test

yo, testing linking thing for rakeback site, feel free to delete obv.

How to get Rakeback is clearly awesome

playing the turn oop: two hands from today

i thought these were somewhat interesting. the first hand doesn't lend itself to a ton of analysis, but i'm planning to look at the second spot more closely in another post soon.

Hand #1: all players to the flop are regs. 

beatis ($204)
i4ni ($206)
MAC_GUYVER1 ($103)
iamengaged ($305)
FaramirTFK ($40)
humanblue ($214)


beatis posts (SB) $1
i4ni posts (BB) $2


Dealt to beatis Qc  Kc  
fold, 
iamengaged raises to $6
fold, 
humanblue calls $6
beatis calls $5
i4ni calls $4
FLOP ($24) 4s  8s  3c  
beatis bets $19
i4ni calls $19
iamengaged folds
humanblue calls $19
TURN ($81) 4s  8s  3c  Ac  
beatis bets $54...



Hand #2: button is 25/16/4, fold/raise v. cbet = 53/12% on flop and 43/20% on turn.

NickMelville ($228)
Lambo81x ($44.70)
beatis ($204)
juxxo ($266)
carokille ($194)


NickMelville posts (SB) $1
Lambo81x posts (BB) $2


Dealt to beatis Kh  Jd  
beatis raises to $6
fold, 
carokille calls $6
fold, fold, 
FLOP ($15) Jc  2c  4h  
beatis bets $10
carokille calls $10
TURN ($35) Jc  2c  4h  Ah  
beatis???

comments or thoughts?

a quote

from The Mathematics of Poker:

bluffing in optimal poker play is often not a profitable play in and of itself. instead, the combination of bluffing and value betting is designed to ensure the optimal strategy gains value no matter how the opponent responds. opponents who fold too often surrender value to bluffs while opponents who call too often surrender value to value bets. 


obviously. but still, at the table, i don't often fully consider my hypothetical value betting or bluffing frequency in a spot while considering the opposite action.

seems like an easy way to stay out of trouble when the exploitive play isn't clear. also, few opponents play optimally, so when we do, we essentially let them choose how they want to pay us.

Flat Barrel Reverse Squeeze: Wisdom from a BE $100 NL player

The Flat Barrel Reverse Squeeze is a cool little sequence that I came upon by accident. The play is made generally from the blinds but it could certainly work in other positions if the opportunity presents.
I misclick called preflop in the SB with a hand that I would have called a single raise with, in this situation 22, however since this time the button three bet I would have normally folded. This time I misclick called the three bet out of position with 22. Not a seemingly +EV situiation. However, because the three bettor was a thinking reg and my image is tight, cold calling a three bet made my hand look very strong in the the eyes of the three bettor, I made a smallish 50% or so Cbet on a dry flop and the reg insta-folded.
It got me thinking that this would be a fun and tricky defense against regs who were three betting light in late position. It doesnt come up all that often but in the right spot the FBRSQ is a good way to disguise your range and f with your opponents head a bit.
The key is using this play against an opponent that knows you and is thinking enough that they would put you on a super strong range when you flat the three bet.

privatization

this blog was not originally intended to be open to the public. i opened it up recently because few members were reading or posting and i wanted to get input from some new people. i'll be closing it down again soon, so if you'd like to be involved, please leave a comment on this post so i can contact you via pm on leggopoker or duecescracked.

btn v. bb: 3b/4b/shove

here are some sims that are similar to the 5/6-bet stuff below, but where players have smaller stacks:

• btn opens to 3bb w/ top 50% 
• bb 3bets to 11bb w/ top x%
• btn 4bets to 26bb w/ [JJ+, AK, var1% of others] 
• bb shoves 100bb w/ [TT+, AK, var2% of others]
• btn calls [TT+, AQ+]

if we vary the 3bet range of bb, btn 4-bet air range, and bb shove air range, we get the following (notice scale changes):

notice that there is not equilibrium point for btn 4-bet range. that is, v. a 3b range this tight, 4-betting w/ any air is exploitable, ldo.

pretty light post, but i havent been able to play all week and dont want to spend too much time on this stuff right now...

[i also wanted to clarify something i wrote earlier - relevant to this and previous posts - about the GTO strategy being independent of the opponent (by definition, a GTO strategy occurs when a player cannot increase his expectation by acting unilaterally). i went on to say that strategies are dependent on stack sizes and the hands in hero's range. for example, i stated that the optimal frequency to 5-bet bluff, was dependent on hero's 3-bet range. that statement isn't strictly true, the optimal bluffing frequency is actually dependent on the number of combinations of value/nut hands, but since i had defined the bluff frequency as a % of non-value hands, it sort of looks like it's dependent on the range of hands going into the decision point.]

