Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Blogs and Operations

Operation Hot Stove

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 76 to 128 of 128
  1. #76
    When they start cursing each other from behind the smiley faces it's pretty hilarious.
  2. #77
    lol Bovada sometimes takes a minute to display your correct balance. So sometimes after a session I'm like 'omg how many times did i get stacked? i thought it was only two!' but then it gives the right balance and I'm like oh yeah I can do simple arithmetic thank goodness.
  3. #78
    I'm rereading Easy Game by BalugaWhale and am really impressed. I like how he keeps things simple but still respects the complexity of the game. That's the kind of understanding I aspire to. An update 3rd edition is out and I have it on my amazon wish list.
  4. #79
    Yeah easy game is the nuts - I love that book, must have read the first one ten times. To some extent, I feel like my fondness for his style (ie. not being a big math guy) held me back in the past - some of us do have to do the math-work, and I'm one of them, but I still really like all the balugawhale stuff.
  5. #80
    Easy Game is making a lot more sense to me this time around. Hopefully that's a sign of improvement. I also got Building a Bankroll by Verneer which looks really good. I haven't started it yet but it seems to have an overall plan for player improvement.

    ---------------------------------------

    Here are my stats/rundown for 10 nl so far. I'm posting this as more of a record than anything else because I plan on making some changes to my game esp flatting less, or at least making more/better moves when I do.

    stakes: 10 NL Bovada, very fishy lol
    hands: 13k
    won: $90.77 for a current winrate of 6.95
    vpip: 29.01
    pfr: 19.50
    3bet pf: 5.98
    total AF: 2.57
    steal: 39.91
    steal succes: 40.88
    limp behind: 15.44
    raise limpers: 19.97
    call any pfr: 19.21
    cbet flop: 73.03
    cbet flop success: 48.05
    cbet turn: 47.27
    cbet turn success: 30.13
    avg river all-in equity: 61.90
    call river eff: 1.59
    wwsf: 44.61
    wtsd: 28.66
    wsd (non-small): 50.92
    wsd (all): 49.03

    I was rocking it until 6k hands when I was up 12 bi. Since then it's mostly gone sideways. Not that it matters very much but I do think I've been running a little bad since my EV line is now the highest line on my graph. Hopefully I'll catch a wave soon.

    As far as switching sites, I think I will probably move everything to Bovada at some point, but not until after I clear the initial deposit bonus at Carbon. That's worth a few hundred dollars I'm not sure. Right now I'm working on the last week of the Bovada WPT Montreal cash game bonus. Actually I might keep some on Carbon. If I do get to move up reasonably quickly I'll have to check how many ss games are running on either site. I'll have to think about it some more. At least there's no hurry.
  6. #81
    I think more tags are coming to Bovada. This guy today 3bet my utg open with A7s from the hijack. I called with AQs and folded when I missed the flop no fd. Probably I should have folded preflop. At least the guy lost the hand to the fish in the BB who cold-called with T9o and flopped trip nines. Justice! I can't stand that on my left though. I just left the table. Sauce probably would have stayed and found some way to stack him. Not sure about the whole table selection vs improvement issue. I do prefer tables with less-than-full stacks though because these are the guys who will call you down with tpwk.

    I also had a guy flat my CO open otb, called my c-bet on a K-high tt flop. I had AK and just barreled. He raised me on a two flush draw low card turn with 66, a complete bluff. I thought he had a flush draw and called planning on c/c'ing blank rivers. River was a total blank. He shoved for pot and I snapped him. So that was nice. But that kind of player is very unusual on Bovada, far more common on Carbon or Black Chip. I told him in chat that I thought the play would have been better on a dry flop than the wet one we had. Not sure he appreciated the advice. He was cool about it though, said nh.
    Last edited by abelardx; 10-23-2013 at 09:00 PM.
  7. #82
    Everyone playing that level is bad. You shouldn't be playing for money at this level. Although you should be table selecting because it's a skill you should practise. However if you are sat on 3 good tables and one ok table I wouldn't necessarily leave the ok table to try and find a good one. Practise on reacting to people. It's fantastic practise.

    You may react awfully to that person 3betting you a lot, but you look at it after and you realise why what you were doing was bad and maybe even see why what someone else was doing exploits that (omg ++++) and you learn how to react properly. Whilst learning how to adjust properly you may even find more bad ways to adjust which is GOOD as long as you realise why they are bad.
  8. #83
    Thanks for the comments, Griffey, Boris, and Savy. I'm the only poker player in my group so it's really nice to get other people's perspective.
  9. #84
    I'm thinking about stats and brm stuff like that and I found some pretty cool statistical simulators. Apparently the 'usual' simulators at evplusplus.com are down due to negligent new owners. So here are some good replacements:

    variance simulator complete with confidence intervals at pokerdope.com
    bankroll calculator at reviewpokerrooms.com

    For the bankroll calculator you give it your winrate, standard deviation (this is a stat in pokertracker or hem), and acceptable risk of ruin, and it tells you how many buy-ins you need.

    The variance simulator also takes winrate and standard deviation and returns a lot of interesting statistics regarding possible winnings, confidence intervals, breakeven stretches, probability of different sized downswings etc.

    Regarding my own stats PokerTracker says I have a standard deviation of 120 bb/100 which is very high and basically makes all the numbers not so trustworthy and tells me my game is not very consistent. That makes some sense because I'm still working out my strategy and making some changes.

