Are any of you good at poker?

[Not Anyone To Care For]

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

 

[Hadoblado]

A chap by the name of Artsu Tharaz who frequents here is apparently pretty good, though I never found the time to actually take him up on his offer to play some.

I think that INTPs are probably good at becoming proficient at poker quickly, where the main obstacle to improvement is comprehending the probability and overcoming bias. However, I don't think they'd be that great at the top level, where knowing the odds is a given and games are decided more by perceptiveness and controlling one's own tells.

Memory is also a big deal. You need to pay attention to what people do at different phases of the game, and between rounds and even in previous games. If someone checks pre-flop it's unlikely they have aceace, which you need to remember that at the turn. When the game has 10 players in it, remembering any given person's actions is very demanding. It can be non-semantic information too, such as a slight tendency towards aggression when one has the winning hand. All the information comes together to form an inference of what your opponent has. If you're the kind of INTP who's good at analysis but sucks at synthesising vast quantities of details, you're probably not well equipped to ever excel at poker beyond breaking the initial learning curve.

I played online with no stakes for a while. I wasn't bad, but I know my strengths and once I got a feel for what was required (and how ill equipped I was to go further), I desisted in favour of one of my other interests.

 

[Helvete]

Are you talking about live poker or online? If you watch the pros live (where they just show the most action or most interesting hands) you'll miss out on the bigger picture and won't understand a lot of context of why they may make certain plays. Furthermore of you transfers this into an online environment, a very different game of nitty maths and data collection then you're pretty much doomed to fail.
I'm not saying don't try or that you will fail but don't enter a game of incomplete information with skewed perceptions of what to expect.

Basically what hado said about intps being good once they learn the basics and a bit of strategy. I play regularly at the casino and rake in some easy money as the skill set needed is nothing on what's required for online poker. I could easily make a living just from the guys who have no idea how the game should be played. There's often a negative environment in a live setting especially around people who want to make money here. You have guys who think they can play and then whinge when they get bad beats and things aren't going their way, they'll turn to the better players at the table seeking validation to their good play and predictably will just be told they were unlucky. I in this situation want nothing more than to just explain why they are fucking up so bad but can't, like the others who won't because if they then play better then I make less profit. Its an ironic situation but by the nature of the game a huge edge for this lucky misunderstanding to occur.

More recently I've been playing a super maniac style where I'll play around 50% of my hands very aggressively and is a complete losing strategy if not implemented effectively. Its worked out break even for me so far and with practice I can see it being highly profitable in the right situations. I like pushing the boundaries of situations and will try out many ideas, plays and strategies and once I can effortlessly make this coherent I'll be a good player.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I was pretty good when I was younger but I haven't played in quite a while.

Also I watched a lot of Celebrity Poker Showdown back then, so I think that makes me pretty much an expert.

 

[xbox]

why play poker when you can kill people in sims3

 

[Tannhauser]

Was a poker pro back in the day. I think being INTP is perfect, in particular the combination of Ti- and Ne-style judgment and analysis. I am pretty sure that one of the best poker players ever, Phil Galfond, would be categorized as INTP. Very analytical and very creative player, which I think can be tied to the said MBTI-traits.

 

[Not Anyone To Care For]

Very interesting

I think I know why I have been attracted to it now.

 

[Wolf18]

I've always been pretty good, but I'd imagine ENTPs might be the best. The ability to read people is at least as important as the ability to calculate probabilities.

,
Wolf18

 

[Hadoblado]

duxwolf18?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

A chap by the name of Artsu Tharaz who frequents here is apparently pretty good, though I never found the time to actually take him up on his offer to play some.

I think that INTPs are probably good at becoming proficient at poker quickly, where the main obstacle to improvement is comprehending the probability and overcoming bias. However, I don't think they'd be that great at the top level, where knowing the odds is a given and games are decided more by perceptiveness and controlling one's own tells.

Memory is also a big deal. You need to pay attention to what people do at different phases of the game, and between rounds and even in previous games. If someone checks pre-flop it's unlikely they have aceace, which you need to remember that at the turn. When the game has 10 players in it, remembering any given person's actions is very demanding. It can be non-semantic information too, such as a slight tendency towards aggression when one has the winning hand. All the information comes together to form an inference of what your opponent has. If you're the kind of INTP who's good at analysis but sucks at synthesising vast quantities of details, you're probably not well equipped to ever excel at poker beyond breaking the initial learning curve.

