Are any of you good at poker?

[Artsu Tharaz]

*Bursts into thread, clearly exhausted and very late to the conversation*

"I'm good at poking yer ma! GUFFAW! WHOOP WHOOP!"

*promptly leaves thread, furiously patting himself on the back with glee*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-h1dee2S94

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

A note of donking:

Donking means leading out on a street where you are not the aggressor.

In my opinion, the main time where donking is a viable option is if you suspect that the aggressor may check instead of betting.

So, generally on the flop it is not advised, since c-bets are so common.

Personally, I check rather than c-betting IP as the aggressor if:
a) the bet would be quite monkeyish, such as if I hit bottom pair
b) I lack fold equity and pot equity, e.g. if I have air on a wet board

So, situation b) is the main one where donk bets would work. So, you'd be betting a draw or a strong made hand in that case.

A main reason for c-bets is of course that the pre-flop aggressor is repping strong hands, like pocket Queens or better, or AK if relevant, whereas the pre-flop caller generally isn't, so the aggressor is in a better position to raise for value, and represent a strong hand in case of bluffs, and the caller is in a more bluff-catchy position.

If the opponent is a weaker player, and generally predictable, then you can consider donking if it is consistent with maximising your equity against their likely plays.

Another reason to donk is the stop-and-go, as I think it is named. So, for example, suppose you hit a hand with good equity, and there is low SPR (Stack to pot ratio, so if the pot is $20 and you have $30 in your stack, then SPR is 30/20 = 1.5) however not enough equity to call a shove if you're checked to, then shoving as the caller can be good, since you get added fold equity. Balance this with value bets, of course.

There are some other situations involving controlling pot size, such as donking either considerably smaller or larger than a c-bet would be, however I've not given much of an analysis to this, so it is something to look into imo.

 

[Tannhauser]

Donking is important against people who barrel/cbet at a high frequency. If you don't do that, you give them the option to have a much wider range of hands on the previous street. For example if you never donk against cbets, they can open a very wide range preflop.

 

[QuickTwist]

What do you do against loose aggressive players Artsu?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

hey I wrote a longer reply but it didn't go through

@Tannhauser: if the opponent c-bets a wide range, wouldn't you want to let them bluff, so just check rather than donk?

@QuickTwist: I just keep in mind that they are betting a wide range, so there is a lot of bluff catch equity. Let them bluff you, basically.

I wonder what issues this approach would have though?

 

[Tannhauser]

@Tannhauser: if the opponent c-bets a wide range, wouldn't you want to let them bluff, so just check rather than donk?

Check-raising at a higher frequency is one sort of adjustment, but that doesn't directly influence his betting range on the previous street. If I for example noticed that my opponent started check-raising very often, I would just start checking back more often instead of cbetting. If, however, he would start donking more often, I would have to tighten my raising range preflop.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Check-raising at a higher frequency is one sort of adjustment, but that doesn't directly influence his betting range on the previous street. If I for example noticed that my opponent started check-raising very often, I would just start checking back more often instead of cbetting. If, however, he would start donking more often, I would have to tighten my raising range preflop.

ok but i'm still confused about the donking thing...

I mean I can see how c/r and donk could be combined, since like I said I can see why to donk if the opponent checks back a lot, especially callable hands to avoid a check-raise.

but if you assume the opponent is c-betting, i still don't quite get the donking thing. like, ok, what sort of hands would you be donking (and on what sort of boards, if relevant info to add)?

I mean: if you donk a lot of bluffs, then they could re-raise
If you donk a lot of value hands, then you get folds from weak holdings rather than inducing the bluff

???

I can see: donking value, to get a call from weaker which would otherwise check
donking semi-bluffs/value on draw-heavy boards (check-raise is an option in those cases too of course, this scenario depends on a lot of stuff which I haven't really analysed much)

If you donk bluffs they could float too, plenty ways...

so yeah... examples please of when to donk to a regular c-better? like, concrete... a hand + board would be good?

 

[Tannhauser]

ok but i'm still confused about the donking thing...