4/5/6 betting continued

i realize that my assumptions may not be realistic. so, here are some charts that should give an idea for how the different inputs change the situation:

the top chart is the original scenario, the bottom uses a tighter opening range for co/btn:

you can see that the game-theoretical optimal strategy does not depend on co/btn opening range, while the performance of any strategy does.

if the bb has different 3b ranges (as klink pointed out, most probably will), the optimal strategy will change. here are some charts that show different ranges v. different co ranges:

i didn't take the time to find the optimal strategy for each, but you should be able to approximate from these.

does 5-bet/folding make sense 200bb deep?

during a group sweat session yesterday MattUK asked that question of the player, but we didn't get back around to fully addressing it.

the answer obviously depends on the opponents ranges for each action leading up to and facing the 5-bet. the most important being their 4-bet and calling off ranges. if we have those accurate, exploiting any flaws should be fairly straightforward. so, here is a situation w/ approximate ranges for 'standard tag reg':

1. 200bb effective stacks
2. CO opens to 3.5bb w/ top 50%
3. BB 3bets to 11bb w/ [JJ+, Axs, T9s+, 55-22, AQo, AJo, A5o, KJs] ~12% of hands
4. CO 4bets to 27bb w/ [QQ+, AK, var1% of other hands] 4.6% of opening range for value + ~var1% as bluffs
5. BB 5bets to 56bb w/ [AA, KK, AK, var2% of other hands], 15.4% of 3betting range for value + ~0.8*var2% as bluffs
6. CO ships w/ [QQ+, AK], folds others
7. BB calls (144bb) w/ [KK+, AK], folds others {fwiw, EV(QQ, call) = +16bb if BB knows CO range above, EV(JJ, call) = +0.2bb}

note: these ranges are easy to tweak, so let me know if they seem inaccurate.

if we then vary the amount of 'air' in both CO (var1) and BB (var2) ranges, we get the following table:

you can see that CO is unexploitable if he 4-bet bluffs w/ between 5-6% of his non-value hands (EV(4b) is inversely proportional to var2 below 5%, but increases w/ var2 above 6%; equilibrium somewhere between).

so, we see that BB would benefit from a 5bet bluffing range v. players who 4-bet more than ~11% total (4.6% value + ~6% bluffs), and only ship a value range.

we then need to consider whether CO has a 6-bet bluffing range. so, we set CO 4-bet air frequency (var1 above) to 10%, give CO a 6-bet shoving range of [QQ+, AK, var3% of others], and find the EV(5b) for different values of var2 and var3. if we then use those values to make a table similar to the one above (i'm to lazy to embed it) we find that BB cannot be exploited by a 6-bet if he 5-bet/folds ~13% of 'air' hands (something like A5s-A2s, would do the trick).

finally, we can answer the original question by noticing that the EV of 5betting only for value is ~6.0bb, and the EV 5betting for value + 13% of air is ~7.7bb, to definitively prove that: YES, BB WOULD BENEFIT FROM A 5-BET/FOLDING RANGE (at least, v. this particular CO, given some assumptions and hoping that i didn't fuck it up somewhere).

response to comments: 

yes, var2 is defined as a % of non-value hands, so the absolute % gets discounted

i think the discrepency you noticed was due to a tweak i made in the decision tree when i was looking for a specific group of hands that would make up that ~13% air. so, for that final paragraph i had defined the bluff hands to be specifically A5s-A2s.

also, i posted this in a forum where a question was asked about the effect of 6-bet bluffing frequencies on the EV of a 5-bet. here is a chart that shows the equilibrium points more clearly:

the decision function

this might not end up being particularly useful, but i've noticed that i don't often take anything useful away from hand history discussions. in my experience, when faced with a question about a hand history, different people generally take a position and point out different aspects of the situation that provide support. if discussion continues at all it usually involves a lot of reiteration and little resolution...

so, i want to suggest a framework for considering poker decisions that would invite broad thinking, collaboration and finding a consensus. here it is:

D = C1X1 + X2X2 + .... + CnXn

where Xn represents the value of a condition (in +/-bb), and Cn the relative importance of that condition (for simplicity, let's say Cn is bound by 0 and 1). a bet is indicated when D is positive, and a check when D is negative.