    The variance simulator was very interesting. My main take-away is that looking at results is basically meaningless unless you're looking at like 100k chunks of hands, and with a standard deviation of 120 even results over 100k stretches can be wildly 'off'.

    With a winrate of 6.95, which I understand is ridiculously high for higher stakes games, and a standard deviation of 120, which is probably double most winning players' long-term sd, here are the numbers for a 100k stretch:

    EV: 6.95 BB/100
    Standard deviation: 119.00 BB/100
    Hands: 100000

    • Expected winnings: 6950.00 BB
    • Standard deviation after 100000 hands 3763 BB, 3.76 BB/100
    • 70% confidence interval: [3187 BB, 10713 BB], [3.19 BB/100, 10.71 BB/100]
    • 95% confidence interval: [-576 BB, 14476 BB], [-0.58 BB/100, 14.48 BB/100]
    • Probability of loss after 100000 hands: 3.2382%
    • Minimum bankroll for less than 5% risk of ruin: 3052 BB


    Downswing extents:
    • 500+ BB 66.48%
    • 1000+ BB 53.95%
    • 2000+ BB 31.68%
    • 3000+ BB 16.74%
    • 5000+ BB 4.24%
    • 7500+ BB 0.53%


    Downswing stretches:
    • 5000+ hands 64.29%
    • 10000+ hands 53.50%
    • 20000+ hands 39.65%
    • 50000+ hands 18.18%
    • 100000+ hands 6.17%


    Here are the comparable numbers for a more realistic winrate and more stable game, say +3 bb/100 with a sd of 70 bb/100 over 100k hands:

    EV: 3.00 BB/100
    Standard deviation: 75.00 BB/100
    Hands: 100000

    • Expected winnings: 3000.00 BB
    • Standard deviation after 100000 hands: 2372 BB, 2.37 BB/100
    • 70% confidence interval: [628 BB, 5372 BB], [0.63 BB/100, 5.37 BB/100]
    • 95% confidence interval: [-1743 BB, 7743 BB], [-1.74 BB/100, 7.74 BB/100]
    • Probability of loss after 100000 hands: 10.2952%
    • Minimum bankroll for less than 5% risk of ruin: 2808 BB


    Downswing extents:
    • 500+ BB 70.05%
    • 1000+ BB 55.31%
    • 2000+ BB 29.22%
    • 3000+ BB 14.71%
    • 5000+ BB 2.77%


    Downswing stretches:
    • 5000+ hands 74.10%
    • 10000+ hands 66.39%
    • 20000+ hands 54.82%
    • 50000+ hands 34.56%
    • 100000+ hands 18.13%


    And here are the two cool confidence interval graphs:

    6.95 bb/100 winrate and 120 bb/100 standard deviation



    3 bb/100 winrate and 75 bb/100 standard deviation

  10. #85
    So what does all this stuff mean for me and my higher stakes aspirations etc?

    1. Looking at results is basically meaningless over any short-term time period of like a month or less. Of course it's something we all look at every day (at least I do), but I need to understand that the noise to signal ratio is very high.

    2. It's really important to keep working on your game and improve your winrate. Improving your winrate is the best way to reduce the effects of variance ie shorter downswings and shorter b/e stretches.

    3. Accept variance. 30 buy-in downswings are not uncommon for a winning player and if you play long enough you'll see them even if your game is perfectly fine and winning. This can be very difficult to accept psychologically so it's important to at least understand the facts intellectually. Similarly b/e stretches lasting 10k's of hands are going to happen.

    Bankroll management:

    I basically made my brm strategy up out of thin air and I will be re-designing it based on real information. However it probably won't change that much. I'm not destitute but re-depositing would be difficult. I'd like a ROR around 1%, so even with a good winrate I'm going to need 40+ bi's and more for HU.

    How to check if it's 'variance' or bad play?

    I got this from Verneer's book. Take your big loser hands and separate them into categories of 1. bad play, 2. cooler, and 3. suckouts. If the majority of big losers are coolers and suckouts, it's variance, don't change your strategy, just keep playing, moving down if necessary. If it's bad play then brm strategies and variance simulations really don't matter. Your first job is to become a winning player period.

    I feel like there was more stuff I wanted to say but I can't think of it now. So more later on brm and study plans etc, not to mention actually stoving hands. I'm getting a lot of good information from Verneer's book. It will take a while to process.

    edit: Oh I remember the other thing I wanted to say. Besides improving your winrate the one real defense to variance is volume. Just get to the long term and all the short term noise goes away. Verneer in his book took some Supernova big winner's graph that he'd posted on 2p2 that looked like it went straight up. But that was over 2.5 million hands. You almost couldn't tell that the guy had more than one 30 bi downswing and 100k b/e stretch. Volume is key.
    Last edited by abelardx; 10-24-2013 at 12:02 AM.
  11. #86
    Check out these cool websites:

    onebillionhands.com where some guys got a 1 billion hand database and analyze plays relative to database averages. The last blog entry is about some of the good laydowns Newhouse made at the WSOPE. They're presented in quiz form which is pretty cool.

    skillingames.com which I think is the same bunch of guys. They're a business that uses statistical 'spot to spot' analysis to identify skilled, recently lucky, and recently unlucky players so poker sites can individually tailor their marketing to the player. Clever.

    I found out about these sites from thinkingpoker.net, Andrew Brokos' blog which I used to read a lot back in the day. It's really good esp the articles. He's a talented cash game player and very bold bluffer.