I mean I can see how c/r and donk could be combined, since like I said I can see why to donk if the opponent checks back a lot, especially callable hands to avoid a check-raise.

but if you assume the opponent is c-betting, i still don't quite get the donking thing. like, ok, what sort of hands would you be donking (and on what sort of boards, if relevant info to add)?

I mean: if you donk a lot of bluffs, then they could re-raise
If you donk a lot of value hands, then you get folds from weak holdings rather than inducing the bluff

???

I can see: donking value, to get a call from weaker which would otherwise check
donking semi-bluffs/value on draw-heavy boards (check-raise is an option in those cases too of course, this scenario depends on a lot of stuff which I haven't really analysed much)

If you donk bluffs they could float too, plenty ways...

so yeah... examples please of when to donk to a regular c-better? like, concrete... a hand + board would be good?

You have to think of it in more game-theoretical terms. It's all about playing in ways that are not easily exploitable, while allowing yourself to exploit your opponent.

Exactly which hands you donk and on which type of flops depends on what range you typically call with, and what range you put on your opponent. For example if you play 6max and he opens button and you call in BB and flop comes JT8, then any reasonable range you call with in BB hits that flop very hard, while he has a much looser range and typically misses it. I would donk close to 100% of my hands on that flop.

If you never donk in that situation, he can still open a very wide range on button and then guess, pretty easily, which flops hit you and which times he should check. And the opposite situation: you start donking but he doesn't adjust his opening frequency preflop. Then he will be forced to fold a lot of flops, from which you will generate your profit.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

You have to think of it in more game-theoretical terms. It's all about playing in ways that are not easily exploitable, while allowing yourself to exploit your opponent.

Exactly which hands you donk and on which type of flops depends on what range you typically call with, and what range you put on your opponent. For example if you play 6max and he opens button and you call in BB and flop comes JT8, then any reasonable range you call with in BB hits that flop very hard, while he has a much looser range and typically misses it. I would donk close to 100% of my hands on that flop.

If you never donk in that situation, he can still open a very wide range on button and then guess, pretty easily, which flops hit you and which times he should check. And the opposite situation: you start donking but he doesn't adjust his opening frequency preflop. Then he will be forced to fold a lot of flops, from which you will generate your profit.

Ok I'll look more closely at what you're saying when I get the time,

However I still think, that even if you're repping the stronger range on certain boards, if your opponent is making the mistake of constantly c-betting even though they're range is weaker, then it's still probably best to just let them c-bet.

See, JT8 is the sort of board I would be referring to when I say to donk if the opponent is going to check, but yeah, with a c-bet most likely happening... ehh, it seems best to induce and go for value.

Like I said, I'll try look more closely later, but the whole easy-bluff-induction thing seems... idk it seems like it will be a roadblock.

 

[QuickTwist]

hey I wrote a longer reply but it didn't go through

@Tannhauser: if the opponent c-bets a wide range, wouldn't you want to let them bluff, so just check rather than donk?

@QuickTwist: I just keep in mind that they are betting a wide range, so there is a lot of bluff catch equity. Let them bluff you, basically.

I wonder what issues this approach would have though?

As I understand it, when you play a loose aggressive style, you are just trying to take down as many small posts as you possibly can. It is actually a rare occasion that a loose aggressive player will c-bet (or at least not as common as a tight aggressive playstyle). The idea is to keep the small pots incoming so that when you have a large pot you are playing in with someone heads up, it is already paid for. Playing mathematically after the flop is still what you want to do, but you can bluff more on flops that are dry because you could have anything and the tight player basically has to have a strong pocket pair to even call a raise of a dry board.

 

[Helvete]

If you donk bet against a LAG they have to tighten their range to continue, meaning you need to actually need a pretty strong holding against them. If you check and allow a C-bet, the LAG is now playing a much wider range that you can exploit by bluff catching. You'll lose value by donk betting here.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

cheers

I reckon check/call/donk-turn can work well.

obvs depending on stats, board etc

 

[Nofriends]

http://www.strawpoll.me/11143297/

take this survey everyone, thank you!

