or3o1990
Legend
Silver Level
John A
Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
It's good to take a break sometimes. And thanks for the kind words. I'll take .007% credit.
That's definitely all you, but it's always good to hear if there's something I could put out there that assisted along the way. I'll check out your thread. If you have hands, you can always post them in here.
John A
Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
Because this guy is short, I'd either just call pre, or I'd be putting slightly more in so it forces them to fold/shove. He should have folded with this hand of course. So as played, considering he can have a wide 4-bet calling range short, I'd c/c the flop instead of shove. We want him to shove his garbage, not fold it.
or3o1990
Legend
Silver Level
Thanks for the feedback. I do like making it bigger but normally on the flop I'd default to checking my pairs and shoving my a high. I know it's a little weak. I can c/c the flop with with confidence but I'm concerned about letting it go c,c and feeling lost on the turn.
But for real, this thread sent me on my way. And you and Bruce and duggs helped my game immensely. Still got a ways to go though.
I'm taking a couple of days off but I'll be back with some hands.
But for real, this thread sent me on my way. And you and Bruce and duggs helped my game immensely. Still got a ways to go though.
I'm taking a couple of days off but I'll be back with some hands.
John A
Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
I'd advise not having a default. I'd say instead have some universal poker truths like, "If I shove, I allow my opponent to play near perfect poker." And allowing your opponent to play near perfect isn't winning poker.
So in this specific hand, we only know our opponent is short stacked, which is usually a sign they are a weaker player. If you open shove the flop, your opponent can fold KQ/AQ/AJs, and any other garbage they may have. You're unlikely to get them to fold splits either if they have AK, and they're definitely not folding TT+. Their calling range if you shove isn't changing.
If you're worried about the turn, don't be. The turn plays the same... you check, and allow your opponent the same opportunity. The above maxim doesn't change.
Look forward to your posts. You're a really good poker player for a lot of reasons. Keep adding to your arsenal.
or3o1990
Legend
Silver Level
Figaroo2
Legend
Bronze Level
Nut flush on the turn. Bet or check? River action?
Pacific, $0.05/$0.10 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 7 Players
Hero (SB): $10.29 (102.9 bb)
BB: $10.30 (103 bb)
MP1: $10.15 (101.5 bb)
MP2: $12.86 (128.6 bb)
MP3: $12.69 (126.9 bb)
CO: $10 (100 bb)
BTN: $14.87 (148.7 bb)VPIP: 24, PFR: 12, 3B: 1, AF: 0.9, Hands: 1481
Preflop: Hero is SB with K♠ A♠
4 folds, BTN raises to $0.30, Hero raises to $0.90, BB folds, BTN calls $0.60
Flop: ($1.90) 5♦ 6♦ T♠ (2 players)
Hero bets $0.62, BTN calls $0.62
Turn: ($3.14) 8♠ (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN checks
River: ($3.14) 8♣ (2 players)
Hero?
Villian wtsd% 27.
I would always bet a weaker flush draw on the turn. I checked here to avoid getting shoved on on the turn. Is this correct? I seem to remember Polk saying you should check in this spot with the nut flush draw.
Pacific, $0.05/$0.10 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 7 Players
Hero (SB): $10.29 (102.9 bb)
BB: $10.30 (103 bb)
MP1: $10.15 (101.5 bb)
MP2: $12.86 (128.6 bb)
MP3: $12.69 (126.9 bb)
CO: $10 (100 bb)
BTN: $14.87 (148.7 bb)VPIP: 24, PFR: 12, 3B: 1, AF: 0.9, Hands: 1481
Preflop: Hero is SB with K♠ A♠
4 folds, BTN raises to $0.30, Hero raises to $0.90, BB folds, BTN calls $0.60
Flop: ($1.90) 5♦ 6♦ T♠ (2 players)
Hero bets $0.62, BTN calls $0.62
Turn: ($3.14) 8♠ (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN checks
River: ($3.14) 8♣ (2 players)
Hero?
Villian wtsd% 27.
I would always bet a weaker flush draw on the turn. I checked here to avoid getting shoved on on the turn. Is this correct? I seem to remember Polk saying you should check in this spot with the nut flush draw.
Ian the Fish
Visionary
Silver Level
Judging by his stats, the guy seems to me a bit like a calling station (perhaps I am reading into it slightly wrong), so I would check myself. The logic behind my reasoning is that with the RC preflop, the villain is likely to have a pocket pair, or you are ahead. I think apart from AT, all Tx can be counted out (also TT, ofc).
With that logic, the pair will call your bet on the river (it is quite unlikely that the 8 changed anything for you), and that small bet on the flop doesn't look like much strength either, so he has a good point in calling.
