MUBS

[martybonus]

Haven't done a tl;dr in a while, thought it was time.

All the usual caveats apply. This is mostly geared at other new-ish players. There's little explicit in SSHE about it, winning lo limit seems to have a case of it, so i thought i'd generate some discussion here.

For those unaware: MUBS = monsters under the bed syndrome. This refers to when you're scared a bigger (and by definition) unlikely hand. Fearing the boat when the river pairs the board, fearing 2p when you hold TPTK, etc.

Been thinking alot about MUBS. I'm very guilty of it. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to try to make a case for MUBS, then I'm going to rubbish it. I'm keeping this general so we don't get mired in specific situations. I'll follow up with some dubious practical advice which others will refine and/or rubbish [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-a case for MUBS-
MUBS is a very personal, psychological experience. As such, it's easy to ignore or defend and it is very unusual that anyone ever *actually* explains the reasons why he fears a bigger hand.

For me, I think my MUBS comes from a desire to minimize loss. If my hand is going to lose, I want to lose the least amount possible. This isn't entirely a bad thing. Everyone knows that good poker players win big pots and lose small ones.

Also, if you're playing against loose-passives and weak-tights, then it is often sensible to fear a big hand if they raise. When passive players bet or raise, it's usually a decent hand.

So maybe MUBS has value in that it minimizes loss in pots where we have good but not nuts hands against loose-passives whose bets/raises are clear indicators of strong hands.

MUBS also seems like a way to protect yourself from variance. 'oh, the asshat just rivered me, i'm going to fold'.

-why it's still rubbish-
This may well be a sound principle, but it's easy to get carried away. Also, it may well have smaller EV than other options. A few reasons.

1) loose-passives and weak-tights raise with a range of hands, not just the stone cold nuts. Yes, their bets and raises tend to be good hands, but there's not necessarily any reason to believe you're beat just because a l-p came alive on the river or c/red you on the turn. Even passive players will value bet their big hands on later streets and these value bets could be something all the way down to TPgK.

I guess what i'm saying here is: big action from passive players means decent hands, but it does not mean that you're automatically beat. Remember, you probably have a decent hand too! If you hold the second nuts and villain comes alive on the river, it isn't necessarily the case that he holds the nuts.

Or as boz said to me, 'stop being a baby!'

2) you can NOT protect yourself from variance.

That is, the outcome of the hand is already decided. once the river falls, that's the end of the story. The pot is won or lost.

MUBS won't protect you from losing the pot. If you've been rivered, that sucks, but there's nothing you can do about it.

MUBS (on the river at least) really only influences the last few bets.

And as we all know, good poker players don't think about pots, they think about long term EV and how they play individual actions. This segues into the next point.

3) MUBS leads to lower long-term EV.

Let's just say for the sake of discussion that every time you MUBS on the river, the pot is 2BB smaller than it would be if you played aggressively.

Let's also assume for the sake of discussion that you're going to win the pot 55% of the time. After all, you wouldn't have gone to the river if you didn't reckon you would win more than your share of the time. This is all oversimplified, I know, but work with me.

So 45% of the time you save yourself 2BB, a savings of .9BB per MUBS.

55% of the time you miss out on 2BB you COULD have had, a loss of 1.1BB per MUBS.

No brainer. MUBS costs you more money than it saves if you have greater equity than your opponent.

-immediate questions-

Q: yeah but what if i'm going to lose more than 50% of the time! what if villain has me beat like 75% of the time?

A: villain may not have that huge a hand, even an l-p might be betting hard with 2p to your set. But say he IS winning 75% of the time, then wtf are you in the hand for? equitys sake alone?

Q: what if he just came alive, suggesting I got rivered?

A: see above, but also: look at your cards and the river again. how likely is it that the river just gave him a better hand than you?

Q: how can i be sure i didn't get rivered?

A: eleven. but being aggressive can help narrow his range. if he bet the river, you raise (cos your hand is still strong) and he 3bangs, well, now it looks like you might have been rivered.