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

http://www.strawpoll.me/11143297/

take this survey everyone, thank you!

probably nuclear bomb*

more interested in the question of:

is the pole of a street sign considered to be part of the street sign itself?

hmm

*jks im a cockroach

 

[Helvete]

cheers

I reckon check/call/donk-turn can work well.

obvs depending on stats, board etc

Err why? I can think of lots of times I've bet the flop when checked to then have my opponent donk turn or river and I fold. It's like they're now announcing they know you're bluffing and they actually have something to beat you whereas had they continued checking I may have attempted multiple barrels giving them more value. Of course if you always take this line then your opponents should start checking behind so you do need to donk bet sometimes so it's not so predictable.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Err why? I can think of lots of times I've bet the flop when checked to then have my opponent donk turn or river and I fold. It's like they're now announcing they know you're bluffing and they actually have something to beat you whereas had they continued checking I may have attempted multiple barrels giving them more value. Of course if you always take this line then your opponents should start checking behind so you do need to donk bet sometimes so it's not so predictable.

i reckon if you float the flop it's good move right?

i don't make this move all that often, sometimes though u say sometimes all good

did u vote on thread psoted by above username!>???

(I rekcons ranges closer together on the turn + more checkers)



e.g. suppose the turn hurts your opponents range and the hand you hold,
then can turn your hand into a bluff by repping the turn card

or if you do actually hit turn card and think opponent is on check or call status

or just suspect a bluff and don't wanna check/call

lots of reasons, obvs to balance against actualy value=bet range stuffs

 

[IsthisHoldem]

Hey guys . I came just for this thread. No idea how I found it but like where it is going

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Hey guys . I came just for this thread. No idea how I found it but like where it is going

Well, in that case, feel free to offer any of your thoughts regarding what has been said, or more individualised tactics you've come up with for playing, or anything really. Can be how specific hands have played out and analysing those rather than more general theory that I've been discussing, or even just that time you had a really nice game of poker and how much you enjoyed it, or why you played pokern or... like I said, anything poker related, of course.

--

The question I want to ask to the poker players is:

What are your thoughts on raise sizes? (thoughts or tendencies)

Spoiler

Myself: I tend to stick to the standard raise sizes more-or-less:
3x raise pre-flop (gives odds of about 2 to 1 for opponent to call, which allows for calls from weaker hands while still putting on pressure)
2/3 pot post-flop (on flop and turn, balances drawing odds with.. getting value or w/e)

For post-flop, I put in some smaller bets (say, 1/3 pot) especially on dry boards because drawing odds are less relevant, and it makes a cheap bluff as well. Or multi-way pots either to get more people to continue, or to clear the field cheaply.

larger bets pre-river can be good with draw-heavy boards to get value, or to push the draws out (and still be +eV if they do surprise you with a draw and get the river bet as well), or regarding that elastic-inelastic concept - so a v. v. strong hand could get a lot of value from an otherwise strong hand which is tough to fold. On the other hand, the strong bet could indicate a nutsy-ish hand which could be the right amount to push out a lot of the opponent's range - i.e. since a bluff in general is neutral eV, regardless of bet size, assuming people are playing equilibrium strategies and not slipping up or reading too much into each others' styles, then when you factor in what the particular situation is, you can get a rough idea of which bluff size would be -eV or +eV.

I'd like to get a better feel for the effects of different raise sizes.

I'm fairly certain that varying raises is almost certainly a good poker strategy, since otherwise it's a tool that's not being utilised, however having ready-to-click buttons for raise size can be much more convenient, so it's all still an effort-to-payoff thing.

 

[FATBOY]

I have watched a few videos of poker games and I thought INTPs would be good at it. Can any of you confirm this?

Just a weird curiosity

I think an INTP could eventually become the best poker player in the world

however, I believe it takes a J, INTJ/ISTJ to develop the discipline necessary to put in the hours/weeks/years of monotonous practice it would take to get really good.

Like-- I don't think Kobe Bryant is a P, I tend to think he's a J, maybe an STJ at that, and even an ISTJ just to play guessing games. But I'm thinking J for sure is needed for mastery of a subject.

The "P" all too often makes us say "I'm good, I'm not the best, but I got good so fast what's the point of spending the rest of my life to get a little bit better at this? Let's just learn something else."

 

[Not Anyone To Care For]

I think an INTP could eventually become the best poker player in the world

however, I believe it takes a J, INTJ/ISTJ to develop the discipline necessary to put in the hours/weeks/years of monotonous practice it would take to get really good.