as a simple example, consider the following hand:

SB ($312)

BB ($599)

CO ($40)

HERO ($207)

SB posts (SB) $1

BB posts (BB) $2

Dealt to HERO Kc  9d

fold,

HERO raises to $6

fold,

BB calls $4

FLOP ($13) 3s  4h  Ah

BB checks

HERO ...

in order to determine whether to bet or check, there are a number of conditions that hero could consider, some of which are represented in the following decision function:

D = C1*(stack size) + C2*(flop texture) + C3*(hole cards) + C4*(opponent tendencies) + C5*(perceived image) + ...

if i asked for opinions on whether or not hero should bet, some players would likely respond 'yes, that's a great flop to cbet', implicitly setting C2 = 1 and all other Cn ~=0. other players might consider the value of K9o, how frequently the opponent tends to call, whether we have an aggressive image, etc. to arrive at a decision. the following table illustrates these different approaches:

D (player type)	C1 (stack size)	C2	C3	C4	C5	...
texture expert	0	1	0	0	0	0
soul reader	0	0	0	1	0	0
deep thinking lag	0	0.5	0.1	0.7	0.2	0
fish	0	0	1	0	0	0

...you get the idea.

by identifying and considering the relevant conditions individually, we get in the habit of looking for additional bits of information and (trying) to objectively determine the relevance of those bits. as opposed to playing on auto pilot and focusing in on a single factor that is typically biased/tilted by recent hands or the weather or whatever we've been thinking about recently.

here's another example with more (and more complicated) conditions/factors:

SB ($289)

BB ($123)

UTG ($211)

MP ($203)

CO ($121)

HERO ($202)

SB posts (SB) $1

BB posts (BB) $2

Dealt to HERO 4s  2s

fold, fold,

CO calls $2

HERO raises to $7

fold,

BB calls $5

CO calls $5

FLOP ($22) As  8h  3s

BB checks

CO checks

HERO ...

both CO and BB appear fishy, but were essentially unknown at the time. hero had a clean standard tag image (if anyone was paying attention).

the decision function should look something like this:

D = C1*(stack size) + C2*(flop texture) + C3*(hole cards) + C4*(CO tendencies) + C5*(BB tendencies) + C6*(perceived image) + ...

my initial estimates are in the following table:

condition	Cn	Xn	Cn*Xn
stack size	0.5	-10	-5
flop texture	1	+2	2
hole cards	1	+2	2
CO tendencies	0.1	-2	-0.2
BB tendencies	0.1	-2	-0.2
percieved image	0.1	+2	0.2
total			-1.2

so, i checked back.

obviously, this isn't meant to be as formulaic as it might appear from that last example. but from there it would be easy for somebody to point out where their thinking differed and for both players to use that disparity to improve their thinking.

to cbet or not? if so how much?

during my session from this morning, i was trying to pay close attention to good/bad spots to cbet. i marked several to ask for opinions on whether to bet and, if so, how much...

hand 1:
asolone ($47.30)
BodystainTattoo ($200)
beatis ($330)
robyguida ($119)
LBrits ($200)
BearUK ($200)

asolone posts (SB) $1
BodystainTattoo posts (BB) $2

Dealt to beatis Ad  9d
beatis raises to $6
fold,
LBrits calls $6
BearUK calls $6
asolone calls $5
fold,
FLOP ($26) 2c  Td  9s
asolone checks
beatis ???

hand 2:
DaviBoy337 ($40)
The58Maker ($80)
Instinkt83 ($244)
maxxll22 ($143)
beatis ($258)
DDice511 ($206)

DaviBoy337 posts (SB) $1
The58Maker posts (BB) $2

Dealt to beatis Ts  Tc
fold, fold,
beatis raises to $6
DDice511 calls $6
fold,
The58Maker calls $4
FLOP ($19) 3h  5d  Qd
The58Maker checks
beatis ???

hand 3:
Maximus446 ($172)
Jorisa ($206)
D1scoInferno ($1,299)
kingkevin87 ($200)
beatis ($360)
chapichapo30 ($848)

Maximus446 posts (SB) $1
Jorisa posts (BB) $2

Dealt to beatis Ts  Kc
fold, fold,
beatis raises to $7
chapichapo30 calls $7
Maximus446 calls $6
fold,
FLOP ($23) 7c  Ac  Ah
Maximus446 checks
beatis ???

hand 4:
BenHogan ($230)
nbh52 ($100)
resurepus ($230)
Wretched84 ($286)
fkraise ($127)
beatis ($200)