-moral-

1)if you have a big hand on later streets which you think is going to win more than 50% of the time, MUBS costs you more money than it saves.

2) variance is part of poker. Getting rivered sucks, but the solution is *not* to fold just cos you suspect you got rivered.

3) intelligent caution is good, esp against passives whose bets and raises are all clear indicators of hand strength. but MUBS isn't. Passives dont bluff so a raise should make you think, but it shouldn't make you assume the worst.

i hope this helps people other than just me and that it doesn't annoy the old folks too much [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[seano34]

tl;dr??

[seano34]

I would add -

Practice hand reading based on your opponents stats and action - its invaluable when you are trying to do an equity calc based on your opponents likely range to make that call/raise/fold decision.

Damn Marty you write some long old posts

[martybonus]

hehehe yeah. i can be pretty long-winded. sorry :S

[jeanbaptiste36]

All monsters are AK UI. Call!

[TJO]

Nice job Marty!

I just read your "N00b post on flush draws" again today.

I have to disagree in these points a little:

[ QUOTE ]
Q: yeah but what if i'm going to lose more than 50% of the time! what if villain has me beat like 75% of the time?

A: villain may not have that huge a hand, even an l-p might be betting hard with 2p to your set. But say he IS winning 75% of the time, then wtf are you in the hand for? equitys sake alone?

[/ QUOTE ]If I'm getting more than 3-to-1 odds I think I'm correct to be in the pot even if my pot equity is only 25% in a HU situation like you describe. Don't forget the pot size. It's worthwhile to protect even 10% equity HU if the pot is 10 bets or more. By protect I mean calling not raising.

[ QUOTE ]
Q: how can i be sure i didn't get rivered?

A: eleven. but being aggressive can help narrow his range. if he bet the river, you raise (cos your hand is still strong) and he 3bangs, well, now it looks like you might have been rivered.

[/ QUOTE ]I'd never consider raise/folding but bet/folding is something I need to learn to do. In a situation where a player suddenly wakes up after a scary river card, I'm usually happy to just call if I have position. If OOP I'll c/c, b/f or b/c depending on the situation and my reads.

But remember I'm the guy why wrote the "Are we calling too much?" post. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[seano34]

Yeah having actually read this now properly - Sorry marty

I would agree with with TJO.

If you are getting good enough odds to call then call. ie

You are getting 1000 to 1 in a fantasy pot and you think you are beat 99% of the time, you would still call.

I think the value in evaluating how and why we get MUBS is in the step before the decision. When you make the decision it should be based on, amongst other things, the villains likely range.

MUBS will cause you to give an overly generous range to the villain if it is inconsistent with his stats and play.

If the scare card comes and it fits in with what you have previously put his range at, then factor that in, if he bluffs at the scare card in a way that is totally inconsistent with how he has acted in earlier streets then factor that in.

Its a fairly imprecise science anyway but you have to make your decisions logically to the best of your ability

[TJO]

I think for some players MUBS is a subform of tilt, if tilt is anything less than your A-game and your A-mindset. But there's players out there (like me) whose A-game in not very good. Who think it's correct not to value bet the river after a scare card comes. For them MUBS is not necessarily same as tilting.

I think more experienced players are generally less MUBSy than beginners. Their type of tilt is generally steaming tilt or too aggressive tilt rather than too tight tilt or too passive tilt and their game is solid.

Beginners like me can get out of MUBS by starting to trust in the long run and improve our A-game. Because I couldn't find any KK calldown that was profitable in my stats doesn't mean that we all or that even I call down too much. Whether to call/raise/fold depends on the situation. Seano already wrote some great things about it.

edit: so I'm basically saying the same as Marty.

[theb00radley]

Excellent post. I was guilty of MUBS and not value betting hands enough when scare cards came.

After reading Sklansky's SSHE I realised the error or my ways and in the last month have noticed that I am turning what would probably have been losing sessions into break even ones.

[Conny]

Great post!

I need to work on this.