Like-- I don't think Kobe Bryant is a P, I tend to think he's a J, maybe an STJ at that, and even an ISTJ just to play guessing games. But I'm thinking J for sure is needed for mastery of a subject.

The "P" all too often makes us say "I'm good, I'm not the best, but I got good so fast what's the point of spending the rest of my life to get a little bit better at this? Let's just learn something else."

Right on the spot

 

[Tannhauser]

Well, in that case, feel free to offer any of your thoughts regarding what has been said, or more individualised tactics you've come up with for playing, or anything really. Can be how specific hands have played out and analysing those rather than more general theory that I've been discussing, or even just that time you had a really nice game of poker and how much you enjoyed it, or why you played pokern or... like I said, anything poker related, of course.

--

The question I want to ask to the poker players is:

What are your thoughts on raise sizes? (thoughts or tendencies)

Spoiler

Myself: I tend to stick to the standard raise sizes more-or-less:
3x raise pre-flop (gives odds of about 2 to 1 for opponent to call, which allows for calls from weaker hands while still putting on pressure)
2/3 pot post-flop (on flop and turn, balances drawing odds with.. getting value or w/e)

For post-flop, I put in some smaller bets (say, 1/3 pot) especially on dry boards because drawing odds are less relevant, and it makes a cheap bluff as well. Or multi-way pots either to get more people to continue, or to clear the field cheaply.

larger bets pre-river can be good with draw-heavy boards to get value, or to push the draws out (and still be +eV if they do surprise you with a draw and get the river bet as well), or regarding that elastic-inelastic concept - so a v. v. strong hand could get a lot of value from an otherwise strong hand which is tough to fold. On the other hand, the strong bet could indicate a nutsy-ish hand which could be the right amount to push out a lot of the opponent's range - i.e. since a bluff in general is neutral eV, regardless of bet size, assuming people are playing equilibrium strategies and not slipping up or reading too much into each others' styles, then when you factor in what the particular situation is, you can get a rough idea of which bluff size would be -eV or +eV.

I'd like to get a better feel for the effects of different raise sizes.

I'm fairly certain that varying raises is almost certainly a good poker strategy, since otherwise it's a tool that's not being utilised, however having ready-to-click buttons for raise size can be much more convenient, so it's all still an effort-to-payoff thing.

It all depends. Again one necessarily has to think game-theoretically. For example putting in big bets allows you to bluff more often while being close to an unexploitable strategy. If on the other hand you want to exploit your opponent because, say, you think he folds too often, you would want to put in the smallest size possible that still makes him fold at a high rate. Putting in big sizes in that situation will decrease your EV, possibly to the point where it's no longer a profitable strategy.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

It all depends. Again one necessarily has to think game-theoretically. For example putting in big bets allows you to bluff more often while being close to an unexploitable strategy. If on the other hand you want to exploit your opponent because, say, you think he folds too often, you would want to put in the smallest size possible that still makes him fold at a high rate. Putting in big sizes in that situation will decrease your EV, possibly to the point where it's no longer a profitable strategy.

Yep agreed with this. And also small bets allow you to value bet a moderate hand.

I tend myself to view the opponent more as whether I think they are more likely than they should to call/fold/raise, rather than classing as loose/tight or passive/aggressive.

I think this way to look at it is much more flexible, and say if the opponent calls river when you expected a fold from that hand, it can suggest maybe they think you're bluffing a lot (whether true or not) and can adjust from that information.

 

[FATBOY]

It all depends. Again one necessarily has to think game-theoretically. For example putting in big bets allows you to bluff more often while being close to an unexploitable strategy. If on the other hand you want to exploit your opponent because, say, you think he folds too often, you would want to put in the smallest size possible that still makes him fold at a high rate. Putting in big sizes in that situation will decrease your EV, possibly to the point where it's no longer a profitable strategy.

Asking about the "bet size" in any specific no-limit situation is very much like asking this:

"...which direction should I move my pawn?"

It's very difficult to answer. It's almost impossible to give an answer. Because there is no answer.

