Are any of you good at poker?

[QuickTwist]

Anyways, moving on...

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

Raise or fold. That's about it. Depends if its the turn or not though and your playstyle and their playstyle and what the board looks like and if you have any other outs and how strong your flush is... Prolly more variables, but I'm a newb.

 

[Helvete]

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.

This is quite funny but didn't happen. The hand in question is hand 2/3 that I played against this guy in a row, all with good cards. You described a mixture of the first and third hand a3 is in there too!

Anyway I actually opted to fold this hand. At the time I had only 20 secs to make a desicion and I only thought about raising or folding at the time and didn't feel like commiting to a flip.

I think the gambler would have called, based on the history. I'd been sparring with the reg a fair bit and the gambler liked to try and win pots like these but by either getting lucky or bluffing, but all post flop.

The hand before I again had AKsuited vs a3 held by the reg. I flop top pair top kicker with one card of my suit and reg gets the flush draw. I can't remember the action exactly. I think I raise pre and get called, bet flop and call a 3 bet, turn a flush draw and check raise which takes down the pot. Reg shows his cards and I muck. He said I would only play a set like this

 

[FATBOY]

Why would it matter how you play a set when a pair beats his flush draw? He's just filling your head with fluff

 

[Helvete]

Why would it matter how you play a set when a pair beats his flush draw? He's just filling your head with fluff

It matters because he's giving me a narrower range than what it actually is which means I have 4 possible hands in that spot which is beating not only his flush draw but many pair and two pair combos or straight draws he might have. The point is a pair isn't always in front in this spot, its only a very marginal hand which happens to improve on the turn when the second flush draw comes. If I river my flush and he makes a straight (impossible in this hand but whatevs) he thinks he's in front of a set and will lose. I can also bluff more on blank rivers when straights/flushes don't come and make 2 pairs fold.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

A3 suited huh...

I still like the call.

It balances the pairs.

And besides... it's suited.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Ace three fucking suited.

 

[FATBOY]

It matters because he's giving me a narrower range than what it actually is which means I have 4 possible hands in that spot which is beating not only his flush draw but many pair and two pair combos or straight draws he might have. The point is a pair isn't always in front in this spot, its only a very marginal hand which happens to improve on the turn when the second flush draw comes. If I river my flush and he makes a straight (impossible in this hand but whatevs) he thinks he's in front of a set and will lose. I can also bluff more on blank rivers when straights/flushes don't come and make 2 pairs fold.

Is it fair to say that you only think that he thinks that?

Did it not occur to you that the Villain is lying?

Or did you already rule that out as a possibility?

I always let my opponents wander around with an inflated sense of ego, when I am able to control it

This makes them less cautious and more willing to take risk.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

nononono definitely no

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I still don't quite get 3x 4-betting.

2x and/or shoving, yeah, but 3x?

It makes KQo a better bluff, I guess.

Is there more to it than that?

 

[FATBOY]

I still don't quite get 3x 4-betting.

2x and/or shoving, yeah, but 3x?

It makes KQo a better bluff, I guess.

Is there more to it than that?

3x and 4x someone's bet is a pretty big bet, it usually represents a large portion of your total stack

 

[Helvete]

Is it fair to say that you only think that he thinks that?

Did it not occur to you that the Villain is lying?

Or did you already rule that out as a possibility?

I always let my opponents wander around with an inflated sense of ego, when I am able to control it

This makes them less cautious and more willing to take risk.

Cool lie, but unlikely. Given the context of how it was said after folding and showing the hand he was pretty genuine. This kind of tactic would work better against unknowns I think who may try to exploit it straight away. If I start getting exploited this way I'll soon know, but villain was more pointing out that I'll often have a set in this kind of situation and too frequently for it to be worth bluff catching, which is all he is able to beat at this point.

