Polished Poker Vol. I Study Group

[John A]

I know I'm a bit late to this, but I think this question may apply more generally to this chapter.

Is some of the reason c/c is preferred that we expect a competent regular to have a more balance cbet range?

Most of the examples in this chapter seem to have opponent's cbetting 100% of their range - I know this makes the equity calculations easier, but how should we be taking into account how often a villain cbets and what that says about their range?

Thanks for doing this. It's all a bit above my level at the moment, but very interesting to think about.

Good question, but the examples used are assuming a c-bet so that we can run through the different options (otherwise we'd be on the turn ). Heads up, people c-bet a huge percentage of the time, so while more competent regulars will understand when to check, it's still going to be a large portion of their range as you know.

Even if someone's c-bet % is pretty low, heads up in position it's going to be super high, as it should be. OOP a little tighter. So I'd assume this until someone proves that they understand texture and ranges a little better. I coached a 25NL game last week and watched a pre-flop raiser in a sandwhiched position (person before him, person after him), c-bet a TJx board with 2 hearts with A8o. And he had reg stats, so you're probably going to see bad c-bets at those kinds of stakes a lot. That wasn't the only or first time I saw regulars making bad c-bets also.

Any ways, for the purpose of the chapter I wouldn't concern yourself with it. It's something to keep in the back of your mind, and if you have someone who is super tight at firing, then just don't look to re-steal quite as much. Don't check/call with A high and then donk the turn looking to re-steal.

 

[LD1977]

This depends on how the board comes down versus the range they likely have. If someone is c/cing, they are either going to be super strong and trapping, or very mediocre. Especially if they c/c turn and check river. And you know that most of the time people will not have big hands.

At micros you're going to have a lot of passive players that will call with draws, so you can bluff obviously missed draws with your air as well. You open with Jc9c and get one caller to see something with a flop like: 2c 6h 7h. You bet, get called. Turn: Kd (obvious scare card, but you are going to rep this on the turn and river). You bet, get called. River is a Qs. Opponent checks, you bet. Obviously most of their range will be missed draw (that may beat you at showdown), 6,7, and small mid pairs. It may include some flush draws that turned or rivered a pair. But against the whole range, you can win the hand most of the time by the river.

So when I look at a flop texture, immediately I'm looking at how hard it likely hit my opponent. Then I'm looking at what kind of backdoor draws I have an how strong they are. I'm sizing and planning my bets right from the start in order to bluff or win the biggest pot when I do hit. So a different example, same concept.

I open As5s, and get one caller in position. Flop comes: Ks 4d Tc.

I know when I c-bet this board I'm going to get floated a ton. Awesome... because unless he has a big draw, set or 2 pair, I'm going to be able to rep a lot of hands by the river. I can rep AK/KK type hands more than my opponent can. That's a given. But I also have a backdoor nut flush draw, backdoor broadway, and backdoor wheel.

So any spade, Q, J, 2, or 3 and I'm doubling the turn. So knowing that, I'm betting around half pot on the flop (which I alternate between 1/2 and 2/3 c-bet sizing in single raised pots). Then I'm betting near pot on the turn so I can setup a lot of river shoves if I whiff.

Versus the first example where I'd bet 2/3rds, ~3/5ths on the turn, and bet the river. The flop texture, and the plan for bet sizing starts on the flop for the entire hand.

Thanks but I was referring to when I am OOP and am doing the chkcall + lead turn line when the board is paired. Do I give up if he calls or lead river too? Lets say I have air.

 

[John A]

I don't understand the last six lines on the bottom of page 97.

Is the calculation
14 BB hero check-raises with / (14 + 11.5 pot) = 54.9%?
If villain folds >= 55%, hero profits. Villain has to call 45% of the time or more for it not to be a profitable play, not 48%, correct?


-14 * 0.43 + 11.5 * 0.57 = -6.02 + 6.56 = +0.54 EV?

I understand that there is 11.5 BB in the pot (3 *2 + 0.5 + 5), but why does villain fold 57% of the time, i.e., how did you get the .43 number? Does villain 3-bet 43% of the time and you assume that hero has to fold?



Thanks again.

Hi, no it's:

(-13(.43) + (11.5(.57) = -5.6 + 6.6 = +1 EV

We're using 57% as an average fold %. We use and state this earlier in the book as well. Again, it's a rough calculation because like we say X% of the time they will 4-bet (we are including this basically as a call), and when we are called we still have equity in our hand.

