yCavia

Homo economicus + fixed states vs flawed human beings + IRL messiness.

Blockquote
i raise flop, aim to test whether he had flush, if yes, he would reraiseme
Blockquote

OK, so ur assuming that he would reraise u if he had a flush.

But what if he doesnt reraise u with a flush but just calls...? Afterall a flush is a huge hand that prolly wants to keep u in the pot, rite?

And what if he just prefers to reraise u only with bluffs and calls when he has it, just because he feels like it....

He's allowed to do that rite? He or she is free to do whatever he wants with a flush I would think.....U dont control that, do you?

Further, are you gonna fold if he shoves otflop? Wouldnt that be a waist of ur hand if he happens to have a flushdraw or w/e bluff?

So on a technical level:
- ur hand isnt that strong in terms of equity
- ur range is even less strong vs the CO cuz he has more AA-TT, he has more big suited broadways hands

Takeaway:

• U dont want to be betting (fishing) for information, basically period.
  Using this reason is gonna get u in trouble, cuz u cant control that someone will give u accurate information in return (he is allowed to say fuck it, im gonna do something u dont expect rite?)

1) U want to be raising because it yields more money than taking another route (calling or folding)

2) In order to gauge which route (calling/folding/raising) earns the most money/chips), here are some pointers.

• Think about whos pfrange is stronger (rangeadvantage); who has more AA-TT in this case, who has more suited big hands that make a strong flush?

Hint: on the flop, its usually still the PF raiser (ofc there are exceptions, but dont worry about it for now)

• If u take this rule of thumb into consideration, then u already have information that gives u some certainty that hes still quite strong overall, so you really dont need to raise to get this information in the first place.

Simplification in practise: entertaining the idea of getting a tattoo on my wrist:

IDK:)

An every day reminder that its not only very necessary to openly express this to myself and others, but also very very OK.

Lets all do this and become a movement of never-ending acceleration!

Try to state what u were thinking in-game or what ur confused about more in detail when u post a hand. GL!

A helpful guideline of thought here is:

the bigger the sizing, the higher confidence read u need in order to call.

Distrust ur inability to assign probabilities of him holding different rangeparts like nuts, or bluff.

In fact at this stage in ur development, ur not assigning any probability:

i dont believe he had an ace, neither know he had JQ

• W reg to the Ax ur using a binary assessment like: either he has it or he doesnt.

• W reg to QJ ur sayin': I dont know if he has QJ so I call.

Ur not there yet to assign accurate probabilities, so dont try to even attempt that, refer to a more simple approach.
Train urself more to think this: I dont know (high uncertainty) therefore I fold

This is Bayesian updating. Ur uncertainty is high, and u dont have any observed events, reads, data that updates that baseline high uncertainty to a higher confidence level. So that should incentivize u to fold/discourage u to go in that direction.

So: he bets huge, i need a really high confidence read (backed up by data) to call off cuz its a big pot (big negative consequences when Im wrong)

The order in which u learn things is important. Go slower. Go more basic. Go less assumptive.

In order to get less assumptive, get acquantied with the data thats out there and increase ur baseline uncertainty--->Get familiar with the general pool tendencies for micros

A few markers:
- they dont bluff enough
- big bet means big hand, small bet means small hand.
- when facing aggression lean on the err of folding/giving up

Good luck and distrust ur skills (for now) a little more in order to trust them eventually!

Ps. Great nickname:)

Jamming seems a bit worse than 4b cause of utg+1 flat, I agree, but u do block AA/KK

There is no 'right' play there are only just options with a certain cEV number plus some ICM factor on top that skews them a bit. All the outputs are dependent on the inputs/range assumptions.

U can basically go with a general poolrange, adjust that with some confidence interval based on ur reads and plug in the numbers.

However I think it is save to conclude that its quite close between all options therefore its not a really high EV spot so either way ur not giving up much.

If u think letting go of some cEV edge is justifiable due to the fields average strength than by all means its fine. Taking all +cEV spots is not something that MTT strategy/theory incentivizes.

The highest EV play is 1 of those options but either way its not a big EV gain ur chasing (vs folding).

Very good question imo. Coincidentally someone just suggested to Apotheosis to make a theory vid about this concept. I use Pio and if u look at solutions and the implementations in mtts there are quite some caveats like environmental imbalances and the exaggerated effect of this in the form of (correct) underdefending due to ICM postflop.

Pio strategy pairs are in cEV and dont really account for this. I would love to see some nodelockvideo on this topic. Maybe Nick Howard can do this?

With regard to dealing with these situations; the hidden idea often is that ur should be underdefending on earlier streets (pre/flop/turn) cuz u cant succesfully call down, so its not (only) the river in isolation where the solutions lies in terms of strategy adjustments.

No not really, and def agree its not an unreasonable jam, just quite low in EV. GG.

What I would take from the BTN folding in this instance is that he might not be as ICM pressing as u assigned him to be (by default).

My thoughts are that BTN player is in a great spot to exploit ICM pressure and open jam his BTN's very wide until one of us busts.

Using some Bayesian inference, ur baseline assumption has just became somewhat less likely by observing the BU open-folding. So I would be less inclined to take 86o and shove outside of Nash in this stacksize configuration and a big stack thats not getting maximally out of line. (Ofc he could have just folded a 90 percentile hand.)

In general u might want to think of a shove/fold spot not only in terms of +EV/-EV but also how +EV it is, especially when ur shortstacked.

Call>4b>fold in most configurations imo.

Fwiw in FGS mode with ICMizer its a close fold. Considering its a model with errors EVwise its not a biggy either way.

If u look at the callingrange I wouldnt assume by default that someone is greatly overfolding 22+,A2+,K2s+,K5o+,Q6s+,Q9o+,J8s+,JTo,T9s (38%) @9bb even with these payouts.

But u dont need a big read to convince urself swaying in 1 way or another direction.

AQhh/AQss/KK + not enough bluffs

wrong thread.

Playability usually refers to postflop playability. A hand is incentivized to not fold(=play) if its equity progresses towards showdown in a more dynamic way than a hand which equity stays relatively static. So 2 hands that have a similar showdown equity % can vary alot in the way their average is being aggregated. Draws will behave more in a 0- or 100% type of way, so their equity is concentrated in making the nuts (or a missed draw). Bluffcatchers like middlepair i.e. have a much lower statistical dispersion vs a typical (polar) bettingrange so they are more incentivized to take a passive route. All this translates into EV in the sense that dynamic equity even if it has lower showdownequity% on average usually has a higher EV (or R) than a hand that regresses towards its average showdown number in a more static manner.

Its close between all options I would say in general. Seeing that this is microstakes, u could deviate based on some populationreads. Or in general take into acount specific players statistics.

If Villain is OOP, I have a theory that he only leads his traps if
Hero prefers to check back his entire range if Villain checks his
traps.

OK, well

Villain will be incentivized to XR his traps until the point that EVXRtraps=EVLeadTraps, and that's not only at a 0% bettingfrequency but at some non-zero betting% where hero is checking back just enough due to villains range not being as BC-heavy anymore.

The reason for this is that villains range has moved some portion of his bluffcatchers to his leadingrange for blockbetting purposes and now hero cant bomb as polar into him.

If Hero is checking back his entire range of near-nuts+buffs then thats great for the BC range cuz he will realize all the equity of his mediocre valuehands so that will quite obviously not be part of the equilibrium strategy.

This is common error indeed for tablets, I think they solved it now

Prolly Doug Polk, upswingpoker.com, he concentrates a lot on beginners.

I have alot of experience with HM2 and Notecaddy, you can PM me for a private lesson.

Look at RFI% and something like fold to 3bet% or fold vs resteal to guestimate how fold-happy he is. However u have to be aware of the rigidness of these stats. These are stats that dont discriminate between stacksizes so those numbers are often not a good indicator. Use Icmizer to get a feel for these spots and use the specifics of the hand to see if there are indicators u can hinge on.

I.e. he's raising wide AND he 3xes AND ur in an ICM pressure spot. Its an ez fold in cEVmode and its prolly +EV in cEV but prolly not by a big clip based on population tendencies. I.e. here u see he's 3xing hands that hes calling anyway, like A8o that he doesnt want flats vs. I would induce that he's prolly shoving the 65s/J7s regions, so ur actually up against somewhat stronger rangeparts due to the way he's bifercating his total opening freq. over his preflop raise-sizes.

UR trying to balance a 4bet range out of a RFI range that is very unbalanced in and of itself cuz its too tight.

U should think more holistically from a strategy EV perspective. Balance or MDF or indifference is not a fundamental property of the game. It just more of a byproduct in certain outskirts and configurations of the game.

So dont start to balance all of a sudden in an isolated spot in the gametree, if ur initial inputs are not incentivizing u to be balanced in the first place.

The fundamental Q is is EVMinRaiseQQ>EVShoveQQ.

Shove is always +EV (with 12bb otb) ldo, but 12bb comes close to a stacksize where its not unreasonable vs stacksize-unaware players to initiate a strategy of minraise-calling with QQ+ and have some cutoff-weak hands to balance that range. This has some implications for ur shoverange, yes, but that only matters vs higher quality players.

How high the EV of minraising QQ (to compare this vs EV of Shove QQ) is very hard to model because there are a lot of unknown frequencies that influence this. Now u are going down the postflop branche of the gametree, where besides natures frequencies (i.e. frequency of boardtypes, like A/Kxx) u have to assign freq. to their tendencies in order to answer this.

With regard to equity vs EV. U could use something like R (realization of equity) as a measure of EV, instead of using showdownequity, eventhough ur SPR is low.

I.e. with AA u can use showdownequity as a measure cuz ur close to never folding post anymore.

Ps. the 3x+ PFR is not preferable, and seems like sort of a in-between solution. Its immediately clear why it is not preferable cuz now u play a not-folding postflop style, even on boards where ur hands equity is very negatively redistributed.

Vs an average IP CC range AJ is not really going to be able to get 3 street of value, so size down or check at some point, preferably otflop imo.

but I really do feel like I have the best hand.

This is not really a great heuristic to be using in-game cuz its not quantative enough. Villain is allowed to have i.e. 87/55/66/AQ(AK) etc. etc.

Vs most EP rfi ranges 9-15% range its a fold, if they are on the >15% rfi it becomes a +EV. shove

I know that open shoving in these spots is the preferred play by many to avoid post flop decision making, but I find so much information is available at this level that I find this play my standard.

Shoving pre is the higher EV play in most configurations. That is the reason, not to avoid post flop decision making. As played check-fold.

If anyone can do it, you can Phil!

Cbet flop with small sizing and high frequency has a higher EV than this check-call mode imo. River is a def. a fold vs population.

I guess what u mean is, it has a higher expectation than 3b/folding onces faced with a 4b.

Yeah they are most likely referring to ICMizer/SNG Wizard/HRC ICM simulations.