Bryce is "In the Well"

[piggity]

[ QUOTE ]
hmm i'm not sure i get the using game theory to shut a spot down thing.

Maybe you could for example explain how to use game theory to shut down an opponent that is 3 betting a lot preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually if someone is 3-betting more than is optimal preflop, by definition that behavior is exploitable and would not require a GT-optimal counter.

Here is an example of where I think this concept may apply, and Bryce can correct me if this is not what he's referring to. Let's say an opponent puts in a lot of action preflop and flop, and then checks to you on the turn. Now if this opponent were the type to check/fold here too much (i.e., more frequently than is optimal), then you could exploit this by bluffing more frequently. Conversely, if the opponent is the type to trap-c/r with strong hands more frequently than is optimal, then you can exploit this by checking behind more than you otherwise would. On the other hand, if the opponent balances his play perfectly here (i.e., is "tough" in these spots), your only counter is to check or bet here also with game theoretically optimal frequency, aiming for an EV of zero.

[vmacosta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmm i'm not sure i get the using game theory to shut a spot down thing.

Maybe you could for example explain how to use game theory to shut down an opponent that is 3 betting a lot preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually if someone is 3-betting more than is optimal preflop, by definition that behavior is exploitable and would not require a GT-optimal counter.

Here is an example of where I think this concept may apply, and Bryce can correct me if this is not what he's referring to. Let's say an opponent puts in a lot of action preflop and flop, and then checks to you on the turn. Now if this opponent were the type to check/fold here too much (i.e., more frequently than is optimal), then you could exploit this by bluffing more frequently. Conversely, if the opponent is the type to trap-c/r with strong hands more frequently than is optimal, then you can exploit this by checking behind more than you otherwise would. On the other hand, if the opponent balances his play perfectly here (i.e., is "tough" in these spots), your only counter is to check or bet here also with game theoretically optimal frequency, aiming for an EV of zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

piggity,
how is it that you make so much sense yet only play live poker?

thebryce,
I play a lot of 10/20ish limits and the following scenario comes up a fair amount:

huhu, say you have j8s in BB and call a pfr from a tight opponent (60-70%). flop comes k62r giving you a bdfd. Your opponent c-bets. Your opponent will keep firing if you call but will tend to be fairly loose passive if you show aggression on any street. How do you proceed as a default? Does it have to be a well-mixed strategy?

[piggity]

[ QUOTE ]

piggity,
how is it that you make so much sense yet only play live poker?


[/ QUOTE ]

Alas, I have too many obligations IRL (job, family) to pursue poker seriously enough to be able to play online against you sharks. It's a recreational hobby for me, and I kind of like being in a casino atmosphere (and away from the computer screens which I stare at all day) when I do get to play.

I have, however, always had an interest in the game from a theoretical perspective (my background is in AI), and have studied the papers from U of Alberta, Daphne Koller, etc. for fun. I've also dabbled in bot-writing, but just to run simulations, not to put "into production."

[The Bryce]

[ QUOTE ]
hmm i'm not sure i get the using game theory to shut a spot down thing.

Maybe you could for example explain how to use game theory to shut down an opponent that is 3 betting a lot preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a good example of a situation that is too large to break down into a numbers game, so you can't really GTO it. Let's look at a different situation and say that I have a really smart opponent who is good at leveling games and I feel uncomfortable in spots where I'm just check-calling down with weak made hands. Let's say that I can't outplay my opponent here, or it would take too much energy, so I just want to GTO neutralize it. On the turn there are 3BB in these pots. If I fold the turn (this includes all times that I make it to the turn with a c-call on the flop, not just made hands) more than 25% of the time that bet shows an immediate profit, and so my opponent's price to bluff the river is 5:1, meaning that if I more or less pitch one in 6 hands the spot will be EV neutral. If I fold the turn less than 25% (it's actually less than this, since my opponent usually will have some outs, but we'll ignore that in this example) my opponent's effective price is 4:2, meaning that if I pitch around one in 3 hands the spot will be about EV neutral. I can then ignore that spot and spend that energy on other portions of the match.

[The Bryce]

[ QUOTE ]
thebryce,
I play a lot of 10/20ish limits and the following scenario comes up a fair amount:

huhu, say you have j8s in BB and call a pfr from a tight opponent (60-70%). flop comes k62r giving you a bdfd. Your opponent c-bets. Your opponent will keep firing if you call but will tend to be fairly loose passive if you show aggression on any street. How do you proceed as a default? Does it have to be a well-mixed strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting 5:1 with these cards calling here doesn't show a profit just on the grounds of improving. You want to be trying to achieve something else with these sorts of peels. Maybe you think you'll get a free card from time to time, or that your opponent will give up on the pot if he missed. Maybe you want to do this every so often so that your opponent keeps barreling these flops when he misses and you flop a weak hand that wants to check-call, etc.

