
c) to rationalize actions in close situations

also, by understanding holes in your game (where you do not play optimally) you may also recognize these holes in other good players games... and thus can counter exploit them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

seriously dude read that book... NOW :P

How can it hurt you to have more insight into the game? Are you worried it will plague your thought process? The book can get dry at times, but Im fascinated by stuff like that so it made it less of a chore..

Hell even the first 6 chapters on exploitive play are worth it...

[/ QUOTE ]

To be frank, that books goes far and beyond what my brain is capable of understanding. For the same reasons I cant read a book written in Spanish, I cant read Mathematics of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont believe that ILP ur definitely selling urself short ( out of character?) haha jk

i definitely bet the turn here and definitely call the river

vs a really tricky, good opponent who cr'd the turn with a huge range and less often the flop, but whom I didnt feel comfortable betting and calling down a raise profitably against here, I mite ck behind and call any river except like the 8 or 9 of hearts