So Many Mistakes

Poker Strategy
21

Yup - you got it. I didn’t see any hands, just saw you were online and looked at the table layout you were on. Alarm bells went off in my head and thought I’d mention it to you. I have no idea whether you spend any time scouting players or not so I had no idea whether you knew the situation you were in when you were seated.

If you can manipulate people into soft-playing you, you get a hat-tip from me. I wouldn’t count on getting that type of treatment more than once or twice though. Once people realize you aren’t a defenseless damsel who is just strolling through, they aren’t going to be so nice. Use it while you can I guess.

I know you disagree on bankroll. At least you have mitigated this issue somewhat by buying in for the minimum and therefore reducing the effective stack sizes of the entire table. I do get this and have actually done this many times live, especially if I’m on a table with a LAG who likes playing for stacks. I may win less on hands where my cards hold up but since I will likely be all-in more often that I normally would be, it evens out for me. On one hand it limits the types of hands you can play but on the other it limits the amount of damage you can do to your overall bankroll at any one time.

22

Personally Warlock, I only sat on that 50k/100k table think’n I can afford to lose 1m, but if I hit a monster, I can double up… I saw Eze & IP, and was like I’ll take a shot… this was only after I sat and watched thier table for 15-20 minutes… just like a stock market short sell, I had a predetermined limit of what I would pay to see a few hands, after that… get the hell outta there before you ruin a weeks worth of grinding out chips…

Personally I hate Ring Games, but I’m bored with whats offered in SnG/MTT usually these days. Now I have discovered a couple anomolies here, that I refuse to disclose… I don’t think Replay manipulates the deals, but I have found some interesting patterns. I have add’d those to my rule book of what to do…when, why, & how.

The only way I can play Ring, is to adopt a strategy where “long-term” my bankroll always increases… I need a reason to play discliplined poker, otherwise its free poker… why not just let loose…but we both know thats not really poker…

I will say this : I am only a competent/above average player… not a great player, not a professional, and I certainly don’t have all the answers or know all the tricks… but if I’m still in the hand ( betting or not ) you should worry…

1 Like
23

Yeah, the thing about the raise sizes is situational and depends on how the game is going and the number of possible callers. In general, I don’t like to play multiway pots no matter what my hand is, and I know that Replay players like to call wide, so my raise sizes are typically on the large side to punish players who call with weak hands and prevent multiway pots. This means adjusting my size based on the number of opponents. If I would open to 3.5x from early position, if I am 3rd to act and there are 2 limpers already, I might raise to 5x. Later in an MTT a min raise might be just as effective (and less polarizing) than a 3x or 5x raise, so I am not saying that 2.5x raises are not good or that large raise sizes are good (they create big pots which can hurt when your opponent flops the nuts), just that you need to adjust your sizing to accomplish your goals.

Sarah, if I limp UTG with 53s in 2k/4k (not that I would), and you raise to 12k over 3 other limpers and get calls from the button and BB, I am always going to call because I need to pay 8k for a chance to win ~74k. I don’t need much equity and I can easily fold if I miss completely. Even if there are no other limpers or callers, it still isn’t a bad price to pay 8k more to win 22k, since I probably have at least ~28% equity and can easily fold or float if I miss, although I probably wouldn’t want to call out of position.

I just don’t understand the idea of buying in for the minimum. If you think your opponents will make better decisions than you, then I guess it makes sense because it enables you to make your big decisions preflop and then just go with it (because you have so few chips left behind). It actually seems like it would increase variance because for example, if I start with 30 BBs, and 3-bet with AK to 9 BBs, then on the flop I am left with 21 BBs, which is the size of the pot. If I had started with 120 BBs, I would have many possible options beyond shove or fold on the flop. If you play elite stakes, what hands are you playing when you are going for that quick double up? Premiums only? If you have AA and end up in the same situation, you pretty much have to shove that flop (or try to get tricky and give them more chances to hit or bluff you) and the elite player will make the correct decision against you about 100% of the time (call with 2-pair or better and fold the rest). You may not want to get tricky against these players anyway, but that is exactly the reason why it is more fun and a better learning experience to play at lower stakes where you can play more poker.