I mean, there are sometimes only a couple obvious moves, fold or raise. And raises often go:

2x, 3x, 4x.... all-in

Meaning, after you 3 or 4x someone's bet, a 5x is pretty much all in.

There's a handful of moves.

Often it's like playing rock/paper/scissor.

You may think, "oh, well, that's simple now."

The simpler it is, the easier it is to exploit a known advantage.

The simpler it is, the more players can play, because, like checkers, it's easier to pick up.

So, more players equals more overall dead/easy money.

Now back to the bet size.

The bet size is a series of maneuvers in a very long game of fencing/chess/soccer.

Whatever, you could work the entire game to set your opponent up for one fell death blow.


Often, like boxing, you're just trading jabs, waiting for the kill shot, waiting for the opponent to leave his jugular a bit unguarded.

So I'll never have an answer to a very general question like "what is the right bet size for such and such situation?"

The reason is because you made up a fake situation.

And sure I could make up some generalities that state: "most of the time you should do this..."

And following that advice could make you a winning player.

But really, the ultimate goal of doing something, for me at least, when it comes to something that is competitive, that goal is to win. Otherwise, why compete?

Why not just put it on casual mode if you're not going to put up a fight?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Yeah like if I watch pro poker online it's always, 2/3 pot 2/3 pot 2/3 pot, 3x bet on the flop with some occassional limps and oddball sizes, and all sorts of sizes if you're Dwan on the river.

So yeah it's usually standard sizes and I agree with the trading jabs thing.

I suspected that the raise size may relate to the golden ratio once some equilibrium equation is solved. I thought maybe certain boards given likely holdings could alter this though and taking into account tendencies and etc. so main point is it could be looked at a bit.

I like a bet slider or auto-size-maker button thing like the 70%/pot/4.5BB things, however clicking repetitively to get the right bet is annoying, and manually typing it is something I do if I'm more energetic but I find that in those cases I tend to either profit more or convince myself that I do but I think that given that I am more energetic I am probably playing at a higher capacity than what I usually would so that could be the reason that I am winning more however I think that varying bet sizes a bit can lead the opponent to try and figure out what range you are making each bet size with when really it could be somewhat random or reflect a totally different range than what you expect and change as soon as you saw what was reflected. Nonetheless, given a large enough sample size trends are no doubt going to appear except for the fact that a person's strategy is going to keep changing as they learn more about the game so you still will only have a rough idea, and then it's just about trading jabs. Trade jabs, no where they have a glaring exploitable weakspot, find that situation, go for the +eV move and hope you got it right.

 

[FATBOY]

Yeah like if I watch pro poker online it's always, 2/3 pot 2/3 pot 2/3 pot, 3x bet on the flop with some occassional limps and oddball sizes, and all sorts of sizes if you're Dwan on the river.

So yeah it's usually standard sizes and I agree with the trading jabs thing.

I suspected that the raise size may relate to the golden ratio once some equilibrium equation is solved. I thought maybe certain boards given likely holdings could alter this though and taking into account tendencies and etc. so main point is it could be looked at a bit.

I like a bet slider or auto-size-maker button thing like the 70%/pot/4.5BB things, however clicking repetitively to get the right bet is annoying, and manually typing it is something I do if I'm more energetic but I find that in those cases I tend to either profit more or convince myself that I do but I think that given that I am more energetic I am probably playing at a higher capacity than what I usually would so that could be the reason that I am winning more however I think that varying bet sizes a bit can lead the opponent to try and figure out what range you are making each bet size with when really it could be somewhat random or reflect a totally different range than what you expect and change as soon as you saw what was reflected. Nonetheless, given a large enough sample size trends are no doubt going to appear except for the fact that a person's strategy is going to keep changing as they learn more about the game so you still will only have a rough idea, and then it's just about trading jabs. Trade jabs, no where they have a glaring exploitable weakspot, find that situation, go for the +eV move and hope you got it right.

If you are getting bet into...

does it matter what his bet size is, if he is bluffing?

think about that one for a moment.

Think about who, at the end of the day, is manipulating who, in this situation.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

If you are getting bet into...

does it matter what his bet size is, if he is bluffing?

think about that one for a moment.

Think about who, at the end of the day, is manipulating who, in this situation.