BenHogan posts (SB) $1
nbh52 posts (BB) $2

Dealt to beatis 7h  4h
fold, fold,
fkraise calls $2
beatis raises to $9
BenHogan calls $8
fold,
fkraise calls $7
FLOP ($29) 3s  3d  Ts
BenHogan checks
fkraise checks
beatis ???

hand 5:
BenHogan ($289)
Tutti99 ($123)
resurepus ($211)
Wretched84 ($203)
fkraise ($121)
beatis ($202)

BenHogan posts (SB) $1
Tutti99 posts (BB) $2

Dealt to beatis 4s  2s
fold, fold,
fkraise calls $2
beatis raises to $7
fold,
Tutti99 calls $5
fkraise calls $5
FLOP ($22) As  8h  3s
Tutti99 checks
fkraise checks
beatis ???

hand 6:
yashdonk ($615)
beatis ($200)
Tina first lady ($310)
green100b ($511)
kurokitty ($200)
Puyol77 ($275)

yashdonk posts (SB) $1
beatis posts (BB) $2
yashdonk antes $0.30
beatis antes $0.30
Tina first lady antes $0.30
green100b antes $0.30
kurokitty antes $0.30
Puyol77 antes $0.30

Dealt to beatis Kh  Qc
fold,
green100b raises to $6
Puyol77 calls $6
fold,
beatis raises to $28
green100b calls $22
Puyol77 calls $22
FLOP ($86.80) Qs  Qh  Ac
beatis ???

anyone care to give an opinion?

T87t, QJo oop when agro btn raises my cbet...

so, here's a hand i played yesterday where i way overweighted a stat read (and ignored the results of recent posts):

i dont recall any recent history or have any specific reads on GambitMJ. the relevant stats i looked at were:

vpip/pfr = 20/18

3b from btn = 9%

cc from btn = 7%

raise cbet = 35%

http://www.holdemmanager.net

NL Holdem $2(BB) Replayer Game#15729854641

ALFeRICH ($247)

ure a towel ($270)

beatis ($243)

kewl99 ($117)

pRip43 ($40)

GambitMJ ($203)

ALFeRICH posts (SB) $1

ure a towel posts (BB) $2

pRip43 posts (SB) $1

Dealt to beatis Qh  Jc

beatis raises to $7

fold, fold,

GambitMJ calls $7

fold, fold,

FLOP ($18) 8h  Th  7c

beatis bets $14

GambitMJ raises to $40

beatis raises to $236 (AI)

i posted this in the leggopoker forum where people said to c/f this flop. i fully agree v. a player who isn't raising cbets so often, but v. this guy i thought it would be better to give him an opportunity to spaz out so that i could then respaz out.

so, i imported the hand into stoxev and assigned him some ranges:

• preflop call w/ [22-TT, 54s-JTs], 10% weight on [AA, KK, AK, suited 1-gap], 20% weight on [JJ-QQ, AQo, AJo, KQo, other suited broadways] = 7.5% of hands
• raise cbet w/ [1pr+, fd, oesd, var1% of all others], 
• call shove w/ [tp+, fd, oesd, pr+gs]

i then varied how often he raises the flop w/ 'air' to get the following graph of the ev of a shove v. var1%:

obviously, my line is terrible v. these button ranges. but i wasn't ready to give up entirely, so i adjusted the cbet raising range to exclude some 1pr hands by defining a calling range as [1p+bdfd, 1pr+gs] to see if that might help me justify my play. in order to get anything meaningful out of the sim, i need to continue the tree out to the end in a reasonable way. i attempted to do that and see that it just shifted the redline up by ~5bb (orange line above). so, it helps to remove some of the 1pr hands from btn's raising range, but not nearly enough to make the shove profitable.

just to belabor this a bit more, if btn raises 100% and only calls w/ a range as tight as [tp-K kicker, fd, 1pr + oesd], the cbet nets -$7.52.

i suck.

864t, button v. big blind: following up on thursday's post

quoted text from the previous post is in grey, new stuff follows:

...

raised pot oop w/o initiative, c/r flop: 

• btn-or top 50% [22+, Ax, Kxs, suited 2-gap+, offsuit 1-gap+] v. 
• bb-cc middle 14.3% [55-99, 50% Axs, broadways JTo-AJs, 98s-J9s]
• bb checks flop
• btn bets all hands
• bb raises all hands - EV = -13.6bb
• btn continuing ranges:
• [>=1p, >=bdfd, >=gs] = 79.6%
• [>=tp, fd, oesd, 1pr+gs, 1pr+bdfd] = 46.4%
• [>=tp, fd, oesd] = 35.7%

• if we define a more complete decision tree as follows:

• btn cbets [1pr+, fd, overs+bdfd, gs+, and var2% of all other hands]...
• bb c/r [tp+, fd, pr+gutter, oesd and var1% of all other hands]...
• btn shoves [tp+, fd, pr+gutter or better], folds otherwise...
• bb calls [tp+, fd, oesd], folds otherwise.