So if he has a pair and you bet, you'll lose more, and if he has Ax, you will most likely win / split (assuming a X-back on the river). If he bets, you fold, ofc.
or3o1990
Legend
Silver Level
I probably check and give up on the flop because it hits his range much harder than ours. I think and because hes a fishy type I don't expect we're trying to bluff him off a pair but idk?
Idk what to think on the turn, I want to check but I also want to see a river. He may only have a weak pair but many of his weak pairs just picked up extra outs. I doubt we have much fold equity. I think the free river is the most ideal.
John A
Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
I'm checking the flop a large % of the time there. I don't hate the c-bet, but if I'm betting that flop, then I'm betting the turn. and yes, usually good to check the nut flush there, but with this guys aggression, it's doubtful he's shoving and you and he might fold some of his better range to double even though it's not an amazing turn.
As played, once you check the turn you can't bluff that river.
or3o1990
Legend
Silver Level
I thought it was kind of funny how this spot literally just came up.
iPoker - $2 NL - Holdem - 8 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4
CO: 154.15 BB (VPIP: 45.83, PFR: 8.33, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 24)
BTN: 213.29 BB (VPIP: 25.00, PFR: 20.83, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 24)
Hero (SB): 106.78 BB
BB: 169.02 BB (VPIP: 8.33, PFR: 8.33, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 24)
UTG: 7.84 BB (VPIP: 37.50, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 16)
UTG+1: 98.4 BB (VPIP: 4.17, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 24)
MP: 98.5 BB (VPIP: 0.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 5)
MP+1: 23 BB (VPIP: 100.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 1)
Hero posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB
Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has Q♥ A♣
fold, fold, fold, MP+1 calls 1 BB, fold, BTN raises to 3 BB, Hero raises to 11 BB, fold, MP+1 calls 10 BB, fold
Flop: (26 BB, 2 players) 5♦ J♥ 3♦
Hero checks, MP+1 bets 12 BB, Hero calls 12 BB
Turn: (50 BB, 2 players) J♠
River: (50 BB, 2 players) 2♠
MP+1 shows A♠ 8♥ (One Pair, Jacks)
(Pre 26%, Flop 14%, Turn 14%)
Hero shows Q♥ A♣ (One Pair, Jacks)
(Pre 74%, Flop 86%, Turn 86%)
Hero wins 48 BB
iPoker - $2 NL - Holdem - 8 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4
CO: 154.15 BB (VPIP: 45.83, PFR: 8.33, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 24)
BTN: 213.29 BB (VPIP: 25.00, PFR: 20.83, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 24)
Hero (SB): 106.78 BB
BB: 169.02 BB (VPIP: 8.33, PFR: 8.33, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 24)
UTG: 7.84 BB (VPIP: 37.50, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 16)
UTG+1: 98.4 BB (VPIP: 4.17, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 24)
MP: 98.5 BB (VPIP: 0.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 5)
MP+1: 23 BB (VPIP: 100.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 1)
Hero posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB
Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has Q♥ A♣
fold, fold, fold, MP+1 calls 1 BB, fold, BTN raises to 3 BB, Hero raises to 11 BB, fold, MP+1 calls 10 BB, fold
Flop: (26 BB, 2 players) 5♦ J♥ 3♦
Hero checks, MP+1 bets 12 BB, Hero calls 12 BB
Turn: (50 BB, 2 players) J♠
River: (50 BB, 2 players) 2♠
MP+1 shows A♠ 8♥ (One Pair, Jacks)
(Pre 26%, Flop 14%, Turn 14%)
Hero shows Q♥ A♣ (One Pair, Jacks)
(Pre 74%, Flop 86%, Turn 86%)
Hero wins 48 BB
Aballinamion
Dark Lord of the Sith
Bronze Level
neat
Hello there thanks for being with us at CardsChat! Your work is awesome and I really want to make part of this study group. I have a lot to learn about Cash Games. I downloaded your Book, Polished Poke and already read some chapters, very, very good one.
I will read the Chapter 9, about Perceived Ranges, and I really want to participate in this study group, how can I do it?
I also will make some propaganda of your book here in the Forum because I use to post and comment quite a bit (I love poker). Any information and advice will be great!
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Hello there thanks for being with us at CardsChat! Your work is awesome and I really want to make part of this study group. I have a lot to learn about Cash Games. I downloaded your Book, Polished Poke and already read some chapters, very, very good one.
I will read the Chapter 9, about Perceived Ranges, and I really want to participate in this study group, how can I do it?
I also will make some propaganda of your book here in the Forum because I use to post and comment quite a bit (I love poker). Any information and advice will be great!
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Aballinamion
Dark Lord of the Sith
Bronze Level
To John A
Hey John A, thanks for this amazing book about Cash Games! I am reading the chapters with eagerness, and I will read it more than once, for sure. Very well done!