*I think really all this has done is highlight a possible leak in my game where I'm just not bluffing enough and validate the play I made which was basically a semi bluff. As I'll still be value betting more hands than hands bluffed but will encourage more calls meaning I'll get paid off more on value hands while hopefully a good number of bluffs will still get through.

*this is very player specific which I think deviates from how you should generally play at 1/2 where you do just wait for hands and value bet every street and still get paid off. Too often people just play in autopilot because they've seen the method work, yet fail to adjust to others quickly enough.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

 

[Helvete]

I ruined my bankroll over the last few weeks and dropped slightly north of 3k through a combination of running bad, continuing to play spots very aggressively and tilt. The latter portion of sessions I have tilted off way too much money, but in unexpected ways; the last big pot I lost I correctly ranged the villain on a range which had my hand absolutely dominated and would most likely continue to showdown. Despite this I still couldn't make myself fold and elected to turn my hand into a bluff which of course failed. I also attempted shot taking at higher stakes a few times because I have beaten those stakes before. After inevitably losing here it dawned on me how I'd somehow managed to succumb all my self control and enter some ruinous decent. Most players lose because they lack not the skills but the discipline to succeed. Ok most also lack the skills required too but many would be winners don't because of this.

I physically moved the remainder of my bankroll into a savings account to prevent further damage while I take a break and analyse where I'm going wrong. This didn't really help as I just gambled other money for a bit and just made tracking progress awkward.

I think I have found some key areas which need addressing and am working on some new strategies. I will take 1k from what I left in the savings and use this as my new bankroll. It will feel like a fresh start and change my mentality of approach to playing whilst still saving a lot of profit already made. It's what I initially started with so all I am really doing is a more refined version of something I have already done.

Some other thoughts on the last few weeks non poker related:
My diet sucks, eating almost 100% takeout (usually some asain food) once or twice a day. This has gotten progressively worse over a long time and last week I started noticing hunger pains when eating and generally already feeling full even though I'd eaten only a few mouthfuls of food. I nearly went to a doctor about it but then realised how futile that would be and have just decided I will now eat 3 or 4 small meals a day and increase the portion size until my body is used to the food intake again.

I've had really bad bouts of depression which I initially just attributed to losing money but probably has a lot to do with my diet also. I'm not really worried about this as it will usually straighten itself out.

I plan on implementing some changes/strat tonight and see how I go.

I don't know why this is now a poker blog but whatever.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Can't we play online somewhere?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I ruined my bankroll over the last few weeks and dropped slightly north of 3k through a combination of running bad, continuing to play spots very aggressively and tilt. The latter portion of sessions I have tilted off way too much money, but in unexpected ways; the last big pot I lost I correctly ranged the villain on a range which had my hand absolutely dominated and would most likely continue to showdown. Despite this I still couldn't make myself fold and elected to turn my hand into a bluff which of course failed. I also attempted shot taking at higher stakes a few times because I have beaten those stakes before. After inevitably losing here it dawned on me how I'd somehow managed to succumb all my self control and enter some ruinous decent. Most players lose because they lack not the skills but the discipline to succeed. Ok most also lack the skills required too but many would be winners don't because of this.

I physically moved the remainder of my bankroll into a savings account to prevent further damage while I take a break and analyse where I'm going wrong. This didn't really help as I just gambled other money for a bit and just made tracking progress awkward.

I think I have found some key areas which need addressing and am working on some new strategies. I will take 1k from what I left in the savings and use this as my new bankroll. It will feel like a fresh start and change my mentality of approach to playing whilst still saving a lot of profit already made. It's what I initially started with so all I am really doing is a more refined version of something I have already done.

Some other thoughts on the last few weeks non poker related:
My diet sucks, eating almost 100% takeout (usually some asain food) once or twice a day. This has gotten progressively worse over a long time and last week I started noticing hunger pains when eating and generally already feeling full even though I'd eaten only a few mouthfuls of food. I nearly went to a doctor about it but then realised how futile that would be and have just decided I will now eat 3 or 4 small meals a day and increase the portion size until my body is used to the food intake again.

