|
IowaSkinsFan
|
10-01-2007, 07:26 AM
Post subject: Long Post: Reverse ISF theorem and Manipulation
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,147
|
|
These thoughts about manipulation keep running through my mind and its keeping me awake, so I decided I'd write them down.
A few months ago I got really into manipulation and made some pretty good blog posts about it. Eventually, I got more into exploring ranges and I came up with ISF theorem and explored that. Now I've been thinking more about manipulating opponents through overall strategy. In other words, playing in such a way that manipulates our opponent to play in a way that benefits us.
Note: Against great players most of what i write is going to be irrelevant. There is just not a lot you can do to manipulate great players because they understand what u are trying to do. BUT that doesn't mean that this information isn't incredibly useful. You're not going to meet a great player anytime soon.
Balancing our opponents range and Reverse ISF theorem
gabe once said that bigger bets will give rise to less aggression from our opponents and smaller bets will give rise to more aggression. I have found this to be true. But right now I'm going to look at overall bet sizing strategy to manipulate our opponent to balance his range.
A lot of the time when I have a draw I tend to make larger raises. Why? Because I want my opponent to balance his range passively By manipulating him to call rather than raise his strong hands and his weak hands, it gives me an oppurtunity to hit my draw and suck out on him.
BUT ha! I bet you thought when I said draw I meant a flush draw or straight draw. But you were wrong, all a draw really is is a hand that can become better than our opponents on a later street. So essentially, all drawing hands can be characterized as "Weak" hands.
What this all leads to is a theory that directly relates to ISF theorem. The "reverse" theorem goes something like this:
When our range is weaker than our opponents range, we should tend to play our hands in such a way that manipulates our opponents to play passively, When our range is stronger than our opponents range, we should tend to play our hands in such a way that manipulates our opponent to play more aggressively
This explains why you see good players check hands like bottom pair or Ace high instead of continuation bet them. We want to give our hand a chance to draw out on our opponent, and by letting his check stand, our opponent is playing more passively.
Of course I'm not advocating people bet bottom pair on two streets OOP even though its obvious we are behind so we can draw out on our opponent . There's only so far this theorem goes.
Un-balancing ranges:
We want our opponents to play in the most predictable way possible so we can play our range to the best of our knowledge. If we know someone has a draw, or know they have midpair, it becomes very easy to figure out what we should do with any given hand. If we know someone has a draw, top pair, mid pair, air, etc. or any hand in the deck playing against them becomes a lot harder. So what we strive to do is force our opponents to lay in the most predictable way possible with the thinnest ranges possible.
There are many ways to do this. One simple example of doing this is making a small bet size on vunerable boards. Against a player who is passive and wary to raise a top pair hand, we force him to protect that hand and raise. Therefore, when he doesn't raise on the flop we know he doesn't have a good hand. With much more aggressive players, we may makes pot sized bets to manipulate him to play straightforward so we aren't faced with a balance range of draws, air, midpair hands, top pair or better, when he raises.
Another way to unbalance someones range is to force someone to adopt a style that makes them easier to play against. For example, against aggressive players we could raise a smaller size preflop, forcing him to play much more hands and in turn bluff a much higher frequency than is optimal.
Similarly, we could make our raise size the minimum versus a nit, forcing him to play a lot more hands OOP where he would be forced to amp up aggression to not let his money go. Or, threebet a smaller size, forcing our opponent to play much more hands to my threebets, even though he's not comfortable playing with bad hands in threebet pots.
Or we could drastically increase all of our bet and raise sizes, forcing aggressive opponents to play their hand for more of its own value, since the opponent would feel unobligated to make plays since all he has to do is wait for one hand to stack you off, when in fact the moment he raises or bets into you you fold.
The point of this thread is to make people realize that you have to go beyond thinking in a hand to hand basis. Hope this was interesting.
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Vi-Zer0Skill
|
|
Reagan's Kid
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Oz
Posts: 1,720
|
|
6 hours and this post has gotten no love... 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
This explains why you see good players check hands like bottom pair or Ace high instead of continuation bet them.
|
Would this advice is more applicable when playing against opponents who are frequently check/raising and would often try to take you off of your hand after you c-bet? Because otherwise i would think that by c-betting a "weak" hand (4-5 outs) we want to try to win the pot on the flop or have outs to improve on later streets if called. Folding the hand would not be difficult if our opponent has a low c/r frequency and our hand has low implied value.