Now, I am struggling to learn a proper and decent strategy to optimize the blinds defense (SB and BB defense), at the Micro Stakes.
I wrote a text and sent to Evan Jarvis (Gripsed), but he is a very busy player like you John A, and I completely understand it, so he didn't have the time to reply. It's a very long and boring text, so if you don't want to read no problem. But just in case: https://www.cardschat.com/forum/cash-games-11/ask-gripsed-anything-about-cash-games-432683/ (it is one of the lastest posts).
And again, I initiate a thread in the Cash Games Forum, but also not a lot of replies: it seems that everybody already is a pro in blinds defense, so there's no need to talk about it: https://www.cardschat.com/forum/cash-games-11/trying-optimize-blind-defense-446033/
So, I am reading the book and I try to apply systematically the things the author explains:
"2. Making more definitive decisions against steal attempts, and reducing cold calling range. This basically means 3-betting or folding more instead of flatting. Ideally flatting can be much more profitable
Optimal Big Blind Play
When you have a reasonable amount of confidence in your post flop game, look to take more flops. This is always within reason, but look for marginal regulars you think you have an advantage on, and look to outplay them post flop."
Polished Poker Vol 1. rev 2. Pag: 88
This is incredible true for the micro stakes. Because of the High Rake, and the variance, we are calling from the SB almost never and from the BB not very frequently either. Most of times the 3bet, specially from the SB is much better than flatting with a capped obvious range. From the BB, I guess, we can call a little bit more, but even so the 3bet and the Squeeze tends to be more profitable when the Rake is high. (am I right?).
Look for maginal regulars it is also one thing I only do at the micros (2 NLHE and 5 NLHE): try to overplay them when possible:
If a Weak Reg, a Whale, a Fish completes from the SB, I am stealing a lot from the BB because I have position over this x player, initiative, and I might overplay it several times preflop and postflop. The players in the SB who use to complete, when it comes in gap, fold a lot to steal attemps of the BB and when they call, their range cannot sustain two streets of value/pressure.
Defending the Blinds vs EP
The book gives a real piece of advice when it comes to face TAGs from the BB. One thing I never looked upon, it is the C-Bet Flop from the TAG EP Raisor. If they C-Bet the flop less, we in the BB can wide our range and call with more strong suited or single gapped connectors, because of the low rate of C-Bet Flop, we in the BB can see the Turn most of times and complete our equity for free.
The same goes if the TAG raisor from the EP, C-Bets many flops to leave a lot of Turns. (tends to play passively on the Turn). We can call from the BB with a similar range mentioned above.
However, if the TAG in the EP is too aggressive postflop, we should avoid calling down too much, unless a weak player also enters the pot, so we can reevaluate our decisions:
"a. If they are tight: How often are they continuation betting? Some tight players have a really small or large continuation bet percentage. Very few are somewhere in between. If they continuation bet a smaller percentage of the time, then looking to take a flop with some strong suited or single gapped connectors can allow you to see four cards often enough to hit a big hand or make a move. If they continuation bet a lot, but are passive on the turn, you can call with a similar range and some broadway suited hands like QJs for example, and look to either lead the flop in spots where you completely miss and take their play away from them, or check/call and lead a lot of turns on flops that have potential. This would be "floating out of position" and isn't very profitable unless you're very confident in your post flop play and reads. If your opponent is tight and a high continuation bettor and aggressive on later streets, then folding most of your hands is ideal unless there is another really weak player in the pot. Then you can widen your range slightly, but not much."
Polished Poker Vol 1, Rev 2, Pag 88-89
Any ideias, critics, comments will be very much appreciated. Thanks for your great work!
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Hey John A, thanks for this amazing book about Cash Games! I am reading the chapters with eagerness, and I will read it more than once, for sure. Very well done!
Now, I am struggling to learn a proper and decent strategy to optimize the blinds defense (SB and BB defense), at the Micro Stakes.
I wrote a text and sent to Evan Jarvis (Gripsed), but he is a very busy player like you John A, and I completely understand it, so he didn't have the time to reply. It's a very long and boring text, so if you don't want to read no problem. But just in case: https://www.cardschat.com/forum/cash-games-11/ask-gripsed-anything-about-cash-games-432683/ (it is one of the lastest posts).
And again, I initiate a thread in the Cash Games Forum, but also not a lot of replies: it seems that everybody already is a pro in blinds defense, so there's no need to talk about it: https://www.cardschat.com/forum/cash-games-11/trying-optimize-blind-defense-446033/
So, I am reading the book and I try to apply systematically the things the author explains:
"2. Making more definitive decisions against steal attempts, and reducing cold calling range. This basically means 3-betting or folding more instead of flatting. Ideally flatting can be much more profitable
Optimal Big Blind Play
When you have a reasonable amount of confidence in your post flop game, look to take more flops. This is always within reason, but look for marginal regulars you think you have an advantage on, and look to outplay them post flop."