I played online with no stakes for a while. I wasn't bad, but I know my strengths and once I got a feel for what was required (and how ill equipped I was to go further), I desisted in favour of one of my other interests.

Yeah, I am very good at it. I would say my main downfall is that I'm not competitive enough. Too much of my focus is on just enjoying the game, so I make a lot of table talk even if it's disadvantaging me, and I'll make quite experimental moves that I know are bad because I think it would be interesting to see. I break even overall, however if I really focus on winning I do tend to get nice results. I also haven't played at very high levels yet since I'm a poor fucker.

Obviously people's types are going to play an important factor in how they play the game. I mean, myself, I'm an NFJ, so I don't really try to keep too much track of what's been happening in the previous rounds, since my memory isn't particularly good (however I AM picking it up through the sub-conscious, so I do tend to adjust to what's happening naturally). What I am good at is the table dynamics, and making unusual plays by imagining what the other person seems to be doing and what they probably think I'm doing, e.g. I bet with bottom pair the other day on the river because I placed the opponent on Ace high and I figured he would place me on a bluff and call, and I was right.

Introverted Thinking is actually a really good function to use with poker. If you understand the game, it would hypothetically lead to really mathematically exact plays. I think the downfall of it is that it will be hard to use Ti to make good "gut" reads - like if there's no real analytical reason to prefer calling to folding or vice versa, all you can really do is flip a coin.

Extroverted Intuition can be nice for playing really creatively, and confusing the opponent about what hand you have, but I think there can sometimes be too much focus on making speculative plays, and not enough focus on making the overall best play. The intuitive functions are both good at meta-gaming and theoretical understanding of the game though. Ne is also going to be really good with being able to place the opponent on a whole range of hands at once and make a play which best encapsulates all the possibilites.

Introverted Sensation is more like ABC gameplay, and referencing previous hands that happened to have played out almost exactly like the current one you're facing to see what you did then and then doing it again, and likewise learning from the mistakes you've made in your game play. As for keeping track of what everyone's been doing and their tendencies, one alternative is to use a Poker HUD, which shows the statistics of each player - e.g. how much they're raising or calling pre-flop, how much they c-bet etc. I think HUDs in general are over-rated, like the statistics can be misleading, especially against a player that you haven't seen much action from yet, or one who switches up their play style a lot, however it can definitely be of use.

Extroverted Feeling is also a surprisingly good function. It needs to be balanced out with a more analytical process, but as far as just knowing what sort of plays the people at the table are likely to be making, and how they're probably viewing each other, it can be really nice. It's not the best at the game, but it certainly helps. I think it'd great for reading the opponent, especially in regards to whether they like their hand or not.

Introverted Intuition can be monstrously good at the game - like, mastering high level aspects, and making plays in hands that go beyond what they've experienced and just making some really out there play which happens to pay off, but on the other hand it can sometimes be a little toooo meta, to the point of playing the game as if it was some symbolic code, instead of an actual competition... haha!

Extroverted Sensation is probably the most common function for poker players, perhaps not online though. They're the ones that are going to be having the most fun at the game, making aggressive moves to push the other players around, being hard to predict because they're not really even going by much a system etc. The downfall with Se players is that they get really thrown off by non-standard plays and have a trouble with the meta-aspect.

Introverted Feeling is one that I haven't quite understood how they play, but I think they can be really good at playing with more moderate holdings, like knowing when to let go of their hand, or how to get, say, middle pair to the finish line in case it turns out to be best. I think they're going to be really good at heads up too actually, since they'll be paying a lot of attention to understanding a particular player.

Extroverted Thinking is going to be the function that plans out their hands the most, I think. Like, they'll be consciously figuring out their move on the river when it's still the flop, and how they'll react to each hand. They're also going to have a good idea of various ways of the thinking about the game, and could probably get a fairly good idea of what sort of style the other person is playing.