I want to buy in for the max because I believe I will make better decisions than my opponents in the long run. Of the times I have gotten my whole stack in the middle on Replay, I have been ahead far more often than I have been behind, so it is more profitable to have as many chips as possible for when that happens. I do not believe I am better at making decisions than the elite players, and I cannot afford to play at those stakes, but that’s my approach at the stakes where I am more comfortable.

24

Agreed on pre-flop sizing. To clarify, I was only speaking about ring games here. I should have specified that as well. Everything becomes more complicated with tournaments because blinds rise rather than remain static, stack sizes become polarized as the game goes on and most of the time it is a freeze-out format.

So, as a general rule of thumb, you think 2.5x is too low to open pots with here? I know there isn’t much difference in the 2.5 to the 3.5 initial size but if there is going to be a decent amount of 3-betting, it becomes significant over the course of the game. I have seen a weird phenomenon though where it seems that the larger the opening bet, the more callers there are. No 3-bets, just a bunch of flat-calls. Not a clue what this is about because its just about the worst way to play hands.

Also agree on multiway pots. Forget hand-strength for a second. Pre-flop activity should help a player define ranges and eliminate giant portions of possible hands from the out of position players and a decent portion of the hands from in-position players. The more players you can eliminate from a pot, the easier it is for you to have an idea for where you are in the hand. Another topic for another thread though :slight_smile:

I like to keep my opens identical regardless of position or holdings when I’m playing live. AA UTG or 7/8s in the hijack is the same open move. Do you think this applies here and I just need to increase my standard open or is there more use to varying opening bet sizes and perhaps giving away some hand-strength information?

RE: buy-ins - overall I think you are correct but I also see Sarah’s side of things. I would 100% agree with you if people were buying in for 30BB’s but I think the minimum here is 50BB’s. At 50, you have a good amount of playability, especially if you are used to being in that range from MTT experience. Again, in general I think buying in for 100+BB’s is a better move but a lot of the time the short-stack has outsized influence on the table because they are frankly the most dangerous. You have to keep an eye on that stack and decide if you want to play the hand for all of it or not because they are the 1st one to be pot committed.

Anyway, its a valid strategy and in the right player’s hands, it can be pretty effective while minimizing some risk. Sarah is crafty. My opinion is that she doesn’t have the bankroll to play a traditional game at these stakes but she makes herself dangerous and therefore doesn’t get run over quite as easily as most would. If she stays disciplined enough to eject and pull the rip-cord if things get too heated or she runs into a bad streak, then I think this approach can work. Just my opinion though.

25

In terms of open sizes, I agree with keeping it standard and increasing it for the number of limpers, unless there are specific opponents who don’t seem capable of adjusting, in which case you can exploit them with bigger sizes for bigger hands. I do think it is possible to profitably raise a wider range with a standard size and be successful. I think 2.5x is too small because you will get too many callers. You can win against passive players by raising bigger even with your 78s or A4s because it will be hard for them to put you on a hand. They may pay a big price to set mine just to see you fold and get no value, or they may pay a big price and not know what to do with 99 against your AA. But smaller sizes are good, especially against better opponents because they won’t make such easily exploitable calling mistakes. From what I’ve seen, unranked’s standard raise size is 2.4x, and he does pretty well…

26

I haven’t seen him play a ton but when I have seen him, its been on a table with only 1 or 2 other players. If this is what you are seeing as well, then I’m not sure its comparable to full-table rings. Short-handed play is a lot more formulaic than full-ring and you would be opening a huge portion of your hands from the button and likewise BB is defending a huge range. Have you seen him make the same opens with 4-5+ on a table? I’m curious.

27

Since my name is mentioned, I just thought I might want to chime in.

Preflop opening sizes should be thought of as a function in several variables, namely dead money, depth, position, opening ranges and opponents’ ranges. I am glossing over many details (especially last two), but the following should be helpful as a first-order approximation.