Obviously that's a small point of contention. Great post ISF! This advice will definitely benefit my game.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Carroters
Ambition is fucking great, but you're trying to dig up gold with a rocket launcher and are going to blow the whole lot to shit unless you refine your tools
|
|
|
acesfullokings
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 198
|
|
I have to say that I have given it some love, just don't know that I have anything worthwhile to post. But ISF I gotta say that I really dig your theory posts as they give me lots to think about and I really feel that your posts help my development as I try to move up. So a big thanks to you and I will contribute when I feel I can.
|
|
I started a new job so don't play much ATM, just FTP mini grind
|
|
bode
|
|
10-01-2007, 02:14 PM
Post subject: Re: Long Post: Reverse ISF theorem and Manipulation
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: May 2006
Location: slow motion
Posts: 4,270
|
|
Nice post ISF.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
my breakthrough post, ISF theorem.
|
lol.
|
Quote:
|
eeevees are not monies yet...they are like baby monies.
|
|
|
givememyleg
|
|
WHO YA GONNA CALL?!??
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ISHPERMING MISHIGEN
Posts: 4,995
|
|
isf, when was it that you realized you were good at poker and could crush the mid-stakes? cuz damn, you're good now.
|
|
|
|
IowaSkinsFan
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,147
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill
6 hours and this post has gotten no love...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
This explains why you see good players check hands like bottom pair or Ace high instead of continuation bet them.
|
Would this advice is more applicable when playing against opponents who are frequently check/raising and would often try to take you off of your hand after you c-bet? Because otherwise i would think that by c-betting a "weak" hand (4-5 outs) we want to try to win the pot on the flop or have outs to improve on later streets if called. Folding the hand would not be difficult if our opponent has a low c/r frequency and our hand has low implied value. |
100% correct. Yes this is if our opponent is c/r us of weak hands.
|
|
|
|
|~|ypermegachi
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: emo-kid
Posts: 3,580
|
|
awesome post! favorited!
|
|
|
|
mixchange
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,665
|
|
when ISF says 'great' players this won't work against, I think what is meant is more like your top 3/6+ type deep thinker.
I think this post is great, but its mostly for 200NL+ and good 100nl regs. At smaller stakes I don't think many people are even paying attention to bet and stack sizes very much.
Quote:
|
One simple example of doing this is making a small bet size on vunerable boards. Against a player who is passive and wary to raise a top pair hand, we force him to protect that hand and raise. Therefore, when he doesn't raise on the flop we know he doesn't have a good hand.
|
my favorite part of the post,
|
|
|
|
benny999
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,567
|
|
awesome post man. just read it, good stuff to think about more.
you're real good at articulating and putting many smaller ideas into one big idea.
|
|
|
|
Halv
|
|
pro crastinator
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: No hindsight for the blind.
Posts: 1,842
|
|
Hadn't seen this one before. The short version goes something like "discourage him from playing back when we are weak, encourage him when we are strong", right.
Don't really have anything to add to the thread, gonna re-read and re-think. For now I'll just bump it and show appreciation  .
|
|
|
|
IowaSkinsFan
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,147
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HalvSame
Hadn't seen this one before. The short version goes something like "discourage him from playing back when we are weak, encourage him when we are strong", right.
|
Yep
|
|
|
|
c-luvin
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 159
|
|
Danny i like it but how many times has someone donked into you and you smooth called rather than raising because your intuition tells you that this guy is begging for a raise.
I understand where your going with this but for the average player this could get someone in the very bad habbit of not betting our strong hands big enough and getting ourselves in very bad situations with our "draws"
|
|
|
|
IowaSkinsFan
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,147
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by c-luvin
Danny i like it but how many times has someone donked into you and you smooth called rather than raising because your intuition tells you that this guy is begging for a raise.
I understand where your going with this but for the average player this could get someone in the very bad habbit of not betting our strong hands big enough and getting ourselves in very bad situations with our "draws"
|
I'm kind of advocating that you are the one donking into someone and forcing them to play passive. Donking in the situation your talking about is really really good and hard to beat.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
02-11-2012, 02:29 PM WPT Lucky Hearts Poker Open Day 1A: Uri Kadosh Leads
Linear Mode