Polished Poker Vol 1. rev 2. Pag: 88
This is incredible true for the micro stakes. Because of the High Rake, and the variance, we are calling from the SB almost never and from the BB not very frequently either. Most of times the 3bet, specially from the SB is much better than flatting with a capped obvious range. From the BB, I guess, we can call a little bit more, but even so the 3bet and the Squeeze tends to be more profitable when the Rake is high. (am I right?).
Look for maginal regulars it is also one thing I only do at the micros (2 NLHE and 5 NLHE): try to overplay them when possible:
If a Weak Reg, a Whale, a Fish completes from the SB, I am stealing a lot from the BB because I have position over this x player, initiative, and I might overplay it several times preflop and postflop. The players in the SB who use to complete, when it comes in gap, fold a lot to steal attemps of the BB and when they call, their range cannot sustain two streets of value/pressure.
Defending the Blinds vs EP
The book gives a real piece of advice when it comes to face TAGs from the BB. One thing I never looked upon, it is the C-Bet Flop from the TAG EP Raisor. If they C-Bet the flop less, we in the BB can wide our range and call with more strong suited or single gapped connectors, because of the low rate of C-Bet Flop, we in the BB can see the Turn most of times and complete our equity for free.
The same goes if the TAG raisor from the EP, C-Bets many flops to leave a lot of Turns. (tends to play passively on the Turn). We can call from the BB with a similar range mentioned above.
However, if the TAG in the EP is too aggressive postflop, we should avoid calling down too much, unless a weak player also enters the pot, so we can reevaluate our decisions:
"a. If they are tight: How often are they continuation betting? Some tight players have a really small or large continuation bet percentage. Very few are somewhere in between. If they continuation bet a smaller percentage of the time, then looking to take a flop with some strong suited or single gapped connectors can allow you to see four cards often enough to hit a big hand or make a move. If they continuation bet a lot, but are passive on the turn, you can call with a similar range and some broadway suited hands like QJs for example, and look to either lead the flop in spots where you completely miss and take their play away from them, or check/call and lead a lot of turns on flops that have potential. This would be "floating out of position" and isn't very profitable unless you're very confident in your post flop play and reads. If your opponent is tight and a high continuation bettor and aggressive on later streets, then folding most of your hands is ideal unless there is another really weak player in the pot. Then you can widen your range slightly, but not much."
Polished Poker Vol 1, Rev 2, Pag 88-89
Any ideias, critics, comments will be very much appreciated. Thanks for your great work!
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
John A
Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
Ya, not quite the same (similar, but stack sizes make a difference here), but I'm glad you checked and let him bluff.
NH!
John A
Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
Welcome Carlos. Yes, just reading through the material, asking questions, posting hands, and responding to other hand posts. All of those things will help you improve and get better at poker.
There's a very good group of guys here who sweat each other, offer support, and dig into poker theory.
John A
Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
Yes, the rake in micros has been steadily increasing in recent years. There's a lot of hand situations where it makes much more sense to fold or 3-bet and avoid seeing a flop an incurring a rake. As you move up stakes this becomes less of an issue and more about finding ideal defending ranges you'll flat with pre-flop.
Yes, you're correct. That's the best approach. If your opponent is more passive, and doesn't c-bet the flop as much, your BB defending range should get much wider especially with suited connectors, and sometimes even mid/high single gap connectors.
There's no static rules in poker, but you should always be thinking ahead about what you're trying to achieve with the hand you have, and how much easier or more difficult it will be to realize your equity versus the kind of opponent you're facing.
Good and thoughtful comments Carlos.
Aballinamion
Dark Lord of the Sith
Bronze Level
nice
Hello there good morning John A, and thank you very much for your feedback.
I would love to post here, however, it is a little bit complicated and full of information, because there is always someone posting another hand. It is awesome for our study but I would like to give you a suggestion:
Could you try to make two different threads, one only for hand analysis divided by Stakes, and another thread just for specific discussion of the book.
I love the way it is, but it is kind of confuse some times because the big ammount of information.
Very grateful for your attention!
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Hello there good morning John A, and thank you very much for your feedback.
I would love to post here, however, it is a little bit complicated and full of information, because there is always someone posting another hand. It is awesome for our study but I would like to give you a suggestion:
Could you try to make two different threads, one only for hand analysis divided by Stakes, and another thread just for specific discussion of the book.
I love the way it is, but it is kind of confuse some times because the big ammount of information.
Very grateful for your attention!
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Aballinamion
Dark Lord of the Sith
Bronze Level
Perceived range
Hi there John A how you doing? Good evening and I would like to wish you happy new year for you, your friends and family. Your work here is awesome and I follow your posts with enthusiasm.