• we we can then vary var2 horizontally (btn cbet air %) and var1 vertically (bb c/r air %) to get an idea of how the ev of bb's c/r (in bold) fares v. different btn cbet tendencies shown in the following table:
  
  
  
  

  	0	25	50	75	100
  0	1.13	1.23	1.32	1.39	1.46
  25	0.09	0.41	0.68	0.92	1.13
  50	-0.95	-0.42	0.04	0.44	0.79
  75	-1.99	-1.25	-0.61	-0.04	0.46
  100	-3.03	-2.08	-1.25	-0.52	0.12

  
  
  
  
  

the not-so-surprising conclusion is that the more air btn cbets the more air bb can get away w/ raising. that said, even if btn is cbetting 100%, bb does best by only raising their legit value/semibluff hands. i think this is an interesting result, as i know i often feel compelled to c/r w/ weakish hands on this flop v. those compulsive blind thieves who cbet like it's their job.

these numbers, and my interpretation, might be off somewhat. i've asked some questions of the software developer on 2p2 that will hopefully clear things up...

864t, 3-bet pot cutoff v. button

actually, i changed my mind again. i'll get back to the question of whether we need/want a oop 3b calling range, but i want to keep going on this flop for a bit. so, this situation is basically the same as what i looked at yesterday, but i now want to consider btn's optimal c-betting range...

3b ip w/ initiative, cbet or no?:

• co opens top 25%,
• btn 3bets 10.5% of hands: [TT+, AQ+] + 40% of [Axs, KQs, QJs, KJs, scs, ATo-AJo, KQo] + 25% of [other suited broadways, suited gappers, offsuit connectors],
• co calls 25% of [55-QQ, ATs-AQs, KQs, AQo] + 10% frequency for [AA-KK, 22-44, 54s-JTs],
• co checks,
• btn cbets [tp+, fd, oesd, var3% of all other hands], EV (var3=25%) = +11.3bb
• co shoves [tp+, fd, oesd, 1pr+bdfd, 1pr+gutter], EV(25%) = +7.3bb
• btn calls [tp+, fd], EV = +27.1bb

if we then vary var3 (btn cbet 'air' %), and plot the ev of the btn cbet (blue points) and co c/r w/ a pure value/semibluffing range (red) and value+50% air (orange), we get the following chart:

this is probably largely intuitive, but cbetting air is -ev, and the value of co's c/r increases rapidly as button makes that mistake. obvious conclusions are:

1. btn would benefit from a check-behind range v. aggressive opponents (see blue points), and 
2. co needs btn to be cbetting air to turn a profit on his c/r (see red points),
3. co does not need to c/r w/ air,

basically, this is a flop that both btn and co should play very honestly, but if the button cbets too much, co gets a license to c/r a ton of hands. other thoughts?

next i suppose i should look at those lines that start with the flop checking through...

yesterdays direction leads to slight digression...

so, here's another scenario that might play out on our favorite flop 864t (incidentally, this happens to be my favorite flop - i like to call it the 'heart mattack'):


3b pot, oop, w/o initiative, c/r v. cbet:

• co opens top 25%,
• btn 3bets 10.5% of hands: [TT+, AQ+] + 40% of [Axs, KQs, QJs, KJs, scs, ATo-AJo, KQo] + 25% of [other suited broadways, suited gappers, offsuit connectors],
• co calls [55-QQ, ATs-AQs, KQs, AQo] + 10% frequency for [AA-KK, 22-44, 54s-JTs],
• co checks,
• btn cbets all hands w/ equal frequency, EV = +6.6bb
• co shoves [tp+, fd, oesd, 1pr+bdfd, 1pr+gutter], folding 31%, EV = +15.3bb
• btn calls [tp+, fd], folding 62%, EV = +15.4bb

i guess that's pretty interesting. the basic lessons are:

1. co perspective: c/r a wide range of hands w/ equity if you're going to call oop v. a light 3b from button, and you expect him to cbet a balanced range,
2. btn perspective: you can cbet in this spot profitably w/ your entire range, even if co is shoving hands as weak as T8s, [it's possible that it's more profitable to check behind, but i'll save that for another day...]
3. i ignored a co flop calling range, and didn't address how the hand might play out if btn checks back, but i'd like to move on to a related topic, so w/e...

the related topic is whether we should or need to call 3bets oop like this at all. i'll post something along those lines soon.

low/mid non-paired 2-tone boards: e.g. 864hh

this might be the first in a series of posts analyzing different flop textures across a variety of situations. there will be some work involved, so i want to pick good flops. in my opinion, 'good' means flops that different players approach most differently. i think there is where we will find edge.

so, i picked 864t and did some calcs for different lines/situations:

raised pot, ip w/ initiative, facing flop c/r:

• btn-or top 50% [22+, Ax, Kxs, suited 2-gap+, offsuit 1-gap+] v.
• bb-cc middle 14.3% [55-99, 50% Axs, broadways JTo-AJs, 98s-J9s]
• bb checks flop
• btn bets all hands
• bb raising ranges (folds otherwise)
• [1p+, bdfd+, gs+] = 60.9%
• [tp+, fd, oesd, 1pr+gs, 1pr+bdfd] = 22.8%
• [tp+, fd, oesd] = 15.2%

raised pot oop w/o initiative, c/r flop:

• btn-or top 50% [22+, Ax, Kxs, suited 2-gap+, offsuit 1-gap+] v.
• bb-cc middle 14.3% [55-99, 50% Axs, broadways JTo-AJs, 98s-J9s]
• bb checks flop
• btn bets all hands
• bb raises all hands
• btn continuing ranges:
• [1p+, bdfd+, gs+] = 79.6%
• [tp+, fd, oesd, 1pr+gs, 1pr+bdfd] = 46.4%
• [tp+, fd, oesd] = 35.7%

raised pot oop w/o initiative, DONK flop v. passive btn:

• btn-or top 50% [22+, Ax, Kxs, suited 2-gap+, offsuit 1-gap+] v.
• bb-cc middle 14.3% [55-99, 50% Axs, broadways JTo-AJs, 98s-J9s]
• bb leads flop w/ all hands for 5bb, EV = +0.6bb
• btn calls [overcards+, gs+, bdfd+], 97%
• bb bets all turns w/ all hands for 14bb (pot = 16.5bb), EV = +5.5bb
• btn calls [tp+, any 2-card fd, K or A 1-card fd, oesd], 45.5%, folding otherwise 54.5%
• bb checks all hands
• btn bets all hands
• bb calls w/ [2p+], 14.6%, folding otherwise, EV = +7.0bb

raised pot, cbet oop w/ initiative; raise cbet ip w/o initiative:

• mp-or top 15%,
• btn-cc speculative 15% [22-TT, A2s-AQs, suited broadways less than AK, AJo, AQo, KQo]
• mp cbets 8bb into 8.5bb w/:
• [all hands], EV = +3.1bb,
• btn raises 3x w/ [all hands], EV = +4.2bb
• mp shoves [tp+, fd, oesd], EV = +11.1bb
• btn calls [tp+, fd, oesd], EV = +4.4bb
• [1p+, fd, oesd, overs+bdfd, over+gutter, var1% of others], EV(v1=25%) = +4.8bb,
• btn raises 3x [all hands], EV(v1=25%) = +1.1bb
• mp shoves [tp+, fd, oesd], EV(v1=25%) = +14.1bb
• btn calls [>=tp, fd, oesd], EV(v1=25%) = +4.4bb,
• please take a look at the following spreadsheet and help me think about how to 1. maximally exploit an 2. play unexploitibly from each postion: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tTyA0M_lIGVZJG0erviMftQ&output=html

some other lines i'll probably look at:

3b ip w/ initiative

3b ip w/o initiative

raised oop w/ initiative

3b oop w/ initiative

i also looked at some players i had largish samples on in my db and summarized their tendencies.

reg stats:

1. BamYeah: 445 hands 
1. cbet = 73%
2. success = 26%
3. fold to cbet = 60%
4. raise cbet = 10%
5. fold to raise = 42

1. UKFAN1687: 1550 hands
   
   
   1. cbet = 42%
   2. success = 45%
   3. fold to cbet = 51%
   4. raise cbet = 38%
   5. fold to raise = 47%
   
   
   