[chesterboy]

What are your thoughts on limping on the button(HU)? I find this to be useful against extremely aggressive and/or showdown bound opponents. Not every time of course, and with a fairly wide range, IE hands like 22, 57 suited or off, and occasionally a hand like qt off.

It seems to tilt the more educated players, and it doesn't seem like there can be too much harm in making a play that will have good odds preflop.

That is a bunch of rambling, but I would be very interested in your thoughts.

[The Bryce]

The ironic thing about limping is this: while it's better to get 2 bets than 3 bets in with a hand like 53s pre-flop the difference between putting in 2 bets and 3 bets isn't all that large (particularly when you consider your chance to occasionally win the BB), and by limping you put yourself in a situation where your opponent may often raise an even wider range of hands and win a larger number of pots unimproved.

Also, if you only limp weak hands a good player can rape you postflop, as you've really defined your range, and if you start limping good hands as well then you're giving up way too much.

The only time I limp is when my opponent has only a couple bets left in his stack or if he's batshit psycho and I can never ever win pots UI.

[joker122]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you tilt vs. schnibl0r when you played him a few days ago?

In the Classroom 108 you give us a brief glimpse into solving hands w/ PokerStove). How many different cases did you do before you had a general sense of how to approach each flop given your holding? Also, are you going to continue this particular aspect of the classroom? It seems vital in improving one's game.


[/ QUOTE ]

[The Bryce]

I missed that entire post.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you tilt vs. schnibl0r when you played him a few days ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

That match was pretty intense. I hadn't played much with Simon previously and he ran extremely well in the first few hours of our match while I was trying to get a feel for what his bluff / made hand distribution was when he was check-raising flops, and eventually it got to the point where he would have had to be aware that I was taking some cracks at him when he raised, so when he kept showing up with answers every single time I pushed a couple hands even harder. Simon later had an interview wherein he discussed a few hands where I ran a big bluff into a made hand and turned it into a tirade.

[ QUOTE ]
In the Classroom 108 you give us a brief glimpse into solving hands w/ PokerStove). How many different cases did you do before you had a general sense of how to approach each flop given your holding? Also, are you going to continue this particular aspect of the classroom? It seems vital in improving one's game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once I get done with the LHE blinds series and the reverse coaching HU LHE series I'll be moving onto some stuff that will have a more mathematical lean. As far as how to use pokerstove to weight ranges, what was in that video was all there was to it. Examples of how to apply it will continue to come up throughout different classroom videos, though I may dedicate a video specifically to providing some examples, since this is not the first time this request has come up.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine you are in a game where your opponent is raising at every opportunity preflop, bet/calling every flop, calling or raising the turn, and folding the river 60% he does not have the betting lead, calling 25% of the time with a pair, and bluff-raising 15% of the time. How does this affect your PF hand range, and what postflop look like?

[/ QUOTE ]

Up until your turn/river description this is fairly standard fair for HU LHE play, so pre-flop doesn't change much. Your scenario engenders a lot of river bluffing.
[ QUOTE ]

What factors into finding:
1) optimal re-bluffing % on a dry board (e.g. J44r)
2) whether or not to free SD on the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

1) If you mean game theory optimal bluffing the short description is: opponents cost to re-bluff you : pot size = GTO bluff%.
2) This is a pretty large topic, but generally raising for a FSD is only an effective sort of play when either a) it has some semi-bluff value or b) your opponent is both very unlikely to barrel with a draw and very likely to have one. Raising for showdown also can have some interesting applications in multi-way pots where either a) the pot is larger, and there's maybe some value in protecting your hand (in small pots it hardly factors) or b) you can knock out some players behind you who may have better hands (often big value).
[ QUOTE ]

How many hands did it take for you see your edge vs. a player in your:
1) 5/10 to 30/60 days
2) 50/100 to 200/400 days
3) current games

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the things I'm very glad I took a lot of time to do over a year back was I put a lot of energy into thinking about how poker "should" be learned, and what would be the most effective way to break it down. The first 15 months or so I spent a lot of time worrying about stuff that didn't matter and asking questions that would never prompt particularly useful answers. The last 12 months or so has been a lot of work, in the sense of all the away-from-table stuff I've been doing, but I've been cooking with gas. While it's certainly been extremely challenging at points I basically ratcheted up through 30/60 to bleeders in time with the growth of my bankroll (which I've been pretty conservative with).

[Gelford]

Dunno if this well is still alive, but could you say a bit on what range you should raise with vs the one that you just check behind in HU LHE, when playing with a SB that completes a lot ?