And no, it's about 48% of the time to show profit, 47% of the time our opponent folds and we are at zero EV.

 

[John A]

Thanks but I was referring to when I am OOP and am doing the chkcall + lead turn line when the board is paired. Do I give up if he calls or lead river too? Lets say I have air.

If you lead turn on a paired board and he calls, and most flop textures you should shut down at your stakes. If you want to give me a specific example, I can give more specific advice though. It's a little too abstract and broad to give really good advice. In general though I'd shut down, but it does depend on how the board runs out.

 

[LD1977]

Button ($10)
Hero (SB) ($10.88)
BB ($10)
UTG ($7.30)
UTG+1 ($12.18)
MP1 ($11.93)
MP2 ($10)
MP3 ($10)
CO ($12.66)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 9

, 9

2 folds, MP1 raises to $0.35, 2 folds, CO calls $0.35, 1 fold, Hero calls $0.30, BB calls $0.25

Flop: ($1.40) 5

, 2

, 5

(4 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $0.70, 2 folds, Hero calls $0.70

Turn: ($2.80) J

(2 players)
Hero bets $1.50, BB calls $1.50

River: ($5.80) 4

(2 players)
Hero bets $3, BB raises to $7.45 (All-In), Hero calls $4.45

Total pot: $20.70 | Rake: $1.03

Now I know BB is 22 / 14 / 3.4% 3bet over 93 hands. AF 1.5 (43%) but at that time I had only a few hands on him and he was being very aggro postflop (most likely a good run of cards).

River call is idiotic but he looked like an aggrotard. The question is if I should even bet river of give up the pot (lets say he really is aggro and will attack any weakness).

Results below:

Spoiler

Hero had 9

, 9

(two pair, nines and fives).
BB had J

, J

(full house, Jacks over fives).
Outcome: BB won $19.67

 

[aCutAbove]

microme

LD Hi I'm interested in knowing what range you had him on before your river raise and before that last call? Or from the start if you could please?:questionm

 

[LD1977]

After he calls turn I figured he has a pocket pair or overcards (AK), mostly PP. After he raises since he had very aggro stats I decided to call (which I wouldn't now).

Anyway, this is just one in the long line of "my opponent has the nuts against me" hands. But OK, this was experimental.

Thing that is bothering me for a few months now is that I find again and again that advice I am receiving here is completely unsuitable for 5NL/10NL. When I play my style I always win but people claim I am losing value. When I try to do it standard way, I get raped brutally (I mean, 10-20BI downswings). WTF.

 

[John A]

After he calls turn I figured he has a pocket pair or overcards (AK), mostly PP. After he raises since he had very aggro stats I decided to call (which I wouldn't now).

Anyway, this is just one in the long line of "my opponent has the nuts against me" hands. But OK, this was experimental.

Thing that is bothering me for a few months now is that I find again and again that advice I am receiving here is completely unsuitable for 5NL/10NL. When I play my style I always win but people claim I am losing value. When I try to do it standard way, I get raped brutally (I mean, 10-20BI downswings). WTF.

I think the line you took is fine, but c/f or c/c a reasonable bet on the river to keep his bluffs and get worse hands to bet. There's not enough worse hands in his range that are going to call, unless you have some specific read.

Anytime you try and adjust your game, you're going to go through growing pains. Based on other hands I've seen you post, you are still struggling with understanding range and opponents a bit. It's natural at this stage of your poker path. You just need to stay honest with yourself, and continue to analyze all of your questionable hands so that you can grow. A lot of polished poker is about the subtle aspects of poker that don't get enough attention imho. Your personality, how that effects your thought process, how to prepare yourself properly, and how to manage your study.

You seem like a smart guy, so you're going to get as good as you want to be, just make sure you continue to stay open and don't close yourself down. It will start to click, and you'll have a few ah-ha moments that will propel you into greater success if you continue to stick with it.

 

[LD1977]

Yeah I have trouble with putting LAPs on a range since they are often actually well balanced... they just call down with pretty much anything and only if they raise I know I am screwed. Also I have seen a few better (?) ones play consistent sizing when donking regardless of hand strength (from MPMK to flopped straight/full house).