    I find all this stuff really fascinating. Right now I'm in the process of teaching myself programming, statistics, and machine learning, hoping to turn it into a career in the future. Ideally I could use algorithms to become a professional gambler and work for myself. That would be pretty cool.
  12. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by abelardx View Post
    Right now I'm in the process of teaching myself programming, statistics, and machine learning, hoping to turn it into a career in the future. Ideally I could use algorithms to become a professional gambler and work for myself. That would be pretty cool.
    I teach statistics at the University of North Georgia. I don't know where you're at in the learning curve, but I could forward some LaTeX notes I've been working on for my 300-level stats class for math majors that uses poker examples to teach the basic statistics procedures (z-proportion, t-tests, chi-squared, ANOVA). They're in a very early draft form, but I'd love to get some feedback/ideas if you're interested. PM me and I'll give you my email.
  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Robb View Post
    I teach statistics at the University of North Georgia. I don't know where you're at in the learning curve, but I could forward some LaTeX notes I've been working on for my 300-level stats class for math majors that uses poker examples to teach the basic statistics procedures (z-proportion, t-tests, chi-squared, ANOVA). They're in a very early draft form, but I'd love to get some feedback/ideas if you're interested. PM me and I'll give you my email.
    That would be awesome. I'm not able to send pm's but my email is abelard.malcolm.tyler.lindsay at gmail.com.
  14. #89
    How to Read Hands by Ed Miller

    Hand Reading When You're In Position With the Initiative Through the Turn

    This is the bread and butter situation. It should be most of the hands you play. In this situation, there is a simple hand reading framework that we'll discuss in this post.

    In later posts we'll talk about hand reading against more aggressive opponents, or when out of position, or when raised. These situations make hand reading more difficult because villain could be bluffing, but the same general principle of subdividing ranges will apply. It just won't be as neat. We'll also talk about capped and polarized ranges in those later posts.

    In particular, in this post, we'll assume that we don't get donked into or check-raised on the flop or turn. We're also going to assume that the hand is heads-up postflop. If it's multi-way you would apply the same system to each player individually in order to assess your options versus the field.

    So here's the situation we're talking about and the questions we want to answer:

    1. We raise in position and we get called by one player out of position, either he limp/called or he called in the blinds.

    2. Villain checks to us and we continuation bet the flop. If villain folds, great, the hand is over. So suppose villain calls and checks the turn. Should we fire again, for value or as a bluff, or not?

    3a. We bet the turn, and villain called and then checked the river. Should we bet, for value or as a bluff, or not?

    3b. We bet the turn, and villain called and then bets the river. Should we call, for value or to catch a bluff, or fold?

    4a. The turn is checked through and villain checks the river. Should we bet, for value or as a bluff, or check it back?

    4b. The turn is checked through and villain bets the river. Should we call, for value or to catch a bluff, or fold?

    If villain does bet the river, another important wrinkle is whether we should raise for value or as a bluff. That's an important question but we're not going to discuss it in this post. However, the same principles apply: What does he call/fold/jam with? How big a part of his range is that? What is our EV compared to not raising?

    We'll learn to answer these questions by dividing a player's range on each street into 'strong fits' and 'weak fits'. A 'fit' is any hand the player calls a bet with on that street. A 'strong fit' is one that he would call another bet with on a later street, and a 'weak fit' is one that he would fold to another bet. Of course this depends on how the board runs out. For example a good draw might be a strong fit on the flop but only a weak fit on the turn should the river brick.

    This approach to hand reading relies upon the second principle of hand reading, that most players don't bluff nearly enough. In particular most players are not floating out of position with air. When they call a bet they have something that fits the board. Of course the definition of a 'fit' will depend on the player type. For example, a nit might consider middle pair to be a miss, but a fish may consider it to be a strong fit.

    To refresh our memories, here are Miller's Three Principles of Hand Reading:

    1. Players play the way they do for a reason. It might not be a logical reason, it could be emotional, but they are not acting randomly.

    2. Very few players bluff at the correct frequency. Most players don't bluff nearly enough, and a minority bluff way too much.

    3. Information from large bets and calls is more reliable than information from small bets and calls.

    BTW, even if you're far from thinking about ranges or trying to read hands, simply keeping these three principles in mind as you play will improve your game and keep you from making a lot of mistakes.

    OK this post is already kind of long. So I'm going to end it here and start playing some today. Following posts will expand on this strong fit/weak fit system, street by street, especially the river which is special because there are no more draws, and give examples for the different player types.
  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by abelardx View Post
    I'm thinking about stats and brm stuff like that and I found some pretty cool statistical simulators. Apparently the 'usual' simulators at evplusplus.com are down due to negligent new owners. So here are some good replacements:

    variance simulator complete with confidence intervals at pokerdope.com
    bankroll calculator at reviewpokerrooms.com
    I did some work on this in the BC a couple years back:

    http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ed-153547.html

    I will try to find the Excel spreadsheet I created and make the links work again. Good stuff!!
  16. #91
    I have approximately 15k hands at 10 nl on Bovada. I filtered them for hands where I raised preflop, got called, continuation bet all three streets and got called down. That's 43 hands. I did pretty well in this situation, plus five buy-ins, but I certainly didn't win all of them.

    I'm going to randomly take some of these hands and apply Miller's strong fit/weak fit system to analyze villain's range and critique my decision to keep barreling.

    These are Bovada hands. So I don't have any individual stats but I do have composite stats, for all players combined, by position, and we'll use those to assign preflop ranges.