I hope not to be trolling here with a lot of post, but I have a couple of doubts.
I began reading the last chapter of your amazing book, "Perceived Range" and I confess that I found it very hard to understand how to play balanced against regulars and good opponents.
Because I play mostly 2 NLHE to 10 NLHE and the ammount of regulars are so, so small.
Thus, I am almost everytime playing exploitative and unbalanced lines.
I am analysing my older sessions and hands that I played, three months ago, specially those I got to the showndown (following your book advices) and I see that the vast majority of players of 2 NLHE and 5 NLHE are donkeys (even me). At 10 NLHE changes a little but, even so, the majority of players are weak.
I made hundreds of notes and got to some basic observations of the field 2 NLHE (Based on players types of Polished Poker Vol I):
A) AK bluffers: many players when they do a 3bet preflop with AK, either IP or OOP, they like to triple barrel bluff, as they had the cold nuts itself. The lines are very similar: bet flop, bet turn and jam river. Or bet flop, check-raise turn, jam river. Some check-raise flop and jam turn with AK in board with absolute air!
B) Flush Chaser/ Flush Bluffer: Those either call two streets of value to see a river flush, or they check-raise flop with a back-door flush. Player call raises, 3bets, squeezes with any two suited cards and follow eagerly back-door flushes and runner-runner flushes. When they miss they jam the river. (not every player)
C) Gutter Chaser/Gutter Bluffer: Any gutter of any straight in any kind of board texture is enough for these players to be betting flop, turn and jamming river.
D) Hard to leave hands postflop: This is the vast majority of the population at 2 NLHE: players who never fold a Top Pair in a heavy connected river, example double paired, with a flush and a straight. Some others will go 200 bb Pot with TT, JJ and QQ, when the board is low. Some players would never fold JJ+ postflop no matter what happens flop/turn/river. Lol.
Guys who never leaves Bottom Set, never leaves a set when it completes a flush or a straight in the river and many other akward examples.
I also read these types of players in your book. They are far much better than the default classification as "TAG", "LAG", "FISH", etc. We might know, indeed, that the player is a Tight Aggressive one, with stats of VPIP 20, PFR 16, AF 3, but this information doesn't offer us a picture of how the player reacts postflop.
I saw more than once NITs opening from EP hands such K3s, K4s, 98s, and even some small pocket pairs such as 33, 44.
The HUD display will tell us that the Raise First of this hypothetical NIT player from UTG is 14%, 6-MAX, but from time to time it is going to open a wider range. (This is why notes are so important to take)
Generally, the postflop game of 2 NLHE is very poor and most of times nonsense: players are bluffing because they think it is a good spot for bluffing, and betting whey they think they have the best value hand, without noticing the cards in the board.
I was playing a more exploitative game at 2 NLHE and making a good winrate a few months ago. But I made a poker course and the teacher defends a more GTO approach and so I started doing it. Boom!
And then I lose incredible ammounts of value! My bankroll was of 45 Buy-ins of 2 NLHE, give or take, and after this poker course I went broke. (Now I have 9 buy-ins and I don't feel confident enough to play again. So I am trying to improve myself and build a more comfortable and decent bankroll, with faith, work and patient).
The GTO way of play drained my bankroll. When the field realized that I was balancing too much, controling the pot most of times, I became the perfect target for exploitation: many times I had the nuts in the turn on in the river but I folded to an absurd aggresion which is not GTO.
It seems to me that the players at the 2 NLHE look at GTO moves as weaknesses to be explored:
A) If I bet 1/3 pot in a dry flop, out of position, players check-raise because they think I have a bluff. OR they call to float me in many turns and rivers that I could not possibily continue (by the logic of the game).
B) If I check flop, or bet flop and check turn, almost 100% of players look at this move as a weak one. They see that I was trying to bluff flop, it didn't pass and I gave up in the Turn (Look-up Artist). However I can be easily be betting many flops and check many turns even with the nuts because of pot control and balancing postflop range.
C) If I call flop, or turn, most of players will look at it as another weak move, as that I am either trying to float on later streets or that I have the medium-weak part of my range that could easily fold to aggression.
When I read this chapter for the first time, I almost cried. I was playing GTO against players who don't even think about ranges sometimes! Players who are only looking down at their hole cards and wondering "I have Top Pair, so I bet, I have a Flush so I bet, I have a Full-House I am going all-in...".
The exploitative game is so much better against weak players because we don't really need to be balancing anything against guys who are in the metagame level of thinking, in between level 0 and 2.
When I comment some hands here in the Forum, I am often criticized because some of my lines are too "fishy" or crazy. Indeed, I play like a crazy player when I am facing an opponent weaker than me.