Basically if I am trying to value bet however the board develops SOME kind of draw arrived (gutshots being super frequent means I can't simply reduce their possible ranges to FDs and OESDs) and also since they call down any PP a turned/rivered set is always a possibility. It is a freaking nightmare.

TAGs and nits are usually super easy to put on a very narrow range of hands based on their actions and sometimes bet sizing (some have sizing tells). They float IP sometimes but on the turn their hand is very well defined if I fired the 2nd barrel. I usually know exactly if I am ahead or behind and often their exact hand.

One thing I am having trouble with is how to deduce if someone is bluffing based on their AF/AF% stats. I bluff quite a bit and my AF is pretty small (2.5) but I have found people with AF < 3 almost never bluff!? Granted, I do fold a lot of weak made hands especially OOP (instead of "donking for info") so maybe that is the reason - I substitute weak made hands with opportunistic bluffing.

My worst weaknesses are:
1) Playing overpairs/TPTK hands, they just get sucked out on nonstop regardless of pot odds and such. Maybe I am being too aggro with them but how can I not be when this is a standard hand (I always think eventually I am actually going to win):

Spoiler

Hero (MP1) ($10.74)
MP2 ($9.08)
MP3 ($6.32)
CO ($13.36)
Button ($6.51)
SB ($11.22)
BB ($8.08)
UTG ($13.42)
UTG+1 ($7.49)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with Q

, A

2 folds, Hero raises to $0.40, 3 folds, Button calls $0.40, 1 fold, BB calls $0.30

Flop: ($1.25) 9

, A

, 10

(3 players)
BB bets $0.10, Hero raises to $0.90, Button calls $0.90, BB calls $0.80

Turn: ($3.95) 6

(3 players)
BB bets $0.60, Hero raises to $3.30, 1 fold, BB calls $2.70

River: ($10.55) 7

(2 players)
BB bets $0.60, Hero raises to $6.14 (All-In), BB calls $2.88 (All-In)

Total pot: $17.51 | Rake: $0.87

Results below:
BB had 7

, 10

(two pair, tens and sevens).
Hero had Q

, A

(one pair, Aces).
Outcome: BB won $16.64

I know this guy, he is an idiot but wins against me nonstop since my hands just don't hold up, like, ever (and not just weaksauce TP hands). BTW here I also have to dodge BTN who is also drawing to whatever caught his fancy. If I don't raise these weak blocker bets then I am NOT winning the hand vs 2 opponents, period. I might as well just start folding TPGK/TPTK/overpairs.

Note that the board completed a backdoor straight, several sets and of course loads of bullshit 2 pair hands. All of that is in his range. I just know for a fact that his calling range is anything from air (draws) to any pair any kicker to any PP to absolute nuts.

Oh yeah, if I shove flop like a maniac against this guy often he calls and I win with this approach (somehow that works, presumably because he has to put in the whole stack before he knows if he sucked out or not). But then everybody says I am an idiot and am losing value right, winning is bad.

2) Paired boards - I historically suck horribly at these. I run into full houses with remarkable frequency but can't tell if I am doing it wrong or am just unlucky.

John - Thanks, I really want to believe that one day I might succeed (for me that = win consistently at 25NL and preferably 50NL) it is unlikely that I will ever go broke since I am such a massive BR nit but stagnation also kind of sucks... I am at this for 7 months now and there have been lots of ups and downs (BR goes steadily up due to bonuses and good overall BR strategy).

 

[LD1977]

...
2) Paired boards - I historically suck horribly at these. I run into full houses with remarkable frequency but can't tell if I am doing it wrong or am just unlucky.
...

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/cas...0/10-nlhe-full-ring-aa-vs-228418/#post2153121

Would love to hear opinions. Note that this is well after I posted here, it just keeps happening.

 

[micromachine]

In late, gonna read the book then join in if I'm not too late.

Thanks John!

 

[Dom1]

Hello,
Would anyone be interested in getting together on skype to discuss the info in this book,thread,to go over different hands,situations and general poker strategy?

I play between 5-10nl my winrate 3bb/100 over 80,000
I'm always looking to improve and hopefully move up to 25nl in the future.

Thanks Dom

 

[John A]

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/cas...0/10-nlhe-full-ring-aa-vs-228418/#post2153121

Would love to hear opinions. Note that this is well after I posted here, it just keeps happening.