2. CountZer01: 1529 hands 
1. cbet = 65%
2. success = 42%
3. fold to cbet = 52%
4. raise cbet = 20%
5. fold to raise = 19%
cbboy: 459 hands


1. cbet = 39%
2. success = 29%
3. fold to cbet = 41%
4. raise cbet = 23%
5. fold to raise = 25%



nimuuuh: 1310 hands


1. cbet = 64%
2. success = 43%
3. fold to cbet = 46%
4. raise cbet = 12%
5. fold to raise = 36



Smart LAG: 695 hands


1. cbet = 66%
2. success = 26%
3. fold to cbet = 24%
4. raise cbet = 42%
5. fold to raise = 40%



Bluffsalot83: 724 hands


1. cbet = 61%
2. success = 41%
3. fold to cbet = 44%
4. raise cbet = 35%
5. fold to raise = 58%



AmexCenturian: 1058 hands


1. cbet = 75%
2. success = 31%
3. fold to cbet = 48%
4. raise cbet = 30%
5. fold to raise = 47%



beatis: 1373 hands


1. cbet = 62%
2. success = 44%
3. fold to cbet = 41%
4. raise cbet = 30%
5. fold to raise = 48%


Yongsuk Chang: 1208 hands


1. cbet = 48%
2. success = 40%
3. fold to cbet = 46%
4. raise cbet = 17%
5. fold to raise = 36%



pokerPIMP_5: 997 hands


1. cbet = 46%
2. success = 44%
3. fold to cbet = 54%
4. raise cbet = 8%
5. fold to raise = 35%

not sure what that's worth, but moving on...

1-2 Frankenstein's Monster

Here is a screenshot of stats from decent 1-2 6max, decent tag regular. Frankenstein style.

'finding' my game

ive been meaning to look at some common situations for that 'Villain' profile i posted about, but haven't gotten to it. 

lately ive been more concerned with simply getting my game to the table. it's weird that it should be hard to play according to concepts that are well understood away from the table. i feel so weak when thinking about it, but it's undoubtedly true for me. 

so, anyway, i'll be working on that. 

im sort of thinking of doing something like the fee's moving up series on bluefire.com. although, it seems a bit contrived and would require some discipline, so on second thought...

pot limit omaha hi-lo

I made a video of some plo8 action, been strugglung with NL lately so I was ready for a change. I am just getting into playing the game again after a long time away. I thought i would share video.
Thanks


http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZOLRG1VC

alternate bb defense: justification and absolution

so, i'm about done w/ this donking stuff for a while. i just wanted to sort of tie it up a bit before moving on...

why: players are opening a ridiculously wide range of hands from late position, and they're getting pretty good at countering the polarized 3-betting that's so popular from the blinds. so, i wanted to explore another option for playing back.

the line: call from the bb, take a flop, and attack dry boards by leading out and 3-bet jamming over a raise w/ a wide range. 

results summary: the line turns a profit v. many opponents on many flops. i make no claim about the optimal play in any of these spots, but at the very least this line could be used to mix things up, and keep the button guessing. here are the basic (largely intuitive) findings:

1. ev is higher v. wider btn opening ranges on all but the driest flops, 
2. be careful on wet flops v. opponents prone to bluff/semi-bluff raising donk bets,
3. balance is critical, as most players will take note of aggressive and uncommon lines like this.

as always, i'm very interested in how others interpret these numbers and if they suggest further lines of inquiry. but, as always, i expect the few people who read this wont bother...

...yet more donking drivel...

below are some results (bold # = $ ev in a 200nl game) from simulations i ran on the donk/3-betting line:

bb donks,

btn raises {>=tp, fd, oc+gs, Var2% others}

bb 3bets all-in w/ {>=tp, fd, oesd, pr+gs, Var3% others}

btn calls w/ {>=tp, fd, oesd, pr+gs}

		Var2 %
Q94r		10	20	30	40
Var3 %	30	2.1	1.61	1.13	0.65
	40	3.88	3.32	2.77	2.21
	50	5.58	4.91	4.23	3.55

Th98h		10	20	30	40
Var3 %	30	9.35	9.72	10.09	10.46
	40	9.86	10.39	10.93	11.47
	50	11.06	11.7	12.34	12.98

		Var2 %
5h43h		10	20	30	40
Var3 %	30	10.47	10.63	10.8	10.97
	40	9.06	9.24	9.42	9.6
	50	9.7	9.91	10.11	10.32

		Var2 %
KJ6r		10	20	30	40
Var3 %	30	0.96	0.32	-0.31	-0.94
	40	2.57	1.78	0.99	0.2
	50	3.75	2.86	1.96	1.06

as you can see, this line shouldn't lose money on most boards. that said, it's not necessarily the optimal way to play the hand. 

anyone want to try picking a flop or two and looking at alternate lines? 