    Also since these hands consist solely of villain calling down a triple barrel, villains are almost certainly bad passive players, which is fine. This is not the comprehensive hand reading exercise for all time. We don't consider raises or being oop or playing against aggressive players at all. But it's a good start, in a simplified situation, against fish, which are the most important player type to understand anyway, at least at microstakes.

    I'll put results in spoiler boxes so you can follow along and treat this as a quiz if you like. Hopefully by the river we'll have narrowed down villain's holdings quite a bit.
  17. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by abelardx View Post
    Also since these hands consist solely of villain calling down a triple barrel, villains are almost certainly bad passive players, which is fine. This is not the comprehensive hand reading exercise for all time. We don't consider raises or being oop or playing against aggressive players at all. But it's a good start, in a simplified situation, against fish, which are the most important player type to understand anyway, at least at microstakes.
    I don't think just because they are calling down that you can assume they are bad passive players. They might be bad passive players, but thinking this way also means that you won't find spots to c/c down because you think that makes you bad/passive too.

    Look at it this way. If you bet 3/4 pot on the river, from a GTO perspective villain needs to continue with almost 58% of his turn calling range to avoid being exploited (ie: allowing you to bet any two cards on the river). Now ofcourse if you are never bluffing there, then his calls will be bad. But if you are never bluffing there, then presumable you are also giving up on the river some % of the time, potentially making his turn calls more profitable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay-Z
    I'm a couple hands down and I'm tryin' to get back
    I gave the other grip, I lost a flip for five stacks
  18. #93
    I remember this one hand I had recently where I opened AQ utg and everybody folded except the BB. I triple barreled tptk and lost to 92o who had turned trips. Because of hands like that I'm not going to try and put people on specific preflop ranges, in this exercise anyway. Suffice it to say they have a wide range. In fact, we'll start the hand reading exercise after villain's flop call where we'll assign an initial range of any pair, any draw.
  19. #94
    I'm going to have to think about what you said, Griffey. But for right now, it's a fair assumption that most Bovada 10nl players are passive bad with a very wide calling range. I personally have no problem calling if I think that's the right play.
  20. #95
    I think your points are more applicable to tougher games. I do make a ton of 'one and done' plays, either otf or ott. And I'm sure that is exploitable by some of the players. However I've been called down by second or third pair so often that I still think it's best to simply give up with A high after getting called once, that kind of thing. However as I've said before, there are plenty of people running big stupid bluffs at 10nl so much that this kind of stationy behavior is somewhat rational.

    I remember one hand recently where I called a guy's flop shove with AK high. He had AQ and lost. In chat he said, "You can't fold that?" I said, "You can't beat that?"

    idk I think it goes back to the Carroters thread that balance is unnecessary and even harmful in games where people's play is so unbalanced ie most fish are never bluffing and some are bluffing way too much.
  21. #96
    47 hands isn't a sample at all.
  22. #97
    Hmm, I'm not sure if this makes much sense because I haven't even started looking at the GTO stuff yet, but my impression is that balance is like being out of line. You want to gauge your stance vs your opponents, being slightly more out of line than they are, or slightly more balanced than they are, but not doing things in a vacuum for its own sake.

    edit: What do you think of that, Griffey? That the desirable amount of balance depends on how balanced villain's play is? And that you want just slightly more? I think the GTO books assume villains are playing perfectly balanced Nash type games which is probably more realistic as you go up stakes but is very inaccurate at ms.
    Last edited by abelardx; 10-29-2013 at 12:59 PM.
  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    47 hands isn't a sample at all.
    True but it's not meant to be a sample. I'm not going to draw any conclusions from these hands. I'm just going to draw the exercise hands from them.
  24. #99
    OK here is Triple Barrel v Fish Hand Reading Exercise #1:

    PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from http://poker-tools.flopturnriver.com/Hand-Converter.php

    saw flop | saw showdown

    SB ($9.14)
    BB ($7.47)
    UTG ($2.95)
    MP ($17.28)
    CO ($25.29)
    Hero (Button) ($7.40)

    Preflop: Hero is Button with K, J
    UTG calls $0.10, 1 fold, CO calls $0.10, Hero raises to $0.55, 1 fold, BB calls $0.45, UTG calls $0.45, CO calls $0.45

    Flop: ($2.25) 2, 9, 9 (4 players)
    BB checks, UTG checks, CO checks, Hero bets $1.42, BB calls $1.42, 2 folds

    This is a very dry flop and I expect a c-bet to take it down a lot of the time. There are no draws on this flop so that makes things easy. Villain has something with showdown value, probably a pair or big ace, less often trips or better. Note that we can't take the big aces out of villain's range because of the preflop l/c because many fish would limp a big ace, either as a slow play or simply out of habit.

    So here I'd put villain's range at 22+ and AJ+. We are 23% against that range.

    Part of what makes bad player's bad is over-valuing their hands, that and being overly suspicious. So here, since all of villain's range has some showdown value, I think he'd consider all these hands to be strong fits.

    Remember the definition of strong and weak fits. A strong fit calls another bet. A weak fit does not.

    Turn: ($5.09) K (2 players)
    BB checks, Hero bets $1.94, BB calls $1.94

    We hit top pair ott which reverses equities. Now we're 77% against villain's flop range.

    Here I think villain might fold some of his non-pair hands to a bet otr.

    So his strong fits ott are 22+ and AK. His weak fits are AJ and AQ.

    River: ($8.97) 2 (2 players)
    BB checks, Hero bets $3.49 (All-In), BB calls $3.49

    Villain's turn calling range has 104 combos, six each of 33 - 88, TT, QQ, and AA, three each of 22, JJ, and KK, one of 99, sixteen AQ, and twelve each of AJ and AK.