Super busy today, but I'll go over your last post soon.

I'll select you though LD as the first coaching student of the thread if you'd like. Just PM me your e-mail and we'll setup a time.

 

[eBuddy]

I'm hoping to be one of the coaching students selected, but if not, I'd be interested. Does using Skype mean I have to put on clothes? :embarasse

Would anyone be interested in getting together on skype to discuss the info in this book,thread,to go over different hands,situations and general poker strategy?

 

[eBuddy]

c/f or c/c a reasonable bet on the river to keep his bluffs and get worse hands to bet. There's not enough worse hands in his range that are going to call, unless you have some specific read.

+1. It seems to me that LD1977's major leak is getting his chips all-in with only bluff-catcher hands and forgetting about villain's stack size. In the first hand, I would check first to act; betting 52% of the pot on the 5-5-2-J-4 river with 99 and villain having only $4.45 more behind does not make sense to me.

In his second hand, I would flat call; raising all-in with only one pair (AQ) on the 4-straight river (A-10-9-6-7) vs. villain who had bet all 3 streets is probably -EV. LD1977 has no fold equity as villain only needs 16% probability of having the better hand to call.

In the third hand, if villain is like many other players whose min-raise post-flop indicates great strength, then I would consider folding AA on the T-T-Q flop. I would rather flat than raise all-in, which I think is the worst option.

I welcome feedback if any of my analysis is incorrect.

 

[LD1977]

1st hand - Yeah, bet sizing on the river might be questionable (too big), at the time I thought it is OK since he will call with a smaller pair here.

2nd hand - Villain doesn't know about ranges, pot odds, bet sizing, strategy, tactics, whatever. He is a brain dead fish who plays every hand the same way (perfectly balanced player if I ever saw one). He donks all 3 streets with garbage (20% equity on this board) into a PFR with a strong range and cooly calls big raises. Note that his turn call is slightly -EV even if he stacks me every time he hits his suckout and gives up every time he misses (which he doesn't).

3rd hand - I think the question is his minraising range and number of combos but I might be wrong since I really suck at paired boards.

 

[Dom1]

I'm hoping to be one of the coaching students selected, but if not, I'd be interested. Does using Skype mean I have to put on clothes? :embarasse

Clothes would be required in the winter months during skype sessions
let me know sure

 

[Aleksei]

2nd hand - Villain doesn't know about ranges, pot odds, bet sizing, strategy, tactics, whatever. He is a brain dead fish who plays every hand the same way (perfectly balanced player if I ever saw one). He donks all 3 streets with garbage (20% equity on this board) into a PFR with a strong range and cooly calls big raises. Note that his turn call is slightly -EV even if he stacks me every time he hits his suckout and gives up every time he misses (which he doesn't).

Stacking off 4straight or 4flush boards is still kinda bad. 3straight and 3flush boards (or even both together) are fine because they require specific hands which are rare, but in this instance any one random 8 has you crushed. And any villain, no matter how stupid, has TONS of those when you bet.

 

[DaReKa]

Is there like a curriculum or something posted for this? I have read around half of the book, jumping around through various chapters, but I don't know what this group is going over at any given time. It also might be easier to follow if each study topic got it's own discussion thread too.

 

[A9ofHearts]

Is there like a curriculum or something posted for this? I have read around half of the book, jumping around through various chapters, but I don't know what this group is going over at any given time. It also might be easier to follow if each study topic got it's own discussion thread too.

We are going through chapter 9 right now.

 

[DaReKa]

We are going through chapter 9 right now.

I knew that was where it started, but I wasn't sure if it had progressed further or not.



Anyway, I read chapter 9. I like all the equities vs. a standard range calculated out - seems like it won't be too hard to create a balanced range with that information at my disposal. But I haven't really tried to come up with a balanced strategy yet. I am gonna be busy for the next three days (or longer), but hopefully soon I will be able to get organized and put together a detailed "plan of attack" for my poker game.

By the way, John, do you think getting a book on game theory for poker would be helpful for learning about balance? Either way I'm gonna try to come up with something on my own first, just so I get more practice thinking through poker concepts.

 

[John A]

We're on chapter 9, but we're going to go into balanced deception next in that chapter.

I had to run out of town yesterday, so a bit behind myself, but plan to setup a number of examples tomorrow and go over any and all questions.