Response to donk betting post below...

For some reason I cannot get the comment section to work, if you can move this response or whatever. I just thought I would get this down while I was thinking about it.

Your work suggests that 3 bet bluffing is a plus EV proposition even against the tightest btn responses. I am wondering if maybe our assumptions about the buttons response to our donk is a bit off.

You suggest:
btn raises to $36 w/ {top pair+, flushdraws, overcard+gutters, var2% of other hands},

As a frequent donker I have found that I really don't get raised near as often as this response above would suggest. I will try to get together a filter later and review a bunch of hands in actual play. If I had to guess just based on my feel of these situaion I think the Btn raise response is more polarized between bluffs and monsters, with the top pair and floating hands ( overs, guttters ect) doing a bunch of calling.

I also have some 3 bet bluffs I have been test driving if memory serves, maybe I will make review vid of a bunch of replayer donks. Love the sound of my own voice and all.
Sean

...incremental progress on bb call/donk...

here are a couple quick additions to the bb call/donk line i've been yammering on about. the images below use basically the same scenario as before w/ a few exceptions:

1. btn opens to $7 the top var1% of the time,
2. bb calls w/ a fairly wide range of {JJ-22, AQs-A2s, AQo-AJo, connectors 54o+ and suited one-gappers} ,
   
3. bb donks $12 w/ all hands,
4. btn raises to $36 w/ {top pair+, flushdraws, overcard+gutters, var2% of other hands},
5. bb 3-bets all-in w/ {top pair+, flushdraw, open enders, pair+gutter, var3% of other hands},
6. btn calls w/ {tp+, fd, oesd, pair+gutter}.

the first image assumes bb never 3bets w/ air (var3 = 0%) and varies btn opening % (Var 1) and flop bluff-raising % (Var 2); the table values indicate the ev of the donk bet in $:

this next image sets btn opening range to the top 40%, and looks at the effect of a variable bb 3-bet bluff range by stepping 3-bet frequency for non-value hands (Var 3) from 0-100%, against the same span of btn flop bluff-raise % (Var 2):

i'll look at it more closely and think about the numbers when i get another free minute. in the mean time, feel free to post any thoughts or interpretation or problems w/ assumptions...

new initiative: the Royal 'we'...you know, the editorial...

sean mentioned something in a recent video that reminded me of something i've been meaning to think about - exploiting prevailing collective player tendencies. 

the spot sean talks about is playing paired boards.  his premis is that, as a group, players bluff too often on these boards and that many players have made that same observation.  if i understand correctly, he wants to exploit the collective tendency by weighting his betting/raising range toward value hands (value betting thinly and bluffing rarely), and widen his calling (bluff-catching) range. 

those adjustments make logical sense, but that's not quite enough for us to immediately integrate them into our games.  we first need to compare that strategy to our current approach and then all other possible adjustments...  whatever, it would be a huge pain in the ass to try to do this rigorously, and it probably wouldn't be worth much more than just mulling over a few possibilities, but hopefully you see where i'm going. 

anyway, i think it would be very worthwhile to work on a collective Villain profile and think about how we can exploit 1) the projection of that image onto us, and 2) those tendencies in others.

idk, any thoughts? 

Weekend Pokerings

I played some 1-2 NL on Fulltilt, Bodog and Absolute. I recorded some of the action for no other reason than I like to hear the sound of my own voice. The recorded play was yesterday. The first session on the Dog I am playing some great poker ; watch me call when I know I am beat and attempt to bluff quads.

Fun stuff.

The damage was not too bad overall as you can see from the graph below, I actually finished last night up a bit but after a restless 6 hrs of poker filled dreams I jumped out of bed and spewed a bunch.

The sessions are here:

Bodog http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75Q1QTN0

Fulltilt http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A7JR5PB6

The Bodog is about 40 minutes and the 25 or so on Fulltilt. Please don't feel obligated to watch, however if you do any comments are welcome and appreciated.

Good Luck all.

Sean

200NL on Full Tilt

I played a 30 minute or so session on FT this morning. It was one of those sessions where not a lot was going on really. I decided to post it anyway because maybe someone would see something that could help them or better yet, help me!!


http://www.megaupload.com/?d=J7UZ27A0


Thanks in advance. Sean