I've had really bad bouts of depression which I initially just attributed to losing money but probably has a lot to do with my diet also. I'm not really worried about this as it will usually straighten itself out.

I plan on implementing some changes/strat tonight and see how I go.

I don't know why this is now a poker blog but whatever.

This post is fine for the thread.

I can only assume you already know this, but your physical and mental health is going to greatly effect how well you're playing. If you're fatigued or in a bad emotional place, your thinking will be less clear than it otherwise, and you'll be making decisions based on poorer reasoning. Poker playing isn't what I would regard as the sort of thing which will be improving your physical or mental health (though of course it need not hinder it either), so taking a break from it is going to likely be good for you. Remember, poker is just a game - of course, even a game can rightly be made as a quite significant part of one's life, given its influence on emotional well-being (by providing a source of pleasure and a sense of achievement). I'll also mention that playing while depressed, and losing, is only likely to fuel the depression even further, through regret over decisions and of course the lowering of funds.


More to the poker side of things: I get into those spots too, where I place the villain on a quite dominating range but am unable to fold, generally because I'm in the upper portions of my own range (even if equilibria principles* would say to call with the hand, the specifics of the hand may still make a fold best).

* for equilibria principles, you can refer to a previous post I made regarding things such as bluff-catching, basically the idea being that if both players are playing an unexploitable strategy, then bluffs will be of a high enough portion to make bluff-catching a generally break-even move, and also that the actions will generally be determined by the range of whoever is in position.

 

[Helvete]

This post is fine for the thread.

I can only assume you already know this, but your physical and mental health is going to greatly effect how well you're playing. If you're fatigued or in a bad emotional place, your thinking will be less clear than it otherwise, and you'll be making decisions based on poorer reasoning. Poker playing isn't what I would regard as the sort of thing which will be improving your physical or mental health (though of course it need not hinder it either), so taking a break from it is going to likely be good for you. Remember, poker is just a game - of course, even a game can rightly be made as a quite significant part of one's life, given its influence on emotional well-being (by providing a source of pleasure and a sense of achievement). I'll also mention that playing while depressed, and losing, is only likely to fuel the depression even further, through regret over decisions and of course the lowering of funds.

Your mental state will definitely interfere with how you play and poker will often elate your emotions depending on many factors, usually results orientated which is really a situation you should aim to avoid. If you win you'll feel good and may continue to win by good decision making and playing well. Conversely the opposite, if you lose it will make you feel even worse and screw up more.

To avoid these results orientated emotional swings it's important to detach these feelings from the game. Once you understand you are either making positive expected value plays or negative expected value plays the results shouldn't affect you as you know in the long term you will make money. The best way to achieve this is to already have enough money that any short term loss won't affect your financial situation. A balanced lifestyle and diet will help keep you mentally and physically sound to keep in line with the things already mentioned.

 

[Helvete]

More to the poker side of things: I get into those spots too, where I place the villain on a quite dominating range but am unable to fold, generally because I'm in the upper portions of my own range (even if equilibria principles* would say to call with the hand, the specifics of the hand may still make a fold best).

* for equilibria principles, you can refer to a previous post I made regarding things such as bluff-catching, basically the idea being that if both players are playing an unexploitable strategy, then bluffs will be of a high enough portion to make bluff-catching a generally break-even move, and also that the actions will generally be determined by the range of whoever is in position.

If playing solely heads up then you may come close to playing an unexploitable strategy but even so it wouldn't be worth it as currently most players constantly make so many mistakes that an exploitative strategy tailored to specific opponents tendencies should dictate the way you play. If your opponent doesn't adjust there's no reason to deviate from this and just continue to print money. It's likely your opponent will adjust causing you to re adjust your own strategy and depending on how well your opponent adjusts will show the skill gap between you. The closer the skill gap then naturally both players will be playing closer to an unexploitable strategy and the further apart it is the more of an exploitative strategy will be used.