(also, I might make a post given a quick rundown on what the types are of a variety of well known high stakes players, so you can see the different types in action, playing at the highest of levels)

Summary
Fe+Ti: table dynamics and generalised deduction
Te+Fi: focusing on a single opponent and planning out the hand
Ne+Si: balancing between standard plays and novel plays, comparing your own hand against the opponent's range
Se+Ni: aggression and counter-aggression, meta-thinking and inexplicable reads

[ yes, I am aware of my personal bias towards Ni! xD ]

 

[Happy]

There's a pretty big casino in Sydney. I've been thinking I'll throw a few hundred dollars at Texas Hold'em soon and see how it goes. If I ever get around to it, I'll report back and let you know.

Edit: oh wait, that's redundant - I'm not INTP

 

[Not Anyone To Care For]

There's a pretty big casino in Sydney. I've been thinking I'll throw a few hundred dollars at Texas Hold'em soon and see how it goes. If I ever get around to it, I'll report back and let you know.

Edit: oh wait, that's redundant - I'm not INTP

Cool, thanks fellow ENTP cousin

 

[kora]

Surely it's all a mathematician's thing to get good, Bayesian probabilities and stuff :-p

I talked about this with tanhauser a while back, who I hear is pretty good. Around that time I was playing obsessively on line, I plotted my progress and I was quite clearly improving all the time. It was highly addictive, so much so that the idea of using money is somewhat frightening to me, which is why I decided I would not play for money unless I started consistently winning. Then I dropped it for another obsession, will go back to it at some point, it's a brilliant game.

I am INFJ who thought I was INTP for years (but refer to my signature)

 

[Rooke]

I'm starting to get into poker. Have being playing for a month on Poker Stars. I'm not very good or serious.

I bought 350k playing money chips and I keep around that much, losing and rewinning. I gamble a lot instead of play (I'm on play money, for heaven's sake!) .

I intend to read "The Theory of Poker" next month, and start to play to win. As soon as I develop a nice ROI on play money I'll do my first buy in.

Then I'll read some more books. Got a list of 12 or so.

 

[kora]

Pokerstars is ideal for practice yep

 

[bvanevery]

I was decent at it as a kid, playing with other kids, for nothing more than chips. I found more important games to play where my real talent shines though. Like wiping out your country, and convincing your ally to do my dirty work for me.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Haha I was playing poker the other day, irl not online, and I left the jokers in the deck.

Decided just to make it whichever card I want but that's kinda cheating, meh...

But yeah, here's a cheat code:

There is a red joker and a black joker, which one are you?

 

[smithcommajohn]

I'm a strong poker player (most poker players believe this, btw, so it really doesn't mean much). I love the thinking involved and the "on the fly" probability calculations to determine what is the best play. I think INTPs are generally well-suited for poker.

I will say this, though. I do more thinking with online poker and more "feeling" with live poker. Live poker serves up to our intuition splendidly. With the right players, I can tell exactly where I stand with little to no effort. This has paid off very handsomely. It does not shield one from bad beats, however. With poker there will always be a matter of luck that one cannot control.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I'm a strong poker player (most poker players believe this, btw, so it really doesn't mean much). I love the thinking involved and the "on the fly" probability calculations to determine what is the best play. I think INTPs are generally well-suited for poker.

I will say this, though. I do more thinking with online poker and more "feeling" with live poker. Live poker serves up to our intuition splendidly. With the right players, I can tell exactly where I stand with little to no effort. This has paid off very handsomely. It does not shield one from bad beats, however. With poker there will always be a matter of luck that one cannot control.

I would class poker players into 3 levels: weak, moderate, and strong.

I would class myself as a moderate player with the potential to be a strong player.

Everyone I see at the tables I play are moderate to weak, and it's the moderates profiting off of the weak and ignoring each other.

If you surpass strong-level, then you can control luck.

 

[smithcommajohn]

I would class poker players into 3 levels: weak, moderate, and strong.

I would class myself as a moderate player with the potential to be a strong player.

Everyone I see at the tables I play are moderate to weak, and it's the moderates profiting off of the weak and ignoring each other.

If you surpass strong-level, then you can control luck.