So, because you told me to think about something and I thought about it, you're manipulating me?

Because I never said I was happy.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWpD2OR6M3A

 

[Tannhauser]

If you are getting bet into...

does it matter what his bet size is, if he is bluffing?

think about that one for a moment.

Think about who, at the end of the day, is manipulating who, in this situation.

To answer your question: yes.

 

[FATBOY]

To answer your question: yes.

I see your point

The things is, as long as he's not all-in,

the correct move is to raise.

Meaning--

If opponent bluffs, raise him,

because he will fold (unless he suspects you are also full of shit)

meaning his bet amount is irrelevant

Now-- if you are utilizing his bet amount to determine whether or not he is bluffing in the first place, that is a different story.

But we are first assuming he is bluffing,

thus making his bet size irrelevant

 

[Wolf18]

If you can remember that you're playing people, not cards, the game is easy.


Wolf18

 

[Helvete]

A hand I played from two nights ago:

I played all night/morning on the $1/$2 table and built a $600 stack starting off with $100 (the max buy in ((its fucked, short stack poker)). A regular on my table had a $700 stack and I was transferred onto the table, so I didn't see exactly how he got that stack but I know he's an extremely aggressive player. The most dangerous on the table.
The hand before this I won roughly $150 off this player by representing a set/ two pair as a semi bluff and got him to show his folded flush draw.

The hand:

A fish utg raises to $7 and I re raise to $17 with AK suited from middle position, an Asian gambler calls then the reg I described 4 bets to $75 and it folds to me. What does he have here and what do I do?

I will post my thoughts and what I did later.

 

[FATBOY]

A hand I played from two nights ago:

I played all night/morning on the $1/$2 table and built a $600 stack starting off with $100 (the max buy in ((its fucked, short stack poker)). A regular on my table had a $700 stack and I was transferred onto the table, so I didn't see exactly how he got that stack but I know he's an extremely aggressive player. The most dangerous on the table.
The hand before this I won roughly $150 off this player by representing a set/ two pair as a semi bluff and got him to show his folded flush draw.

The hand:

A fish utg raises to $7 and I re raise to $17 with AK suited from middle position, an Asian gambler calls then the reg I described 4 bets to $75 and it folds to me. What does he have here and what do I do?

I will post my thoughts and what I did later.

His range could be wide, given we think he's super aggressive, and the fact that he's got 7x the max buy-in, he can easily bully people around. The stack sizes of the UTG and the Asian caller matter, but for now I'll assume they are between $100-$200.

Right now, you are in for $17, and looking at another $58, (2/3 of a full buyin), without having a pair in your hand.

On top of that, you do not have position on the Villain.

He has you stacked. A pair is likely in his range, thus he probably has you beat already.

You're beat, you don't have position, and you're not that much invested.

I think you fold in this position.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

A hand I played from two nights ago:

I played all night/morning on the $1/$2 table and built a $600 stack starting off with $100 (the max buy in ((its fucked, short stack poker)). A regular on my table had a $700 stack and I was transferred onto the table, so I didn't see exactly how he got that stack but I know he's an extremely aggressive player. The most dangerous on the table.
The hand before this I won roughly $150 off this player by representing a set/ two pair as a semi bluff and got him to show his folded flush draw.

The hand:

A fish utg raises to $7 and I re raise to $17 with AK suited from middle position, an Asian gambler calls then the reg I described 4 bets to $75 and it folds to me. What does he have here and what do I do?

I will post my thoughts and what I did later.

I would put lots of bluffs in the 4 bet range (aggressive player, loose call from the second player) and value bets would be AK and strong pocket pairs, so my instant reaction is to just call in that situation.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

His range could be wide, given we think he's super aggressive, and the fact that he's got 7x the max buy-in, he can easily bully people around. The stack sizes of the UTG and the Asian caller matter, but for now I'll assume they are between $100-$200.

Right now, you are in for $17, and looking at another $58, (2/3 of a full buyin), without having a pair in your hand.

On top of that, you do not have position on the Villain.

He has you stacked. A pair is likely in his range, thus he probably has you beat already.

You're beat, you don't have position, and you're not that much invested.

I think you fold in this position.

Yes, but what if an ace hits the flop? In that spot you could defeat a pocket kings.

What do you think about a min raise? You can see if he has pocket aces when he calls and then you can make a bluff to make 22 fold or 64s.

No one wants to be bluffed by a 22 if you only call.

Could you raise big as a bluff?

I think if you call and then go all in he folds 80% of his range.

You make a very good point.

Do you think a fold would work?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

A hand I played from two nights ago:

I played all night/morning on the $1/$2 table and built a $600 stack starting off with $100 (the max buy in ((its fucked, short stack poker)). A regular on my table had a $700 stack and I was transferred onto the table, so I didn't see exactly how he got that stack but I know he's an extremely aggressive player. The most dangerous on the table.
The hand before this I won roughly $150 off this player by representing a set/ two pair as a semi bluff and got him to show his folded flush draw.

The hand:

A fish utg raises to $7 and I re raise to $17 with AK suited from middle position, an Asian gambler calls then the reg I described 4 bets to $75 and it folds to me. What does he have here and what do I do?

I will post my thoughts and what I did later.

What I would think happened:

You called and the board hit AK(something) with a flush draw and put in a check-raise, with the opponent making a small c-bet, and not having the outs to call. It's unlikely there that they've got value and you go in eventually regardless, and the player has folded a hand which had a good chance of winning.

I'm thinking whether the alternative option could have happened: a 2x 4-bet, to get a call from anything but a premium hand, and folding to a shove given that they'd then be repping a strong range which would be AK at worst unless it's a bluff - then, got the call and shoved to get a call from a weaker ace...

Exciting :P

I've kinda ignored the gambler though. I'd personally think a call from them would be good, since if you beat the main raiser on the flop, you'd most likely have them beat as well. You've got suited cards in your range either way, however with just a call your range is much less heavy on the 2-pair/set side of things.

If they're folding a flush draw if you had put in the small 4-bet though, then really they weren't getting the equity to make a call in the first place. They'd be placing you on a mostly value range, and so would have very few flops that they could call the c-bet shove with.

So I'll say that you called, and the gambler folded (given how the 4-better played the hand) and that the 4-better was in position - however I haven't ruled out the possibility that they were out of position.

 

[Tannhauser]

A hand I played from two nights ago:

I played all night/morning on the $1/$2 table and built a $600 stack starting off with $100 (the max buy in ((its fucked, short stack poker)). A regular on my table had a $700 stack and I was transferred onto the table, so I didn't see exactly how he got that stack but I know he's an extremely aggressive player. The most dangerous on the table.
The hand before this I won roughly $150 off this player by representing a set/ two pair as a semi bluff and got him to show his folded flush draw.

The hand:

A fish utg raises to $7 and I re raise to $17 with AK suited from middle position, an Asian gambler calls then the reg I described 4 bets to $75 and it folds to me. What does he have here and what do I do?

I will post my thoughts and what I did later.

AK or some medium/low pair, like QQ-55

And what you should do. Uhh.. ship it in.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

AK or some medium/low pair, like QQ-55

And what you should do. Uhh.. ship it in.

lol'd so quietly that time sped up

(agreed though, it's a freaking flush draw!)

 

[FATBOY]

AK or some medium/low pair, like QQ-55

And what you should do. Uhh.. ship it in.

shipping it with AK pre-flop is the sign of a mediocre player

 

[Tannhauser]

shipping it with AK pre-flop is the sign of a mediocre player

Having those kind of rules is a sign of a lack of probabilistic thinking.

A note about the hand though: Helvete didn't mention how deep he actually was against this guy (I assumed it was around 150). Without that information, there is no point in making any analysis.

 

[FATBOY]

Having those kind of rules is a sign of a lack of probabilistic thinking.

A note about the hand though: Helvete didn't mention how deep he actually was against this guy (I assumed it was around 150). Without that information, there is no point in making any analysis.

anytime you are hoping for the other person to fold: you're not in the best position

if he calls: you're 50/50, AT BEST

if he has a pair under AK, you're something like 49%, so barely a coinflip without being a favorite

if he has AA or KK, you're kinda toast

so you just risked your entire ~$600 or so stack when you're 49% AT BEST and fucked in all other situations

 

[Tannhauser]

anytime you are hoping for the other person to fold: you're not in the best position

if he calls: you're 50/50, AT BEST

if he has a pair under AK, you're something like 49%, so barely a coinflip without being a favorite

if he has AA or KK, you're kinda toast

so you just risked your entire ~$600 or so stack when you're 49% AT BEST and fucked in all other situations

Look, I'm slightly reluctant to dive into poker theory just to explain this point, but the probability itself is irrelevant. What you want is to have a certain range you ship in with that has a combination of frequency and winning percentage. If I play against you and I discover you are consistently flat-calling with AK, I know I'm in for a simple match. I'm just going to 3bet/4bet you all over the place and there is nothing you can do since you are only shipping in with AA/KK, which you have less than 1% chance of being dealt.

 

[FATBOY]

Look, I'm slightly reluctant to dive into poker theory just to explain this point, but the probability itself is irrelevant. What you want is to have a certain range you ship in with that has a combination of frequency and winning percentage. If I play against you and I discover you are consistently flat-calling with AK, I know I'm in for a simple match. I'm just going to 3bet/4bet you all over the place and there is nothing you can do since you are only shipping in with AA/KK, which you have less than 1% chance of being dealt.

it's more important that you're playing against the one guy at the table that has you stacked;

anyone else, with $100 vs your $600 stack, you can make your decision all day long;

but vs a $700 stack, better to just say "fuck it" bc you only have $17 in so far

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

nah nah guys

you dont ship AK

you ship A3s

trust me

 

[Tannhauser]

it's more important that you're playing against the one guy at the table that has you stacked;

anyone else, with $100 vs your $600 stack, you can make your decision all day long;

but vs a $700 stack, better to just say "fuck it" bc you only have $17 in so far

I didn't notice until now that he wrote he was $600 deep lol. In that case yeah, it's completely retarded to ship it in.

In this situation, unless I'd had a very good reason to believe the guy was a crazy gambler, I would easily fold AK. When his bet size is so huge, even if you fold quite often to that bet, he is not making any money. His play is either bad (if he has KK/AA) or horrendous (if he has anything else).

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I didn't notice until now that he wrote he was $600 deep lol. In that case yeah, it's completely retarded to ship it in.

In this situation, unless I'd had a very good reason to believe the guy was a crazy gambler, I would easily fold AK. When his bet size is so huge, even if you fold quite often to that bet, he is not making any money. His play is either bad (if he has KK/AA) or horrendous (if he has anything else).

so horrendous that you folded AK

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Fuck, can I even read? Thought they were the same hand lol

 

[QuickTwist]

Having those kind of rules is a sign of a lack of probabilistic thinking.

A note about the hand though: Helvete didn't mention how deep he actually was against this guy (I assumed it was around 150). Without that information, there is no point in making any analysis.

You are aware if the guy has anything in the range of QQ-TT that is bad for you right?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

utg was a fish, so the raise still could represent a weak hand, and the 3 bet was small so could represent a wide range for value. the call was loose - squeeze play after that, and with the 3-bet likely to be not all that strong, it's almost like a tight raise in that spot. and given that the player is aggressive, there's still a lot of bluffs, so the standard move should be to 5-bet. shipping it is good, you've got blockers, roughly tripling is the standard move there however that's a move i haven't quite understood yet... and i think calling would be appropriate too. the 4-bet was a fairly standard size given how much was in the pot.

so idk, i definitely wouldn't fold. i'll think more about the options beyond that.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Anyways, moving on...

Holding a flush draw against a raise... what are the pros and cons for each option?

 

[Helvete]

Normally the options here are to raise or fold. Now raising forces a fold from the gambler (who I forgot to mention has around $450ish) and will induce a call or shove from the reg. Any raise here would pretty much commit my stack unless I'm really going to min raise. I would be looking for a raise between $200/$300 and then shipping on almost all flops as I'm flipping with his range. I only actually beat aqsuited and a few polarised bluffs.

I don't mind folding here if just up against the reg.

Calling is interesting too, it doesn't commit our stack, the gambler will probably come along giving me great odds against their ranges and I have the option yo bluff many of the flops i miss.