I am weak and I am starting to accept that fact. If I were that strong I would already be the field beat. I am struggling like many here to find the optimal play against recreational ones, because IMO, they are the real source of our winrate.
Knowing that I have weak points to work in my game, I avoid to play against the regulars of the field, no matter if they are good or bad regulars. Against them, whether I want it or not, I gotta make a more GTO approach, otherwise, they are going to put my head on a spike.
Now either I play way to passive against aggressive-violent players, and against passive players I go mad and absurdly aggresive. Am I doing the right thing?
Your book is helping me a lot, and I would love to quote the begin of the chapter where the author explain how to play a more exploitative game against recreational players.
Polished Poker Vol I - Chapter: Perceived Range:
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Hi there John A how you doing? Good evening and I would like to wish you happy new year for you, your friends and family. Your work here is awesome and I follow your posts with enthusiasm.
I hope not to be trolling here with a lot of post, but I have a couple of doubts.
I began reading the last chapter of your amazing book, "Perceived Range" and I confess that I found it very hard to understand how to play balanced against regulars and good opponents.
Because I play mostly 2 NLHE to 10 NLHE and the ammount of regulars are so, so small.
Thus, I am almost everytime playing exploitative and unbalanced lines.
I am analysing my older sessions and hands that I played, three months ago, specially those I got to the showndown (following your book advices) and I see that the vast majority of players of 2 NLHE and 5 NLHE are donkeys (even me). At 10 NLHE changes a little but, even so, the majority of players are weak.
I made hundreds of notes and got to some basic observations of the field 2 NLHE (Based on players types of Polished Poker Vol I):
A) AK bluffers: many players when they do a 3bet preflop with AK, either IP or OOP, they like to triple barrel bluff, as they had the cold nuts itself. The lines are very similar: bet flop, bet turn and jam river. Or bet flop, check-raise turn, jam river. Some check-raise flop and jam turn with AK in board with absolute air!
B) Flush Chaser/ Flush Bluffer: Those either call two streets of value to see a river flush, or they check-raise flop with a back-door flush. Player call raises, 3bets, squeezes with any two suited cards and follow eagerly back-door flushes and runner-runner flushes. When they miss they jam the river. (not every player)
C) Gutter Chaser/Gutter Bluffer: Any gutter of any straight in any kind of board texture is enough for these players to be betting flop, turn and jamming river.
D) Hard to leave hands postflop: This is the vast majority of the population at 2 NLHE: players who never fold a Top Pair in a heavy connected river, example double paired, with a flush and a straight. Some others will go 200 bb Pot with TT, JJ and QQ, when the board is low. Some players would never fold JJ+ postflop no matter what happens flop/turn/river. Lol.
Guys who never leaves Bottom Set, never leaves a set when it completes a flush or a straight in the river and many other akward examples.
I also read these types of players in your book. They are far much better than the default classification as "TAG", "LAG", "FISH", etc. We might know, indeed, that the player is a Tight Aggressive one, with stats of VPIP 20, PFR 16, AF 3, but this information doesn't offer us a picture of how the player reacts postflop.
I saw more than once NITs opening from EP hands such K3s, K4s, 98s, and even some small pocket pairs such as 33, 44.
The HUD display will tell us that the Raise First of this hypothetical NIT player from UTG is 14%, 6-MAX, but from time to time it is going to open a wider range. (This is why notes are so important to take)
Generally, the postflop game of 2 NLHE is very poor and most of times nonsense: players are bluffing because they think it is a good spot for bluffing, and betting whey they think they have the best value hand, without noticing the cards in the board.
I was playing a more exploitative game at 2 NLHE and making a good winrate a few months ago. But I made a poker course and the teacher defends a more GTO approach and so I started doing it. Boom!
And then I lose incredible ammounts of value! My bankroll was of 45 Buy-ins of 2 NLHE, give or take, and after this poker course I went broke. (Now I have 9 buy-ins and I don't feel confident enough to play again. So I am trying to improve myself and build a more comfortable and decent bankroll, with faith, work and patient).
The GTO way of play drained my bankroll. When the field realized that I was balancing too much, controling the pot most of times, I became the perfect target for exploitation: many times I had the nuts in the turn on in the river but I folded to an absurd aggresion which is not GTO.
It seems to me that the players at the 2 NLHE look at GTO moves as weaknesses to be explored:
A) If I bet 1/3 pot in a dry flop, out of position, players check-raise because they think I have a bluff. OR they call to float me in many turns and rivers that I could not possibily continue (by the logic of the game).
B) If I check flop, or bet flop and check turn, almost 100% of players look at this move as a weak one. They see that I was trying to bluff flop, it didn't pass and I gave up in the Turn (Look-up Artist). However I can be easily be betting many flops and check many turns even with the nuts because of pot control and balancing postflop range.