    We think he'll fold 28 combos to a river bet, 16 AQ's and 12 AJ's. That leaves him with 76 combos.

    Of those 76, we beat 51 and are beat by 25 (three 22's, one 99, three KK, six AA, and twelve AK).

    So this is an easy b/f.

    Total pot: $15.95 | Rake: $0.79

    Results below:
    Spoiler:

    Hero had K, J (two pair, Kings and nines).
    BB had 6, 6 (two pair, nines and sixes).
    Outcome: Hero won $15.16


    I'll add the ranges by editing as I do them so anyone else can play along too if they want.
    Last edited by abelardx; 10-29-2013 at 01:38 PM.
  25. #100
    Hmm, that's really odd that the hand converter doesn't show the mucked hand even though it's present in the original hand history. I'll edit the spoiler box from now on to show what villain had. In this hand villain had 66. This is a fairly typical hand.
  26. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by abelardx View Post
    True but it's not meant to be a sample. I'm not going to draw any conclusions from these hands. I'm just going to draw the exercise hands from them.
    You're drawing conclusions from it that may or may not be there. Dangerous thing to do.

    As for the balance issue (and I'm not having a debate about this, it's my opinion and I've discussed it in lots of threads don't want to derail your thread) having good balance means you're never going to be playing "badly" and by badly I mean you'll most likely be winning but not very much. Whereas obviously villains at these stakes are very exploitable so we won't be playing to maximise our winnings if we are very balanced which is what we want to do.

    The reason knowing what a well balanced range looks like and how to do it in certain spots is important (and by balance I mean going towards GTO, as obviously it doesn't exist atm) is because this should be our reference point.

    Let's say we are playing a one street game where you're both dealt a card A, K or Q (only 3 cards in deck) and villain can bet or fold and we can call or fold. The solution to this game obviously depends on blinds antes but it isn't actually that straight forward. By knowing the answer to this we know the best default strategy possible for both positions (going 1st and 2nd). If villain deviates from this we benefit, chances are at the start we won't be playing perfectly but we won't be playing badly.

    The most important thing to note though is that because we know what is GTO in this example we know how to exploit people who deviate from the equilibrium. Someone is betting Q too much? We know how to adjust. Without knowing that equilibrium we don't really know what bad play is.

    I'm not advocating trying to play really balanced at 5nl or whatever but I am an advocate of knowing what balance looks like in spots so we can exploit people. When we get to showdown and we see that villain doesn't raise a certain hand on the flop if we don't know what balance is in a spot we don't really gain that much, but it can have huge implications on how we should be playing our range to exploit them and if we are making big population reads and applying them to a villain who we have no real evidence on we can be making big mistakes and not even realise.
  27. #102
    I'm not really sure how helpful these exercises are going to be, the triple barrel against the fish I mean, but I will do at least one a day for a while just to internalize thinking in terms of strong and weak fits. The only thing I really got from this exercise is how often we're good otr in this kind of situation. I mean we're beat 1/3 of the time. That's more than I would have thought. It's still very +ev but he does have monsters 1/3 of the time which is psychologically significant and worth knowing.
  28. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    You're drawing conclusions from it that may or may not be there. Dangerous thing to do.

    As for the balance issue (and I'm not having a debate about this, it's my opinion and I've discussed it in lots of threads don't want to derail your thread) having good balance means you're never going to be playing "badly" and by badly I mean you'll most likely be winning but not very much. Whereas obviously villains at these stakes are very exploitable so we won't be playing to maximise our winnings if we are very balanced which is what we want to do.

    The reason knowing what a well balanced range looks like and how to do it in certain spots is important (and by balance I mean going towards GTO, as obviously it doesn't exist atm) is because this should be our reference point.

    Let's say we are playing a one street game where you're both dealt a card A, K or Q (only 3 cards in deck) and villain can bet or fold and we can call or fold. The solution to this game obviously depends on blinds antes but it isn't actually that straight forward. By knowing the answer to this we know the best default strategy possible for both positions (going 1st and 2nd). If villain deviates from this we benefit, chances are at the start we won't be playing perfectly but we won't be playing badly.

    The most important thing to note though is that because we know what is GTO in this example we know how to exploit people who deviate from the equilibrium. Someone is betting Q too much? We know how to adjust. Without knowing that equilibrium we don't really know what bad play is.

    I'm not advocating trying to play really balanced at 5nl or whatever but I am an advocate of knowing what balance looks like in spots so we can exploit people. When we get to showdown and we see that villain doesn't raise a certain hand on the flop if we don't know what balance is in a spot we don't really gain that much, but it can have huge implications on how we should be playing our range to exploit them and if we are making big population reads and applying them to a villain who we have no real evidence on we can be making big mistakes and not even realise.
    Those are some good points and I am definitely looking forward to studying that stuff. I wasn't trying to pooh pooh it at all. My thinking is that hand reading, to any degree, is more foundational so I thought I'd start with that. Obviously that's something that increases with practice and will be helped by the game theory.
  29. #104
    Yah I mean I definitely agree in your games if you start calling down triple barrels you're gonna be shown a legit hand WAY more often than not, since I doubt many ppl have a third bullet bluff in them. It's just important to realize that by NOT calling 58% of your range in that spot, you are essentially deviating from GTO to EXPLOIT villain. You're exploiting villain's tendencies to NOT bluff the appropriate amount by folding more than the appropriate amount yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay-Z
    I'm a couple hands down and I'm tryin' to get back
    I gave the other grip, I lost a flip for five stacks
  30. #105
    Triple Barrel v Fish Hand Reading Exercise #2

    PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from http://poker-tools.flopturnriver.com/Hand-Converter.php

    saw flop | saw showdown

    Hero (Button) ($25)
    SB ($10.32)
    BB ($10.09)
    UTG ($5.48)
    MP ($3.41)
    CO ($9.85)

    Preflop: Hero is Button with J, K
    3 folds, Hero raises to $0.30, 1 fold, BB calls $0.20

    Flop: ($0.65) 8, 10, 9 (2 players)
    BB checks, Hero bets $0.40, BB calls $0.40

    Turn: ($1.45) 6 (2 players)
    BB checks, Hero bets $0.72, BB calls $0.72

    River: ($2.89) A (2 players)
    BB checks, Hero bets $1.44, BB raises to $2.88, Hero calls $1.44

    Total pot: $8.65 | Rake: $0.43

    Results below:
    Spoiler:

    Hero didn't show J, K (flush, King high).
    BB had 4, A (flush, Ace high).
    Outcome: BB won $8.22
  31. #106
    Let's go through exactly what a range of any pair/any draw looks like on this super wet flop.

    # possible starting hands after seeing the flop = 48C2 = 24 * 47 = 1128

    # big hands otf: 82 combos = 7.3%
    • straight flushes: 3 combos, QJcc, J7cc, 76cc
    • flushes not sf's: 9C2 - 3 = 33
    • straights not flush w/ fd: 2 QcJo, 3 QoJc, 3 Jc7o, 2 Jo7c, 3 7c6o, 3 7o6c = 16
    • straights not flush w/o fd: 6 QoJo, 6 Jo7o, 9 7o6o = 21
    • sets: 9


    # small hands otf: 423 = 37.5%
    • two pair: 27
    • pocket pairs w/ fd: 27, 9 of them overpairs
    • pocket pairs w/o fd: 27, 9 of them overpairs
    • one pair not pp w/ oesfd: 9 7cX, 9 JcX = 18
    • one pair not pp w/ gutshot sfd: 9 QcX, 9 6cX = 18
    • one pair not pp w/ fd not sfd: 6 clubs * 9 pairing cards = 54
    • one pair not pp w/ oesd not sfd: 27 7oX, 18 JoX = 45
    • one pair not pp w/ gutshot sd not sfd: 27 QoX, 27 6oX = 54
    • one pair not pp no draw: 9 pairing cards * (5 non-K kickers * 3 non-clubs + 2 Ko) = 153


    # draws otf with no pair, no made straight, no made flush: 381 = 33.8%
    • oesfd: 21 7cX, 21 JcX, X is one of seven possible kickers = 42
    • gutshot sfd: 21 6cX, 21 QcX = 42
    • fd no sd: 5 clubs 2/3/4/5/A * 5 kicker ranks (2/3/4/5/K/A minus the first card's rank) * 3 offsuit cards = 75
    • oesd no fd: 3 7o * 7 kicker ranks 2/3/4/5/Q/K/A * 3 offsuit cards + 2 Jo * 7 kicker ranks 2/3/4/5/6/K/A * 3 offsuit cards = 3 * 21 + 2 * 21 = 105
    • gutshot sd no fd: 3 6o * 7 kicker ranks 2/3/4/5/Q/K/A * 3 offsuit cards + 3 Qo * 7 kicker ranks 2/3/4/5/6/K/A * 3 offsuit cards - 9 6oQo that we counted twice = 3 * 21 + 3 * 21 - 9 = 117


    Well that was pretty painful. There are a full 78.6% of starting hands that made a pair or draw on this flop. If you c-bet half pot with air, it needs to get folds 33% of the time to break even. Here you could only expect a fish to fold 22% of the time. So obv this is not a good flop to c-bet.

    We are 66% against this range on the flop and on the turn we are 88%. So probably I should have bet bigger.

    On the flop it's possible that everything is a strong fit on a non-flush turn, although underpairs might be weak fits. On a flush turn I think the straight draws would be weak fits ie might fold to a turn bet.
  32. #107
    These 'hand reading' exercises barreling fish seem kinda bogus. I'm going to have to figure out something else to do to work on hand reading.

    I did have a good hand yesterday though that involved some hand reading. I raised broadway and got min 3-bet by a fish in the blinds. I think I barreled an open ender and he called flop and turn. The river was an ace giving me a broadway straight but it also brought in a flush draw and I had no flush. So right then the fish leads out pot taking away the lead in betting for the first time in the hand. It was a big bet like 50 blinds.

    At first I was like darn he must have the flush and I was going to fold. Then I thought back through the hand and recalled he min 3-bet preflop which he would do with a big ace but not a suited connector. So I thought there was a decent chance he didn't have the flush but was spazzing/overvaluing something else. I called. He had AT for two pair and I took down a big pot. That was pretty cool.

    Now if I could only make that kind of thinking automatic.
  33. #108
    To make it automatic what you do is play less tables and think about ranges after every action and how your actions will potentially effect villains ranges.

    The rule is obviously that if he does something which means he can't have XX on the turn then on the river he can't have XX. Ranges can only get more defined the more information we have.