Online or Live? What you describe sounds like online. The names you recognize as stronger players you tend to avoid serious confrontations with unless you're packing some heat. Knowing a weak player's tendencies allows you to play them to perfection. There are many subtle variations that are easily attacked. Loose-passive pre flop, tight-passive post flop is about the luckiest find. Just get into a hand with them and push them out.

I disagree with controlling luck. The best you can do is out perform bad luck. Sometimes you're just going to have to be all-in with the best of it and pray they don't hit outs... or you push hard with a seriously strong draw and end up pot committed and praying yourself for a bit of luck. These situations are unavoidable and part of the game.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Online or Live? What you describe sounds like online. The names you recognize as stronger players you tend to avoid serious confrontations with unless you're packing some heat. Knowing a weak player's tendencies allows you to play them to perfection. There are many subtle variations that are easily attacked. Loose-passive pre flop, tight-passive post flop is about the luckiest find. Just get into a hand with them and push them out.

I disagree with controlling luck. The best you can do is out perform bad luck. Sometimes you're just going to have to be all-in with the best of it and pray they don't hit outs... or you push hard with a seriously strong draw and end up pot committed and praying yourself for a bit of luck. These situations are unavoidable and part of the game.

Yeah, online I meant. I've only played in person against friends, and then the game isn't taken too seriously anyway.

I personally don't worry about whether someone is strong or not, because at this point in the game I am focusing more on learning than I am on actually winning. If the player is good, then I figure it's roughly a break-even situation (discounting rake, of course).

Perhaps "control" is not the right term, however it is certainly possible to "catch the flow" of luck by honing in on a more spiritual dimension, whereby you outperform statistics, albeit in a way which is statistically undetectable.

--

Oh, and my own style is neither passive nor aggressive, neither loose nor tight.

Essentially I try to play as many hands as I can without just making "dumb" plays. As a result, I'll raise with a whole range of suited cards, I'll call fairly often with speculative holdings if I figure the odds aren't that bad, I'll semi-bluff any chance I get, and I'll bluff catch with weak holdings if I suspect that the opponent is likely enough to be firing with air.

My HUD stats back when I did use a HUD were something like 30/20. (I suspect that they are even looser now, maybe like 40/25, but I'll tighten up if others at the table are too aggressive)

 

[Tannhauser]

Perhaps "control" is not the right term, however it is certainly possible to "catch the flow" of luck by honing in on a more spiritual dimension, whereby you outperform statistics, albeit in a way which is statistically undetectable.

Oh boy..

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Oh boy..

ye of little faith...

 

[smithcommajohn]

My HUD stats back when I did use a HUD were something like 30/20. (I suspect that they are even looser now, maybe like 40/25, but I'll tighten up if others at the table are too aggressive)

I hope these stats are for 6-max cash. That's way too loose for full ring. 6-max cash is my favorite game.

I like your approach, though. Being unpredictable is important. I will often raise with just about any holding at random times to mix things up. Always playing the same cards the same way will allow others to put you on a hand and play perfect poker against you.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I hope these stats are for 6-max cash. That's way too loose for full ring. 6-max cash is my favorite game.

I like your approach, though. Being unpredictable is important. I will often raise with just about any holding at random times to mix things up. Always playing the same cards the same way will allow others to put you on a hand and play perfect poker against you.

Yeah, I realised after I wrote that post that I was probably going to have to clarify that it was 6-max.

From first position on a 9-ring table I'm basically playing the top ~10% hands or whatever.

--

btw I made a cool little rule-of-thumb formula for how many hands to raise from each position, given no other information, it was something like:

n = number of players left to act after you

raise roughly 1/[(n-1)*2] of your hands hands, e.g. top 25% from the cut-off

(the formula doesn't apply to small blind)

 

[TheManBeyond]

i was a tight player until i became corrupted by the abyss

 

[smithcommajohn]

btw I made a cool little rule-of-thumb formula for how many hands to raise from each position, given no other information, it was something like:

n = number of players left to act after you

raise roughly 1/[(n-1)*2] of your hands hands, e.g. top 25% from the cut-off

(the formula doesn't apply to small blind)

I would hate to have you on my right! Now how do you determine which hands are in the top x%? Do you base it on their pre flop quality, flop potential, or river potential?