  • Size up when there is dead money, say from antes, limps or bring-ins.
  • Size up when effective stack sizes are deeper and vice versa.
  • Size up when out of position and vice versa.
  • Size up when opening a tighter range.
  • Size up (and tighten or merge) when opponents are flatting with high frequency. Size down when opponents are 3-betting with high frequency.

The reasons behind these heuristics should be intuitive and apply to all formats of poker, be it in a tournament or cash game and regardless of number of players. Of course, if you deem your opponents to be incapable of adjusting, just use an exploitative size.

3 Likes
28

You see this is why I hate that Replay has no chatrooms (private) so I could talk to 2-3 ppl, and not have the whole community know how I think about stuff… I just wrote a wall of text, only to erase it.

what I do know is the 1st few times I sat on a ring table recently, ppl did try and run over me…after 2-3 times me sitting, and 2-3 times me leaving with a profit and playing min hands… I hope they got the hint… I don’t mess around in ring, I play a much more traditional game than in SnG/MTT. This is also why I refuse to play 2-3 levels below whats necessary. Its close to how I play in Regionals, that is when I am trying for the leaderboard. I this is evident since in 1 year of MTTs low-med , I only stack’d 5.5m bankroll , and I’ve pulled 10m in the last 8-9 days play’n ring. I don’t expect that to last, gotta lose sometimes… but long term, if I play disclipined poker… no reason I can’t keep moving up.

1 other thing… some ppl look @ bet sizing in wierd ways…lets say blinds are 2k4k, and preflop raise is 3x ( 12k ), there are times you want the next bet to represent a c-bet… in that case I can see making another 12k stab, even into a 75k pot… where you would say correct size is 30-35k… Yes, pricing someone in works just like pricing someone out… you see this is the problem we all face when we play a hand that is leading… how to price ppl in to get profit while @ the same time pricing ppl out to protect your hand…

Most ppl say, poker is all about telling a story… tell the story right, you’re golden… tell the story wrong, you’re lunchmeat… in that senario, if I need you them to believe “abc” … then whatever I have to do so you believe “abc”, is what I’ll do… Its also like a magician, get the croud to watch left hand, while the right hand switches something…

I’ve already said too much, and too little… but I gotta say Warlock, I love this quote : [quote=“1Warlock, post:24, topic:6580”]
but she makes herself dangerous and therefore doesn’t get run over quite as easily as most would
[/quote]

Damn right, I am dangerous … but I’m human and do make mistakes… caveiot emptor… let the buyer beware… HU play taught me how to “not to get run over” ( as easily ).

1 Like
29

I like your point about telling a story. If your betting and other play is weird, it can be difficult for opponents to guess what “story” you are telling, which can be an advantage. But on the other hand, the reason “stories” make sense is because there is logic to playing the hand that way. You might bet a flop with AA to get value or you might be c-betting with complete air to get folds. I think unexpoitable play is telling the same stories in different situations.

This story telling is related to bet sizing, which is extremely important and a really difficult skill. I’m no expert and it is an extremely complex topic, but I think most people on Replay get caught up trying to price opponents in or out, when it is actually more complex. If you raise AK and get a caller with 74s and the flop comes AT7, if you bet 12k into a pot of 75k, your opponent has a great price to try to hit their 7, and you are getting only a small amount of value for your top pair. If they hit a 3rd 7 they will probably win a big pot, and if they just have to call 1/6th pot bets on the flop and turn then they are risking almost nothing. They will never call a big bet on the river if they don’t improve, so you will win a small/medium pot, but if the board comes AT77K, you could lose your whole stack.