In the 9 max game I play I make horrendously exploitable moves but they work because people are just so bad that they don't know how, what adjustments to make or realise that their own play is so bad it can be so easily exploited. Where I play people 'like to see the next card' so will call far too many bets. The best way to exploit this is to play fewer hands, bet big for value when you have strong hands and charge them far too much for their draws. Bluffing here is pretty much a waste of time as you'll just get called far too often for it to be profitable. The best way to exploit this strategy is to fold, denying any value for my hands. If my opponents correctly adjusted and started folding then I could adjust again and add more bluffs to my range.

You could play an unexploitable strategy and you will either break even (unlikely), or profit from your opponents mistakes (more likely).

Or play an exploitative strategy and maximise your profits dependant on your opponents mistakes. You will be open to exploitation yourself and have to be aware of this and able to adjust.

 

[Tannhauser]

You could play an unexploitable strategy and you will either break even (unlikely), or profit from your opponents mistakes (more likely).

If you play an unexploitable strategy (i.e. game-theory optimal), you cannot profit from anyone's mistakes. It is a break-even strategy period.

 

[Helvete]

If you play an unexploitable strategy (i.e. game-theory optimal), you cannot profit from anyone's mistakes. It is a break-even strategy period.

Can you explain why?

From my understanding playing a gto strategy would mean that you bet, raise and fold at certain frequencies independent of players in the game and the strategy would never need to deviate. In situation X the option would always be Y. So you are always breaking even because the strategy is unexoloitable but when another player makes a mistake by not folding to a bet when you have a made hand for example, that player has just freely given away money causing profit.

The strategy isn't about breaking even, it's about being in unexploitable. So if multiple players use this strategy you will break even against each other but anyone who doesn't use this strategy are now exploitable and will lose money due to making mistakes.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

If you play an unexploitable strategy (i.e. game-theory optimal), you cannot profit from anyone's mistakes. It is a break-even strategy period.

Helvete already refuted this, but as another example, say your unexploitable strategy assumes that the opponent is going to be betting mainly value hands, but instead they bluff 50% of the time - then bluff-catching would be +eV when it should be neutral. (basically there's all sorts of ways that a person can play +eV while at equilibrium, isn't there? Or in those spots is the person not technically playing at equilibrium or something?)

--

If playing solely heads up then you may come close to playing an unexploitable strategy but even so it wouldn't be worth it as currently most players constantly make so many mistakes that an exploitative strategy tailored to specific opponents tendencies should dictate the way you play. If your opponent doesn't adjust there's no reason to deviate from this and just continue to print money. It's likely your opponent will adjust causing you to re adjust your own strategy and depending on how well your opponent adjusts will show the skill gap between you. The closer the skill gap then naturally both players will be playing closer to an unexploitable strategy and the further apart it is the more of an exploitative strategy will be used.

Very good analysis, pretty much sums it up. I guess one problem with my play is that I'm not focused enough on winning, and I get too caught up on just trying to optimise little bits of the game mathematically while I'm offline.

I was thinking of, when I get funds again, changing to mostly heads up. I wouldn't be expecting to profit from it, so it's just too kill time whilst beating rake and enjoying mahself.

Do you use a HUD? (I assume yes. I've barely used one before.)

 

[Tannhauser]

Can you explain why?

From my understanding playing a gto strategy would mean that you bet, raise and fold at certain frequencies independent of players in the game and the strategy would never need to deviate. In situation X the option would always be Y. So you are always breaking even because the strategy is unexoloitable but when another player makes a mistake by not folding to a bet when you have a made hand for example, that player has just freely given away money causing profit.

The strategy isn't about breaking even, it's about being in unexploitable. So if multiple players use this strategy you will break even against each other but anyone who doesn't use this strategy are now exploitable and will lose money due to making mistakes.

