Fundamental theory of poker thought

[daven]

i was grinding away, playing more aggressively than normal, when a thought crossed my mind. We would probably end up doing a lot more betting and raising if we could see our opponent's hole cards. I'm trying to figure out the implications of this, mostly associated with everyone being a nit postflop and the fact that it is really, really hard to flop the nuts.

thoughts?

[baudib]

No one ever has anything -- AeJones

[rong]

We'd also play a lot looser.

WARNING - rest of post may be complete bollocks!

I've been thinking about something similar, basically that we want to be incredibly aggressive & loosish initially against anyone/everyone, and then gradually reduce aggression and loosness as they adjust, baring in mind everyone adjusts a little to ultra aggression. Then as they adjust to our reducing aggression we should jump back up to crazy aggression again: as demonstrated in the following graph, for both quick to adjust and slow to adjust opponents.



I can't help but imagine that if there was some kind of way to measure an opponents speed of adjusting, we could give them a score which would adjust the slope of the graph and give you an awesome strategy. (and this sentence is what justified me putting that sillly graph in this post)

Or another way I was looking at it was that imagine if you had a little sliding bar next to everyone's seat that would automatically adjust itself depending on how loose or tight the opponent has seen you play, ie seen me bluff shove river then bar nudges upwards ets, so when the slider bar was at 100%, villain would open 100% of hands & call down 3 streets with bottom pair, and when at 1% villain was opening only kings and aces. If we could then have an "adjustment factor" for the rate at which any individual adjusts after seeing a particular action, we could then move the bar the appropriate amount for each thing the villain sees.

This would then allow us to manipulate villains range and know how he is likely to react to any given play.

Now this is just thoretical drivel, but I can't help thinking that this concept has some kind of application and is in some way tied to the ftop and I wonder if it's feasible to create a very simple count against each player in their notes to incorporate this principle into daily play.

Oh, and obviously we'd need to know how to play optimumly against villains entire range of adjusted positions. I also imagine most villains would have a max or min position on this scale, whereby no matter how loose/tight and aggro I play, then never play any looser or tighter than x, which in itself would probably be exploitable information.

[daven]

the better we hand-read and accurately assign ranges, the closer we are to seeing their cards...

edit - nice posts above!

[rpm]

right ^ and the better we can assign ranges, the more hands we can play profitably because we are far better than our opponents at sensing weakness/strength, and at giving them the opportunity to make big mistakes (while avoiding said mistakes ourselves). the more hands we can play profitably (or with a neutral EV), the more action we get on our monsters (think shania), and the closer we get to durrrrr land. which is where phil laak wants to go.

[Miffed22001]

Renton made an offhand comment somewhere about playing 100nl and 200nl and that he could raise and street for any reason and show a profit because people play so bad

That was a bit of a Lightbulb moment for me so this post makes sense it's just a case of getting the balance right

[FlyingSaucy]

If your opponent knew that you could see their hole cards but could not see yours how often would they call down your bets because your bluffs are too transparent?

[Alexos]

No one ever has anything -- AeJones

this, is sooo true. Pretty sure optimal cbet and barreling frequencies are something like 85/75/75 vs 90% of regs