Then players go to the other extreme and bet 2x pot on a flop with 2 suited cards to prevent their opponents from drawing. Yes, it can pay off if your opponents are bad enough to overpay, but in general this is an extremely exploitable strategy. Set-mines work well against this approach even if the price isn’t great just because these players will bet huge on most flops with their big pairs. They are trying to scare away draws, but they are just getting weaker hands to fold and losing big pots to hands that beat them. If you have AK and the flop comes AT7 again with 2 suited cards, and you bet 150k into 75k, you are getting crushed by 77, AT, and TT (and AA), and you are losing value by folding out other Aces and Tx hands. Players get really lucky and crush the flop and then bet in such a way that assures that they win no additional chips for their big hands to try to “protect” them.

There are 2 approaches that players take to this issue. The one that I think is better, but is more difficult, and which I am not good at, is by polarizing your range. 2x pot is too much, but if you generally make big bets for value, you also need to include some big bets as bluffs, and some trickier play with value hands so that opponents don’t know if they will get paid off when they hit against you, and so you are more unpredictable. When done correctly, you can make huge bets and opponents won’t know whether you want them to call or not (it confuses the story)

The more common approach is by making medium sized bets, which makes it difficult to distinguish value hands from bluffs and makes it more difficult for your opponents to get paid off with implied odds hands (e.g., flopped sets). With this approach you will often give your opponent a reasonable price to draw (e.g., if you bet 60% of pot and they have overcards and a flush draw), but you have to trust your decision making when the draws hit or miss to know if you opponent had it or might try to bluff you, etc.

I just don’t see much reason to c-bet 1/6th of the pot. You aren’t going to get anybody to fold, and you aren’t going to profit much when they do call with worse hands. It also creates a lot of ambiguity that makes later decisions harder because it is difficult to put your opponents on a range. Anyway, I thought I was going to write a few sentences and it became a dissertation lol…

1 Like
30

Well, not really. That’s just the “sexy” part of the game but is isn’t the bulk of it, IMHO. Successful poker playing is about making as many correct decisions as possible while trying to force your opponents to make incorrect ones. Persuasive story telling is one part of how you do the latter. How you handle the former is much more than half the game though.

I’ll give you some insight to my live-play. I am not a great player. I am not super-creative. What I am is a grinder who knows his limitations. I need to be as good as I can be technically because I am not strong in other areas. I do not cold-read people nearly as well as the really good players do. To make up for this, I do a ton of homework and study hands when possible. I’m lucky in that I have a pretty good memory so this method works for me. Still, it only works with people I have seen before. When playing someone for the 1st time, it takes me a bit to figure them out.

You see, most of my success has come from what I don’t do. I try not to put myself into spots where I’ll be forced to make tough decisions if it isn’t necessary or potentially super-profitable. I try not to get myself sandwiched between other players where I never cap the action. I try not to play huge pots with marginal hands out of position where I am likely to face a bet for my entire stack on the river. I try not to play hands that are likely dominated even if I hit (think K10, weak A’s, …) Basically, I have been successful by making the game as easy as I can on myself. I don’t want to be in spots where I have to decide to make the “hero” call or laydown.

That being said, I don’t think I will ever go deep in a live multi-day tournament with the skills I have. I will likely continue to cash at a very high rate but never really be in contention to win one. This is the area I would like to improve upon most. I started playing online poker with the hopes of doing just this. Lastly, I will likely continue to earn at a steady, if not extraordinary pace when I play cash. Thankfully I never “had to” make my living playing poker. Its a long-time hobby that I enjoy very much and have been moderately successful at over quite a number of years.

BTW - glad you liked the quote. I love heads-up, mostly because its something you can practice and become technically proficient at, if not dominant at against people who don’t understand it as well. HU play is where I started learning GTO poker, which is basically the guide for how not to get run over :slight_smile:

31

great posts everyone.

32

Warlock,
I agree sometimes its what you don’t do that makes all the difference… Don’t beat yourself… Hell what do I know, I just donk’d off 2m … I got all day to get it back…no hurry…

iono, I’m barely above average… but I have to have a goal + risk…

33

Great Thread !!!

34

I think yer all crazy.

The way I see it, making it 10,400 to go with a BB of 4,000 is a 1.6 BB raise… far too small to accomplish anything. The absolute minimum effective raise there should have been 12,000, making it 16k to go, but with all 3 early seats limping, a 4 or 5 BB raise would have been more appropriate. Of course, being short stacked meant that a proper pre-flop raise would have left you without enough gas in your tank to continue post-flop.

Short stacked in mid position with 3 limpers already in isn’t a great spot to get creative with K6s.

In any no-limit game, the fundamental reason to raise is to alter the pot odds, making it unprofitable (and thus a mistake) for your opponents to continue with hands that might beat you, or to extract maximum value from hands that you can beat. Raising for any other reason is a mistake.

You might find this interesting…

Learn to Play Pre-Flop Poker like a Pro

1 Like
35

i like the link you posted, but i see some little flaws in it.

for example: the range in the utg it said is JJ+, i think that 1010 (and pehars even 99) are also great hands to open from any position. as for the LP this one is also not containing all pairs, i do think all pairs here are good for a raise, since if no one played until the LP you will have position and initiative with a hand that is ahead 70% of the time on the flop (assuming you won’t play to a bigger pair) and also when calling, this means there are more people involved in the pot which makes setmining a very good strategy (assuming everyone is deep enough). i saw some more little flaws but these seemed the most important one to mention.

but of course, no matter the standard ranges, everything is situation dependant (which is mentioned).

but even when there are some little flaws in it i do think it’s a way better range then many low stake players play.

36

Well SunPowerGuru,
ok semantics… raise of - raise to … lets take Asian… 20/40 - 2500 I think to start… My standard raise there is 100… 2.5(bb) not bb+2.5(bb)+L… I see other reasons to raise, I also know that in general… there is always more than 1 way to complete a task… for Poker, if there wasn’t then the only way to play would be the Brunson way… yes I know, general game(poker) theory…I gotcha…

I’m confident that if the two of us were in a private chat, and de-brief’d those 2 hands… you would be satisfied in my “logic”. I also think that type of help is the only help that will further my playing. I deff follow certain rules ( my rules ) on how I do stuff. I just think a tweak will get me to the next level, so I really do want the help… I’m not trying to be difficult.

37

I don’t really think you’re all crazy, I just wanted to get your attention.

And yeah, there are many valid paths.

Sarah, you and I have been at the same table often enough that I understand your game and respect it, even if I don’t always agree with the way you play. Your results speak for them self, as (I think) should mine.

From our private conversations, I know you don’t like your game exposed in general chat, and I will respect that. Because it might be helpful to other players, however, I will offer one bit of advise…

Mix it up a bit. One doesn’t want to be so predictable that your bet sizing telegraphs your hand strength.

My approach to the game is different than most. I don’t care about winning chips because I feel I have all the chips I need to play the game as I like to play it. I know straight ABC poker is more profitable on Replay, but I don’t play ABC poker usually.

I don’t care about rankings, though I did feel a small satisfaction when I made it into the upper 1000. I know I’m one of the best MTT players here no matter what I’m ranked. :slight_smile:

The thing that surprises me is that, in post after post, the focus is entirely on “my hand,” and nobody seems to consider how their play is being perceived by the other players. My cards are less important to me than your cards. Practice putting someone on a hand, then play their hand, not yours. Practice this EVERY SINGLE HAND, not just the ones in which you are involved.

Sarah unbderstands that I’m not picking on her, but trying to offer the help she asked for. I’m happy to help anyone looking to take their game to the next level. Peace.

38

[quote=“SunPowerGuru, post:37, topic:6580”]
Sarah unbderstands that I’m not picking on her,
[/quote]Yup, I sure do… and tks.
(Edit)- SunPowerGuru is a fantastic poker player, and MTT wise…“surely”, he scares me, and deserves a healthy respect by his opponents. There’s a shortlist of ppl I cringe @ when they are rebalanced to my table or I start with… Having said that, having a table full of those ppl is the best poker avail…

39

Wait, you were cringing? Damn, all this time, I thought you were swooning!

Sigh

40

:kiss: