4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,875
|
|
@ BJ & Daven - thx guys I wasn't sure if anyone was still reading this 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bjsaust
Shitty to hear you've had even worse downswing issues. Lately seems like half of FTR is.
|
Thanks - at its worst, my downswing was 20 BI's, but I rebounded with 7 BI's in a sesh right afterward, so it was more like a 15 BI swong as things leveled out. Hope your swong turns back to the good soon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daven
short version - squeeze work you have done is very nice.
|
thx
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daven
Long version -
I wonder how many people are going to properly read what you have written and work through the implications. Not too many I hope!
|
Ya know, I wonder about that some days...how much of my best stuff I should share online. But then I realize that very few of the noobies around here who could really use it are willing to work on it very hard anyway. The only guys likely to benefit are those who were already good at pokerz and are working on their own stuff...so I'll post it wtf maybe someone will benefit. I know I benefit from working through it enough to post/share.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daven
1) Q vs short-stacks vs P. I think this needs to be reconsidered (not that it matters until you choose to shortstack). At 20bb a squeeze == All-In, meaning that B=0. Now it becomes a simple matter of villain tendencies re calling/folding and their ranges to do so. Assuming a call range of 88+/KQs/AJs+ from some villains means one thing for your range, other call ranges mean something different. Also need to consider that the flat-caller often has a monster if there are 2 or more short-stacks left to act...
anyway, analysis becomes even simpler at (1/45)*(-8F/C -2.5)+0.5, right?
|
I agree - it's a pretty straightforward range/stove exercise against short stacks. What I learned looking at the math was that HERO playing a normal stack still gains all the benefits of a short-stack squeeze when he squeezes the short stack. The short stack's calling range doesn't really matter - a squeeze forces a short stack to commit only with his value range, or fold. If we can assess HIS opinion of his value range accurately, we can pwn him with the sick squeeze in the right spots.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daven
2) here I got interested when i was thinking about full ring application here - basically trying to figure out how easy it is to be breakeven post-flop against a 2% range (i.e. a 13-10 who opened from EP or MP cos otherwise we can't LP squeeze, so his range is like 7-2-2 where calling range=4-bet range about evenly balanced)
And this is where i started to wonder about how post-flop equity was going to be calculated, cos stoving ranges assumes a static state post-flop, and that doesn't happen. 9Ts does just great against AA, unless you have to play a flop with your one pair/gutshot/runner runner FD...
|
Squeezing in FR can only happen, like you point out, against the nittiest of villains who fold to the squeeze almost all the time, or some LAGG who got drunk and joined a FR table instead of his normal 6m game.
The postflop isn't equity, per se. It's the percentage of time Hero can manage to win the chips postflop. So we take it on a case by case basis. Knowing we need, say, 40% of the chips postflop to make the squeeze profitable, can we win that much with T9s against his likely calling range. By the way, I like the fact that you put AA in his "flat the squeeze bet" range. You're thinking correctly (which I wasn't not too long ago). Too many people put too many premium combos in their 4b range, but anyone who's squeezing at all "light" is going to fold the squeeze to a 4b. With AA, you're almost always pretty happy (or should be!) to flat the squeeze and pray for the pair of 2's to your left to come along for a flop.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daven
3/4 combined) obvious implication here is how we should deal with a squeeze when we are either the PFR or the flat-caller! more 4-betting. nh.
|
This goes with the comment above, we do better to play our premium combos (or many of them) by just calling, rather than raising, someone who squeezes light. We do have to leave some premium combos in the 4b'ing range, tho, just for appearances sake, and then fill up the 4b range with light combos.
That part really worried the TAGG in me, since I don't like getting out of ahead of poor hands in huge pots. But this is the heart of my theorem, or will be when I'm done formulating it. HERO doesn't get to determine his preferred range of "big pot" hands. HERO inherits a pretty narrow "optimal" range of hands based on villain's aggression. When our opponents bet/raise lighter, they force many more of our mediocre combos into our "big pot" range. We can refuse to play those combos in big pots, but only by leaving ourselves very exploitable in very obvious ways.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daven
5) the whole thing has lead me to seriously question some of my earlier (and incorrect) ideas about blind squeeze plays
As above, I switch off at the specific hand analysis a little because of the stove-approach vs multi-street dynamic in HU pots. It's obviously useful, I think it needs to be combined with solid flop and turn range-estimation and understanding of villain's post-flop tendencies
|
I do see your point here. To explain further, I was thinking not so much about equity as playability, so that part of the post was probably misleading. At the tables, I to tend to think something like, "yeah, I can take this down 40% or more of the times with A4s and position - I've got blockers and he's pretty weak-tight in big pots, playing lots of fit-or-fold." If I estimate he's got a wide enough calling range to make missing a flop possible, then I feel like I can outplay him and will try the squeeze.
In fact, I'm sorry I'm not explaining things well, because the whole beauty of the analysis from my point of view is that it gives us a very attainable target whenever we squeeze and get called. I used to play as though I had to win 80% of the contested pots, whereas now I just let it go on the rare occasion I get 4b or when I get called and see the world's worst flop for my hand. Mathematically, if I've done my preflop analysis right, I only have to win ~40% (worst case) when I'm flat called. That allows me to get away from bad squeezes cheap knowing I can pick up my 40% when I connect with flops and when the pot is obviously orphaned. I don't have to play "raisy daisy" like durrr to make the squeeze profitable. I just have to win my natural share and few from just being better prepared than my opponent.
The whole reason why noobies won't profit from reading this - and it's the thing you picked up on right away - the whole exercise is useless when left in term of percentages. Until we slot in various combos and ranges based on different types of villain profiles, the numbers aren't helpful. So I've done some work there (but less than I should). I now realize that if someone we have 2k HH's on has a 12% squeeze bet stat, I've gotta be fist-pump excited about how weak most of that range is, and the BETTER he is the WEAKER it is since he will probably put much of his KK+ in his value call-behind-the-caller range especially if he's ip.
But the exercise is pretty helpful if you're good at turning those percentages into real ranges and estimating playability of various hands against that range postflop.
Final comment I'll make is this: I've never seen a post or video that talked about isolating isolators. Is everyone else just that much more aware of it that it doesn't need to be discussed? Or is it being discussed on FTR but not in the BC? It's the one thing about poker I discovered pretty much for myself, but it's such an obvious adjustment (once you see it) that I'm surprised it's not more widely talked about on FTR. We probably don't need to post on it in the BC, tho - it's one of those "have to pick your spots" spots where the picking can be a bit tricky.
|