C) If I call flop, or turn, most of players will look at it as another weak move, as that I am either trying to float on later streets or that I have the medium-weak part of my range that could easily fold to aggression.
When I read this chapter for the first time, I almost cried. I was playing GTO against players who don't even think about ranges sometimes! Players who are only looking down at their hole cards and wondering "I have Top Pair, so I bet, I have a Flush so I bet, I have a Full-House I am going all-in...".
The exploitative game is so much better against weak players because we don't really need to be balancing anything against guys who are in the metagame level of thinking, in between level 0 and 2.
When I comment some hands here in the Forum, I am often criticized because some of my lines are too "fishy" or crazy. Indeed, I play like a crazy player when I am facing an opponent weaker than me.
I am weak and I am starting to accept that fact. If I were that strong I would already be the field beat. I am struggling like many here to find the optimal play against recreational ones, because IMO, they are the real source of our winrate.
Knowing that I have weak points to work in my game, I avoid to play against the regulars of the field, no matter if they are good or bad regulars. Against them, whether I want it or not, I gotta make a more GTO approach, otherwise, they are going to put my head on a spike.
Now either I play way to passive against aggressive-violent players, and against passive players I go mad and absurdly aggresive. Am I doing the right thing?
Your book is helping me a lot, and I would love to quote the begin of the chapter where the author explain how to play a more exploitative game against recreational players.
Polished Poker Vol I - Chapter: Perceived Range:
"The weaker your opponent is, the more unbalanced your range can be simply because they won't be placing you on a range of hands well enough to make good decisions to begin with. This consequently means that if your opponent isn't thinking much beyond their own hand strength, you won't need to worry about balancing your range"
"Micro stake players mostly won't understand either concept, except for the most competent of regulars in your games. For that reason you can keep a mostly unbalanced range against those kinds of opponents, and play as exploitative as possible".
Polished Poker Vol I, Balancing your range, pag: 147
"Micro stake players mostly won't understand either concept, except for the most competent of regulars in your games. For that reason you can keep a mostly unbalanced range against those kinds of opponents, and play as exploitative as possible".
Polished Poker Vol I, Balancing your range, pag: 147
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Last edited:
John A
Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
It might not be ideal, but it's the best we have right now. Cardschat allows us to have this thread, and we do the most with it. It's worked up to this point, and again, while not ideal we do the best we can.
I'm traveling a lot at the moment so I'll try and get to your other questions here as soon as I can.
Happy new years everyone!
John A
Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
Hi Carlos. Happy new years to you!
Have you watched my recently released, how to really make money at poker series? It's free on youtube. A lot of how I see poker, and how it's evolved over the years is packed in there.
GTO as the new poker buzzword the last 4-5 years is good to learn at any level, but really it shouldn't be applied in micro stakes games imho. I actually posted about this the other day on 2+2 as well, and try to point out why this is the case. You'd assume the reasons would be obvious, but that's not how the poker world (or a lot of fields in the world) work in reality. In reality, someone who is considered an expert asserts a way of seeing or thinking, and then lots of people follow that approach without actually thinking for themselves. It's a lot of how human nature works. But this is why GTO approaches won't make you the most money at poker, and really it's pretty simple why it isn't ideal:
You have to assume your opponent is defending at the correct frequencies with the correct range. As you know, your opponents aren't, and hence any calculations you make in solvers generally won't be accurate because your opponent is over folding / under folding.
As soon as the ranges aren't correct, the bet sizing, range and frequencies that are spit back at you from solvers aren't going to be correct. It's really that simple.
Now... should you study GTO play? Absolutely. You should look at your hands and understand what range your opponent should defend with, what the best bet sizing is for your hand to make your opponent indifferent to your actions, and so on... all of that is valuable info to learn from.
HOWEVER, most of this should not be applied to micro stakes. Your opponents are making way too many mistakes to not play a more exploitative style.
So what should you be ideally studying?
Player types... personalities, and what each player types ranges generally tend to look like in reality at the table in common situations. You will learn these patterns, and I can tell you first hand you'll be able to accurately put people on pretty narrow ranges with increased practice. But it takes a hard work. You can't just push a solver button and get an answer. You're going to have to study your sessions, post hands, think about poker on your own.
Everyone is always looking for the quick simplest answer, but if poker was quick and simple, there wouldn't be any money in it for the truly good players that want to study the game.
If you haven't checked out those videos, I think you'll like them. I hope that helps a bit.
Aballinamion
Dark Lord of the Sith
Bronze Level
Good morning John A, thank you very much for your reply! Sorry, I was rude making this critic, I was just trying to give a suggestion but I express myself very poorly.
The thread is awesome and I am very grateful that CardsChat allow us such a great opportunity to talk, discuss and analyse the book and our friends hands.
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Aballinamion
Dark Lord of the Sith
Bronze Level
Nice and neat!