A GTO strategy is basically playing all situations according to Nash equilibrium, which, by definition makes your opponent indifferent to changing his strategy. In poker terms, that means putting your opponent in a 0 EV situation always. If you play GTO in a particular situation, it doesn't matter if he folds, calls or raises. Whatever he does, his expectation will be 0 EV.

So by definition, he cannot make a "mistake" against you, and you cannot profit no matter what he does.

And by the same logic, you cannot both be unexploitable and potentially profit from mistakes. Because if you want to profit from mistakes, you must deviate from a GTO strategy. But if you deviate from a GTO strategy, you are by definition exploitable because the opponent can change his strategy to potentially exploit whatever imbalance you introduced to yours.

Another point is that in poker, a GTO strategy is always dependent on your opponent. It's different from a game like rock-paper-scissors because in poker the potential ranges of your opponent are clearly changing from situation to situation. For example if you are on the river and you want to bluff 30% of the time, value-bet 50% and check to lose 20% of the time, you need to set up your ranges in advance such that you actually win every time you value bet, lose every time you bluff/check. In order to achieve that, you have to know the exact range of your opponent in that situation, which, in turn depends on his frequencies on turn and so on. It is impossible to play GTO in isolation from your opponents.

 

[Tannhauser]

Helvete already refuted this, but as another example, say your unexploitable strategy assumes that the opponent is going to be betting mainly value hands, but instead they bluff 50% of the time - then bluff-catching would be +eV when it should be neutral. (basically there's all sorts of ways that a person can play +eV while at equilibrium, isn't there? Or in those spots is the person not technically playing at equilibrium or something?)

If the opponent can change his EV by changing his strategy, you're exploitable by definition.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

If the opponent can change his EV by changing his strategy, you're exploitable by definition.

That doesn't sound inherently true, because it still sounds right in theory that someone could be either neutral or negative eV against you.

What you say does sound right, but I'm not totally convinced.

Like, what if the opponent decides to check back whenever they have the nuts, or something stupid like that? Isn't that a mistake that even an equilibrium strategy would profit from? I mean, the opponent is betting a hand we can only lose against, and so surely we lose more if we call the top X% of our range by default.

I think it's important to decide whether, and to what extent bad plays can bring profit to an unchanging strategy.

--

By the way, my trying to get an equilibrium strategy down in the first place, is to then have something to anchor to in terms of adjusting to the tendencies of the opponent, so it's not just about profiting from colossal mistakes on the part of the opponent.

 

[Tannhauser]

That doesn't sound inherently true, because it still sounds right in theory that someone could be either neutral or negative eV against you.

What you say does sound right, but I'm not totally convinced.

Like, what if the opponent decides to check back whenever they have the nuts, or something stupid like that? Isn't that a mistake that even an equilibrium strategy would profit from? I mean, the opponent is betting a hand we can only lose against, and so surely we lose more if we call the top X% of our range by default.

I think it's important to decide whether, and to what extent bad plays can bring profit to an unchanging strategy.

Yeah, I take back most of the stuff I wrote . The GTO strategy is a neutral strategy assuming your opponent always plays optimally against whatever strategy you pick. In fact, it is defined as the strategy that maximizes the EV against an opponent that always chooses the best possible counter-strategy. If he picks a dominated strategy, however, he can increase your EV.

A basic example is if you are in a situation where 100% of your range is nuts. Then clearly the opponent will increase your EV if he calls you with any other frequency than 0.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Yeah, I take back most of the stuff I wrote . The GTO strategy is a neutral strategy assuming your opponent always plays optimally against whatever strategy you pick. In fact, it is defined as the strategy that maximizes the EV against an opponent that always chooses the best possible counter-strategy. If he picks a dominated strategy, however, he can increase your EV.

A basic example is if you are in a situation where 100% of your range is nuts. Then clearly the opponent will increase your EV if he calls you with any other frequency than 0.

ok cool, we're on the same page then