 

[dj11]

I second the notion of separate threads for separate discussions.

 

[John A]

Yeah I have trouble with putting LAPs on a range since they are often actually well balanced... they just call down with pretty much anything and only if they raise I know I am screwed. Also I have seen a few better (?) ones play consistent sizing when donking regardless of hand strength (from MPMK to flopped straight/full house).

Basically if I am trying to value bet however the board develops SOME kind of draw arrived (gutshots being super frequent means I can't simply reduce their possible ranges to FDs and OESDs) and also since they call down any PP a turned/rivered set is always a possibility. It is a freaking nightmare.

TAGs and nits are usually super easy to put on a very narrow range of hands based on their actions and sometimes bet sizing (some have sizing tells). They float IP sometimes but on the turn their hand is very well defined if I fired the 2nd barrel. I usually know exactly if I am ahead or behind and often their exact hand.

One thing I am having trouble with is how to deduce if someone is bluffing based on their AF/AF% stats. I bluff quite a bit and my AF is pretty small (2.5) but I have found people with AF < 3 almost never bluff!? Granted, I do fold a lot of weak made hands especially OOP (instead of "donking for info") so maybe that is the reason - I substitute weak made hands with opportunistic bluffing.

My worst weaknesses are:
1) Playing overpairs/TPTK hands, they just get sucked out on nonstop regardless of pot odds and such. Maybe I am being too aggro with them but how can I not be when this is a standard hand (I always think eventually I am actually going to win):


I know this guy, he is an idiot but wins against me nonstop since my hands just don't hold up, like, ever (and not just weaksauce TP hands). BTW here I also have to dodge BTN who is also drawing to whatever caught his fancy. If I don't raise these weak blocker bets then I am NOT winning the hand vs 2 opponents, period. I might as well just start folding TPGK/TPTK/overpairs.

Note that the board completed a backdoor straight, several sets and of course loads of bullshit 2 pair hands. All of that is in his range. I just know for a fact that his calling range is anything from air (draws) to any pair any kicker to any PP to absolute nuts.

Oh yeah, if I shove flop like a maniac against this guy often he calls and I win with this approach (somehow that works, presumably because he has to put in the whole stack before he knows if he sucked out or not). But then everybody says I am an idiot and am losing value right, winning is bad.
[/spoiler]

2) Paired boards - I historically suck horribly at these. I run into full houses with remarkable frequency but can't tell if I am doing it wrong or am just unlucky.

John - Thanks, I really want to believe that one day I might succeed (for me that = win consistently at 25NL and preferably 50NL) it is unlikely that I will ever go broke since I am such a massive BR nit but stagnation also kind of sucks... I am at this for 7 months now and there have been lots of ups and downs (BR goes steadily up due to bonuses and good overall BR strategy).

So in your example hand, if that's your read on this guy, then you should be shoving the turn for value against his worse Ax and draws. You don't even have 1/3rd pot bet left for the river once you raise, so might as well commit him with his whole range now.

My sense from reading your posts if that you're mixing and confusing a lot of poker theory and labels incorrectly. For example, the Loose/passive label, based on what you're saying sounds more like a tight/passive opponent if they are "always" showing up with better hands. Players with aggression under 3 never bluffing is correct in certain situations, and based on the pot size. But that doesn't mean in a medium/small sized pot they won't bluff with a missed draw, etc.. The lower the aggression though, the less likely they will be CRAI on the river as a bluff, and things of that nature.

Without having seen any information, it just appears that you have some pretty selective memory about your play and how you're reading situations. But we'll see when we do the coaching.

 

[John A]

Alright, so balanced deception. Really important in today's games, since the higher stakes you play you need to take some more "unconventional" lines in order to maximize value against thinking opponents.

Take a look at the example on pg.105. A simple example of missing value on one street, in order to make it up on a later street. A lot of other examples are to c/c a pre-flop raiser with a set on a draw heavy board, and over shove the river (considering decent run outs).

Homework assignment... find some hands you feel you played with balanced deception and explain why you did.

NOTE: If you are playing 10NL and below, you shouldn't be worried about this too much. In today's games, maybe there is a 10NL regular you have some history with and you'd benefit from taking some different lines. Post those if you have them, as at any stake level their can be good reasons for taking those lines. BUT... in general you'd only concern yourself with this approach at slightly higher stakes.