Hi there John A, thanks again for your attention and kindness. I would love to see the videos, but I don't really know where is the link for it, could you please send me the links?
What you have said it is the pure truth: " In reality, someone who is considered an expert asserts a way of seeing or thinking, and then lots of people follow that approach without actually thinking for themselves."
I was one of those players until a few months ago, who looked up some YouTube videos of Doug Polk, Assassinato Poker, Charlie Carrel and tried to apply their ideas and concepts to the tables (micro-stackes), and it really doesn't work at all!
I stopped watching all material related to High and Medium stakes for good. Now I only read and watch videos of professionals about micro-stakes, such as Evan Jarvis, Nathan Williams and John A. (Do you know more pros who talk about the micros? I'd love to know)
Now, I am making a real hard work through the micros and I would like to share this expecience with you and the whole community.
Since I started learning from my own mistakes at the tables, I began to pass more time studying and less time playing. One of the things I do now, and it takes a lot of sweat and hardworking, is to look for a Zoom Cash Game, for instance, and, instead of clicking "Play Now", I changed my mind and began to click "Observe".
I spent one or two hours per day just observing the behavior of the players in the field. I watch the hands played with the utmost attention and care and put notes and colors in the players.
Like you honestly put what we should be really learning: "Player types... personalities, and what each player types ranges generally tend to look like in reality at the table in common situations. You will learn these patterns, and I can tell you first hand you'll be able to accurately put people on pretty narrow ranges with increased practice".
I observe stack sizes, position, the size of the preflop and postflop bets and the lines players use postflop to take a picture of the given range and playability/gameplan.
I see a lot of repetition and mechanical gaming. It seems to me that players at 2 NLHE and 5 NLHE are playing the same game of 2000 NLHE and 5000 NLHE! (where, because of the low rake, almost anything we do is correct at high stakes).
This analitic approach, with your book insights, are helping me a lot to build a solid strategy for beating the micros and consequently move up to the stakes.
Sorry, I know you are a very busy person and I don't intend to take your time for nothing.
I just appreciate very much your patience and work as a player, a writer, a professor and a good person that you are. Thank your from the bosom of my heart for all! Have a wonderful new year!
PS: If you please, could post the link to the videos
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Hi there John A, thanks again for your attention and kindness. I would love to see the videos, but I don't really know where is the link for it, could you please send me the links?
What you have said it is the pure truth: " In reality, someone who is considered an expert asserts a way of seeing or thinking, and then lots of people follow that approach without actually thinking for themselves."
I was one of those players until a few months ago, who looked up some YouTube videos of Doug Polk, Assassinato Poker, Charlie Carrel and tried to apply their ideas and concepts to the tables (micro-stackes), and it really doesn't work at all!
I stopped watching all material related to High and Medium stakes for good. Now I only read and watch videos of professionals about micro-stakes, such as Evan Jarvis, Nathan Williams and John A. (Do you know more pros who talk about the micros? I'd love to know)
Now, I am making a real hard work through the micros and I would like to share this expecience with you and the whole community.
Since I started learning from my own mistakes at the tables, I began to pass more time studying and less time playing. One of the things I do now, and it takes a lot of sweat and hardworking, is to look for a Zoom Cash Game, for instance, and, instead of clicking "Play Now", I changed my mind and began to click "Observe".
I spent one or two hours per day just observing the behavior of the players in the field. I watch the hands played with the utmost attention and care and put notes and colors in the players.
Like you honestly put what we should be really learning: "Player types... personalities, and what each player types ranges generally tend to look like in reality at the table in common situations. You will learn these patterns, and I can tell you first hand you'll be able to accurately put people on pretty narrow ranges with increased practice".
I observe stack sizes, position, the size of the preflop and postflop bets and the lines players use postflop to take a picture of the given range and playability/gameplan.
I see a lot of repetition and mechanical gaming. It seems to me that players at 2 NLHE and 5 NLHE are playing the same game of 2000 NLHE and 5000 NLHE! (where, because of the low rake, almost anything we do is correct at high stakes).
This analitic approach, with your book insights, are helping me a lot to build a solid strategy for beating the micros and consequently move up to the stakes.
Sorry, I know you are a very busy person and I don't intend to take your time for nothing.
I just appreciate very much your patience and work as a player, a writer, a professor and a good person that you are. Thank your from the bosom of my heart for all! Have a wonderful new year!
PS: If you please, could post the link to the videos
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Aballinamion
Dark Lord of the Sith
Bronze Level
excelent!
Hello there Figaroo2 how you doing? Your gesture is very kind and I am so grateful for it! Thank you very much, have a nice day!
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa
Hello there Figaroo2 how you doing? Your gesture is very kind and I am so grateful for it! Thank you very much, have a nice day!
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa