Krankie72

Only two options that I considered really as I didn't think that low straight was likely in villains range from UTG.
1. Check to induce bet and GII
2. Jam my remaining stack

I was lost in hand as to which I felt was best versus an unknown, it seems unlikely I get called too often by worse, unless their awful but on the other hand they have next to no FE if they jam when I check.
Assuming I take the check to induce line, then maybe betting less on turn so there is a PSB left on river is best - if river bricks I check, and hopefully villain GII; if river completes broadway straight I can fold and save some cash....maybe that's just fancy play syndrome :-)
(Knowing villain was v aggro would help here).

Same as my thought process really.
Hard to say if villain would have called down with 2 pair as I don't have many hands on him.
I'm definitely calling if villain shoves, though likely not if the higher straight hit.

Seems well played to me.

GL...maybe see you at the tables, as I'm trying to do the same myself (with less volume and a slightly less aggressive BR management).
PLO10 seems very beatable even with the killer rake :-)

Hmm I'm confused, the whole point of the article wasn't based on stack sizes and occasions when they may be greater than 100bb or not, but on situations where the method for calculating AI EV for multi-way pots was inherently wrong.
I completely agree you don't need to use it if you don't like it, but if the flaws aren't pointed out then its feasible that folks carry on for some time before realising that stat's inaccuracy.
Happy to admit I haven't checked the maths but as the info is on Poker Trackers own site I'm going to make an assumption its factually correct.

Was doing a little digging around on this and found this link below which is very surprising to me its not something I was aware of previously:
http://www.pokertracker.com/blog/2011/10/the-problem-with-all-in-ev-all-in-equity

Not quite, All In EV shows what your winnings would be across all hands including those when you're not AI. It reflects your actual equity percentage of the AI pots as opposed to the end result in the given hands. e.g. If you had 60% equity in a $10 pot you would get $6. (Where as in reality you either win or lose the whole $10)
It seems therefore you've been winning more than your fair share of AI's - which is nice :-)

Given stack sizes I'm happy to get it in on river, I think we get called by any other Ax as villain as only 20bb behind.

"Playing the Player" by Ed Miller is great for this, you can also listen to him discussing his book and correcting a couple of areas on the Thinking Poker podcast ep 25. [edit: from memory listen from about 40 min or so in you'll have to wade through some discussions about vegan'ism]

GL :-)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Playing-The-Player-Dominate-Opponents/dp/1477473084

http://www.thinkingpoker.net/category/podcast/page/7/

@Polonium - you feel that watching pro's playing on HSP or PAD actually helped your game? I'd be suprised (though maybe that's why you've stopped watching :-)). Watching video's on RIO would seem to be a far better use of time for anyone trying to learn.

Agree with your point about having someone to bounce ideas off being good, and in lieu of knowing anyone personally the forums seem a good place to start.

I'm not sure that you should or could make any assumptions on villains F3bet range. As its over 95 hands it could easily be skewed and I'd guess is no more than 3/6 times (maybe less). If his F3bet is truly 50% then surely (its a genuine question here) we are better 3 betting a depolarised range?

I guess if you feel you still have FE on turn, then the bet is good, and hand WP IMO :-)

I play on them both PS and FTP at 25NL and some 50NL some points that I feel are applicable to me:

PS:

Plently of action so table selection is easier (assuming you're not playing Zoom)

SW is better IMO

Rake is a touch better

FTP:

Non-Rush you occasionally have to wait for a table (I normally keep client open in background or join wait lists and play some Rush).

Smaller field size means its easier and quick to get reads.

Player pool seems weaker than PS - entirely subjective of course :-) 

Best of luck :-)

@OttoPilot - yep kind of where I guessed it'd be EV wise if playing for stacks. One small point it was my shove, not that I expected to have huge amount of FE. Completely agree though fold was correct.

@Ondrej - yep, my bad grammar. It was only ever shove/ fold.

Yep, my bad that should have read BTN cold 4bet range.

I don't have CREV yet so can't run the sim, I assigned some ranges and came up with:

Hero - TT (28.6%)

CO - 77+,AJs+,AQo+ (44.2%)

BTN - QQ+,AQs+,AKo (26.9%)

Which means that a shove is -EV assuming I get two calls, though not terribly so. As it was I did shoved and CO showed up with Q9s and BTN with AKs and surprisingly for a forum post my hand held up. I'm trying not too be results orientated and thought the spot was interesting. I would stuggle to put Q9s in CO range though :-)

Yep think you're right thanks Amit, I folded to X/R. 

I completely agree 14 hands is essentially a non-existent sample and could easily be a run of good cards. 

Also agree that btn 3 betting isn't ideal, our sample size on him is very small also

Short stack with 77 in 3rd hand cold calls UTG raiser in MP, btn 3bets, UTG 4bets and villain shoves AI for cold 5bet (shoved $35 into $24). I'm not hugely worried by his range and would be happy to get it in HU

What though would you estimate btn's 3bet range is in that spot?

Try Equilab, it seems pretty popular http://www.pokerstrategy.com/poker-tools/equilab-holdem/

Hmm don't know what happened with HH SB definitely din't fold flop (still 3 players on turn).

Wouldn't surprise me at all here to see villain show up with 99+ far more often than 7x.  Personally I'm calling close to 100% of the time as our hand is underrepped - expecting to run into occasional boats

Interesting thread, I was wondering much the same on Saturday night playing my first live session (apart from a week in Vegas 4-5 years ago). 

The standard of play (£0.5/£1 blinds) wasn't too good - I'm trying to be polite - and was way worse from what I could see compared to a 6max 25NL game. I spewed off a bunch trying to set my ranges correctly like you mention Daz, and also playing a more aggro online style which didn't suit the game (or maybe the table). After playing a bit more it became apparent that no-one would really notice if you were a NIT so value betting big paid off (stealing the occasional flop).

I'd say more than half the table were just dusting off their cash. There didn't seem to be any reason to play more creative poker when ABC was good enough.

GL.

^^nice...and good luck

I think it's very early to say that Snowie has or hasn't solved NLHE (or at least come very close to it). The fact that it's by the same folks who solved backgammon makes me err on side that it's more likely to be true. A lot of the haters just don't want to consider that it may be true. 

Jungleman did beat it over 1500/2000 or so hands I can't remember his win rate, but like you say it's a tiny sample so could easily be variation. Even if it is "solved" it's not end as it'd be very hard to implement. 

No Snowie/GTO doesn't adjust whatsoever for player tendencies, that would be playing exploititively. 

Happy New Year all :-)

@m3taphysics if I may nitpick some of the points you made.

Poker Snowie may have already solved NLHE as we know it in the way the solved backgammon, this is debatable and would in any case be hard to implement for a human player in real time.

"Infact as I understand it, playing GTO is wrong (???) vs everybody".......why? If we assume a rake free game then if we could actually play GTO then we make money versus every single other player and make a lot of cash. Our win rate may be lower than if we played exploitatively vs those same players but nonethless we would be +EV. By playing exploitatively we then also leave ourselves open to becoming exploited by any villain (either on purpose or by accident)

"The problem is if you are playing "close to GTO" you will be playing very very wide ranges.".......err why? Agreed it may be a wider range than a specific player is used to playing but very very wide seems a bit much.

I completely agree with your advice about playing exploitatively vs villains that we have reads on, as this is where we'll make the most $$ at micros but against unknown villains we should try to play an approx game as close to GTO as we can manage. GTO "Snowie'wise" doesn't teach as far as I can tell that we should be too aggressive or too passive.

Great advice also on flopzilla, IMO its a great tool.

Nice work :-)