 

[Helvete]

I always try to have more dangerous players on my right because position. I would assume he means by the pre flop value, as once you see the flop, turn and river this changes hand value immensely. You have to work from the information currently available, not guess at what will come later.

What percentage do you guys 3 bet with pre flop?

 

[smithcommajohn]

I would assume he means by the pre flop value, as once you see the flop, turn and river this changes hand value immensely. You have to work from the information currently available, not guess at what will come later.

What percentage do you guys 3 bet with pre flop?

I am always guessing at what could come later. That's how I decide what hands to play. It's why I feel comfortable raising with 87s and not as comfortable raising with KTo. KTo is a stronger hand pre flop, but you know less about your strength at the river as you would with 87s.

I'm very tight with 3bets unless I'm short stacked or the player I'm going to be tangling with is short stacked. I will occasionally 3bet a very loose raiser, but I'm generally not a fan of building huge pots pre flop. I think the last time I looked I was doing it like 4-5%.

 

[Helvete]

I am always guessing at what could come later. That's how I decide what hands to play. It's why I feel comfortable raising with 87s and not as comfortable raising with KTo. KTo is a stronger hand pre flop, but you know less about your strength at the river as you would with 87s.


??? How do you know less about the strength of one hand compared to another? You always know the strength of your own hand, the difficulty comes with comparing it to the strength of your opponents. In that regard I prefer raising premium hands as I know I will often have stronger than my oponants pre flop and more likely to be ahead post flop.

I'm very tight with 3bets unless I'm short stacked or the player I'm going to be tangling with is short stacked. I will occasionally 3bet a very loose raiser, but I'm generally not a fan of building huge pots pre flop. I think the last time I looked I was doing it like 4-5%.

I 3 bet loose and get away with it by targeting loose players and maintaining a tight table image. I tighten my range according to player tightness although its always fun to 3 bet a tight player loose when you know its likely they'll give you too much respect and under value their own hand.
I play 9 ring cash games live so I would expect a much looser 3 betting range for 6 max, in position of course. People play very honestly I find at these stakes, so just listen to what their bets are telling you and you can work out when you're good. People don't generally bluff so you shouldn't call off their big bets, its not worth catching them that one time they are trying to bluff.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

KTo is a stronger hand pre flop, but you know less about your strength at the river as you would with 87s.

Which is stronger pre-flop if the opponent has a tight range?

KTo is a lot better than 87s against 99, I guess.

 

[Sinny91]

why play poker when you can kill people in sims3

How does one do this? My ex is giving me so much grief...

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I 3 bet loose and get away with it by targeting loose players and maintaining a tight table image. I tighten my range according to player tightness although its always fun to 3 bet a tight player loose when you know its likely they'll give you too much respect and under value their own hand.
I play 9 ring cash games live so I would expect a much looser 3 betting range for 6 max, in position of course. People play very honestly I find at these stakes, so just listen to what their bets are telling you and you can work out when you're good. People don't generally bluff so you shouldn't call off their big bets, its not worth catching them that one time they are trying to bluff.

Good post, I do the same thing regarding 3 bets. I also tend to make the 3 bets a bit smaller in a loose situation, so I can make it more viable for them to call with weaker holdings, I think this is a legit way to do it?

The point about live games and honesty is good too. I haven't got to any public live games, as I mentioned earlier, but I reckon I could totally clean up once I do

Also, the way you wrote the post, I can take several other meanings away from it (like regarding honesty and knowing when to back off even if you're pretty sure you're ahead in the situation)

One cool little scenario I like to play out in my head, is playing against Tom Dwan, and making really good plays that totally fly against his mathematical way of playing the game and just leaving him all like

:P

Oh and to add: I prefer to make my 4 bets smallish as well (like, say to 2.5x or a bit less rather than 3x), since going to 3x just makes it a push or fold situation really for the opponent, and I find that kinda lame lol. With a smaller 4 bets then that gives them marginal odds to call with some weaker holdings.

I haven't really found many situations to apply my 4 bet approach, but I like it in theory !

--

Another thing: online I prefer to play games with antes, since I find that people seem to ignore that the antes are even there so they don't fight for them. I'll play lots of hands, and I often alternate between 2 bet sizes, like a limp or min-raise (I haven't bothered figuring out how to play back at limp-raises, so I just min-raise for now to get in the hand min-cost and avoid that), or a larger bet like 5x even (pot raises work well quite universally pre-flop) to account for the fact that there's like twice as much dead money.

--

OH and one of the most important principles I have learnt from the game:

The action is defined [at least in theory] mostly by the range of the person in position.

 

[xbox]

How does one do this? My ex is giving me so much grief...

I threw a party then trapped everyone by removing the door. They peed themselves multiple times before dying. The complaining was really annoying tbh. One dude actually negotiated his death terms with the grim reaper, made friends with him, then avoided death. Sneaky bitches.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

AAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAAA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr1Orapj5Ps

avidstar:

:smiley_emoticons_mr

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Once you're playing well enough, the mathematical equilibria and meta-ing gets so close together, that winner is pretty much whoever has the balls to do this:

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

The cunning to do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYD6ZL0u7Ls

Phil Ivey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSqkhN9Rqk0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxTnr0IXtx4


or... idk, whoever else the internet folk are saying is the best player.

I suspect the best poker player in the world is female though, cos, y'know, most poker players are male. \(o.O)/

 

[QuickTwist]

Meh.. I kinda suck at poker. I did come in third in a tournament once though.

 

[Yellow]

I grew up in with an extended family obsessed with gambling (well, on one side). I can play just fine, I just lose interest quickly.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I grew up in with an extended family obsessed with gambling (well, on one side). I can play just fine, I just lose interest quickly.

Which catches your interest more, online games or games played in real life?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Meh.. I kinda suck at poker. I did come in third in a tournament once though.

I actually believe this, based on how shit you are at Mafia despite having ran forum games for it.

I mean, sniping your own team mate?

Yeah, that's meta as fuck, bro.

 

[QuickTwist]

I actually believe this, based on how shit you are at Mafia despite having ran forum games for it.

I mean, sniping your own team mate?

Yeah, that's meta as fuck, bro.

It was a small $50 buy in tourney. I took 3rd and won $800.

As far as Mafia goes, I have pretty close to a 60% win rate as Town. I suck at Scum because I actually play as Scum.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I would hate to have you on my right! Now how do you determine which hands are in the top x%? Do you base it on their pre flop quality, flop potential, or river potential?

By top 25% I pretty much mean pairs, suited aces, suited connectors and broadway.

There is no "pre-flop" potential until you know what sort of hands you're gonna be up against. So that's more relevant when facing a raise than when making the first raise.

Generally, it's the pre-flop equity that you want to consider, however equity can at times be somewhat misleading, so taking into account your own weakness and the post-flop action is advisable.

Any other questions from anyone? I have a fair bit to say when it comes to poker.

--

A useful tool to use is pre-flop EV charts such as this one.

You'll notice that this chart suggests that hands are of comparable value whether under-the-gun or on the button, whereas this would seem a strange result based on the formula I posted earlier.

The formula I put earlier was based on the idea that if you want to raise you want to probably have the best hand out of everyone left to act. So I just figured, look at the best 1/x hands where x is the number of players left to act. Then halve it to be in the stronger end of the range. And there was an adjustment made where both small blind and big blind get treated as one player due to having the disadvantage of being out of position, however I would imagine that this exaggerates the OOP disadvantage.

 

[Alias]

Haven't played in a while, but I get how it works. I beat my older brother in a game a while back when he had the obvious advantage.

I'm great at the personal acting part of things. Reading others, and making sure I can't be read.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Here are some of my thoughts on calling river raises, and then a note about position:

I've heard it said that when calling a raise on the river, what you want to do is look at what hands the opponent could be value betting, and see if you beat enough of those value bets to give you the odds to make a call.

Actually, if your opponent has a balanced range, then this is the wrong way to look at it. For one, it contradicts the notion of a value bet if hands that are better than the value bet are going to fold.

Basically, if your opponent has enough bluffs in their range, then all you want to do to justify a call is be somewhere in their value range. Basically, if they are value betting the hand that you hold in that spot, then you call.

The time when you want to go a bit deeper with the analysis, and look at things like hand combos, is when you're in bluff-catching territory. When bluff-catching, the aim is to build a case for your opponent to either be bluffing too much, or too little, in comparison to their raise size.

So, here are two examples of bluff-catching with top-pair (I'll just assume fairly normal, say around 60%, raise sizes, so not so much a numerical analysis, however if you're unfamiliar with pot-odds, then for a 60% river-raise you want a 60/[100+60+60] = 27% chance of having the best hand (ignoring rake).

First, say you have called 2 barrels, and you hold top pair with a weak kicker. Suppose that your opponent is only likely to be raising with top pair and a moderate kicker at the lowest, that top pair comprises a significant portion of their value range, and that they are bluffing a reasonable amount of the time.

Then, in this case, you have what is known as a blocker. The top pair is out of value range, however you have information which suggests that it is less likely than usual that the opponent holds a value hand, because it is less likely that they have top pair. So in this case, you have a very good hand to make a bluff-catch.

Now, suppose you have top pair again, and this time the river has made the board quite scary... say, 4 to a straight on the board. Now, in this spot you want to look more at your opponents tendencies. You'll probably think to yourself: if they bluffed the turn and missed, then they're almost definitely bluffing the river. If they value bet the turn, then there is a good chance that they are checking the river (since the hand lost a lot of value with the river card). However, of the turn bluffs, a lot are going to be semi-bluffs which did actually hit the river. There may even be some more thin value bets, like a set or strong 2 pair trying to get a bluff-catch from a weaker hand.

So here, you want to try and think about the bluffs that were being made on the turn, and how many made the straight. If you think most turn-bluffs missed, then that's a good reason to call. Here, top pair is not being used as a blocker, it's just strong enough to beat a bluff, so if you think the opponent is probably bluffing, based on what you know, then it's a hand you can make the call with.

--

For position, I did some mathematical analysis, and I found that much of the time, the action should be essentially based on the range of the person in position.

So for example, if OOP is loose, and IP is tight, then OOP needs a very strong hand to continue - they'll have to fold more than the pot odds alone would suggest, making bluffs by the IP player +eV.

Now, if the person IP is loose, then they can still value bet hands that are in the top portion of their range, assuming that there is still enough overlap in the ranges that the loose player could very well have the best hand.

To go into more detail with this, it would probably be necessary to look at more well-defined ranges for each player. There are some situations where one player is representing a range so far ahead of the opponent that it's pretty much a bet followed by a fold much of the time, as a default.

So yeah, again let me know if these tips are helpful for you, and if you want me to explain, or have a go at explaining, other aspects of the game. And if you want to play against me (real or play chips) then feel free to ask.

 

[QuickTwist]

You're a regular Caro.

 

[Archetype]

I remembered when I was a kid, I played an online poker game with other online users. The funny thing was that I won so many rounds and earned so many money when I didn't even know how to play poker. I just picked randomly and did stuff randomly. Until now I still don't know how to play poker but I don't really care

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

You're a regular Caro.

2 questions:

1. what is a caro
2. a. is this sarcasm/spite?
__b. if yes... why lol?

 

[QuickTwist]

2 questions:

1. what is a caro
2. a. is this sarcasm/spite?
__b. if yes... why lol?

Its a joke, I didn't mean to offend you at all. Its kinda sarcasm, kinda not. Mike Caro is a fantastic poker player and is known for all the theory he has written on the game. I think his game of choice is 5 card draw, but don't know for sure. He's kinda like your Dr. Emmett Brown of poker in a sense. He like the type of guy who is crazy like a fox. Couldn't help but seeing similarities between you two. *shrug*

Look him up on google, he has tons of books he has written on poker theory.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Its a joke, I didn't mean to offend you at all. Its kinda sarcasm, kinda not. Mike Caro is a fantastic poker player and is known for all the theory he has written on the game. I think his game of choice is 5 card draw, but don't know for sure. He's kinda like your Dr. Emmett Brown of poker in a sense. He like the type of guy who is crazy like a fox. Couldn't help but seeing similarities between you two. *shrug*

Look him up on google, he has tons of books he has written on poker theory.

It wasn't offensive so much. I was more trying to decide whether the comment was meant to add or subtract points in Artsu's Book of Cool.

I pictured you rolling your eyes as you said it. Given the explanation I'll add a couple points for you.

 

[PmjPmj]

*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*