    I've made quite a lot of "hero" calls at 5nl where you're playing against someone fairly competent at that level, i.e. thinking slightly, where they will bluff certain scary cards too much and they just don't ever have what they are trying to rep (also important to think about how our range is represented to thinking villains), the only downside being some times they do have it because they do awful things on previous streets but that just leads to you being able to exploit them more because they are playing parts of their range so poorly.
  34. #109
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Would you have called an AI check raise in that spot?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  35. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Would you have called an AI check raise in that spot?
    No, calling the min raise was marginal/bad. Well I hope not anyway, probably not. This player is very loose passive and his postflop raising range is extremely tight.
  36. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Would you have called an AI check raise in that spot?
    This question has been kinda sticking with me and I think a lot of the reason is that this player probably never c/r's all-in. I mean he has the nuts and I've bet all three streets. If he doesn't do it here, he never will. For this type of player showing down the best hand seems to be more gratifying than winning money. That's a little weird but not that uncommon among people who like to play poker but haven't studied the game. Especially business types who are successful irl. Their main thing seems to be showing themselves that they understand people and no one can fool them etc etc. Stuff that's psychological noise and really irrelevant to the game but can be powerful motivation for them.

    There are definitely some players who would crai here and calling their shove with the second nuts is probably way more +ev than calling this min raise from the fish. I'm not sure about that but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. I recall one hand where I turned the nut flush, no pairs on board, no sf's, and this aggro kinda taggy guy raised me pot and shoved the river with a baby flush. I'm not sure but I think there was a 4-flush on board. It's not a bad play if there's not. But that kind of player could shove worse here. Bad tags could. And some overly bluffy players could do it with a wide range, but they're not as common as the very passive fish in my games, Bovada 10nl.

    Another thing, and I'm not completely sure about this, but I think most taggy players are almost never checking the nuts oop otr for fear of losing value. Especially the decent players. At the micros anyway.

    So I think the real answer to the question is that the crai here probably is a call vs those players who would do it.

    edit: idk I have to fall back on the old 'that is very situation dependent'. But there are definitely some situations where it's a call.
    Last edited by abelardx; 10-30-2013 at 09:37 PM.
  37. #112
    OK I now have 800 on Bovada and even though I haven't hashed out the new BRM strategy I've decided to take a 4 bi shot at 25 nl. Here's hoping I start off running well. Four buy-ins up or down is basically meaningless, but that's what I've decided to spend on the shot.



    Yay!

    Here's my 10 nl graph to date. Obviously I'm very happy with it. My blue line is hovering around zero and I still have the happily retarded red line. So everything looks good. BTW I'm viewing the whole blue/red line up/down dichotomy as purely a style issue, like being a goofy foot skater, which I am too.



    I moved up to 10 nl at 400 and won 200. The other 200 is various bonuses.

    Here are my stats for this period:







    I definitely made some adjustments for the fishier Bovada games, like 3-betting less, limping behind more, not iso-raising weaker hands, stealing less, and barreling less. Usually, like on Carbon, I'd play a 25/20 style, 3-bet 10, and steal 55.

    I think they were the right adjustments, esp limping behind, which I'm slightly positive for, getting to steal some small pots, getting to occasionally cooler somebody. But most importantly it bought some respect for when I do raise and c-bet, which is nice.

    I have some options now.

    1. I have 400 on Carbon and haven't even started earning the first deposit bonus. So I could grind Carbon and get a few extra hundred.

    2. I could keep playing on Bovada. Even though Bovada has the worst software, it's not bad just not as good, and even though it's frustrating having to wait 1-2 days for hand histories, Bovada is super fishy and that is very attractive. I think it might have something to do with Bovada also being a sportsbook and getting more recreational players that way.

    In any case I'm going to keep playing on Bovada for now and see how the shot goes. I'm not sure but I think the Carbon bonus doesn't have an expiration date so I'll keep that as a backup. If the Carbon bonus did expire I'll probably just move my whole roll to Bovada which is a lot of fun to play and has the most action for us US players it looks like.
  38. #113
    I'm also concerned that if I switch to playing on Carbon for a while that, because it's a different game, I'd have to change my game a lot and that might mess me up. Not sure if that's a valid concern but it's another reason not to switch.
  39. #114
    25 nl on Bovada seems a lot like 10 nl. Maybe not quite as passive preflop but still plenty of limping. Postflop play looks about the same. Of course that's a super small sample as I've only played one session so far. Got lucky and stacked someone set > 2 pair. lol this seems like a lot of money after 10 nl!
  40. #115
    I also want to start playing heads up regularly which I haven't been doing. I'll start at 5 nl. Bovada has 5 nl HU tables which is really cool. First I need to review the prinnyraiding videos and the HU chapter from Easy Game to get my basic strategy down. IIRC the guy who wrote the HU chapter in Easy Game, I think it's Matt Colletta, recommends a very polarized c-betting strategy. In the past, when I had nothing, I would just mix it up between giving up, barreling, or c/r'ing oop. A lot like roshambo.
  41. #116
    The Bovada website is bovada.lv. The '.lv' is the top-level domain for Latvia. The online gaming offered by Bovada, poker/casino/sportsbook, is run by the company Meadway Leisure Ltd which holds a license issued by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. I couldn't find any information on Meadway Leisure. Probably they are a shell company owned by the Mohawk tribe but I don't know that.

    For a list of all the companies that offer online gaming and are licensed by Kahnawake look here:
    http://www.gamingcommission.ca/interactiveop.htm

    From the Kahnawake Gaming Commission FAQ:

    "Where is Kahnawake?

    Kahnawake is a community of approximately 8,000 Mohawk (North American Indian) persons located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, 20 minutes from Montreal, Canada. The Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake presently occupies approximately 20 square miles.

    What is the source of the Commission’s authority to license and regulate gaming?

    The Mohawks of Kahnawake have consistently and historically asserted sovereignty and jurisdiction over their territory. They have never been defeated in battle and have never entered into a treaty with any government that waives or diminishes their sovereignty.

    The Commission’s authority to license and regulate gaming is a facet of the sovereign rights Kahnawake has as a community of indigenous peoples to govern its own affairs. In 2007, the Commission’s authority was favourably considered in a decision rendered by the Superior Court of Quebec."

    The part about having 'never been defeated in battle' is especially cool.

    So the ability of Bovada to offer online gaming inside the US appears to be a Native American sovereignty cutout. The other US facing sites are presumably in jurisdictions beyond the reach of the US govt. I assume that Stars/Tilt does not offer poker to US residents for two reason: they are scared of the US govt somehow seizing their considerable assets, and are hopeful of re-entering the lucrative US market if and when online poker is appropriately recognized and regulated in the US.
  42. #117
    That carbon deposit bonus does expire (3 months I think), they just wont tell u when or how soon. FYI
  43. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by WeaselT View Post
    That carbon deposit bonus does expire (3 months I think), they just wont tell u when or how soon. FYI
    Thanks, WT. I'll have to get on that then if I'm going to do it.
  44. #119
    Surprising to me that you're SB is soo much loose than the BB. Given you're paying 1bb from BB and only 0.5bb from SB, this really shouldn't be the case.

    I suppose this could happen at low stakes cause you get so many more steal opportunities from SB, but even still that just means that ppl are stealing SB wider and you sould be defending your BB more. There's really no reason for your SB to be more loose than your BB imo.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay-Z
    I'm a couple hands down and I'm tryin' to get back
    I gave the other grip, I lost a flip for five stacks
  45. #120
    The SB is so much looser because of all the multi-way limped pots where I complete. You don't see all those hands in the BB vpip of course. There is very little stealing in these games.
  46. #121
    25 nl is so awesome. If you win a small pot that's like a whole buy-in at 10 nl.

    edit: Been running hot at 25 nl so far. I'm sure the downswings will be correspondingly painful.
    Last edited by abelardx; 11-02-2013 at 03:10 PM.
  47. #122
    If you play on Bovada don't forget to sign up for the mystery month bonus.

    http://poker.bovada.lv/poker-promotions/mystery-month
  48. #123
    I had a hand today I'm proud of where I got to use a read to exploit somebody. That's one thing I really like about ring games as opposed to rush. You get to know who the bluffers are etc and adjust accordingly.

    So here's the backdrop: The guy to my left is a good player, tight, doesn't overplay his hand postflop, kinda steady and normal good. The guy two to my left is a blufftard, limp/reraising a lot, 2.5x raising the flop a lot, rebluffing, clearly fos.

    So the bluffer limps utg and the tag to my left raises in the bb. Bluffer 3-bets small. The tag calls. Flop is middle/low cards, kinda non-descript. Tag checks, bluffer c-bets, tag raises 3x, the bluffer shoves, and the tag folds. OK that's what I saw.

    So one orbit later I get AA in the SB. Bluffer open limps, I raise pot, he 3-bets small just like the other hand. Normally I would 4-bet but I knew his range was wide. So I just call. Flop comes 98x something like that, just like before with the tag. I check to the bluffer, he c-bets, I raise 3x, he 3-bets 2.5x. Just like in the other hand. It was awesome. I was tempted to jam but I just clicked it back and he shoved. He had A7s for A-high no pair no draw and I doubled through him. That was nice.
  49. #124
    I've been running ridiculously hot at 25 nl, up about 8 bi over about a thousand hands, flopping sets like it's my job.

    The players are just as bad as 10 nl but the game is slightly different.

    1. There's plenty of limping preflop but not as much as 10 nl. There is more min-raising though which is similar.

    2. I've seen some bad tags who are always entering with a raise preflop without being that tight. I've been 3-betting them wider which has gone well so far. I don't think they're bad tags because they always raise. I've just noticed that the players doing that tend to get married to their hand and are kinda bad postflop.

    3. The games are not as loose-passive postflop because there are definitely more bluffers. Identifying them and bluff catching has gone really well so far. River shoves are just as often a bluff as the nuts which is very different than 10 nl and 5 nl.

    4. Postflop in general is just as bad. A lot of slowplaying good hands, not even trying to win a big pot, checking back the river with tptk, c/c'ing two streets with a set, that kind of thing.

    My 25 nl strategy is basically the same as the 10 nl strategy. Limping behind with longshot hands. Raising preflop for value only or when I'm stealing otb. Playing largely fit or fold postflop but with more bluff catching against bluffy players. I'm not sure if I'm really bluff catching more but there's def more bluffers to bluff catch against. People are still paying off the pot/pot/pot line so that's still the value line.

    Overall I'd say the game is very similar to 10 nl, maybe a little more aggressive, but still a lot of horrible postflop play.
  50. #125
    Well the run-super-hot has officially ended. Here are the 10nl and 25nl combined graph and stats, and the 25nl only graph. Preserved here for posterity.





  51. #126
    I'm a little glad the heater's over. I was starting to get rungood tilt and overplay my hands.
  52. #127
    Playing with the red background on Bovada makes it look like you're playing in hell.
  53. #128
    Jesus H Christ man - you've made money from the small blind! What manner of beast are you?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •